Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, some days ago my right hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) asked if the house could be supplied with detailed information in connection with the tariff changes resulting from the Canada-United States trade agreement signed at Washington on November 15, 19'35. I have endeavoured to have as full information as possible prepared. If the house will agree to its printing I shall be glad to move to have printed in tabulated form a statement containing the following information:
(1)	Reductions in duty on Canadian goods imported into the United States-
(a) Present and previous rates of duty under the United States tariff on Canadian goods enumerated in Schedule II of the trade agreement;
(b) Present and previous rates of duty under the United States tariff affected by trade agreements concluded by the United States and extended to Canada in virtue of article I of the trade agreement.
(2)	Reductions in duty on United States goods imparted into Canada-
(a) Rates of duty applicable to goods enumerated in Schedule I of the trade agreement, together with the British preferential, intermediate and general tariff rates on the same items; the special rates under trade agreements with countries of the British
Questions

Commonwealth when such special rates are lower than the British preferential tariff and the special rates applicable to such items under the trade agreements with France.
The most-favoured-foreign nation tariff treatment enjoyed by United States goods, other than those enumerated in schedule I of the trade agreement, is shown in the customs tariff and amendments thereto; which it is also proposed to table. Hon. members will be supplied with a copy of the customs tariff.
I believe in all particulars we have followed what was done by my right hon. friend at the time this house considered the Canada-United Kingdom trade agreement.
In order that the house may be supplied in printed form with the information indicated I move, seconded by Mr. Dunning:
That 1,500 copies in the English language and 500 copies in the French language of a statement showing tariff reductions resulting from the trade agreement between Canada and the United States be printed forthwith, and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. FONTAINE:: What was the exact amount of the public debt of Canada as at October 14, 1935?


Mr. DUNNING:: On October 23, 1935, the date on which the present administration took office, the dominion accounts showed a gross debt of $3,385,430,913.89 and a net debt of $2,862,395,165.81.


IMMIGRATION, 1930-1935
Joseph-Théophile-Adélard Fontaine: What is the number of immigrants who entered the country and were admitted during the period from August 1, 1930, to October 14, 1935?	[DOT]


Mr. CRERAR:: August 1, 1930, to Dec. 31, 1930.. 24,628
Calendar year 1931	 27,530
"	"	1932	
20,591"	"	1933	
14,382"	"	1934	
12,476Jan. 1, 1935, to Oct. 31, 1935	
9,655Total	
109,262


G. HERRING
Mr. BOULANGER:: 1,	Is cne G. Herring in the employ of the Podt Office Department?
2.	If so, since what date?
{Mr. Mackenzie King.]
3.	What is the nature of his present employment?
4.	By whom was he suggested or recommended [DOT] to the Civil Service Commission for appointment to the position he now occupies ad interim?
5.	Does he speak French?
6.	Did he take a law course?
7.	Was he born in Canada?
8.	How long was he a resident of Canada before he entered the public service?


Mr. POWER (for Mr. Elliott, Middlesex West) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	2nd April, 1907.
3.	Administering air mail and mail contract services.
4.	Postmaster General.
5.	6 and 7. No.
8. About one year.



ADMIRALTY ACT

Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Has the Admiralty Act, 1934,	24-25
George V, chapter 31, come into effect upon proclamation by the governor in council, and if so, on what date?
2.	If said act has not come into effect, will the government state the reasons therefor?


Mr. POWER (for Mr. Lapointe, Quebec East):: 1.	Yes-1st March, 1935.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT

Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Has the Canada Shipping Act, 1934, 24-25 George V, chapter 44, come into effect upon proclamation by the governor in council, and if so, on what date?
2.	If said act has not come into effect, will the government state the reasons therefor?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No.
2.	The advisability of proclaiming the act in question is at present under consideration by the Department of Marine.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD

Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	Did J. I. McFarland and the members of the wheat board: (a) resign, or (b) were they retired?
2.	If retired, for what cause were they so
retired?	_
3.	Did the advisory committee of the above board resign or were they retired?
4.	If retired, why were they so retired?
5.	Were any members of the former advisory committee recommended for appointment to the said committee by the Cooperative Wheat Producers of Canada, Limited?
6.	If so, how many, and what were their names?

Questions
7. Were all or any members of the new-advisory committee recommended or otherwise definitely approved for appointment to that committee by the Co-operative Wheat Producers or other producers' organizations?
8.	On what date did Mr. J. R, Murray and the new Wheat Board take office?
9.	On what date did the Argentine Republic announce a new controlled price for that country's wheat?
10.	What was the increased price in Canadian currency at prevailing rate of exchange?
11.	What was the new minimum price in Canadian currency at prevailing rate of exchange ?
12.	What was the closing price of wheat on Winnipeg Grain Exchange on December 12th- basis Fort William No. 1, northern?
13.	What was the opening price of wheat on Winnipeg Grain Exchange-basis Fort William on December 13th, No. 1 northern?
14.	How -many bushels of wheat were sold by the board between close of Exchange on December 12th and reopening on December 13th?
15.	For how much below opening pit price on December 13th was this wheat sold by the board?
16.	Was the new advisory board consulted regarding these sales?
17.	If so, when and in what manner?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Retired (P.C. 3756).
2.	See order in council attached.
3.	Order rescinded.
4.	For the purpose of coordinating government policy.
5.	No information.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
7.	No new advisory committee.
8.	December 3rd, 1935.
9.	After the close of the market on December 12, 1935.
10.	The increased price was 19 cents over the prevailing Buenos Aires prices.
11.	90 cents.
12.	May futures closed at 86J cents.
13.	May futures opened at 89 cents.
14 and 15. No information.
16.	A new advisory board has not been appointed.
17.	Answered by No. 16.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-LOPTSON CONTRACT

Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	Was Mr. Asmundur Loptson granted a contract from the Canadian National Railways, for the construction of a ditch near the Hudson Bay Junction?
2.	If so, what amount did he receive for this contract?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The railway management advises that it is not the policy of the company to divulge the amount involved in such cases.



SILVER DOLLARS

Mr. REID:: 1. What is the total amount of silver dollars which have been issued up to the present time?
2.	Is the mint still manufacturing further issues of silver dollars, and if so, to what total amount are they authorized?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	8428,120.
2.	Yes. No particular amount authorized, the number of pieces to be coined depending on the requisitions received.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF EXPENDITURES

Mr. BRUNELLE:: 1.	How much has been spent since 1930 by the federal and provincial governments, and by the municipalities, in relief works?
2.	How much for direct relief?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1 and 2. Under the existing arrangement by which the dominion pays to the provinces a monthly grant-in-aid, the provinces do not report municipal expenditures to the dominion. Under previous arrangements whereby the dominion contributed on a percentage basis to the expenditures of the provinces, and through the provinces .to those of the municipalities, relief expenditures were incurred by those bodies for items towards the cost of which the dominion did not contribute, such as medical assistance. There is, therefore, no complete information in the possession of the government respecting the extent of the relief expenditures of the provinces and municipalities.
The dominion disbursements under The Unemployment Relief Act, 1930, The Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, The Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932, The Relief Act, 1933, The Relief
Act, 1934, and The Relief Act, 1935, to December 31, 1935, are as follows:
Grants-in-aid (August, 1934, to
December, 1935)	
831,098,687	50Direct relief	
61,211,621	16
Provincial and municipal relief
works	
49,465,575	57Relief settlement	
662,581	33Sastkatchewan relief commission	
12,732,617	35Single homeless persons	
3,398,706	63Expenditures of federal departments under relief legislation	
27,274,226	00Other relief projects	
3,069,776	04Administration	
467,896	33
Questions

farmers' creditors arrangement act


Mr. BARBER:: 1.	How many official receivers and others employed in the administration of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act in the province of British Columbia have been removed from office during the period from November 1, 1935, to date?
2.	How many appointments have been made to fill1 these positions?
3.	What is the name, occupation and address of each of the new appointees?
4.	Was the senior official receiver for British
Columbia notified to vacate his office by February 10 th?	_
5.	If so, has his successor been appointed?
6.	What is the name, occupation and address of the newly appointed senior official receiver for British Columbia?
7.	Will the senior official receiver act as official receiver for the district in which he resides ?
8.	What is the salary and allowances of the senior official receiver?
9.	What is the salary of the official receiver?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1. 6.
2. 2.
3.	David Whiteside, barrister, New Westminster; Jack Straight, barrister, New Westminster.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes.
6.	David Whiteside, barrister, New Westminster.
7.	Yes.
8.	$250 monthly, together with expenses attributable to his duties.
9.	None. Official receivers are remunerated under a tariff of fees.



G. C. ANDERSON

Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	When was Mr. G. C. Anderson, Superintendent of Mail Contracts, superannuated?
2.	Who were Mr. Anderson's two chief assistants when he was superannuated?
3.	How long had each of the said assistants been in the Mail Contracts branch?
4.	Was one of Mr. Anderson's two assistants chosen, or recommended to the Civil Service Commission, as his temporary successor?
5.	If not, why was one of them not chosen for the position?
6.	Who, at present occupies the position of superintendent in the Mail Contracts branch?
7.	What was the experience in that particular branch of Mr. Anderson's successor, now serving in an acting capacity?
8.	For what special knowledge and qualifications was Mr. Anderson's successor selected in preference to one of his assistants?


Mr. POWER (for Mr. Elliott, Middlesex ?7est):: 

C.G.S. ARRAS-CHIEF STEWARD

Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	Was Captain John S. Smith, of Lower LaHave, Nova Scotia, employed by the Department of Fisheries as Chief Steward on the Arras ?
2.	If so, what were the terms of his contract of employment?,
3.	Was he dismissed from such employment?
4.	If so, when and for what cause?
5.	Is Captain Harris Himmelman, of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, now in the employ of the Department of Fisheries?
6.	If so, in what capacity, and since what date?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Yes.
2.	He was employed on a monthly basis.
3 and 4. His services were discontinued on account of his age. He was seventy-one.
5.	Yes.
6.	As Steward on the C.G.S. Arras since January 1, 1936.



RADIO COMMISSION-BROADCASTS BY ELECTED OR DEFEATED CANDIDATES

Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Has the radio commission been paid, to date, for the broadcasts made during the last federal election campaign by elected or defeated candidates?
2.	If not, what are the names of the debtors of the radio commission in this connection?
3.	During 1934 and 1935, did the commission pay commissions to agents or publicity agencies for these broadcasts?
4.	If so, what are the names of such agents or publicity agencies?
5.	What were the amounts received by these agents or publicity agencies?

Questions


Mr. HOWE:: The following information has been furnished by the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission:
1.	Yes, see question (2).
2.	Right Honourable R. B. Bennett.
Radio Station CJCS, Stratford, Ontario.
(Liberal party).
Radio Station CKCW, Moncton, New Brunswick. (Reconstruction party).
3.	Commissions allowed to recognized agencies.
4.	Canadian Advertising Agency, Limited. Cockfield, Brown & Company, Limited. J. J. Gibbons, Limited.
Stewart McIntosh Limited.
Vickers & Benson, Limited.
Western Broadcasting Bureau.
GKY, Manitoba Telephone system, on behalf of J. J. Gibbons, Limited.
5.	Discount
Allowed
Canadian Advertising Agency, Ltd.
(Liberal)	$	373 65
Cockfield, Brown & Co., Ltd.
(Liberal)	
2,083	01J. J. Gibbons, Limited (Conservative)	
6,046	11Stewart McIntosh, Limited (Liberal)	
990	11Vickers & Benson, Limited (Liberal)	
20 00Western Broadcasting Bureau (Liberal)	
4	23
CKY, Winnipeg, on behalf of J. J.
Gibbons, Limited, (Conservative)	 4 23
Note:	The	same	policy	was	pursued inconnection with	political	broadcasts	as in all
commercial broadcasts. The sums collected did not entirely accrue to the commission but were for wire and station charges.



MRS. COWAN AND ALLAN COWAN

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has clemency been asked for Mrs. 'Cowan and a youth Allan Cowan, aged 17, both sentenced to death at Pembroke and awaiting execution?
2.	If so, what action, if any, has been taken?


Mr. POWER (For Mr. Lapointe, Quebec East):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Case is under study.



PENITENTIARIES-CLEMENCY

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has any clemency been decided on, as yet, to be extended by His Gracious Majesty King Edward VIII, on becoming king, to inmates of Canada's penal institutions?
2.	Has the government yet received any information it can give the house in this respect?


Mr. POWER (for Mr. Lapointe, Quebec East):: 1.	The matter is not under consideration.
2.	No.



PAUL VEZINA

Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	Was one Paul Vezina, of Boischatel, employed by the Department of Marine, in Quebec?
2.	If so, on what date did the said Paul Vezina enter the service of the Department of Marine?
3.	On what date did he leave such service
and why?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2 and 3. Paul Vezina has been a casual employee of the Department of Marine at Quebec intermittently since October, 1929. His services were dispensed with on November 23, 1935.



IMPORTS OP EGGS FROM UNITED STATES

Mr. REID:: 1.	What quantities of eggs have been imported into Canada from the United States since the Canada-United States treaty was signed and' up to the present time?
2.	To what provinces were they, if any, imported?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1 and 2. The Canada-United States Trade Agreement became effective on January 1, 1936, and the imports from the United States of eggs in the shell, entered for consumption in each province of Canada during the month of January, were as follows:
Province	Doz.	ValueOntario	.. 423	$202Quebec	.. 175	137British Columbia ..	.. 28	10Totals	.. 626	$349



FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LAC0MBE:
1.	How many farmers in Canada have taken advantage of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, since the coming into force of the said act?
2.	How many in the province of Quebec?
3.	How many of such farmers in the province of Quebec have succeeded in securing a loan under the provisions of the Canadian Farm Loan Act?
Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	To February 1, 1936, 17,913 have submitted proposals under the act, in respect
Questions

of which 9,179 settlements have been effected. In addition, 4,645 settlements were effected without formal proposals.
2.	To February 1, 1936, 4,349 have submitted proposals under the act, in respect of which 2,247 settlements have been effected. In addition, 1,245 settlements were effected without formal proposals.
3.	Information not available.



CANADIAN FARM LOAN ACT

Mr. FONTAINE:: 1.	How many farmers of the counties of St. Hyacinthe and Bagot applied during the year 1935 for a loan under the provisions of the Canadian Farm Loan Act?
2.	In how many cases was the loan application granted and the loan made?
3.	What are the names and addresses of the persons who secured a loan in this manner ?
4.	What was the amount of each such loan?


Charles Avery Dunning: The following answers are furnished by the Canadian farm loan board:
1,	2. 3 and 4. The records of the Canadian farm loan board are not kept by counties and the information asked for is not now available.
Moreover, transactions between the board and borrowers are regarded as confidential and it is not considered in the public interest that information revealing the names of persons who have obtained loans should be given.


Mr. FONTAINE:: 1.	How many farmers of the province of Quebec applied for a loan during the year 1935 under the provisions of the Canadian Farm Loan Act?
2.	In how many cases was the application granted and the loan made?


Charles Avery Dunning: The following answers are submitted by the Canadian farm loan board:
1.	6,420 applications were received in the period April 1, 1935, to January 31, 1936.
2.	1,062.


Mr. MULLINS:: 1.	How many farmers of the counties of Richmond and Wolfe applied during the year 1935 for a loan under the provisions of the Canadian Farm Loan Act?
2.	In how many cases was the loan application granted and the loan made?
3.	What are the names and addresses of the persons who secured a loan in this manner?
4.	What was the amount of each such loan?


Charles Avery Dunning: The following answers are furnished by the Canadian farm loan board:
The records of the Canadian farm loan board are not kept by counties and the information asked for is not now available.

Moreover, transactions between the board and borrowers are regarded as confidential and it is not considered in the public interest that information revealing the names of persons who have obtained loans should be given.


Mr. GOSSELIN:: 1.	How many farmers of the counties of Brome and' Missisquoi applied during the year 1935 for a loan under the provisions of the Canadian Farm Loan Act?
2.	In how many cases was the loan application granted and the loan made?
3.	What are the names and addresses of the persons who secured a loan in this manner?
4.	What was the amount of each such loan?
5.	In how many cases was the loan application refused?
6.	What was the total amount involved in the loan applications that were refused?


Charles Avery Dunning: The following answers are furnished by the Canadian farm loan board:
The records of the Canadian farm loan board are not kept by counties and the information asked for is not now available.
Moreover, transactions between the board and borrowers are regarded as confidential and it is not considered in the public interest that information revealing the names of persons who have obtained loans should be given.


Mr. ROBERGE:: 1. How many farmers of the counties of Megantie and Frontenae applied during the year 1935 for a loan under the provisions of the Canadian Farm Loan Act?
2.	In how many cases was the loan application granted and the loan made?
3.	What are the names and addresses of the persons who secured a loan in this manner?
4.	What was the amount of each such loan?


Charles Avery Dunning: The following answers are furnished by the Canadian farm loan board:
1, 2, 3 & 4. The records of the Canadian, form loan board are not kept by counties and the information asked for is not now available. Moreover, transactions between the board and borrowers are regarded as confidential and it is not considered in the public interest that information revealing the names of persons who have obtained loans should be given.


Mr. BRUNELLE:: 1.	How many farmers in the county of Champlain made application for a loan under the provisions of the Canadian Farm Loan Act, 1935, since the coming into force of the said act?
2.	How many loans were granted?
3.	What are the names and addresses of the farmers of the said county who secured a loan?

Questions as Orders for Returns


Charles Avery Dunning: The following answers are furnished by the Canadian farm loan board:
The records of the Canadian farm loan board are not kept by counties and the information asked for is not now available.
Moreover, transactions between the board and borrowers are regarded as confidential and it is not considered in the public interest that information revealing the names of persons who have obtained loans should be given.


Mr. BLANCHETTE:: 1.	How many farmers of the county of Compton applied during the year 1935 for a loan under the provisions of the Canadian Farm Loan Act?
2.	In how many cases was the loan application granted and the loan made?
3.	What are the names and addresses of the persons who secured a loan in this manner?
4.	What was the amount of each such loan?
5.	In how many cases was the loan application refused?
6.	What was the total amount involved in the loan applications that were refused?


Charles Avery Dunning: The following answers are furnished by the Canadian farm loan board:
The records of the Canadian farm loan board are not kept by counties and the information asked for is not now available.
Moreover, transactions between the board and borrowers are regarded as confidential and it is not considered in the public interest that information revealing the names of persons who have obtained loans should be given.


Mr. LECLERC:: 1.	How many farmers of the county of Shefford applied during the year 1935 for a loan under the provisions of the Canadian Farm Loan Act?
2.	In how many cases was the loan application granted and the loan made?
3.	What are the names and addresses of the persons who secured a loan in this manner?
4.	What was the amount of each such loan?
5.	In how many cases was the loan application refused?
6.	What was the total amount involved in the loan applications that -were refused?


Charles Avery Dunning: The following answers are furnished by the Canadian farm loan board:
The records of the Canadian farm loan board are not kept by counties and the information asked for is not now available.
Moreover, transactions between the board and borrowers are regarded as confidential and it is not considered in the public interest that information revealing the names of persons who have obtained loans should be given.



DOMINION HOUSING ACT

Mr. HEAPS:: 1.	What has been the total amount of applications for loans under the Dominion Housing Act, 1935, as at January 31, 1936?
2.	What has been the total amount of such applications granted as at January 31, 1936?
3.	What has been the amounts of applications requested and amounts granted in each of the provinces?
4.	What is the total number of houses constructed and under construction as at January 31, 1936, in each of the provinces?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	$705,709.
2.	$666,508.
3.	Applied for Granted
Ontario	$256,046 $250,446
Quebec	 449,663	416,062
4.	Information not available.
N.B.-The figures given in this answer relate only to applications made by lending institutions to the Department of Finance.


Mr. ISNOR:: .
1.	How many applications have been received, during the year 1935, from Halifax county, Nova Scotia, for loans under the Dominion Housing Act?
2.	How many loans have been granted during the above period ?
3.	How many applications have been received for loans, under the Housing Act, during the month of January, 1936?
4.	How many loans have been granted during the above period ?
5.	How many loan companies in Nova Scotia have signified their intention of cooperating along the lines of the Dominion Housing Act?
6.	What are the names and addresses of such firms?


Charles Avery Dunning: 1, 2, 3, 4. None by Department of Finance.
(The Dominion Housing Act requires that all applications be made in the first instance to approved lending institutions, and there is no record except of applications that have been submitted to the department after approval by such institutions).
5,	6. None.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	What was the number of persons in relief camps operated by the Dominion government, on the following dates: May, 1933; December, 1933; May, 1934; December, 1934; May, 1935; December, 1935?
2.	What was the number of persons receiving relief as reported by the provinces and federal departments for each month of the calendar year ending December 31, 1935?
Italo-Ethiopian War

3.	What was the number of persons receiving relief as reported by the provinces and federal departments on the following dates: April, 1933; April, 1934; April, 1935?


STREETSVILLE, ONT., CUSTOMS HOUSE
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	Has the customs house at Streetsville, Ontario, been closed?
2.	If so, when?
3.	Is it a temporary or permanent closing?
4.	What was the total volume of business done through this port in each of the ten years preceding this closing?
5.	What was the total gross income from the operation of the said port in each of the ten years as aforesaid?
6.	What was the total cost for salaries, rent, and other necessary carrying charges for each of the years of the aforesaid period?
7.	If this customs house has been closed, what are the reasons for such closing?
8.	What other ports in Canada, if any, have been closed since the present administration took office?


EXPORTS AND IMPORTS OF FARM PRODUCTS
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	What was the amount of our exports of farm products during the years 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934 and 1935, respectively?
2.	What was the amount of imports of the same products during the same periods?



ITALO-ETHIOPIAN WAR MOTION FOR THE PRODUCTION OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN GOVERNMENTS AND WITH DOCTOR W. A. RIDDELL

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Heaps (Winnipeg North);
For a copy of all letters, correspondence, cables and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of Great Britain or any other country, and also between the 'Canadian government and Doctor W. A. Riddell, Canadian representative at the League of Nations, regarding the Italian-Ethiopian dispute.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
it is not the established practice to publish correspondence which is of a confidential nature between the government of Canada and governments of other countries, nor between the government and its representatives abroad, especially where the correspondence relates to matters which affect other countries or to matters that are pending. However, knowing the desire of hon. members to have the fullest information possible with respect to matters bearing immediately upon the Italo-Ethiopian dispute, and particularly with reference to the happenings at Geneva referred to by my hon. friend in his motion, I indicated some days ago that I would , ask the Under Secretary of State for External Affairs to have prepared as speedily as possible a 
white paper containing the essential documents bearing on these matters. I hope to be able before the end of the present week to table a white paper which will contain the following documents:
The report of the committee of the council on the facts of the dispute and the recommendations made by the council in September for settlement, with the replies of Italy and Ethiopia ;
The action taken in the council and in the assembly following these reports;
The setting up of the coordination committee and the committee of eighteen, with their recommendations;
The steps taken by the Canadian government with regard to these recommendations; and
A statement prepared by the coordination committee stating which members of the League of Nations have or have not taken action on the various sanctions proposals, the December peace proposals, etcetera.
The statement will also include the committee discussion on proposal 4(a)-the oil sanction proposal-regarding extension of the embargo on exports to Italy.
I think these documents will cover practically all that my hon. friend and other members of the house will wish to have. If, however, anything has been inadvertently omitted which should be included in the white paper, I shall endeavour, when the time comes, to make good the omission so far as it is in keeping with the established practice.


Mr. HEAPS:: The Prime Minister has referred to certain correspondence which is confidential in its nature. I should like to know if there is any objection on the part of other governments to this correspondence being published.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Up to the present the other governments have not been asked whether they would wish to have the correspondence published. I must say, however, after looking over the dispatches, that I should be much surprised if any government would wish to have very much of it published, having regard to its confidential nature and the number of countries it affects. But if my hon. friend has any particular correspondence in mind, I shall be very glad to discuss the matter with him personally and see if it is not possible to bring down what he wishes to have, or to let him see the correspondence privately if such is his desire.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker, I do not want any special privileges in that regard, but when there is so much at stake, I think that having

Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Church
been on the brink of war, we ought to put an end to these secret negotiations as between country and country and let the people know all the facts.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This matter is probably not subject to debate in the way we are carrying it on, but in order to make it quite clear to the house that the present administration is not adopting a practice at all different from that which has always been followed, I would refer my hon. friend to an exchange of opinion on the matter of making public correspondence of the kind referred to, which took place between the right hon. leader of the opposition and myself when we were in opposite positions to those we occupy at the moment.
A request was made on June 1, 1931, as will be seen from the record of proceedings of that date, for:
A copy of all documents, telegrams and other communications exchanged between the Prime Minister of Canada and Canada's representative in England, the Honourable G. Howard Ferguson, regarding the wheat conference held recently at London.
And the then Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) replied as follows:
I think it is a matter of common knowledge that the information here sought cannot be supplied. Communications between representatives of this country in England and the government here are privileged. Of course, any action that is taken is a proper subject of comment, but if communications of this kind were made public, government could not be carried on. I inquired this morning and was told that the communications could not be supplied, and that it had never been the practice in the past to request that such be done.
I thought it was proper, knowing what the practice had been, to supplement what my right hon. friend had said by making clear that my right hon. friend's representations did not indicate a departure from previous practice. I then said:
I agree with the remarks of the Prime Minister with regard to communications between this government and the High Commissioner in London. Such communications, unless quite evidently intended otherwise, have always been regarded as privileged.
I have only to add that anyone who is aware of the correspondence that necessarily takes place between the government here and its agent in London or at Geneva will see that it would be impossible to carry on business at all if it were understood that all such communications would have to be published. Some communications that are vital, respecting, for example, a decision or course of action, it would be perfectly proper to have brought down, but they would be drafted
accordingly at the time. It is not a matter of secret diplomacy at all; it is simply a matter of carrying on government.
Motion dropped.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. BRASSET:: For a copy of paysheets respecting all work executed at Point of Head, Grosse-Isle, Magdalen Islands, Gaspe county, by the Public Works department in 1932, 1933, 1934 and 1935, of which work Mr. Frank L. Prest ivas the foreman.



CAPTAIN JOHN S. SMITH

Mr. BROOKS:: For a copy of all letters, correspondence and other documents exchanged between the honourable the Minister of Fisheries, any official of the Department of Fisheries, and any other person, relating to the dismissal of Captain John S. Smith, of Lower LaHave, in the province of Nova Scotia, who was employed as chief steward on the Arras, and also to the employment in the same capacity of Captain Harris Himmelman, of Lunenburg, in the said province of Nova Scotia.



PAUL VEZINA

Mr. WERMENLINGER:: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents, departmental and otherwise, in the possession of the Marine department, relative to the dismissal of Paul Yezina, of Boischatel, Quebec.



RECONSTRUCTION POLICY


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, Canada should immediately adopt a comprehensive national housing, building, reconstruction, renovation, slum clearance, land settlement and reforestation policy adapted to its circumstances and also embracing as one of its main features a national policy for youth in relation to education and industry and employment, so as to get people off the dole and back to remunerative employment.
And further, that this house is also of the opinion, that in any such national reconstruction policy a lower rate structure for bank, mortgage and insurance loans is an immediate necessity. Such a reconstruction policy to also embrace protection for industrial workers in urban and suburban areas from forfeiture on the same principle as farmers and fishermen are now afforded by existing legislation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this motion was brought before parliament last session, although in another way. On
222	COMMONS
Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Church
January 23 and 24, 1935, this house considered my resolution on the whole question of reconstruction and housing and what could be done under the powers of parliament to get the people off the dole and back to work, and a select committee on housing was appointed. To-day is private members' day, and to the new members I may say that the private member is the connecting link between the government of the day and the electorate. When he ceases to function all parliamentary government is at an end. The great authority for this is Edmund Burke, who refers to this right as one of the oldest rights and privileges of a member of parliament under our parliamentary system. The rights and functions of the private member have been curtailed in recent years in many parliaments of the world by what is known as the party caucus. The private member owes a duty to his constituents, to function as a member in a free parliament and to do his duty accordingly.
The wealth of this country does not consist only of the natural resources of the sea, of the soil, of the forest, of the mine or of the lakes; it does not consist only of the grain in our great elevators or the shipping in our harbours; there is a more glorious treasure than that, it is in the character of our people. This character through unemployment is gradually being destroyed. The care of the young citizen is our most important duty. Several billions of dollars have been spent on the construction of our railroads, but only millions have been spent on our educational system. Our school boards are doing the best they can to educate the rising generation. I approach this question this year, as I did last year, from a nonpolitical standpoint, because housing, reconstruction and unemployment are the greatest problems we have to face. Unemployment and distributism are two very important problems which still remain unsolved. While I am opposed to the government opposite in a general way I realize that they are a government of Canadians and I believe they will do their utmost for the people of the country, as they see it.
Another great problem facing this country is law reform, constitutional reform and cabinet and parliamentary reform. I have been talking to gentlemen who were members of the last parliament and they told me they did not desire to return because there was nothing left for a private member to do. Private members sit around their offices all day, and the time has come when they should be up and doing something for the

people who sent them to parliament. We are sent here for specific purposes. I represent an industrial district now-Broadview-half of my old constituency of East Toronto, and I receive splendid support from the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey), who has that part of my old constituency now, and who has done a great deal for the youth of the country. Thousands of my constituents are out of work and on relief. Skilled workers, carpenters, bricklayers, lathers, plasterers and labourers are now out of work, men who never before knew what it was to be without employment. Sixty-five per cent of the people in my riding used to own their own homes, but because of the intolerable conditions which now obtain in this country, these men are out of work.
Considerable progress has been made in the solving of this problem. In my remarks last year I gave a great deal of credit to the then government. I do not believe the late government was defeated because of its advanced policies; but because of the deep resentment the world over against all governments. They were the first government since confederation to bring forward a new deal for the average forgotten man. These matters have gone to the law courts but we should remember that one of the cardinal principles of the British constitution is that the courts are subservient to the legislature and that the people are the court of last resort. Hon. gentlemen who are private members have been sent here to try to get some relief from these intolerable economic conditions. Both the industrial and agricultural workers need this relief. The former Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) made a brave effort to solve these great problems in his square deal and new deal for the forgotten man. He did not have the support in the house that he should have had from all the parties; nevertheless he did his best. Courts in other lands have taken certain action, such as at Washington, but the time is coming when the people will have something to say about these things. After all, under our constitution the court of last resort is the people, and parliament is the highest court in the realm.
Some progress has been made towards correcting these disgraceful conditions. I want to thank the former Prime Minister for having given his support to the appointment of a committee last session to consider housing and reconstruction problems. This committee sat for several weeks and presented its report to the house. Thanks are due to Colonel the Hon. H. A. Bruce, the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, for the splendid work he has done

Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Church
in this connection. He is a great physician and surgeon, and he realizes that the public health is closely connected with housing conditions. Unless you have proper housing you cannot have health for the rising generation. Considerable progress has been made in England. Our present sovereign, King Edward VIII, was one of the pioneers in this connection. He visited slums in London, in Wales and in other parts of Great Britain, and in 1933 he aroused the whole of England to the necessity of correcting this slum problem. What has been the result? There have been constructed in England a total of 2,600,000 houses under the auspices of various public and private bodies. As our sovereign said:
There is, however, one municipal service, one local government service, of which I would like to say an extra word-one that I consider the most important of all that you authorities have to face-and that is housing.
Those were the words he uttered when addressing the one-hundredth annual dinner of the association of municipal corporations at . the Guildhall in London. He also made reference to what has been done in this connection.
Canada was once a nation of property owners; practically every man owned a property of some sort, whether a small farm, a market garden, a grocery store, a mill, or something of that kind. We were all property owners, but I am afraid we did not notice how this condition gradually passed away. Canadians owned real estate; and that individual ownership, on the comparatively extensive scale on which it then existed, was the basis of Canada's national life at that time. But the politics of big business has practically destroyed pastoral Canada, and it is the duty of this parliament, it is the duty of hon. members of all parties, to take this question into serious consideration. We must dedicate our efforts to the solution of the unemployment problem, and one very effective means of bringing that about is to restore the condition that existed under Sir John Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and under Whitney and Beck. Then Canada was indeed a land of the free; Canada was the home of artisans and farmers. Canada was then a democratic country, its democracy resting on the basis of private property and individual freedom in the real sense. But there is no real freedom to-day, when working man and farmer alike are at the mercy of arbitrary economic factors that are altogether beyond their control.
Consider the condition in England only four years ago. Things looked black in the old country; England was the highest taxed country in the world. To-day we find a very
different state of things there. What has been responsible for England's survival of the greatest of all depressions the world has ever known? Why is it that England has come through this trying period better than any other country? One reason is, Mr. Speaker, that twenty-three years ago she saw fit to institute a system of sickness and unemployment insurance; she took a census of the unemployed and, in a practical way, made provision for just such a situation as the whole world has faced in the last few years. Four years ago. I repeat, things looked hopeless in England; but the scene has changed, and the adoption of a sensible tariff policy together with a sound program in the interests of the working classes has worked wonders. England has built houses for her people and has emerged from the greatest depression in the world's history. She is no longer in a unique position in regard to taxation, for the United States and Canada are pretty well where she was four years ago. England decided that the only way to recovery was to take in more than she paid out, and so we see the miracle of the balanced budget.
In nothing is the determined spirit of the mother country more evident than in her program of construction of new homes. People who have been in England in the past two or three years have returned to Canada enraptured with what they saw over there in the construction of new houses; the spirit of the mother' country has been particularly evident in what she has done in that direction. Large apartment houses are going up all over the countryside. Houses have been built by government subsidy, and England has shown her determination properly to house as large a proportion as possible of the poorer classes of the population. One man remarked to me that low cost housing there had ceased to be a political issue, and I submit that the same should be true in this country. Low cost housing is a permanent government policy in England; long may it continue. And it should be here as well. There is great need for construction of houses, not only urban but suburban and rural as well, the last mentioned being the most needed of all. Let me quote something I came across in the reading room the other day. This newspaper item is typical of many; it refers to Windsor:
To-day is moving day in the historic and picturesque village of Coinbrook, on the Bath road, near Slouch.
More than 100 housesy-practically the entire village-are to be demolished under slum clearance orders made by the Eton rural council, and tenants to-day moved to a new village which has been built some distance away.
224	COMMONS
Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Church
At an early hour people brought their furniture into the street and it was conveyed to the new houses by all manner of conveyances.
Already the work of demolition has commenced, and this afternoon High street looked as it would after an air raid.
Whatever we do in Canada in connection with a housing scheme, however, we must take care not to hand on to posterity too great a burden of debt. Our debt is already large enough, the result of the war and relief costs, and we must not do anything beyond our circumstances. The object I have in mind is for the government to undertake an exten- -sive housing and reconstruction program, on a sound economic basis, with the double purpose of providing jobs for the unemployed and of making provision for the underprivileged who are living in slums. England has led the way in this respect, having shown a real regard for the welfare of the common people.
I stand for property and contract rights, and these must be respected in connection with anything we do in the way of a reconstruction program; but I am also for human rights, first, last and all the time. There is no reason why a proper policy could not be set in motion, which would give fair play to the farmer and the labourer, the producer and the consumer, at the same time removing all the admitted abuses of the present system. We know what effect modem machinery has had on labour; every new process throws men out of work. Women can handle machines as well as men can, and Canada has become a nation of machine-minders. In my opinion, before the bar of history, the Victorian and Edwardian statesmen must take a large share of blame for not having foreseen the situation that would result from the introduction and development of science and the machine.
The welfare of the people should be our first care; there can be no remedy for the present state of things until the whole structure of our national economic life is so shaped as to produce stability. It is more important that heads of families should have remunerative work than that boards of trade should publish returns showing immediate profits. Our national and economic life must be so modelled as to aim at a national balance and stability rather than at the largest immediate profits.
I hope that hon. members will get copies of the report of the housing committee set up in this parliament at the last session; they will find some very interesting reading in that report. I would refer them particularly to page 13 of the report:
From A Housing Program for the United States, by the National Association of Housing

Officials, we extract the following: "In time of industrial depression and consequent unemployment, low-cost housing provides one of the most effective and least costly types of relief works because:
(a)	It does not displace work which would otherwise be undertaken by private enterprise.
(b)	It expends the capital cost mainly in labour widely distributed among the branches of the building industry and others which manufacture the materials, equipment and furnishings.
(c)	It transforms what are at such times idle credits into revenue-earning and self-liquidating assets, which may be regarded, therefore, as investments rather than as debts, and are likely over a long period to prove good investments."
The concrete and lumber industries, as well as labour, would benefit by a housing scheme. For social and economic recuperation and advance through the relief of unemployment, the fostering of housing for low wage earners now living in undesirable slum conditions is, the report says, the most promising as distinct from higher class houses for those who can be financed through the usual agencies. Evidence shows that financial institutions can assist at a capital cost line of $3,500 and above. The report goes on to refer to the fact that the amount to be paid for relief must be around $100,000,000 in the twelve months ending March last. There would be a large amount of that hundred million dollars saved by giving work, and that would be spent in wages and remunerative work for numbers of our population.
When I first appeared in this parliament, in the session of 1922, the coal, steel, and iron industries were in bad condition:	thousands
of people in Sydney were in rags, in distress and starving I then proposed a system of protection, because I am a protectionist. I am a protectionist for all the people, not for some of the people. I am a protectionist for the farmer, for the consumer, producer, industrial worker, and for labour. I brought in to parliament a coal policy whereby all the coal used in this country should be mined and coked under the British flag,-whether from Wales, the maritimes, Alberta, and so on. Sir Henry Thornton in the railways and shipping committee criticized me for my policy, and said I wanted a lunch counter system of freight rates, because of my policy, of bonus, subventions and subsidies for this national fuel supply policy and for steel and iron. Later the government accepted this subsidy policy after twenty years, and it saved a great many workers from a slavery worse than death. Under that policy in 1935 2,800,000 tons of coal have been moved economically to the head of the lakes by rail and water. Subsidies

Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Church
have been given and have been continued, and rightly so, and the subsidy policy extended to the poor grain grower on the prairies and the farmers throughout the country. I would extend that subsidy through housing and reconstruction to aid the municipalities. I would make a large direct contribution to the larger municipalities for the construction of small houses, because all indications show that for many years working men will need some form of cheap housing such as they have in the old country. I suggest that we should extend that policy by subventions, bonuses and subsidies to the large municipalities direct and to the smaller ones, the rural ones, through the provinces. That is what they are doing in Italy. Italy has been building municipal institutions and for the next twenty-five or forty-five years to help unemployment they will construct court houses, gaols, hospitals, schools, playgrounds, harbour improvements, irrigation schemes, breakwaters and projects of that kind by direct aid to the municipalities. Money has been granted to the muncipalities to enable them to continue their necessary and urgent program of public works, which was stopped by the depression and relief expenditures, and much money has thereby been made available to the muncipalities directly and indirectly for the relief of the unemployed through these municipal works, federally-aided by a third or half cost.
The Bruce report on Toronto is being given performance so far as some of these matters are concerned. I do not believe everything in the Bruce committee's report, but they certainly performed a great public duty, and now the wise and up-to-date policy of the city council this year will do untold good by compelling owners to put in conveniences and renovate, or the city will step in and do so; and also, the city can now lend the owner money for that purpose, thus, at one blow, helping the slum problem and carrying out the Bruce report.
One of the objects of my motion is to make the house and the country "housing minded." Many houses in Canada are occupied by industrial workers who are only on half time or part time. These dwellings they inhabit are not fit to be called homes or in many cases fit for human habitation. The landlord is exacting the last cent he can get. These slums are against all the laws of public hygiene. Workers of this class have always been the victims of bad housing and the high prices exacted by some landlords. One of the main reasons for better homes was given by the Prince of Wales, now King Edward VIII, in 12739-15
figures he quoted from the report of the housing committee showing the connection between better housing and a reduced death rate.
It was shown last session by the then member for Battle River that some shark insurance and loan companies incorporated here have been charging as much as forty per cent for second mortgages. Not satisfied with that what do they do? They take a chattel mortgage and bill of sale on all the furniture in the house, and often the tenant loses his last cent, and is put on the street. I say something should be done to reduce bank, insurance, mortgage and interest rates. The insurance companies are doing something in the United States. For instance the New York Life have advanced $25,000,000 to build houses at Gravesend Beach so as to do something for the working people of the city of New York. I am glad to see the progress made by the city of Toronto, which has been a pioneer in this housing and health work since the days of the great Doctor Hastings. I am glad that a by-law has been passed by the council, after checking up every house in the city, requiring the slum landlord, upon notice, to make necessary improvements, to put in sanitary appliances. If he does not do so the municipality will advance a loan for renovations of $50 or $100 or more and will get security. While we are waiting for parliament to do something on these lines, the municipality of Toronto is doing something by itself in the cause of its good government.
I am surprised that our friends the socialists in this house, who sometimes take up so many bad causes, have not pleaded more strongly the cause of the suburban worker and a suburban railway service. In that connection I may mention the case of London, By comparison with wasteful expenditure on the main roads which do nothing for the comfort or economic efficiency of the people, but rather subsidized the motor industry at the expense of the railway lines-I am not opposing proper good roads for the farmer, but some of these large road expenditures have been very wasteful, since they simply provide a right of way for the motor industry parallel with the steel rails built by the people of Canada, who have to construct their own right of way-the same thing should be done for housing as is being done in London, Philadelphia, New York and Montreal, where a suburban service of rapid transit has been built, and commutation tickets given, so aiding the housing system, and letting the people get out to the country.
I have only about fifteen minutes more, but one or two other matters should be re-

226	COMMONS
Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Church
ferred to. The first one is the high rate for bank interest. With the addition of charges, a rate of seven per cent amounts to a lot more than that, and small workers cannot get much of a loan on small businesses. Something ought to be done by the government to straighten out conditions in this respect for the benefit of the worker. That is not a matter for the initiative of the private member; it is the business of the government. I wish to offer constructive suggestions. If they bring down any policy for the good of the country they will have my support. These loan companies have charged high rates for years, but the days of high money have gone by. The late government deserved a great deal of credit for the Housing policy they inaugurated last session. At the time it was about as far as they could go, but with the money situation as in normal times, more can be done. The policy of getting loans through selected companies would be a good one. I believe that in the coming spring some of the 50,000 people in the city in which I live will want to move from the apartment houses back again into a house of their own, having been driven by the depression into apartments, three or four years ago. When they start to do that, if they can get SI ,000 together I believe this 1935 act will be a very wise policy, and in the future it is going to be a very good thing for the building industry. I appreciate the fact that with the commitments the government had under the so-called new deal this was only a start in the right direction, but in my opinion they did not go far enough. The policy of moratoria should be continued; if they are abolished [DOT] the workers are going to suffer. There may be some few whom these moratoria affect adversely, but those are the people who have been receiving 6 per cent, 6i per cent and 7 per cent interest. I am informed that property is down from 25 to 50 per cent, and that has to be considered when you deal with an interest rate of 7 per cent or 6i per cent. So I hope these, moratoria will be continued, or many people will be ruined.
In conclusion I should like to refer to the manner in which the youth of the country are affected. On January 30 of last year I discussed in this house the question of scholarships in connection with our high schools and universities, and a national policy of economic protection for youth. I pointed out the amount of money spent in the city from which I come, some 311,000,000 or $12,000,000, in the public schools and high schools. The greai industrial revolution of England was started by five or six young men. some of
[Mr. Ciiurch.J
them entirely without education and with none of the advantages possessed by the youth of to-day. Yet that revolution converted England from an agricultural country into the greatest industrial country in the world and made it the workshop of the world. That great movement was started by the people themselves for the benefit of people .of all sorts.
I do not believe the young people of this country are getting proper treatment, and I believe it is the duty of all men to concentrate on bringing about a better social order for the common good, instead of leaving it to the government alone. After all is said and done profit making alone should not be the basis of a Christian society; the well being of all communities should be the aim of all men. We want to help the birth and development of a public conscience which will demand a decent standard of living, under which no citizen need suffer from hunger or cold because of the operation of economic forces. In time of war when the invader is at the door we mobilize and nationalize all our resources, our men, our railways, our food and so on; we go to meet the enemy at the gate and repel 'him. So in time of peace, when this foreign invader, unemployment, is at our door, we should resort to similar means. In war we are united, but with respect to unemployment we are divided as to what should be done and the best means of doing it. We have a war in Canada to-day as bad as or worse than the last war; a war between thousands of our people and poverty and starvation. Canada's enemy is hard times, and that is just as dangerous as a foreign enemy.
May I repeat what I said last year, that these young men are riding all over the country trying to find work. Many of their fathers are on relief, and these boys have no place to go. They have tried hard to get jobs, as we all know. When there is not enough food to go round they have enough courage to leave home, to ride the rods all over Canada in an endeavour to find jobs. Many of these young men are from the finest homes of this country; many of them are in the lockup to-day, and the only charge against them is that they cannot get work owing to the failure of our governments to come to their support. I believe the time is coming when something will have to be done. These youths, accustomed to a fair standard of living at home, now go for days without taldng off their clothes; they sleep at night in unsanitary places; they suffer from cold and hunger; many of them are

Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Church
killed on the railways. In the towns they are given a night's lodging and then moved on to the next place.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that industry will have to do something for these boys. In the United States, Hon. Miss Perkins, federal secretary of labour, has adopted a policy of looking after hundreds of thousands of these bright high school and university students, which includes the payment of school fees, carfare and SI to S2 a week, as well as the necessary books to enable them to continue their education. Something like this was done in Toronto fifty years ago; at the old grammar school on Jarvis street they used to give scholarship assistance of this kind, and I believe a similar system should be adopted in this country. But $100,000 is not enough; we should spend $1,000,000 or $2,000,000 for the further education of these bright students who otherwise may leave the country. We used to talk about the export of raw material; what about the export of brains? That great Canadian Sir Frederick Banting and others of our great university graduates, might have been lost to this country, and there are many similar cases. The educational authorities must take a leaf out of the book of the United States and the old land.
I should like to conclude by making the prophecy that within three years there will be an agricultural economic revolution in the old world, and I believe there will be an educational economic revolution as well. The other day I read a most interesting book written by some of the ablest men in England, including Mr. W. S. Morrison and Lord Eustace Percy, former president of the board of education. I should like to read one or two paragraphs from that book; it is from the section written by Lord Eustace Percy
The urgent need of the present day is to control the entry of juveniles into employment, to make the termination of full time schooling coincide with that entry, to modify or eliminate all regulations or examinations which are obstacles rather than aids to that transition, and to ensure that the first years of employment shall be treated as years of training and continued education. This policy involves, first of all, not a merely educational, but an industrial reform; the imposition on organized industries of a statutory duty to formulate their schemes of recruitment and training, or, in other words, a revival in a new form of the idea of apprenticeship as the path to a definite professional status.
I am not of those who advocate that further burdens should be placed on industry, because I believe they are already carrying too many. One of the main causes of unemployment is the trade barriers that exist at the present time, but the educational system of the future 12739-151
will have to take care of the youths of school age under twenty-one years of age who are not being looked after under the present absurd system. I quote further on this new policy for industry and education:
It involves, in the second place, an extension of compulsory full time school attendance, not to some fixed and unalterable point dictated by the requirements of school courses, but to points corresponding with the various approved recruitment schemes of industries. It means, thirdly, a new cooperation between the state and industry in the establishment of a system of part time education, designed to assist the gradual transition from full time school to full time employment and to, combine a continuation of general education with the training of industrial skill. It means, finally, the encouragement during full time school life of every contact with practical, including accupa-tional, life outside the school which does not endanger health or unduly interfere with school work; together with a steady attempt to limit the scope, and restrict the significance, of purely school examinations.
And further:
In our educational example, one of the chief weaknesses of the body politic is the dislike manifested by many of the most enlightened industrialists, who are really keen on education, for any organized system of part time education and part time employment. The problems of internal factory organization which such a system must create are many and serious; yet unless they can be solved, unless the inhibition can be removed, no thorough educational reform is possible. There is some obvious way of removing the inhibition; the five day working week, during which the employed juvenile would receive his specific craft training in the factory, with a universal system of Saturday morning continuation classes. This idea needs careful testing before it is put into practice, but in many, if not in most, industries Saturday closing night will be found to have positive advantages in reducing "terminal" costs, and again educational reform would be merged in a larger reform of occupational life, a reform which would be organic because it would be economic.
We know what they are doing in Denmark. They are getting the market by a proper system of marketing and transportation; they are getting the cream of the business in the old land to-day. They have a system of high school training for adult persons at night. We are away behind in our educational theories in this country; we have too many quack doctors connected with our educational system, and the whole thing is sadly in need of reform. The government cannot compel industry to take on more employees, because to add to their staffs might ruin many industries.
There are millions of acres of fertile land in Canada, which could be used to supply vegetables and food to needy families. This land would not be the means of bringing riches to our youth, but it would be better
228	COMMONS
Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King
than camps, and the accommodation would be better than city flats or the old huts, in which our forefathers lived. Many young men around our cities would accept such shelter and wait for better days. In my opinion financial assistance should be given for two or three years. In this way young people would not be compelled to live lives of idleness.
Further, may I say we are behind times in matters of reforestation. I have before me a report which I should like to take time to read, which indicates what has been done in Japan and Germany and twenty other countries in reforestation and settlement. In Canada our forests are being ruined. We are losing a great deal of money in this way, and much of the money spent on a national system of highways and transcontinental railways is being lost through not having a proper forest policy along the route, creating work and settlement. We should be restocking our forests, thereby giving large numbers of our citizens work. For the preservation of our natural resources we could use graduates from our universities. Last year Mr. Gordon and the then Prime Minister did a commendable work when they set aside a vote of $2,000,000 for inquiries along these lines, and for mining surveys. We could learn a lot from Germany and other European countries, and I am trusting that something may be done. I regret having to bring this to the attention of the house, but the people in my constituency are interested in the matter. I believe one of the greatest misfortunes is that our rising generation, through no fault of their own, should be in the sad unemployed condition in which they find themselves today. It is against the law of God and man that this condition should continue. Hon. members sitting in this parliament should do something about it. Under our parliamentary system the private member has not a chance to take action in these matters; all he can do is to bring it to the attention of the house. I say all hon. members should rise in their places and tell their respective political parties what the people back home are saying, as to the need of solving the whole question of unemployment.
We have to reorganize our whole system of parliamentary government in Canada. Our system is based on the British North America Act, and is a relic of the ox-cart days. This act has the working class in a straight-jacket and unemployed.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member has
spoken forty minutes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I rise not for the purpose of dealing with the specific proposals in the resolution but because I believe this is the opportune time to express the government's attitude generally towards resolutions which directly or indirectly involve expenditures of public moneys.
As most hon. members are no doubt aware, any resolution involving an expenditure of public money must be presented to the house by a minister of the crown, the authority of the crown having been previously given for the introduction of such resolution. While it is most desirable that hon. members should fe'el free as fully as possible to discuss all resolutions, and particularly resolutions similar to the present one, which relate to great social and industrial problems, I hope hon. members who have resolutions on the order paper which may be read as committing the government to additional expenditures will not feel that they ought to press for a division, unless there be a special reason for so doing.
The adoption of resolutions involving even indirectly the expenditure of public money necessarily appears to lead to commitments on the part of the government. I will be frank in saying that up to the present time member" of the government have been unable to discover the number of commitments to which the country is already obligated. Every now and then, we have felt that we have reached a point where we are aware of all outstanding obligations, but to our amazement on a subsequent day some new obligation comes to the fore, and we find that in connection therewith the country has been committed to additional expenditures. It is our hope during the present session to bring before the House of Commons, and through it before the country, some understanding of the magnitude of the expenditures to which Canada has already become committed, as well as of what is involved by way of additional taxation to meet such commitments.
Before the house can wisely decide upon additional commitments to be made I believe it is necessary that hon. members have this bird's-eye view of the entire financial situation. It is for that reason, and that only, that I express the hope that hon. members will not wish to go the length of asking for a division on any of these resolutions, thereby involving should the resolution be adopted what might be construed as a commitment for additional expenditure on the part of the government. I do not make this request with respect to future sessions, but I do with regard to this

Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Plaxton
one, until, as I have said, all hon. members have a chance to see just where we stand in the matter of expenditures and income.
There is one other point I should like to stress, namely that the government's policies with respect to these various matters will be announced from time to time, as the government has had opportunity to give to the various subjects concerned that careful thought and consideration which should be given before any public announcement is made. There are some matters which thus far we have not had an opportunity fully to consider. It is not very long since the general election was held. Since then many important matters have consumed much of the time of my colleagues and myself and this to an extent which probably very few are able to appreciate. The result is that in connection with some matters concerning which we would like to give an immediate expression of view we may ' have to take a little time for further consideration.
My purpose in rising is simply to encourage, if you like, as much as possible in the way of discussion, counsel and advice from hon. members with respect to what ought to be done in these various matters, while at the same time expressing the hope that hon. members in the next few months will refrain from pressing to a division resolutions which may be construed as involving additional expenditures. Should that course not be followed, the government might reluctantly feel it necessary in the public interest, merely because of not knowing the probable extent of necessary expenditures, though not through any lack of sympathy with the measure or cause being advocated, to take towards some resolutions an attitude which under other circumstances might be wholly different.


Mr. H. J. PLAXTON (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, for a few moments I wish to discuss the resolution moved by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). I consider it my duty to speak at this time because in the constituency of Trinity, which I have the honour to represent in this chamber, the conditions of unemployment and relief are found in their most intense forms. As I hope to establish to the satisfaction of hon. members, these problems are definitely related to that of housing.
Of the 75,000 people found within the confines of my constituency I would estimate that about 25,000 are on direct relief. Of that number approximately 10,000 are unemployed. The significant fact is that the housing conditions respecting those 25,000 people in the constituency of Trinity typify
the general problem throughout Canada. Having made a partial survey, and to that extent speaking with some authority, I say that in the past the great majority of those 10,000 unemployed have been identified in one way or another with the building industry. It may be safely stated that while many industries have enjoyed a sharp revival and general pick-up in business during the past few months, and particularly since the Liberal administration has taken office, the building industry has continued to lag far behind, in fact it is almost in statu quo, having regard to the last five or six years. It may be said with equal assurance that a revival of the building industry offers us our most potent weapon to reduce substantially the ranks of those who are to-day unemployed or on direct relief.
I might go further and point out that if we are to judge from the experience of older countries which have attacked this joint problem of housing and slum clearance, this government and this country would be well repaid by adopting an adequate national housing scheme and thereby effect a great reduction in health and crime costs in this country. It is almost axiomatic to say that where you have slum conditions obtaining you will also find disease and crime rampant, and I suggest that it is only by ridding the great cities of this country of these black spots that we can hope to check, much less reduce, the tremendous governmental cost in respect to these evils of society. Only the other day I was informed by Doctor Gordon Bates, president of the Health League of this country, that the people of Canada spend in one way or another approximately one billion dollars annually to check the ravages of disease, whereas we devote only five million dollars to preventive measures in that connection. These figures, which I assume to be approximately correct, are truly startling, and I say again that they are directly relevant to the question of housing.
I can only, for lack of information, hazard a guess, which I shall not inflict upon this house, as to the stupendous cost of the administration of criminal justice in this country, but it is significant that in the estimates which were tabled in this house only a few days ago there is an appropriation of $2,749,506 for the administration and maintenance of those few penal institutions which fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government. I say again, Mr. Speaker, that if we revive the building industry only to the extent that we eliminate the slum conditions, we shall have set in motion a
230	COMMONS
Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Plaxton
process which will effect a vast saving in respect of these major problems of crime and disease.
What I have had to say in respect of these vital aspects of the housing problem is lent some weight when I refer to the opening remarks of a report made by the National Housing Committee of Great Britain in 1934. Their statement is rather significant, and is found in the report of the lieutenant-governor's committee on housing conditions in Toronto:
One fundamental principle lies behind all our discussions. The provision of housing accommodation, not below a minimum standard, for every family in the United Kingdom at a rent within the family capacity to pay should be accepted as a public responsibility and a national service. Fit and proper housing is a national essential, in the absence of which our existing social legislation must prove unfruitful. As long as overcrowding and slums exist, the doctor is attempting a cure without being able to touch the root of disease; the teacher has the full force of environment against him; the social reformer is fighting a battle in which he cannot hope for decisive victory.
But aside from these indirect major advantages which would accrue to us from the adoption of an adequate national housing scheme, there is the more vital question of unemployment and relief to be considered, with all their disastrous effects upon the morale of the Canadian people. That problem which we all agree to be our most vital national problem, is directly connected with the housing question; for I repeat that if we can revive the building industry, no matter how it may be accomplished, it will constitute our most effective means of solving the problem of unemployment and relief. The correctness of that statement I submit can easily be gauged when it is realized that out of every dollar spent in the construction of a home eighty-two cents finds its way into the hands of wage earners connected either directly with the building industry or with one of the many other industries directly allied with it. So I say that if we revive the building industry, not only to eliminate the slum conditions in this country but to supply the shortage of some fifty-five thousand homes which now obtains in Canada, then at one stroke we shall have drawn back into gainful employment thousands of artisans, who it is estimated constitute some sixty per cent of those we find at present in the ranks of the unemployed.
It should be of interest to members of the house who are not aware of the fact, that the building industry has long since been revived in England, where since the year 1919

over one-quarter of the population, amounting to some eleven million people, have been rehoused, and where in excess of 2,300,000 homes have been erected. To my mind it is more than merely a coincidence that in keeping with the progressive expansion of the building industry in Great Britain there has been progressively a marked diminution in the ranks of the unemployed and in the terrific burden of relief costs incidental thereto.
Let me add one further thought. I would say in the light of the experience of the British authorities that the revival and expansion of the building industry in that country has, more than any other single factor contributed to the mother country's return to prosperity.
Likewise we have to consider the experience and enactments of other countries outsidp of Great Britain. I refer particularly to Germany and Belgium, and in lesser degree to the United States. There in the light of investigation that we might direct into those channels we find that it has been established conclusively that it is the duty of the government as opposed to private enterprise and private capital, to initiate and revive the building industry. Thus I say that we here in Canada, if we are to follow the lead of older countries, must in this parliament accord to the building industry our profound attention and supply it with the financial support which is so vital to its expansion and growth.
Before I leave for your consideration these facts, which appear to establish conclusively the success of the building industry in England, let me point out that private finance, coupled with individual initiative, has accounted for the financing and construction of fifty per cent of the homes that have been erected in that country during recent years. I have not the figures before me, but I think we can safely assume that of the $2,400,000,000 of public money that has been directed into the channels of the building industry, private capital has matched it dollar for dollar. The action which private capital took in England in this connection constitutes a real challenge to the businessmen of this country. I say to them it is high time that they realized the seriousness of present conditions. In these times of national emergency they should follow the lead of their brethren in England and accord to this government the full weight of their financial support in whatever building program may be initiated. However, in keeping with the selfishness and timidity *which has characterized their actions in the past, the

Reconstruction Policy-Mr. MacNicol
businessmen of this country may refuse to assist the government. It may be necessary therefore, having regard to the emergencies of the time, for this government to do something which may be considered bad in principle, but which in the circumstances may be good business. It may be necessary for this government to induce private capital to enter the building industry by offering some concessions under the income tax act or other acts that may apply. I leave that thought for the future consideration of this house.
It is true that there is a housing act on the statute books of this country, known as chapter 58 of the statutes of 1935. Upon reading that act I am obliged to commend the previous administration for at least having recognized the problem to the extent which the existence of this act would indicate. However, I have several criticisms to make of this act which I believe hon. members will consider logical. The act has been in force since July 5 of last year, and although it provides for a 810,000,000 fund to be directed into the channels of building, it has become effective or operative only to the extent of a few transactions involving less than a million dollars. To be more specific in my criticisms, let me say first that this act apparently is not designed to promote the work of slum clearance. I think that any national housing scheme which does not provide for slum clearance is, ab initio, incomplete and inadequate.
Second, I criticize this act on the score that it offers no assistance to the many owners of tenement and other houses throughout the country who might desire to renovate or reconstruct. I think this criticism has considerable weight when you consider the fact that there are many houses in many of our large cities which are approaching a condition which will finally result in their being classed as slums. If the owners of these buildings received from the government some incentive to reconstruct or renovate, to that extent such an act would have some real effect.
Third, this act would appear to contemplate that the private citizen who wishes to build a home must contribute in land and/or cash at least twenty per cent of the cost of construction or of the assessed value of the completed property after construction. From my own experience and knowledge I can say that among the thousands of people who are in my own constituency it would be the exception rather than the general rule to find one who, desirous of building a low cost home, is possessed of sufficient assets to meet the requirements of this act.
Fourth, I criticize the act on the ground that the twenty per cent contribution to be
made by the government is merged or blended with the sixty per cent contribution which it is contemplated will be made by the private lending institutions. I think this provision of the act creates a barrier over which private capital will refuse to jump in any substantial way. I would make an obvious suggestion by way of amendment: I would suggest that the contribution of the government should rank separately and secondly to the major contribution of the private institution.
To summarize my views with respect to this act, I may say that in a broad way I criticize it because it is not designed to permit of the government contributing to a real building scheme. It seems to me that the government is only participating along with the private corporations. If a definite program is to be established, I maintain that the government must accept the primary responsibility. If I may use the analogy, it is much like priming the well. If the government will accept the initial responsibility, a building program once set in motion will by its own momentum revive the building industry and its allied industries. Private capital will be drawn into the fold in spite of itself and happiness and prosperity will be brought to thousands of Canadians who are now out of work and on relief and who are found invariably to be poorly housed.
In concluding I should like to take this opportunity of paying a tribute to my old friend, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), for raising this question at such an early day of the session. I should like also to pay a tribute to the present mayor of Toronto who has waged such a doughty battle in the cause of slum clearance. I desire also to pay a tribute to the lieutenant governor of the province of Ontario, whose illuminating report on this matter has focused the attention of many thousands of Canadians on the problems of housing, rehousing and slum clearance.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first to congratulate the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Plaxton) upon having the courage to speak on the resolution moved by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr.Church),after listening earlier in the day to the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). If we fell in line with the suggestions of the Prime Minister it would only be necessary for us to sit down and write a letter to the government setting out our opinions with reference to these various resolutions.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, no.
232	COMMONS
Reconstruction Policy[DOT]-Mr. MacNicol


John Ritchie MacNicol: I intend to speak on two or three of the items mentioned in the resolution moved by the hon. member for Broadview. The first item to which I shall refer is forestry. Last fall I made a survey of a number of forestry camps which had been opened up in the United States I wanted to find out how they were organized and the calibre and standing of the young men in the camps. I must confess that I was more than pleased with what I saw being done in the camps I visited. The young men selected for these camps are the sons of men on relief living in the respective towns and cities from which they come. Their ages run from sixteen to eighteen years. Each camp consists of 206 young men, and sixteen local men, generally men on relief, are chosen to instruct and advise the young men on the work they are to do in any particular camp. The local men are supposed to have a knowledge of whatever is to be done by that camp- ditching, road work, or forestry work. In addition to the sixteen men who might be called instructors or foremen, there are two military men, retired and on the reserve list. During the working hours of the camp all the men in it are under the control of civilians, but after hours they are under the control of the military men. In the evening they are instructed in the ways of life; they are taught how best to get along in life. I took great interest in that. In one camp I visited, a batch of young men had just arrived-perhaps about thirty-five or forty- and I was struck with the apparent lack of discipline among these young fellows. Perhaps I should not speak of incivility, but I might say that there was a lack of courtesy in their general demeanour. The gentleman who was showing me around told me that these young men had just arrived; "and now I will take you to a camp where young men have been in training for three months," he said. There was a great transformation visible in the general demeanour of these other men. I was highly pleased with this second group of young men who had been in training for three months. They were very civil, they were courteous, and they gave ample evidence of their training. The instructors told me that at night they taught these men along various lines, and in the daytime they were instructed in the work they had to do.
I found that forestry, the replanting of trees and reforestation was apparently one of the primary objectives of the government at Washington. After visiting the camps I went to Washington to interview the Interior department, where I talked with heads of the

forestry branch. There I learned a good deal about the object they have in view.
The whole of the territory adjacent to the great lakes in particular has been deforested to an alarming extent since 1830. There I saw figures that indicated that in 1830 the estimate of standing timber in the state of Michigan alone was 150 billion feet, and by 1880 it had been reduced, by fire or by wanton destruction, but principally by the cutting down of timber, to approximately 35 billion feet of standing timber, board measure. In 1903 in the state of Michigan 500 million feet board measure were cut down in lumbering. The result of deforestation has had a tremendous effect on the water levels of the great lakes. In connection with the water levels of the great lakes, a subject which I shall discuss more extensively at a later date in the session, I believe that the Canadian government has a great work to perform. Anyone visiting northern Ontario, Muskoka, Parry Sound, on our own side of the line, will find just as great a deforestation as there has been in Michigan. The effect of that vast deforestation adjacent to the great lakes, in both the United States and Canada, according to a very eminent engineer who has written on the subject, Mr. R. E. Horton, has been a reduction in the rainfall on the whole St. Lawrence-Great Lakes area, of from three to eight per cent; and the concrete effect on the lowering of the water level on our great lakes, it is stated, has been a lowering of lake levels of from five to eight inches. Anyone can calculate what a tremendous volume of water that represents; we may get a proper idea of it by considering lakes Huron and Michigan, which are on the same level and are adjacent. Their combined area is 45,000 square miles.
I believe that the government has the ability to deal with the situation. I have great regard for a number of the ministers of the present government, in whose ability I have faith; and if they fully realize the menace involved in the lowering of the water levels of the. great lakes, to the extent that it has been going on, one way in which they can make a great national investment in this connection is through reforestation. In the United States there are 2,427 camps, and there are already in these camps approximately 500,000 young men. These men are paid $30 a month. Thousands of them have been used in the work of reforestation. If we followed a similar scheme, thousands of the young men in this country could be put to work similarly. The salary, I grant, is small, $30 per month, but these men get their keep and clothing and a certain amount of education; and if

Reconstruction Policy-Mr. MacNicol
they were not there they would be on the street comers-and anything is better than that. When they go into the camps they agree to send to their parents on relief $22 a month out of the $30 they receive. In Washington I saw figures showing that 80 per cent of these young men sent home an average of $25 per month to their parents.
Many of the men later find positions. I learned from the chamber of commerce that there is on the part of the firms associated with that institution quite a demand for the young men trained in these camps, because people know that they will be civil and energetic and will have had the benefit of a certain amount of training. It is stated that thirty-nine per cent of the young men enrolled in these camps receive positions outside the camps. The enrolment is for a period initially of six months, and they are allowed two additional periods of six months, or a total of eighteen months in all. I was informed that the maximum of young men discharged from the camps for not behaving themselves was less than five per cent.
I am convinced that the government has a great opportunity to perform a national work and to take a step towards raising the water levels of the great lakes by means of reforestation on our side of the line; the United States, I have no doubt, would take care of its side if there were collaboration.
Other speakers have referred to the young men. I am very greatly concerned about the young men in this country, for we have as fine a young manhood in Canada as can be found anywhere in the world. When the members of this house-at any rate those past forty-were young men there were jobs of various kinds for aJll; I can remember that when I was a young lad there were numerous jobs open. The young men to-day are up against it; they have nothing to do; they cannot possibly get positions. But they all have in their hearts the same desire that we had when we were young men; they want to do something for their parents. They cannot get anything to do, however. I take great interest in the young men, and it has been my happy privilege to assist many. But I regret my inability to serve them in the way of obtaining positions for them as I would like to do. It is a tragedy. These young men might be far better engaged in whart I believe is a great national work, the reforestation of deforested land that surrounds the great lakes watershed, than in doing nothing. For doing that they would not receive what might be called a dole; they would receive a certain amount of wages for rendering very
necessary and efficient service. Something has to be done to restore these water levels. When the subject is up later I will go into it more elaborately.
The hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Plaxton) referred to Great Britain. Anybody who has been to that country within the last few years will be fairly well informed as to why Great Britain is coming back. Britain abandoned the free trade fallacy that is advocated in this country ,as well as in some other countries; all over England I saw, upon my visit a few years ago, factories that appeared to be th( better part of a mile long, and there are hundreds going up. If one goes to Manchester and to Birmingham, particularly, they will find great areas of factories that have been erected in the last few years, factories that are now making for Great Britain what was formerly imported into that country, principally from continental Europe.
I am tremendously concerned with the trade agreement that this government has entered into with our cousins to the south. In my time I have had much to do with industry and have visited many factories. I called on some recently, and in several cases I found that quite a number of employees have been laid off. How far that process is going to continue I do not know at the moment, but I cannot for the life of me see how Canadians can be helped by importing millions of dollars' worth of manufactured articles from our cousins to the south for use in Canada and at the same time displacing Canadians in our cities and towns who could have work making these same lines of material. If, as the previous speaker said, England is coming back-and certainly it is-and we know the reason, why does our own government depart from that same line of reasoning and lower the bars to admit into this country millions of dollars' worth of manufactured products that could be made by Canadians here in Canada?
If the government goes on with a program of public works I trust that some regulation will be enacted to prevent "chiselling" in connection with construction in the cities. I cannot quote them at the moment, but a number of cases have come to my attention where men on relief were compelled to work for a few days a week at a lower rate of wages than that at which otherwise they would have worked; that is what they call chiselling. The various trades, carpenters, bricklayers and others who work on the construction of buildings, should not be up against the temptation of chiselling and should not be encouraged to do so in order to obtain a few days' work per
234	COMMONS
Reconstruction Policy-Mr. MacNicol
week. In adopting regulations along this line, I hope the government will see to it that labour receives its fair and just reward for service rendered.
There is another angle to it. I am convinced that industry never again in our time will get back to the former number of working days per week. I am convinced that before very long five days a week will be the maximum not only in this country but in other countries. In that manner more men will be given employment. It will then be the duty of the authorities to find something for them to do in their leisure hours, on Saturdays. I recently paid a visit to Rouge River, a suburb of Detroit, where the great works of the Ford Motor Company are located. I was informed the property belonging to the company occupies 11,000 acres. I was taken over a considerable acreage.-I have forgotten the size-which contained thousands of small gardens, and on asking for information I was informed that, as the company was operating on a five day week basis, it had taken steps to provide land so that every employee who desired might have land to work on on Saturdays. I cannot help but feel that something like that has to come here before very long, that owing to shorter work days, which will likely be the rule in the future, men should be provided with an opportunity to grow things. In connection with that, and having served in industry a long time, I am convinced that few men over fifty years of age will again obtain jobs unless former employers feel disposed to take them back. We have to provide for many men who are over fifty years of age, and I know of no better way, when factories do not want them, than to provide land on which they can raise what they require for themselves; and if there should be any surplus they would have the opportunity to dispose of it in the adjacent cities. I believe that the government have a great opportunity in the very kernel of the resolution moved by the hon. member for Broadview if they take it wholeheartedly into consideration.
There is one other item of the resolution about which I should like to say a word, although I do not know how it should be handled. During the last few months many of the people I represent have lost or are very near to losing their homes owing to the high rate of interest and their inability to keep up payments. I believe that it is the duty not only of the federal but of the provincial governments to make an honest effort to do something worth while in this connection. There is no use fiddling while Rome

burns; we must do something worth while to stop the conflagration. Men have put their little all, saved over many years, into their homes, and have lost it. I do not know whether anything can be done to help those who have lost their homes, but surely something can be done for those who are on their way to losing them. ' How interest can be lowered I do not know. How arrangements can be made to save their homes I do not know. But it presents a great problem, and it is one that it is the duty of this government and the other governments to wrestle with. The homes of the common people in the cities are just as worthy of protection as are the farms in the country. We have heard in this ihouse a lot about farming, and I for one believe in giving the farmers more than is coming to them; I would almost go so far as to say that I would compensate them for staying on their farms. But a city has its problems too and one of the greatest, perhaps, is the saving of the homes of the average workingmen. A few days ago someone spoke in this house of conditions on the farms of the west. I could tell tales from now until next Christmas, if I wished, with respect to conditions in the dities, but that would not help anyone or do any good. I know the government are seized of the importance of the matter. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has had a good deal of experience. He has come up from the bottom; he should be qualified, and I believe he is qualified, to wrestle with problems of that kind, and I look forward to something along that line being done. Representing as I do a riding of sixty-five or seventy thousand people, many of whom are out of work and in jeopardy of losing their homes,
I appeal to the Minister of Finance, who is going to be in office for four or five years-[DOT] provided the government does not go to the country in the meantime-to do something in this direction. The problem is an important one. Do something for the workingmen in the cities and towns. They are just as worthy of consideration, in the saving of their homes and in the lowering of interest rates, as are the farmers. Do something to help the man in the city to save his home. If he cannot be given work, this opens up another method of helping him.
Let me conclude with what I said in opening,. in reference to reforestation. There is an opportunity for the young man, if there is nothing else for him to do. He can render splendid service there. I repeat this because I believe it worthy of repetition. The young man engaged in this work will do something for Canada; he will aid in

Reconstruction Policy-Miss Macphail
raising the water levels of the great lakes, the principal artery of trade and commerce by water for the eastern part of the continent of North America. I concur in what has been said by the hon. member for Broadview and only wish I could support him more effectively than I have been able to do.
Miss AGNES C. MAOPHAIL (Grey-Bruce):	Mr. Speaker, I desire to speak very
briefly on the resolution offered by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). Before doing so, however, may I say how much I appreciate the work done by the hon. member for Broadview in this house. This is by no means the first time the hon. member has brought forward resolutions having to do with subjects that are of interest to the people of Canada.
I am interested in each part of the resolution, though I do not intend to speak to each part. I have often wondered why, when there is the need for better housing, for the renovation of existing buildings, and for reforestation, we have not done all these things before now. We have the need; we have the material; we have the skilled and unskilled workers necessary, and all that is required is to bring these together. The essentials for doing so are credit, or money, and leadership by the federal government, but I believe we are going to see more public projects in the future than we have seen in the past. There has been a beginning in housing already.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that if we are going to have such building projects as I hope we will have we should not forget the need for agricultural construction. It is very difficult for the agricultural people to come under any of the housing schemes yet devised; in fact it is impossible. If the housing or building scheme is to serve agriculture, then it must be extended to include agriculture so that if the farmers want new buildings they can secure money for that purpose at low interest rates. That should apply also if they want to repair existing buildings, because in Ontario the problem of the farmers is not so much the construction of new buildings as it is the roofing, renovating and extension of buildings already in existence. In Canada we have something like 728.000 farm homes, of which I believe hardly one does not need something done in the way of renovation, construction or extension. It is true that many farmers need new buildings, but they also need to be able to get money at low interest rates in order to make their present buildings of greater use to them.
Since the hon. member for Broadview and the hon. member who sits before me at the moment (Mr. MacNicol) have spoken in glowing terms of projects on the other side of the line,' I will venture to do the same.
I should have hesitated to do so otherwise, but now I am quite sure it is all right. I was extremely interested in two projects that are being carried on in the United States, and I think it worth while taking the time of the house to describe them briefly. We are all concerned with the number of young people, not only young men-though sometimes in listening to debates in this house I wonder if the whole population is composed of men-but young men and women of Canada who go part way or all the way through high school and then, at the end of that time, want to pursue their studies further but are unable to do so. Since in most cases they are unable to get jobs it would be very much better if they could pursue their studies further if they are qualified and ambitious. I feel that if something could be done to make it possible for these young men and women-some of them only boys and girls in years-to go to school it would for a time at least lessen the strain of unemployment. It might also-and we would hope it might-enable these young men and women to evolve a philosophy by which to live.
Under what is called the national youth administration the United States has started to do some things that I think we must soon begin to do also. Starting first with the students in the high schools, eight per cent of the total attendance of the high schools of the United States may be employed by the high schools to do various tasks at wages which range from $6 to $8 a month, the object being only to provide them with sufficient money to keep them in school. The work they have to do must be such as will not interfere with those already employed, like shall we say, the janitor. These students, however, may be set to work as assistants to the janitor, as waiters in cafes or cafeterias, as teachers' assistants or as stenographers for the teachers. I saw some beautiful projects that have been carried out in connection with the beautification of school grounds, under expert supervision, by students working under this plan. They have done much to encourage and plan inter-class sports, to build tennis courts and other sports grounds for schools, to repair books in the libraries, to assist with translations, if they were senior students, and in keeping the records of the schools.
It is true, of course, that whether or not this project works out well depends very largely
236	COMMONS
Reconstruction Policy-Miss Macphail
upon the ingenuity and resourcefulness of the principal of the school. The principal of one college, not a high school, told me he had heard of a friend of his who had wired the president beseeching him to send ten tons of leaves, since those they had on their lawns were already worn out. I suppose it is true that some principals were unable to supply jobs which were purposeful and constructive, but on the other hand I think a great many were able to do so.
They carry that through into the universities as well. Twelve per cent of the total enrolments in universities may be students who have been recommended by high school authorities but who have not money sufficient to take them through the universities. For doing work of a higher type than that I have indicated, they are paid $15 a month, which is sufficient to enable them to stay at school. However, at least one-quarter of the twelve per cent must be students who have not been in college the year before. Students who have graduated with a bachelor of arts or some other degree, but who want to take up post graduate work, can do very valuable research work, for which they are paid $40 a month. In the different schools and colleges I visited, I asked many questions about this system and I believe it has done a great deal towards enabling ambitious students to continue their studies. Further, it has done something which I believe is necessary in Canada, and I am sure just as necessary in the United States, namely, combined the work of head and hand, and brought about a new respect for hand work. In Canada I believe we have been too prone to divide sharply the two spheres of activity. Too often there is a feeling that people who work with the hands are not capable of working with the head, and that people who rvork with the head are a bit too good to work with the hands. The plan I have indicated has done something towards breaking down this absurd notion.
There are other phases of national youth administration which possibly have not worked out as well or, because they require more resourcefulness, have not been tried as extensively. In some places however vocational guidance centres have been established, at which attempts are made to guide young men and women toward the studies in which they are most competent and toward work for which they will be best qualified. In order to afford them further assistance a system of apprenticeships has been set up, giving high school and university students an opportunity to get into the work they would like to do, and for which experts have decided they are qualified. Going

into apprenticeship they gain practical experience of the work of their choice. I do not know very much about how the system has worked out, having heard only general statements made by people who were not very closely connected with it.
I have thought for some time that something definite concerning scholarships should be done in Canada. Only lately a pamphlet was issued discussing the subject at length. I shall not cover again the ground indicated in the pamphlet, but it serves to illustrate the point that many countries have encouraged young people desiring to acquire higher education, and have provided them with the means of doing so. Unless Canada follows the procedure adopted by Great Britain, Japan, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and in another way Denmark, we are going to be placed in a very unfavourable light and naturally hinder our development.
One other point, although possibly not strictly proper at this time, might be mentioned. Three times in the last two years I visited the Louisiana state university and on each of my visits I heard professors talking about the possibility of having scholarships on much more extensive scale. This year they are launching what would seem to be a tremendous scheme. They are increasing their farm, which is already very large, to an area of 4,750 acres, and they are taking 1,000 students on it. A complicated plan, which at the moment I shall not describe, is involved, but briefly they work on the farm for one semester, taking two subjects in the evening classes at which the teaching is done by university professors, and the following semester they go to the camps and take the full course. These alternate between different camps. It seemed to me that it was a common sense arrangement. It may be too extensive, but it is a common sense plan.
I believe the resolution offered by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) has similar merit. In my view it is extremely important that we undertake projects like this. I think all hon. members realize that the relief camps now existing cannot long continue. The work given the men in the camps is not varied; some of it may be very useful, but the variety is limited and it is not very interesting. Almost no1 hope is held out to them. I think it would have been much better if from the beginning we had paid the men a living wage and to a greater extent put them on their own resources. The conditions under which they are living is in my opinion very bad for their morale. I believe a change will have to be made, and the resolution

Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Coldwell
offered by the hon. member for Broadview offers a good basis for an ambitious and extensive program of public works. While we may. not now undertake it I believe that before very long we will do so. Unemployment is not to be cured, even if purchasing power were to come back to the 1929 level or beyond that point. Displacement of labour by machinery will make it impossible for us to absorb our unemployed in ordinary industry, and some great projects of a national character are bound to come.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to express my appreciation for the opportunity that has been afforded us by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) to discuss this problem. I listened with a great deal of interest to the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) which followed, and while this motion may not be pressed to a division, nevertheless I think it is well that we should have an opportunity of placing before the government our views on the matter. It is, of course, not a new problem.
I recollect that one of the first things I ever iieard about the present leader of this group, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), was in connection with a survey of housing and living conditions in western Canada. That was many years ago. Since then at various intervals we have had commissions sitting and placing before the people of Canada their conclusions regarding the housing situation.
May I point out that it is not merely a problem of housing; it is a problem of health. Overcrowded living conditions both in the country and in the urban communities mean ill health and large expenditures in sanitaria of various types throughout the dominion. I was looking up some records a few days ago and I found that as early as 1911 a report was submitted to the health department of the city of Toronto stating in part:
There are few conditions found in the slums of Europe or in the greater American cities that have not been revealed in the city of Toronto, the difference being only of degree, and the conditions of lesser degree to-day will, if not corrected, become those of greater degree to-morrow.
Then we have Sir Clifford Sifton saying this at Ottawa in 1916:
We are to-day reproducing some of the worst things that have characterized the old lands. We are getting slums in our cities. But we are doing worse than that. Apparently we are failing utterly to get to the root of the problem which makes slums.
And, Mr. Speaker, we have to get at the root of this problem, and, as I said the other
afternoon, the root of it is not something of recent planting or recent growth, but something that has been growing and developing during the years that have gone by. I might quote further from the records but I shall content myself with one more statement that was made in the 1935 report on housing and slum clearance for Montreal:
The elements of the population of Montreal which are now compelled to find their abode in the slums or near-slum areas are not large in proportion to the whole population of Montreal, nor are the slums of Montreal as bad as those of many north American cities. However, they constitute a heavy burden, and the fact that they are widely spread to-day and rapidly extending calls for serious effort towards what has been called ' the new day of housing.' The depression has brought the Montreal housing problem to an acute stage and has emphasized the unsoundness of our existing working class housing schemes.
May I add that I found myself in sympathy with the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) when he suggested that something had to be done for those who are to-day losing the homes which they occupy and which they have built. That problem is an exceptionally serious one throughout the length and breadth of Canada; seldom a day passes but I receive a letter from one of the many people whom I have met in the past few years asking me to advise them what they may or may not do in relation to the pressure that is being placed upon them, and I believe my experience is probably the same as that of many other hon. members.
A few moments ago I was quoting from old reports, but I have before me now one which is very recent, issued so recently that it bears upon it the name of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler). It is a report issued by the bureau of statistics and deals with the seventh census of Canada, 1931, and the housing accommodation of the Canadian people. I would recommend to every member of the house a perusal of a copy of this analysis of the census returns on housing in Canada. I find on page 3 of the report this statement:
Nearly sixty per cent of Canadian households occupy from four to seven rooms, and almost twenty per cent live in three rooms or less. Only 3-5 per cent of households occupy more than ten rooms.
We have heard a great deal about the cities; what of the rural areas? This report is exceedingly interesting to me because it confirms some of the statements I made in the course of the discussion on the address in reply to the speech from the throne last week. It says:
Distribution of the number of rooms in homes throughout the prairie provinces is quite different from that in other parts of
238	COMMONS
Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Coldwell
Canada, particularly in rural areas. Over sixty per cent of prairie rural homes contain four rooms or less, while the number of such homes in Ontario is less than 23 per cent. In Alberta and Saskatchewan there are more rural households occupying two rooms than in any other room group. Prairie urban areas also contain proportionately more small homes and a lower percentage of large homes than is found in eastern Canada, although the typical size is five rooms.
That gives some idea of housing conditions in the prairie provinces. It may be due in part, as the report says, to the fact that the prairie provinces have been more recently settled, but, Mr. Speaker, I would say that it is not only because of recent settlement but because of the wide areas that are more or less subjected to frost, crop failure and drought, and the large number of farms that have been established on submarginal land in areas that never should have been opened for settlement. I have seen conditions in the northern part of Saskatchewan that made one's heart bleed, people inhabiting homes, tiny log buildings, where there were no conveniences of any description. I remember just about a year ago I was speaking in the town of Spiritwood in northern Saskatchewan, and an English lady there came up to me and said, "Can't you do something to bring to the attention of the authorities the condition of the people in this area? I have just come from attending at the birth of a new baby, and in that home there was nothing but a mattress made of gunny sacking stuffed with straw, and the only cover the mother had was the heavy coat her husband wore around the barn." Those are conditions of real poverty. It may be said that that is an exceptional case. That may be so, but I have seen and heard of a number of such exceptional cases.
I quote further from the census report. It goes on to say of prairie dwellings:
The smaller prairie dwellings doubtless are associated with the relatively short time the western provinces have been settled. The accessibility and cost of building materials is another factor which appears to have exerted a considerable influence.
And yet the condition which I have just been describing is one which existed, not in the southern part, but in the northern part of Saskatchewan where there were mills and where lumber was comparatively cheap.
I find this, too, from the census report, that the large six-room dwelling is predominant in the maritime provinces and Ontario, where there is the least evidence of crowding, and, conversely, that in the iprairie provinces, where three-room and four-room dwellings predominate, there is definite evidence of in-

adequate living space, particularly in the rural areas. The report continues, referring to certain figures quoted:
From these figures it appears that the great majority of households of more than six persons was inadequately housed. The fact that this was true of Toronto is particularly significant, for space available per person in that city compared favourably with most other Canadian cities of over 30,000 population.
The report contained one statement that was particularly interesting to me as a former member of the municipal administration of the city of Regina. It says:
The amount of space per person in 1931 was characteristically less than one room in households paying $15 rent or less per month. In this rental group, the average number of rooms per person centred around 0-7 and 0-8 in the twenty largest Canadian cities, varying from the lowest average of 0-5 for Regina to as high as 1-2 for Victoria.
Conditions of overcrowding, therefore, are not confined wholly to the older communities like Montreal and Toronto, but are also particularly acute in newer western cities like Regina. Under conditions of relief and poverty, which now exist, suffering is becoming aggravated. In the years to come we shall suffer as a people from the ill health and poor physique of the rising generation which consequences such conditions are bound to bring about. The report ends with these words:
These facts do not furnish conclusive proof of crowded conditions where the number of rooms per iperson is less than one. There is good reason to believe, however, that families in which earnings average $14 per person, paying less than $15 per month rent, and living in less than one room per person, are inadequately housed. In 1931, there were 51,778 or 15-7 per cent of all tenant households in Canadian cities over 30,000, who were paying less than $15 per month rent, the majority of them averaging less than one room per person.
That is an independent analysis of the census returns made by our own bureau of statistics. This should place the problem squarely before the government at this particular time. I know the government has many difficulties, but we must make progress. I look around and I see raw materials such as clay, with brick works nearby lying unused and idle, il go into the forest areas and I see the noble spruce trees standing there while mills within easy reach are lying idle. I am reminded that the members of building trades are out of work, that skilled workmen are walking the streets seeking relief. We have the labour; we have the materials; we have the need; it seems to me that all we require is the initiative and the intelligence to work out a plan that will meet these con-

Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Coldwell
ditions. I am not so much interested in balanced budgets as in a balanced human welfare.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: What explanation can the hon. member give of the fact that people who have materials such as cheap lumber and other commodities do not build larger homes for themselves?


Major James William Coldwell: To begin with, the people who need the homes do not control the mills nor have they access to the hardware which is necessary. If they are going to build a log home, they endeavour to build it on a small scale because of their inability to purchase sufficient stoves to heat a larger building. The whole matter comes back to the basic defect in our economic system.


Malcolm McLean: It is not for lack of material for building?


Major James William Coldwell: No, it is not lack of material; it is not lack of ability to build and it is not lack of intelligence to turn our raw materials into buildings. The irfhole matter is an inherent defect in our present economic set-up which makes it impossible for them to do the things that they otherwise would do.
The resolution contains one or two other suggestions which I should like to discuss briefly. One is in connection with land settlement. It all depends upon how such land settlement is to be undertaken and for what purpose. I have before me a statement showing the condition of certain settlers who have been settled for a long time upon the land in the province from which I come. I should like to quote from a bulletin issued by the farm management department of the university of Saskatchewan in 1934. It reads:
Indebtedness continues to be a problem of great concern. To pay interest on the present farm debt of Saskatchewan would have required about four-fifths of all wheat available for sale from the 1933 crop; and for the payment of farm taxes two-fifths of this wheat.
In other words, for those two items alone, in 1933 it would have required six-fifths of all the wheat produced, twenty per cent more than was actually produced in Saskatchewan. Professors Allen and Hope go on to say:
From our survey of last summer information is now available concerning the debt of 238 farm owners located in some of the oldest farming districts of Saskatchewan, operating about 44,000 acres of land, of which 37,000 acres were used for crops and summer fallow. Twelve of these farmers were _ free from debt, the remaining 226 having obligations amounting to one and three-quarter millions of dollars, and averaging $7,686 per farm, or $7,298 for the 238 farms. For the 238 farmers this debt averaged $18.64 per acre of cropland. Since the
summer of 1931, because of crop failures, the debt per farm had increased by $1,414, or $707 per farm per year. Most of this debt (77 - 3 per cent) was associated with farm real estate, 39-3 per cent being in agreements of sale, and 38 per cent in farm mortgages. Chattel mortgages amounted to 2-7 per cent of the total; implement debts, 3-1 per cent; taxes unpaid, 3-3 per cent; bank obligations, 3 per cent; and miscellaneous debts, 10-6 per cent.
If we are going to embark upon a land settlement scheme, how can we expect that people taken from our cities, people who are not familiar with conditions as they exist, will be able to make a success when men of long experience, such as these, cannot? This report covers a number of municipalities, including, I believe, that of Scott, in which are located Yellow Grass, Milestone and Lang. This is one of the finest areas in southern Saskatchewan and yet those people have been unable to make a success of their agricultural activities. How can people without capital and without experience be expected to succeed?
I view with a good deal of misgiving the propaganda now appearing in the press in various parts of Canada in connection with a land settlement scheme and a new immigration policy. I see that the quota from central Europe has been doubled since the new government came into office and I deplore this action. A short time ago I noticed that General Hornby was endeavouring to persuade various counties in England, such as Derbyshire, to embark upon a migration policy under which British workers would take up land in various parts of Saskatchewan. I felt that the government of Canada should not only not lend any encouragement to such a scheme but should prevent the putting of it into effect, because our problems can only be greatly aggravated by it.
I know it is sometimes said that our western farmers have been extravagant; but if you travel over the prairies you will find the condition outlined in this census, showing what actually exists in the form of a home-often nothing but a thin board shack, tar papered, standing on the windswept prairie. And if you will go into that shack you will find few of the amenities of life, few comfortable chairs; it is heated by a primitive stove. Extravagance! Why, not even ordinary comfort.
People sometimes say that the prairie farmers bought automobiles. Well, in western Canada, with the long distances between town and town, between the village and the farm, the automobile is not a luxury but a necessity, and moreover it is a labour-saving device, because it enables the farmer to get from his farm quickly to town to secure whatever is
240	COMMONS
Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Coldwell
needed. If you go into one of the villages or towns on Saturday night and see the. cars lined up along the sidewalk, you will find that many of them are rather ancient models, and most of them are of the cheapest make. Fords, Chevrolets and Plymouths are the cars you will find the farmers using mostly on our western plains.
We have been told too that they have-spent their money taking trips to California. I am fairly familiar with many farmers in some of our best areas, and I know that very few of them took such trips. But on that score. I may say in passing, that after a man and woman have lived on the windswept prairies for fifteen or twenty years they are entitled not only to a trip to California but to a tour round the world and back again, if they feel inclined to take it.
In the resolution there is mention of the problem of youth. I have been particularly interested in that problem because of my life work and my long association with young people. I have watched with a great deal of alarm and sorrow young people whom I have known, who have passed through my hands, who have graduated from high school, who have gone to university and returned. They are on the street corners to-day or they are in relief camps. We are utterly destroying the young people who are growing up. Last summer I had the privilege-I regard it as such-of meeting some of those young men, the relief camp trekkers, who came to Regina. I had been told before they arrived that they were rather a tough lot. I met many of them and found among them some young men of high school education, other young men of university education, even young men very much like my own boy, who is about twenty. True, there were a few of a different sort; but on the whole they were a very decent bunch of young men, youths who desired to place their problems squarely before the .people of this dominion and its government in the only way available to them.
Many of these young men feel that they are unwanted and forgotten, and if the government of Canada to-day can do something to institute a widespread public works program of housing, reforestation, building of roads and bridges, elimination of level crossings, and so on, then such young men may have an opportunity of at least feeling that they are of some use in the society in which they live. I remember speaking with some of the trekkers, a week or so before the regrettable riot; they were assuring me that there would be no trouble, but one young fellow said, "No;

I would not start any trouble at all, but if trouble started I would be there; for after all, Mr. Coldwell, what is the use of living if there is nothing for you to do?" And then another added, "I am twenty-four; I should like to be able to get a home and to choose the girl I should like to marry." That was a very natural and human, desire, and throughout the length and breadth of Canada today there are thousands of young men in exactly that position.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we have a problem of housing; there are thousands of people living in one roomed shacks. Now we have the material; we have the skilled men; we have the sawmills and the brickyards and everything we require. All we need to do is to use the intelligence we have and we shall find ways of bringing all these things together so that we may improve the conditions under which our people live.
Briefly, I wanted to contribute something to the discussion, and I feel grateful to the hon. member who introduced this resolution, because it has given me that opportunity. I hope that the ministers of the crown will carefully consider the suggestions that have been made by various speakers this afternoon and will give effect to at least some of them in the present year.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): I wish to express my own sense of obligation to the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) and to others who have taken part in the discussion of this resolution this afternoon. It was the purpose of the resolution, I take it, to direct the attention of the house to the problem of unemployment and to advance certain proposals for dealing with the problem.
During the past week we have listened to many references to unemployment, and that was to be expected; the seriousness of the problem is self-evident. We should be forgetful of our duty as members if we sought in any way to minimize its importance. In much of our discussion of the question of unemployment, however, there has been a lack of any definite proposals for providing new employment, and I think the hon. member for Broadview is deserving of congratulations upon malting certain suggestions having in view the creation of work for those who are now unemployed.
Before discussing the terms of the resolution, perhaps I may be permitted to say a word about our approach and attitude to this problem of unemployment during the present

Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Rogers
session. Behind some of the references to this question in recent days there has been a veiled imputation that the present administration has not been sufficiently impressed with the gravity and urgency of the problem. In every case however the only apparent ground for such a suggestion has been the failure of the government to adopt outright some [DOT] sovereign remedy advanced by some particular group or individual as the one and only path to economic recovery. Let me say, as one who has a special responsibility in relation to unemployment and relief, that members of the present administration are fully seized of the gravity of the problem, and are prepared to study carefully any and all proposals which have'as their object the amelioration of the hardship and distress which have been the lot of so many of our people during the past five years. If we appear to 'be indifferent to these special panaceas which are advocated by certain groups in the house, it is not through any suspicion of the motives behind them, nor through any lack of appreciation of the sincerity of those who propound them. In dealing with this whole question of unemployment it is well, I think, that we should begin this opening session of a new parliament with the recognition that all of us, regardless of our political affiliations, have as a common duty and a common objective the progressive reduction of unemployment and of its serious effects upon the fabric of our social and economic institutions. Our differences are not those of human sympathy, of compassion, or of social responsibility; they . relate rather to the methods by which we hope to achieve the object which we all have in common.
For more than five years we have been dealing with unemployment as an emergency situation. It came upon us almost unawares. Naturally the task of dealing with it became a very difficult and disagreeable duty. Our policies have been improvised quickly in response to immediate pressures, and there has been on the whole a conspicuous lack, I think, of objective study and adherence to fixed principles in the various measures we have adopted for the liquidation of unemployment and relief. In the case of the late administration I believe certain things were done which ought not to have 'been done, and certain things were left undone which ought to have been done. But no doubt that might have been said of any administration in power at that time. While recognizing fully the difficulties confronting the late administration, I think the course followed by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) was 12739-16
more erratic than it need have been. That, however, is a question that can be discussed more properly at another time. I suggest now that we have reached a stage where it is possible and certainly desirable to take a careful inventory of our present situation, and either return to old principles or adopt new ones which are recommended by reason and confirmed by recent experiences of our own and other countries.
This is a very comprehensive resolution; it is framed in generous terms. For that I am grateful to the hon. member for Broadview. He could scarcely be brought to order for wandering from his subject, nor, I hope, shall I be brought to order for a similar reason. Much of the discussion hitherto has been concentrated upon one of his proposals, namely, that of housing. I propose simply to address myself to the first paragraph of his resolution, and instead of taking particular suggestions contained therein, to deal rather with some of the broad questions of policy which I believe are implied in his resolution.
The first question raised by the resolution is the utility of governmental expenditures as an aid to unemployment and a stimulus to economic recovery. Although the resolution does not state this in so many words, the phrase "national housing, building, reconstruction, renovation, slum clearance, land settlement hnd reforestation policy" suggests that what the hon. member has in mind is the provision of funds for this purpose out of the dominion treasury. Whenever in recent years a national scheme has been proposed, there has usually been behind it the thought that the dominion government should assume either a larger share of financial responsibility or full financial responsibility in carrying out such a scheme. Certain of these proposals will be within the memories of members present in the house. Associated with all such proposals, moreover, is the assumption that the dominion parliament, unlike other governmental agencies under the federal system, is possessed of unlimited resources to meet the costs of additional works projects. Undoubtedly there is some excuse for the prevalence of this view, and for the consequent pressure upon the dominion government to assume a steadily increasing share of financial responsibility for relief works of one description or another. The provinces and municipalities have restricted powers of taxation. The municipalities have restricted borrowing powers. There is no such legal restriction upon the taxing powers of the dominion, and none with respect to its borrowing powers. It is well to remember,

242	COMMONS
Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Rogers
however, that while the dominion is not subject to any legal restriction upon its taxing and borrowing powers, it is subject at all times to what I might describe as a prudential limit in the exercise of both these powers. Moreover this prudential limit is not confined to the dominion parliament. It applies as well to provincial legislatures and to municipal councils. The hon. mem* ber for Broadview does not need to be reminded of this fact. He has served for several terms as chief magistrate of a great Canadian city, and he well knows that extravagance or misdirected expenditures may so increase the debt and tax rate of a municipality as to discourage commercial and industrial expansion through the natural channels of private and corporate investment. That consideration is one which we must at least have in mind in dealing with this problem which has been brought before us this afternoon.
If the mover of the resolution has in view the encouragement by governments of private investment in housing and building construction, I would support him wholeheartedly in his advocacy of such a policy. If he has in mind the close cooperation of dominion, provincial and municipal governments in slum clearance projects, I would agree with him that such a policy should receive the sympathetic examination of the various governments concerned. If, however, he proposes a scheme under which the dominion government should at this particular time assume an immediate or contingent liability in relation to any large scheme of this character, I would suggest that we should see our way very clearly before entering into any such commitment. I do not yield place to any hon. member in my desire to see slum clearance projects undertaken. I realize fully the social evils that follow in the train of slum and bad housing conditions. I feel, certainly, that we must do what lies within our power to remedy these conditions as soon as possible. I simply put it to the house at this time that in any long view of the problem we are compelled also to consider how far it is desirable to commit ourselves to large public expenditures if-and I shall deal with that point later-by so doing we discourage or deter the natural flow of savings into housing through private and corporate investment.
I submit this view, as I have said, not with any lack of sympathy for the object which the hon. member for Broadview has in mind, but solely because it seems to me that we have reached a point in the state of our public finances when we are compelled to consider

the deterrent effect of large governmental expenditures and increasing deficits upon the flow of savings into productive investments. Savings for investment are notoriously sensitive to conditions of public finance. The even flow of savings into private and corporate investments depends in very large measure upon confidence in the national credit. I do not believe in giving national credit precedence' over human need. To do that would be a gross perversion of the objects of government. We must all agree, I think, with Edmund Burke that the true purpose of government is the provision of human wants. Without exaggerating the importance of the national credit, however, this like every other government, is compelled to recognize the relationship between public finance and private investment if it is to discharge faithfully its duty to reduce unemployment by the encouragement of private enterprise and the steady promotion of production and exchange. We must go as far as we prudently can with public expenditure, but at all times we must keen in view the effect of mounting debts and unbalanced budgets upon the normal expam sion of private employment.
A moment ago the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) suggested that he was not particularly impressed with the importance of balanced budgets. I have already said that at all times human need must be the first end and purpose of government, but I do suggest that, circumstances being as they are, it is taking a short view of the duty of the government to the people of Canada to assume that we can continue with unbalanced budgets and at the same time expect the cooperation of private and corporate enterprise in supplying more employment in this country. I do not think it is possible for any government to spend its way out of unemployment by vast expenditures on public works. I am sure, however, that it is possible for a government to spend its way into chaos by a policy of this character, continued over a long period of time.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Norman McLeod Rogers: 
Mr. BAKER:: How does the minister know that the farmers were prepared to take these men or wanted them?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I cannot answer as to that, of course, but I do know that under the farm placement scheme some thousands of men have been placed on the farms of western Canada. Up to this time there has not been a very large placement in other provinces. It must however be borne in mind that under

Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Rogers
the existing scheme only S5 per month per man is paid, but according to the figures I have just given $10 per month per man might have been paid to secure employment for that number of men.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Has the minister
made any inquiry how many farmers are in a position to board these men even with the $10 per month?


Norman McLeod Rogers: We are making continuous
inquiries along that line, working in cooperation with the provincial governments, and we have made it clear to them that sufficient sums are available to provide for large numbers of these men being absorbed in the western provinces. I do not suggest, and I do not think it is necessary for my argument to suggest, that these total numbers could have been absorbed at any one time. What I do say is that the condemnation of the relief camps is that they have not actually provided the maximum of relief, if you will, or of work, if you will, for these single homeless men.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What alternative has the
government for the relief camps?


Norman McLeod Rogers: In answer to that question I may say that I have given very serious thought to the whole problem of relief camps. I am not always sure of my judgment, but the more I have looked into the situation which now exists in the relief camps the more firmly have I been convinced that it is a wise policy to close them as quickly as may be possible, and I may say that when these camps are closed, as I believe they can be within the present year, it will be upon the basis of measures which I am certain will carry the confidence and support of the country and I hope, as well, of the vast majority of men who are in these camps.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not want to interrupt,
but would the minister be good enough to state to the house any precise ideas he may have as to what is going to be done with the young men when they come out of the camps? .


Norman McLeod Rogers: I can assure my hon. friend that the measures by which we propose to achieve that objective will be announced to the house in due course. I have no illusions myself as to the difficulty of the problem, but as I have stated before the only conclusion that can be drawn from any impartial study of the relief camp situation is that, whatever we may do in the future, this chapter ought to be brought to an end, and I have
sufficient faith to believe that if a thing ought to be done a way can be found to bring this about.
I have suggested that the true condemnation of the relief camps is that the government, so far as relief is .concerned, has not obtained fair value for its money, and that the criticism of these camps lies essentially in the realm of policy, and not in the domain of administration. One great difficulty is that the men who went into the relief camps brought nothing in with them and took nothing out with them. At the same time they were expected to work, because it is clear that one of the intentions behind this relief camp policy was to obtain public works through the instrumentality of the blank cheque legislation. I have not at this time a full statement of the public works that have been carried out under this policy, but I shall be pleased to bring it before the house at a later date. There can be no doubt whatsoever that one of the objects behind the relief camp policy was the provision of public works, and I am not at all convinced that these public works were in every case justified. I am inclined to think that in some cases they were somewhat in advance of the requirements of this country for the needs of national defence.
Possibly the house will be interested in a statement that I received some time ago regarding the age distribution of the men in these camps. The hon. member for Broadview spoke of the necessity of a policy for youth in relation to industry, education and employment. When I first became responsible in relation to these camps I was very much impressed by the ages of the men who were there. Upon the basis of a return made for this purpose I give to the house the following information:
Ages 18-21	 2,416
Ages 22-30	 4,698
Ages 31-40	 4,556
Ages 41-60	 6,425
Ages 61 and over	 804
18,899
I may say that these figures are for December 5, 1935. The present strength of the camps is in excess of 201)00, but there would not, I think, be any great variation in the' age distribution. There can be no doubt that the relief camps were designed originally to take care of one aspect of the problem facing the youth of this country. I am satisfied that they did not serve that purpose.
I see that my time has almost expired, but in conclusion, I should like to say a word or two on the general question of unemployment. As I said a while ago, we have reached
246	COMMONS
Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Rogers
the stage where it is possible and desirable to take an inventory of the existing situation. The taking of that inventory has not been simplified by what has happened during the past five years. I believe what is required above all else is visibility, a clear national focus on the entire problem. The Department of Labour is now taking a census of the unemployed on relief with a view to determining not only the age distribution but the occupational character of the unemployed at this time. I think that will at least put us in a position to establish our policies upon a much sounder basis than has been the case in recent years. What is also required in relation to this whole problem of unemployment relief is a new sense of direction which in the last resort is dependent upon better visibility.
The national employment commission will not be a body behind which this government will seek to hide from its responsibilities in regard to unemployment relief. Rather, it will be a body representative of the interest of the entire country in this vast problem. I believe firmly that this commission will be able to give us the direction which hitherto we have lacked. The house may rest assured that this government will not seek to conceal from hon. members or from the country at large the truth of the situation however unpalatable the facts may be. For my own part I think it is far better to summon courage to meet a task which we know to be difficult than to generate false optimism by underestimating the difficulty of the task that lies ahead.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with more than ordinary interest to the speech just delivered by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). This is the first time he has spoken in the house and as he occupies a very responsible position, I must say that I listened to his remarks with a great deal of disappointment. Although his speech was well put together and contained many fine phrases, when it. is stripped of all that, I wonder what hope it contains for the unemployed of the Dominion of Canada. I do not think all the hope he held out to-night will provide work for one man. Apparently his main idea is to allow private enterprise to have full sway, not to interfere with what private enterprise is doing, and to balance the budget. He believes that balancing the budget, at the behest of the heads of large companies and large corporations will partly solve some of the problems from which we are suffering at the present time. If the budget were balanced to-morrow I believe conditions would be worse than they are at the present time. De-

creased expenditures on the part of the government is likely to put more men and women out of work.


Mr. POULIOT:: Explain.


Abraham Albert Heaps: When you spend less money there is bound to be less employment.


Malcolm McLean: But incomes
might be higher.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Even though the government may be quite sincere in their efforts to balance the budget, I do not think they can do it. It cannot be done. To put the situation more precisely: If they intend paying out of current revenue all expenditures that should be charged against current expenditures, they cannot have a balanced budget. I do not think I am wrong when I say that during the past five years most of the expenditure for unemployment relief has been made from borrowings.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I did not say that balancing the budget must be placed above all other considerations, and I am in the judgment of the house when I make that correction. What I did say was that we should not ignore the ultimate consequences of continued unbalanced budgets. I repeat now that we have a clear recognition of our obligations with regard to this whole matter of unemployment.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There was difficulty in knowing precisely what the minister said because his speech was so full of high-sounding phrases and what might be called self-contradictions. At the beginning of his speech he said-I stand to be corrected if I am wrong-that if the old methods would not suffice, then we ought to look around for something new. Words to that effect were used by the minister. The only new thing he suggested was a 'balanced budget, which is to be balanced at the instigation of the heads of the large financial institutions. The government have faith in the heads of these large corporations that they will ultimately find some way of providing employment for people out of work at the present time.


An hon. MEMBER:: He did not say that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I think Hansard will show that he made a statement to that effect. I have jotted down some of the words he used. If a balanced budget would solve our problem, I would be in favour of a balanced budget. However, it will not do anything of the kind. Before the government speak of balancing their budget, they should remember that there are hundreds of thousands of heads of families who

Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Heaps
would like to see their budgets balanced. In fact, there are hundreds of thousands of heads of families who have no budget at all to balance, but who are to-day recipients of the dole in probably its worst form.
There is nothing in what the minister said that affords a ray of hope to these people. He said that we should put our faith in a commission, but I have no faith at all in commissions. If the government cannot find a solution for this problem, then no commission under the control of the government can find a remedy. Have not the government enough statistics? Have not the government enough facts before them with respect to the unemployment situation? It should not be necessary to appoint a commission to find out how great this problem is. Five or six years ago the" government of the day could not see this unemployment problem forming, but during the past six years every hon. member has been fully conversant with the situation. I think any government, no matter of what party, that takes control of the destinies of this nation should have a definite policy in this connection. Instead of a policy of action, we have at the present time a policy of inaction. We cannot find any policy of action in what was enunciated this afternoon and evening by the Minister of Labour. The proposal has been made to-day that the government should proceed with the erection of homes, but evidently the minister, speaking for the government, is opposed to this. He says that this should 'be left to private enterprise and initiative and that if necessary the government could come to the assistance of these private capitalists who might do something under the circumstances.
What has happened? Seven months ago the house passed a housing act, giving to private capital the incentive to build homes in Canada. Have they built homes? Have they gone ahead with a construction scheme in any part of the dominion? Certainly not. From a report tabled this afternoon I find that the total of loans approved since the act became operative amounts to approximately two-thirds of a million dollars. That does not mean that construction has proceeded to the extent represented by that sum. In other words, the government of the day gave to the private loan companies money at four per cent as an incentive to build homes; twenty per cent of the value of the homes was to be mortgaged by the federal government at the rate of interest referred to. We were told in the housing committee last year that the mortgage companies would supply funds at the rate of five and one-half per cent, and
the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley), who was piloting the bill through, expressed the hope that $20,000,000 worth of construction would be proceeded with by reason of the government subsidy to private interests as an inducement for them to finance home building. And yet, when we get the figures that have been tabled, we find that practically nothing worth speaking of has been done in the way of the construction of homes.
Private enterprise has got us into the chaos in which we find ourselves to-day, and now we are looking to private enterprise and initiative to get us out of it. This cannot be done, and sooner or later the government will be forced to the same conclusion as the previous government reached, that it is a case of control or chaos-government control or economic chaos. You cannot escape the necessity for more control rather than less control, as is evidently the policy of the present government.


Mr. DUFF:: Does the hon. gentleman
know how much private money was invested in homes in this country in 1935?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I cannot answer that question, but I remember very well that the representatives of the mortgage companies came to the housing committee last year and said that they were prepared to lend money at the rate I have mentioned, providing the government were willing to come through with a rate of four per cent, as they did. But since the money has been available very few have taken advantage of it, for the simple and obvious reason that no private company to-day can take care of the existing situation in regard to housing. There is at present an enormous housing deficiency from one end of the country to the other. Private enterprise cannot afford to erect these homes at such cost as the average person can pay; and in this country, if we are to tackle the problem, we shall have to tackle it in exactly the same way as it is dealt with in other countries; that is to say the government will be compelled to provide cheap money or we shall have to do without the homes.


William Duff: Does the hon. gentleman know how many homes were erected in Canada in 1935 and who paid for them?


Abraham Albert Heaps: No; perhaps the hon. member can tell the house.


William Duff: Yes, I can.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Proceed.


William Duff: No, it is your speech.
24S	COMMONS
Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Heaps


Abraham Albert Heaps: I know the hon. gentleman so well and the kind of questions he asks; that is the reason I asked him to answer his own question.


William Duff: You cannot answer me, can
you?
Mr. HEAPS. All I know is that very few homes have been erected. I am told that one house was erected in Regina last year, and perhaps there may be one or two more in the maritimes from which my hon. friend comes. At any rate, with the money available, only two-thirds of a million was asked for by the loan companies in Canada in the past six months.


William Duff: People do not want to take
government money.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I wish the hon. gentleman
would reserve those remarks for his own speech, and make his own speech in his own way. I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that if we are to tackle this problem it will have to be done by means of government money at a low rate of interest. In 1919 an act was passed in Canada with respect to housing, and that act I greatly prefer to the one passed in 1935. The unfortunate part of the 1919 act, however, was that when the money was loaned by the federal government to the provinces there was not sufficient federal supervision over the expenditure. In my opinion the government of the day ought to provide funds for housing purposes at a rate not exceeding three per cent. There is no reason why the government should not do so; I do not think there is any other self-liquidating project which governments can undertake than housing. The collateral in a housing scheme would be well worth the consideration of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) in collaboration with the officials of the Bank of Canada. If money were available at three per cent there would be witnessed a boom of construction right across the dominion; but if private mortgage companies are to loan the money at the rates they now ask of five or five and one-half per cent, then I am afraid very few houses will be built in this country.
The minister has said that the government realize their responsibility to the unemployed. I wonder to what extent they appreciate that responsibility. Is that responsibility discharged by the appointment of a commission to investigate matters that have already been many times investigated? I do not think that is the way to deal with the problem. The problem can be dealt with in one of two ways: either the government ought to

provide work, or, if it is not in a position to create employment by means of public works, then it ought to find other methods of increasing productive employment and distributing the work among those who are willing to perform a useful function in society. That would mean a drastic reduction in hours of labour and a notable increase in productive capacity, and when we have reached that stage of increasing productive capacity we ought also to increase the consumptive opportunities of the people in proper ratio. Whether the government will do that, I cannot say, but for the dim and distant future they have some policy of coping with the situation.
The minister admits that it is the duty of the government to reduce unemployment. Quite true; but what is there in his speech that would indicate what policy the government have for reducing unemployment? None whatsoever; and I think, as was indicated in the speech from the throne and as well this evening by the Minister of Labour, there is no greater responsibility that rests upon the government and this house than that of dealing definitely and without hesitation with this great and growing menace of unemployment in Canada.
The problem of youth has been mentioned -a very important aspect of our whole national problem. Was there a ray of hope for the youth of the country in the speech delivered by the minister? None at all, except the ultimate closing down of the camps. That is something regarding which I am in hearty agreement with the minister, but at the same time I should like to know what alternative there is for these young men when the camps are closed down. Again, we are told that if we only wait, if we only have patience, in the distant future we shall get some idea of what the government's policy is in this regard.
And then the minister wanted an inventory of the whole situation. I think we have a pretty good idea of what the situation is. I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), speaking in the house last week, indicated that there were about 400,000 men out of work. If that was the estimate given, and if it is our duty as a parliament to -grapple with the problem of unemployment, wbat are we going to do with the 400.000 who are out of work at the present time? A section of them comprises the construction industry of this country, men engaged in the building trades, vast numbers of whom have not had a day's work probably for years. They had hopes and visions that by a comprehensive housing scheme something might be done on

Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Heaps
their behalf. But no, not even a housing scheme is to be considered, because we have to take into consideration the financial standing of the country. Speaking this afternoon from his seat in the house, the first minister made what I may describe as an unusual kind of statement. It was very terse, .probably to the point, and I do not know whether it did not even contain .the semblance of a threat. He told the house that we have to consider the commitments of .parliament and that very soon these commitments will be submitted to the house, 'and he left the impression on my mind and probably on the minds of other hon. members that there was something in those commitments that would almost make our flesh creep when we knew the actual facts. He warned the house further that these private members' resolutions ought to be spoken to but not voted upon; that if we went so far as to vote on these motions, the question whether they were in order would have to be considered; that they were recommendations for money expenditures; that resolutions involving expenditures were the prerogative of the government, and that only a government member was allowed to bring in resolutions dealing with money expenditures. In other words, if we did not behave ourselves and if in particular the private members of the Liberal party did not behave themselves, they would not have the opportunity of even discussing these questions, because possibly they might be asked at some time on a point of order to vote against themselves and put a gag on themselves. I do not know whether I have correctly interpreted the statement that was made by the Prime Minister. If I have not, of course I will apologize to him.
There has been talk from the Liberal side of the house about clearance of the slums. So long as we have poverty we are going to have slum conditions; the two are inseparable. And while I am anxious and desire to see slum conditions ended as soon as possible, I think the cheapest and quickest way of doing away with slum conditions would be to build cheap homes, wholesome homes, homes that could be rented at a very low price, one within the reach of the average man who is compelled to work for wages. That means, of course, something fundamentally different from what we have hitherto done in the House of Commons. I realize it would be a complete departure from many things we have formerly done. I know of some municipalities that would be quite willing to undertake a scheme of this character if cheap money were available. When I say cheap .money I mean money at about three per cent; even at three per cent there
would be a good profit for those who handle the money end. After all, money can be handled by banks and similar institutions for, I think, one half of one per cent. All above one per cent is profit, for I know, with the housing schemes we had in. Winnipeg under the act of 1919, and a differential of one per cent between what the city was able to borrow the money at, and the rate the money was loaned to prospective owners of homes, the Winnipeg housing commission was able to show each year since the inception of the scheme, fourteen or fifteen years ago, a profit, even during the depression period, of about $12,000 to $14,000. So if money were available at three per cent, as compared with the six per cent that was paid for it in 1919 and 1920, I think a success could be made of any housing scheme.
I am extremely sorry to have observed the attitude which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) has taken toward this particular issue this evening. I hoped, as others on this side of the house hoped, that he came into the house with some radical leanings. His speech this afternoon could have been given by a good Tory, and a "Tory would not have had to object to what he said. It was a type of speech which I did not expect from the Minister of Labour, because, having read some of his writings and known some of the things he preached in the past, I hoped for something better from him when he came to deal with labour problems. I know his heart is as sympathetic to the unemployed as my own or that of any other hon. member. It is not sympathy that the unemployed of the country are looking for at the present time; it is action, and action they have not received. There is all the difference in the world between the two. I want to see this government take action. I will support any measure that it proposes which means doing something toward solving or helping to solve the problem of unemployment. But the speech we listened to this afternoon contained very little in the way of encouragement for people who are out of work. I hope the slip the minister made this afternoon and this evening is just temporary. I think he has been awed somewhat by the newness of his surroundings. What the Prime Minister said this afternoon about the commitments of this country and the balancing of the budget must have overawed the Minister of Labour and got the better of his sympathies and even of his judgment.


Mr. FAFARD:: I think it did spoil your own speech.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It could not spoil my speech. But I am rather disappointed. I feel that the
250	COMMONS
Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Bradette
government, after all that was promised in the election, with all the hopes that its members held out about action if they were returned to power, has dissipated those hopes through the speech made to-day by the Minister of Labour. I hope this is only temporary, and the next time he comes to the house and deals with labour problems he will show not only a more sympathetic attitude toward those problems of the workers of this country, but also a greater preparedness to do something definite on their behalf.


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane):: Unlike the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), I think the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) should be sincerely complimented upon his maiden speech. He has shown a true knowledge of the actual situation; he has shown depth, width and breadth. The hon. member for Winnipeg North is sitting very close in the house to a group of men who I have no doubt are very sincere, but who have made promises which it will take them a very long time to live up to. The times of promises are passed. We are getting action from the present government.
I want to say a few complimentary words in regard to the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), for giving the house an opportunity of speaking in a general way on matters pertaining to the nation as a whole, matters in which not only every hon. member but every citizen of this wonderful country are deeply interested at the moment. First of all I want to say a few words about housing. This is not a new thing in Canada. Immediately after the war, in 1919, a housing scheme was inaugurated, and we have the experience gained at that time to guide us now. That was not absolutely without flaws, however; no later than last Saturday I received a letter from a friend of mine, a good doctor who practises in the town of Cochrane, who built a house under that 1919 scheme. He told me that a writ was going to be issued for the sum of SI,225, representing back payment under that housing scheme, back interest and municipal taxes. In a word that man is going to lose his home, all because the scheme of 1919 was not properly studied, and because the costs of 'building material were too high. The same situation exists in many other cases. I was astonished to hear the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) say that the housing scheme had been a complete success in Winnipeg.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Absolutely.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It was not a success in a good many cities and towns in Ontario.

I could mention many constituencies represented by hon. members in which there were many failures, and that applies perhaps more particularly to my section of the country. No doubt the late government took a step in the right direction last year in inaugurating a housing scheme; no doubt that scheme could be enlarged and improved, but that will never be done by promises or the waving of hands.
This afternoon the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Plaxton) mentioned that the housing scheme in England had been a huge success, and was one of the main reasons why Great Britain is on an even keel at the present time. That is only partly true; we all know there is a great difference of opinion among those who have studied the housing scheme in England and grave errors were made when that scheme was inaugurated, and the same applies to Canada. No doubt the discussion here to-day, which has been maintained on a very high plane, will bring about some good results. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Mac-phail) this afternoon rightly mentioned that the farmers and settlers of this country should also be included under any such scheme. It is all very well to visualize the slums of the big cities; it is easy to put our fingers on them. If it were possible, however, to get the poor little habitations of the rural sections of northern Ontario grouped together you would see much worse slum conditions than you have in any city of Canada, and I believe those people deserve consideration under any housing scheme.
In this connection we also ask the government whether it would not be possible to help the dwelling situation among our farmers by extending the operations of the farm loan act. In my files in my office in this building I have hundreds of letters from farmers who have their deeded land in northern Ontario and who have made application to the farm loan board. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred they have been turned down, for no apparent reason at all. In some cases they received letters two or three months after their applications were filed; after that lapse of time their fees were returned and they were told that, after inspection, the government did not find it possible to loan them any money. I remember last year when the then Minister of Finance, presenting an amendment to the farm loan act, asked parliament to vote $90,000,000, and at that time he said that if this amount should become exhausted another $90,000,000 would be voted. We supported that measure with both hands, but I do not believe it has been of as much

Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Bradette
benefit as it was expected to be. I will take another opportunity to place before parliament and the country the actual situation that has been created among the farmers of this land.
I should like also to say a very few words with regard to reforestation, with which I should like to combine the preservation of our forests. In the Ontario legislature, whether on the opposition or on the government side, I always maintained that the Ontario fire rangers should be employed all the year round. I believe the same principle that is applied to medicine should be applied to our forests, that prevention is better than cure. It should be possible to have thousands of our young men employed in the preservation of our forests during the dangerous time of the year, and to have those young men also employed in replanting and reforestation in every province of this confederation. I also fervently hope parliament and the government will find it possible to bring about fair prices for our forest products. It may be a revelation to a good many hon. members to learn that, except in the years 1917 and 1918, so far as northern Ontario is concerned there never has been a settler, a farmer or a small forest owner who has made any money out of forest production. The moment that you are able to create new markets or the moment you make it possible for these farmers to develop their own forest holdings at remunerative prices you will find that they will need very little protection, because they will see the advantage of looking after their holdings, and will husband every tree on their holdings.
I should like to say a few words also with regard to the land settlement scheme which has been, mentioned by the hon. member for Broadview. That is a moot question, not only in this but also in every other country throughout the civilized world. We realize that our civilization has tried to expand in only one way, industrially, and this statement applies with great force to Canada. Only two years ago I read an article in Saturday Night which asked whether it would not be better for Canada to become more and more an industrial rather than an agricultural country. As far as nature and climatic conditions are concerned, kind providence wants this to be primarily an agricultural country. That fact cannot be denied, but we have falsified the true state of affairs. See what has happened in this, as wel as in every other country, in the last twenty years. The young people from the rural communities have found their way to the urban centres, and to-day all governments are putting their
ears to the ground and thoroughly studying the agricultural situation, in an endeavour to get people to go back to the land.
I well remember when in 1930 the then Minister of Labour, who by the way is a personal friend and neighbour of mine, inaugurated a back to the land movement. I told the minister at that time that I was absolutely in favour of such a movement, but when in 1931 he told the House of Commons that thousands of people had been placed back on the land without the expenditure of public money from either the federal or the provincial treasury, I told him the thing was absolutely impossible. In that year, however, the government inaugurated the Gordon plan, and in very large measure I have upheld the principles of that plan. I believe in my riding this land settlement scheme has progressed further than in perhaps any other riding in Canada. I have hundreds of these people near Matheson, Iroquois Falls, Cochrane, Kapuskasing and Hearst. I am primarily a pioneer myself; I went to northern Ontario over thirty years ago, so I am reasonably familiar with the present situation. These were very fine people who were taken from their former surroundings under a movement inaugurated by the federal government and assisted by the provinces and municipalities, but their troubles are not over. It is true that the federal government, the provincial government and the municipality each contributed $200 to establish each family on the land, but let me remind the house that two years ago I told the then Prime Minister that when this money was spent these people would be worse off than they were before settling on the land, and that the federal government would find it necessary at the end of that period of time to continue to help these settlers. These people who have been affected by the back to the land movement are practically the wards of the present government. Many of them, unless help is given to them will have to give up what they have begun and lose the fruit of their work of the last three years. It will be found absolutely impossible for ninety-five per cent of them-and I make this statement deliberately-to get along, and they will have to get away from their present holdings. At the present time the municipalities have washed their hands of the situation, and the responsibility is placed on the door step of the federal government.
We are living in strenuous times. Sometimes we are astonished to hear statements such as that made by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), for example, who said only a few days ago in this House of
252	COMMONS
Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Bradette
Commons that for the first time young people were represented in parliament. Surely he did not mean that. Surely a member of parliament worthy of the name represents not only the old and the young people in his constituency, but all classes including youth, middle age and old age. Every man sitting in the House of Commons is fully seized of the exact situation.


Miss MACPHAIL:: What about the two women ?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: They are certainly included, I must assure the hon. member, with great gusto, and I sincerely regret the involuntary omission. We are seized of the facts as to the serious situation of the people, and we all agree that if there is one class in full contact with all classes then certainly it is the members of parliament. I am leaving no one out of the picture. Each of us receives dozens of letters every day from people who are suffering. We do not throw these letters aside; we do not say that we represent only one class. We represent all classes of people, the whole population in our respective constituencies.
I shall have further opportunity to speak about the land settlement scheme, but there is one thing I should like to make clear: So far as northern Ontario is concerned we want no more people from southern Ontario, under either the Gordon or any other plan, until such time as we rationalize colonization and agriculture, and make the present occupants prosperous. Farming is a vocation; it is a calling from the heart. A man's inclination must be natural; he must be ready and willing to sacrifice if he is to become and remain a farmer. New people were brought to the land under these schemes, and the present holders of new sections in our own country, although they were courageous and enterprising, are not prosperous. The primary duty of a government, whether it be provincial or federal, is to render prosperous the actual settlers on the land. That would be the best possible kind of advertising, and the best possible scheme. I believe that principle could be easily applied. So far as I am concerned, using my own energy, directing my attention to the present provincial government in Toronto and also making application to the federal government, I believe we must of necessity rationalize our viewpoint and our policy, so far as colonization and agriculture in Canada are concerned.
I believe it would be worth while if the federal government would create a central fund whereby it would be possible to foster land clearing and ploughing. That would be the best possible way to keep our settlers off

the relief lists. In the past we have dealt artificially with our industries. Every one knows that we have exempted them from certain things, and have given them the protection of high tariff barriers, concessions, privileges and tax exemptions. During all this time, in most cases agriculture and colonization were left to themselves. To-day if we wish to have prosperity back in Canada we must deal properly with the primary producers, the farmers of this country. If they cannot be prosperous we can never have prosperity. That problem is possible of solution, because we are working with a class of people who are most reasonable, most thrifty and most industrious. All they want is a chance. They want a chance-not to have luxury, not to have great comforts, but only to have a decent living, and a chance to succeed.
I wish to make only one or two further observations which are in my mind at the present time and which can easily be coupled with the back to the land movement. I have spoken about immigration. I was highly elated this afternoon when the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) referred to immigration and stated that he was against it. At this time there is a movement on foot to bring in more fine people from some other lands. The time has not yet arrived for such a movement; I do not think it will arrive for many years to come and as far as I am personally concerned I never want it again. I know the rural situation, and I can well remember the protestations of the hon. member for Grey-Bruee (Miss Macphail) and other hon. members in the group to which she belongs when my party maintained an extensive policy of immigration years ago. Sitting in the far corner of the house, as a new member, I protested. No matter what any hon. member may have to say about bringing thousands of new immigrants to this country, I say that we have no place for them at the present time. What would we do for them? I remember a previous immigration, policy, when we had people coming from central Europe and from Great Britain. At that time we tried to put them on the land, but I wonder how many of them stayed there. Not two per cent of them stayed on the land. Ninety-eight per cent of them found their way to the industrial centres of Canada, and many reached the United States. I well remember the late Minister of Trade and Commerce, for whom I have the greatest respect, deploring the fact that our university graduates and craftsmen and artists could not find fruitful occupations in Canada, and had to go to the United States, a condition which was brought about to a

Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Hayhurst
great extent by the immigration policy of the government. All parties in the past sinned in that regard, and I fervently hope that these actions will not recur.
Last fall I attended a meeting of a board of trade in northern Ontario. It was held in the Porcupine section, where at the present time we have the greatest gold mining development in the world. In that section thousands of people are finding fruitful occupation. At the meeting the question arose as to what would become of the young men and young women in the Porcupine section, one of the most prosperous in Canada and possibly in the whole civilized world. Mr. John Knox, general superintendent of the Hollinger mine, made the statement that that mine had been in existence for a quarter of a century. Mr. Knox considered it was the duty of the administration of the mines primarily to find employment for the young people in the Timmins district, for the sons of those men who had given many years of good service. I say that it would be unfair to Canadians if we were to entice people from other countries to come to Canada, unless we found it possible to give to our present population plenty of fruitful occupation, also means to build homes and the opportunity to live as they would like to live.
A few days ago I happened to be present to witness the progress of a great movement which, I believe, is a step in the right direction. I never like to make comparisons between provinces, because after all we are all Canadians. However I happened to be in the province of Quebec and to witness a trainload of men being sent to the new settlement in northern Quebec. When I looked at those men I thought to myself that history was being written in big black letters; that our present civilization was trying to rectify conditions and to place back into its proper setting that part of the population which should never have gone into the urban centres. Later on I went to the Abitibi section, to Timiskaming, and to lake St. John. There I saw what the government was doing for these settlers. Not that I am in love with too much paternalism. Some might be inclined to ask what has become of the pioneer spirit of the Loyalists who colonized Ontario, and my ancestors who colonized the north shore of the St. Lawrence river. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that their descendants have just as much courage as their forefathers, but they are facing a different situation to-day, and in the new centres of colonization we now find the government, providing employment, building churches, Protestant and Catholic, paying
the priests and ministers, building schools, all out of the provincial treasury. I have been a settler myself; I know the struggles that these people must go through until they begin to prosper on their new holdings, and I am speaking of them to-night because' I want parliament to be fully seized of their situation. I believe there is hope in the present situation. Humanity has suffered much in the last five 'years, and I want to give all due credit to the late Prime Minister. Nobody can accuse him of being asleep at the switch for he has worked twenty-four hours a day for the last five years. But just the same there is not a Canadian who is satisfied with the present situation. We are all wanting a solution of our problems, and we know that it cannot be brought about by any simple formula. But when you see provincial governments working in cooperation with the federal government and know that this government is fully seized of the situation-and we all remember its back to the land movement of a few years ago-I believe, knowing our fine population as I do, that if we will all combine our energies our country wfill eventually emerge from this depression, regain the prosperity she enjoyed in previous years, and experience fuller days of progressiveness, of self-reliance, and of a fuller life for the whole nation.


Mr. WILIAM HAYHURST (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to speak from this comer of the house this evening. It is a new experience for me to address the house, and I venture upon it with diffidence and modesty. But we feel that we in this part of the chamber have a new philosophy to offer.
My sympathy is with the government in the problems with which it is faced, and I should like to congratulate the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) most heartily upon the very able manner in which he has put forward his ideas, but at the same time I feel that they will not solve the problem with which we are faced, that of scarcity in the midst of plenty. As was said by the great Shakespeare, "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves, that we are underlings." It has been said by the Dean of Canterbury that the social crediters embody the best aspirations of the Conservatives, the Liberals, and the socialists, and so I would say that we are sitting in a very enviable position in this house inspired as we are to carry out the great ideals enunciated by the Dean of Canterbury.
The nations that feed and clothe and shelter their inhabitants will stand out as shining examples to the rest of the world.
254	COMMONS
Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Hayhurst
We believe a new age is being ushered in, and because of that we believe Canada should adopt the new idealism or the new economics, that we may usher in a new philosophy whereby this enigma of poverty in the midst of plenty may'be solved.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) has said that this government does not believe it can end unemployment by its own unaided efforts. We believe that also. We contend that we should combine our forces against scarcity. The minister also said that the relief camps should be closed. We also think they should be closed and the men who have been living in them should be given a more decent and a better standard of living. We are all of us striving for a higher standard of living, and that is what the social credit people stand for.
Speaking at Kingston the Minister of Labour used these words, as reported in the Whig Standard:
Unemployment is not going to vanish in the twinkling of an eye, and it is impossible for any government to deal with it on that basis. Recovery rests on the primary industries and on raising the purchasing power of the workers in those industries.
In reply to that I would say that unemployment has increased even in times of industrial activity. As the president of the Bank of Nova Scotia said in his annual address to the shareholders, we cannot begin to absorb the army of unemployed, even if we went back to the degree of industrial activity that we had in 1929. We are firmly convinced that unemployment has been brought upon the world by the industrial and mechanical genius of man; that this scientific age has brought us into a new era, and that we need a new economics to solve the problem of unemployment.
That large numbers of people will never be able to find work is probably true. We do not think work is necessarily a virtue. We believe men and women should have more time to think out their problems and leisure is something for which we should all strive. Our scientists have been working day and night in order that we might be relieved of unnecessary labour and drudgery, and we believe in ushering in an age of leisure, rather than an age of employment as it is often spoken of, believing that man must not necessarily work, but that he should be paid, and that instead of employment we should use the term "empayment." We believe everyone should be paid. We believe in citizenship; that men and women, boys and girls, are the real asset of any nation; that we should do what we can in this great
. 
dominion to release them from the idea of scarcity, from the fear regarding to-morrow's dinner pail, and that they should be provided with housing accommodation such as is recommended in the resolution now before us. We have the materials, the lumber, and the men. All the materials are at hand, and all we need to do is to put them together.
The present monetary system is suffering from a lack of tickets. It is a system controlled by a certain policy which is in the interests of financiers. We believe we should control the money policy for the welfare of mankind. It does seem ridiculous to me that we, an intelligent people, should allow financial autocracy to rule us when all we need to do is to control this ticket system.
The Minister of Labour has said that we should not spend our way into chaos. We believe it is ridiculous, of course, to think of debt creation, if that is what he means by spending our way into chaos. Chaos was a a great word used by the Liberal party in the campaign in Alberta, where their slogan was. "Vote for King or chaos," and I suppose that is what the minister is thinking of. We believe the debt creating system, as it is understood to-day by modern financiers, leads to nothing but chaos. If we control our credit we can give everyone the necessities of life. We have solved the problem of production and the only trouble to-day is that we have not solved the problem of paying people. We believe every individual as a citizen of Canada is entitled to be paid, whether at work or not. Lord Bryce said that money power was man's most dangerous and insidious enemy. Many of our great economists, including Arthur Kitson and some of the great German economists, have said that international money power as controlled by the international bank of settlements at Geneva .must cease, otherwise we shall always live in poverty, or large numbers of our people will be living in poverty with their children in neglect. I have been a school teacher most of my lifetime and I realize that many of our young people have no opportunities whatever under the present silly system. Our young people should be our real wealth and they should be given opportunities in life. The older people should be pensioned off. We believe real wealth consists of goods, lands and property and that should be monetized if we are to use the term " money."
There seems to be dawning a tremendous era of money manipulation. For instance, in England they are planning, to manipulate their money system in order to bring into

Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Hay hurst
being a two billion dollar war machine. Where will they get the money from? We know it will be merely a debt creating system upon which they will be expected to pay interest. Such subtle money manipulations will lead ultimately to disaster. We believe we are at the crossroads of history and we must go forward or go under. We have struggled for political liberty; we have struggled for personal liberty, but we feel we are endangered to-day by the possibility of financial slavery. We should struggle for financial liberty and freedom; that is our business here. We are ready to cooperate with anyone who will look into the future and endeavour to free mankind from this slavery to the banks.
Unemployment has been mentioned this evening. It would seem that the proof of scientific progress is the increasing mastery of man over nature in order to put men out of work. Ideas sometimes can become as powerful as chains of steel. As we see the situation, the world to-day is in the grip of a nightmare and unless we break away from this evil spell of false convictions, the nightmare will continue. We feel that to-day we have a wastage of youth, a wastage of commodities and a wastage of machines. Hon. members may not believe this, but I ask them to go out to Alberta and see the tractors lying idle behind the barbed wire fences. There are more machines idle to-day -than there are idle men. We are talking about unemployment but we should be thinking of putting our machines to work and giving our people more liberty. What is physically possible should be financially possible. To-day we feel that the big fish are eating the little fish; the little fish eat the minnows and sometimes I think the farmers in the west are the minnows.
We agree that the slums should be abolished. I have before me a little article on the abolition of these slums. In reviewing the progress made in housing, one hon. member mentioned Great Britain. Sir Halton Young has said that although between 1918 and 1933 the number of inhabited houses had increased by 1,363,000, this did not produce the expected filtering of population and the automatic disappearance of the slums and overcrowding, the reason of course being that the slum tenants could not pay the rents. This slum problem is a good example of the glaring defects in our economic system. There is something peculiarly dreadful in the thought of these acres of squalor in the large cities. It is not only in the large cities, because in the rural areas of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta you will find some of the most appalling conditions. You will find men and women living in habitations not fit for their dogs.
Such a condition should rankle in the national conscience; it should rankle in the minds of all good thinking people. We must do something to solve this problem. I do not th'ink there is one hon. member who does not believe we have the labour, the materials and the mechanical skill necessary to do this work. In fact, we have all the resources at our command, but still the slums remain. It is only a matter of a little bookkeeping, but because of our curious habit of charging capital costs into prices we cannot build houses to rent at amounts within the spending power of the poorer classes. However, by adjusting costs and distributing national dividends to the tenants by means of new material created for the purpose and not issued as a debt to the banks we could solve the slum problem with the greatest of ease. What did Major Douglas say with regard to the control of finance as we have it to-day? We have two systems, the productive and the financial, and this is what Major Douglas has to say:
Most people thought that, in some mysterious way, when wealth was produced money was produced. On the contrary, we could produce real wealth of every kind until we were black in the face and we would not produce one penny of purchasing power. This separation of the economic system into a production system and a financial system was the first step toward an understanding of the situation.
It is a delusion that money of itself is something of worth-the real wealth is goods. People have the idea that money is something born of blood and tears, and therefore it is valuable. Being a new speaker, I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the house, but I should like to give a few words of Arthur Kitson upon this great subject:
The post-war period ushered in an entirely new era, unlike any former period of the world's history; a period in which man's inventive genius has placed within mankind's reach boundless wealth, sufficient for every inhabitant of this planet to enjoy life without encroaching upon supplies needed by any of his fellows; a period in which nature's powers have been harnessed to machinery for furnishing all the necessaries and most of the so-called luxuries of life. And yet amidst all this abundance, we are inundated with myriads of starving, ragged people living in hovels, all because our officials have not the intelligence to see that the old economic theories have become fallacies, the old monetary and banking systems unworkable, and that just as our productive methods to which we owe this age of plenty have been revolutionized, so our entire economic system must be reorganized.


Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie):: Being of a retiring nature, I am
always hesitant about entering any debate. It certainly was not my intention to say anything on the resolution presented by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), but after listening to his presentation and the
256	COMMONS
Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Leader
words .from our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), I am inclined to think this is an opportune time for any member who represents a part of this dominion to bring his views before the house.
I am not going to discuss a number of questions, many of which have been brought before us this afternoon and evening, but I do want to say something about a certain matter with which I am very intimately connected. At the same time I want to offer friendly if not valuable suggestions to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). I take it that this policy of the present government is only in its formulative stage, and that they will welcome any suggestions that any member can bring forward which will help them in drafting a proper policy.
I think I should be remiss in my duties if I did not take advantage of this opportunity to speak to-night, and the particular phase of the subject which I would discuss is the farm placement plan. Hon. members may not know it, but I would inform them that I am what is called a working farmer. I have lived all my life on the farm and I should know something about the conditions. Now as regards unemployment, that has never given me very much concern personally; I was always able to find employment on the farm; in fact, the problem that bothered me was to find time to perform the work I had set before me. At the same time I realize that unemployment is the greatest problem we have to deal with in Canada to-day, and so I will say something about the farm placement plan which I believe was inaugurated by the late government.
As hon. members know, this policy provides So a month for any man willing to take a chance and work for a farmer. Originally I believe it provided $5 a month also for the farmer, to compensate him for the man's board, but that was discontinued; I do not know why, but I have heard it suggested that it had become a racket. I do not know whether that is true, but I have made inquiries in my own province, and so far as Manitoba is concerned I am informed by the government that there was very little abuse connected with the farm placement scheme as it affected that province. But even if a little abuse did exist, all the benefits that have been derived from that policy counterbalance any abuses that could possibly creep in. At any rate, the policy of paying the farmer So a month was discontinued and so we have only the policy of $5 a month for the man who will work on the farm. From my information I gather that this is the most effective and most economical

form of farm relief; that was the information disclosed to the convention of United Farmers at Portage la Prairie last fall.
I would therefore submit a suggestion to the Minister of Labour, who referred to this subject this afternoon; indeed, I would not have entered the debate had he not said that the government could pay $10 a month to these men and save money in connection with the expenses involved in the maintenance of the relief camps. In my opinion we could pay a man $10 a month to work for a farmer and the farmer $10 a month for boarding the man! Some may question the wisdom of allowing the farmer $10 a month for board. Well, I come from a farm and I know conditions there; as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) suggested there are many farmers who cannot afford to board a man, and board is worth at least $10 a month even on a farm. That is why I suggest that the government, when taking this policy into consideration, should not only pay $10 to the man going to work on the farm but also pay the farmer $10 for boarding the man.
We learned at the convention at Portage la Prairie that approximately 4,000 farm hands were placed on farms in Manitoba last year. I believe we could place 10,000 farm hands among the farmers of that province if the scheme I suggest were carried out. To those who would object to paying the farmer $10 a month in compensation for board, I would point out that this would add that much' more purchasing power to the farmer, whose purchasing power was never at a lower ebb; and this money would be spent in the local districts to pay store bills and to carry on business in their own districts throughout Canada, instead of the money going, as most of it now does, to some wholesale firm or some other concern where it is more centralized and not distributed over the whole country, as it is very desirable it should be.
Now, how would this affect unemployment? I think it would cure unemployment in so far as you would keep these men out of the cities. And I would not limit this to the man who never was on a farm in his life. Under the . present form of relief these men must declare, in the document they are required to sign, that they have no homes; that they have no places to go; that they have no money; and then they are taken care of. If they have made money during the summer they are precluded from enjoying the benefits of this scheme. If they are under sixteen years of age they are prohibited from enjoying its benefits. I had a case up at Portage la Prairie where the farmer appealed to me, saying that his

Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Woodsworth
application for a sixteen year old boy was turned down, although he was, the farmer told me, one of the best men he ever had on his farm. The boy had no other place to go; his parents were on relief; and just because the farmer put in his age at sixteen the application was denied. I am glad to say that after the matter was taken up with the Manitoba government, they in turn perhaps having submitted it to this government at Ottawa, he was allowed to stay on the farm where the farmer thought he was the best man he ever had.
There should be more elasticity about these applications. I had another case submitted to me in which a farmer's application was turned down simply because the man had made $120 during the summer. That should not be held against a man. If he was industrious enough to get out and earn $120 during the summer he had a perfect right to be taken care of during the winter time; and I know from information I got that $60 of the money he had earned had gone to his father and mother to help them. Yet his application was turned down. I have not heard whether the government has since been able to accept that application, but I think it is a crime if a man who is willing to work is not allowed to take advantage of this plan.
I said a moment ago that this is the most economical form of relief. Take 10,000 men; give them $10 apiece; pay the farmer $10 for boarding them, and it would cost you about $200,000. At any rate, it is $20 per man. I was not a member of this house last year, but I took Hansard; I tried to read it religiously and I found out that the cost of keeping each man in the relief camps was at least $39 a month. It has been said that the relief camps are not desirable, and I believe it is a blot upon this nation that we have to maintain them. But we can pay these men, $10 a month and the farmers $10 a month for boarding them, and yet cut in two the cost of keeping these men.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask my hon. friend a question: how many thousand men did he say?


Harry Leader: Ten thousand.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Twenty dollars a month for twelve months would be-?


Harry Leader: Ten thousand men at $20 apiece would be $200,000. But the point I wanted to make was that by taking these men out of the relief camps and putting them on the farms we would be maintaining them at just half what it is costing the taxpayers of this country at the present time. That
is a consideration. I commend this plan to the Minister of Labour and I want to tell him that there is lots of power behind him. I have talked to hundreds of farmers in my district who would be willing to take one and perhaps two of these men, but who cannot afford to board them; and I know whereof I speak. When you consider that last year most of the province of Manitoba had scarcely a bushel of wheat; that thousands of acres were burned up on their fields, that for many of these men it is the only cash crop they have every year and that they did not get a dollar, I know it is the absolute truth that they cannot afford to board these men. I submitted this resolution to the United Farmers of Manitoba at their convention held in my own city of Portage la Prairie and I am glad to say that it was adopted unanimously. I say to the Minister of Labour that I believe this plan is well worthy of his support. If we can cut the cost of maintaining our single unemployed on relief and keep them on the land we shall be doing good business for the men and the people of this country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It seems to me that in many ways this is a rather important debate. Possibly the terms of the resolution are too broad; but the resolution does seek to bring together two important phases in our present life; that is, the public services which we should have in this country, and the great question of unemployment. These two ought to be linked together. That is the underlying principle of the resolution. Further than that the resolution is important because it has drawn from the government some little indication of the attitude of the government with regard to these outstanding problems. I am not sure that most of us are very well satisfied with the position of the government. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was quite willing that we should study the situation. That is precisely the attitude which he held during the nine years the Liberals were formerly in power. I am glad in some ways that we had an opportunity of studying a number of questions in that time-unemployment insurance, old age pensions, minimum wage and so on. We discussed a number of those questions in the house. Study, study, study! Committees brought in reports; with regard to other matters commissions reported, but very little was done in those long nine years. Conditions grew steadily worse with regard to unemployment.
Members who have been long in the house can remember very distinctly how just before

258	COMMONS
Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Woodsworth
the Conservative government came into power we emphasized the need of solving this problem of unemployment. At that time the government took the position that there was not really very much unemployment, and what there was could be readily looked after by the provinces and the municipalities. So we waited, and because of the long delay the people grew tired. They said: It is time for a change, and the Conservatives came in. During the Conservative regime, while the present government was in opposition, bon gentlemen opposite had ample time to study this great problem. It is quite true that they did not put forward in any very concrete form what their alternatives to the government policies really were, but surely they had time to study the question; they had time to gain some idea as to what they would do under present circumstances. Yet now at the beginning of this session, after the government has been in power for some months, all we can get from the Prime Minister is that we are to have an opportunity of studying the question somewhat further and that it would not do to embarrass the government; we must give them time.


Mr. YIEN:: Is it not a fact that in 1922, when the Liberal government took office, there was a crisis, but that conditions gradually improved until we reached a wave of prosperity in 1927, 1928 and 1929, and that the crisis of unemployment began to be felt only late in 1929?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is quite true that there was a certain period of relative prosperity, but I hope the government will not take full credit for all that. Then, as we all know, the depression came on, and during all that time there was acute unemployment in large sections of this country.


Thomas Vien: Not before 1929.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, before 1929.


Thomas Vien: Not acute and not widespread.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It was very widespread latterly; it gradually grew, but we had unemployment, as will be shown by the appointment of committees to study the question at that time. That was very clearly recognized by all members.
Again the Prime Minister would suggest cooperation between the dominion government and the provinces. That is all very well, but we have had attempts at that in the past, and when we come to matters of this kind we all know that a number of the provincial governments are on the verge of bankruptcy and that a number of the municipalities are

actually bankrupt. So cooperation will not get us very far unless we have some way of financing these undertakings. As I understood the matter the Prime Minister had gradually come to the point of regarding unemployment as a national problem; he so announced it, yet apparently now we are to be thrown back on the idea that in some way, through cooperation between the dominion and the provinces, we are going to solve the problem.
He tells us now to wait until the government see what their commitments really are. Well, supposing we do wait and then discover that the government have very heavy commitments, as we all know now without waiting any longer. What then? What does the Prime Minister propose to do then? It is barely possible that there may come a little bit of temporary prosperity, a slight upward rise of the curve, but I think anyone who has studied the matter carefully will not consider that any such slight increase in prosperity will solve this problem of unemployment. Then what are we to do? That is the question, and we might as well face it now. It seems to me that it is obviously the duty of the government not to wait and not to ask the house to wait before attempting to outline a program that will solve these problems.
I looked forward with a great deal of interest to the speech of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). I think we all recognized his sincerity and his ability. I was glad that he suggested that none of us should impute motives to others; that we should all recognize that we are anxious, each in his own way, to solve this problem. But he further suggested that certain people in this house were rather inclined to look to some set panacea. I submit to him that we must have some working hypothesis, some working theory, in order to place things in their right perspective. I think if anyone has a working theory of that kind the minister has it, the old Liberal theory of allowing things to work out in their own way, so in holding that view his position is no more to be commended than that of some of us who may believe in a definitely planned economy.
The minister says, and I have no doubt whatever that he quite believes, that the national credit should not be given precedence over human needs. By "national credit" I do not think he means at all what my friends to my left mean by it; he means that our position in the money markets of the world should not be impaired. But while that is a very laudable desire, he suggests that we should not allow that consideration to blind

Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Woodsworth
us or prevent us taking action in order to meet the pressing needs of the people. I agree with the minister in that; I think that is absolutely true, and it is because I believe in that statement I insist that the government should now face this situation, because by delaying week after week and month after month we are simply making matters worse. Think of these young fellows who have been in the camps, unemployed, for three, four and five years. I take it that this question should be dealt with at once; that their welfare should be given first consideration, whatever that requires. I take it that this is really what we have in mind when we say human needs should come first. Whatever it may cost us and whatever our other financial commitments may be, we must care for the people of this country.
The minister states his faith in and reliance upon the natural channels of private and corporate investment. Well, personally I am sure he is doomed to disappointment. We have too long trusted those so called natural channels of private and corporate investment, and they have failed us. It was by trusting them in the past that we got into this chaotic condition, and merely continuing to trust them is not going to get us out of it. We must recognize, if we are to carry out the principle that human needs must have priority, that we must begin at once to meet the needs of the million people who are now on relief. Those needs may be met not by giving more adequate relief than is being given to-day, but by setting the men at real work, at certain types of work which are needed in this country and which would greatly enhance the real wealth of the nation.
Other countries have adopted some of the projects that are mentioned by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). I recall visiting Germany years before the war and being delighted with the reforestation that had been going on there along the Rhine. I also remember later going to Japan a country poor in natural resources and seeing the hillsides clad with splendid stands of timber almost to the very top. In this country we have sacrificed our forest wealth. As I was thinking of this to-day I went to my files and found a diagram which I wish I could show everyone, depicting the situation in British Columbia. When man entered British Columbia some seventy years ago he found 125,000,000 acres of forest stands containing 1,500,000,000,000 feet board measure of timber. Prior to 1918, according to the conservation commission here at Ottawa, fire had destroyed about 665,000,000,000 feet board measure; in the seventeen years from 1918 to 1935 fire 12739-171
destroyed another 230,000,000,000 feet board measure, making a total of 895,000,000,000 feet board measure destroyed by fire, or considerably more than half the entire timber resources of British Columbia. Several years ago I remember being in the southern part of the upper country and seeing forest fires raging there with no effort whatever being made to check them. It was said that the administration at that time did not feel that they had the finances necessary to give adequate fire protection. Then this diagram goes on to show the enormous losses through logging wastes, insects, rot, wind and so on. According to the forest branch there is left only 350,000,000,000 feet board measure of workable timber, of which only 111,000,000,000 feet board measure is accessible, according to the statement of the chief forester.


Mr. BENNETT:: But the federal government had no control over that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad the right hon. gentleman called my attention to that, but I am not blaming the federal parliament. The point I want to make is that we have an enormous amount of work to be done in this country, and reforestation or afforestation is one of the subjects mentioned in the resolution now before the house. If British Columbia does not feel that it has the financial ability to protect its forests, then it seems to me that this becomes a matter of national concern, and we might very well turn loose some thousands of the young men we have in the camps of British Columbia to protect the timber of that province. We cannot forever rigidly draw this line between what is within the jurisdiction of the province and what is within the jurisdiction of the dominion. I have not the slightest doubt that in a matter of that kind the provinces would be willing to cooperate.
And so, all along the line. Take this housing suggestion, which has been so much emphasized to-day. As the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Plaxton) said, in recent years splendid work has been done on a very extensive scale in Great Britain. Some hon. members may have read of the very large housing schemes carried out in Vienna some years ago. It was done through taxing; they practically taxed the rich of that city out of existence, but they provided for the needs of the poor.
We know something of the way in which some European countries have been making strides towards recovery. I have not time to go into the facts concerning Sweden, which country I believe offers a first class example
260	COMMONS
Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Woodsworth
of what may be described as practical socialism, of taking the ideals of human needs and recognizing that the resources, equipment and credit essentially belong to the people. Or perhaps I might even venture to point to what has been accomplished in a comparatively short time in Russia. A few years ago one could hardly mention that great country without finding many people ready to tear one limb from limb. I notice in the last number of Canadian Business an article by Sir Frederick Banting-


Richard Langton Baker: Russia is behaving much
better now.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The article is by
Sir Frederick Banting, and as the publication is issued by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce I suppose I might be permitted to read it without fear of corrupting the minds of hon. members. I can recall some years ago suggesting in the house that if gold were as important as we seem to think it is, we should send some of the unemployed into the northern gold fields to dig gold which, in. part, could be used for the payment of our debts. What has been done in Russia in this regard? I quote Sir Frederick Banting:
The same problem of buying in foreign countries led the Soviet Union to send her geologists and mining engineers to search for gold for export. In 1928 the new Soviet gold was worth $31,000,000; in 1933 it was worth $93,000,000; in 1934 it surpassed Canada and the United States in producing $150,000,000 in gold'. The latest reports indicate that in 1936 the Soviet Union will exceed the $400,000,000 production of South Africa. The Soviet Union has paid off nearly $700,000,000 of foreign debts during the past four years. It is estimated that their foreign debt is now less than $150,000,000. She is not interested in gold reserves and thus her gold alone will give her $500,000,000 foreign credits during 1936.
I commend this article to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). It may offer one way in which to help balance our budget.


Charles Avery Dunning: What wages did they
pay?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The article does
not state what wages were paid. Since the minister has raised that point let me proceed to some further observations. My friend who sits behind me suggests that probably it was twenty cents a day.


Charles Avery Dunning: Are you sure it was as much as that?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Let me go on to
quote from the article by Sir Frederick Banting. I think it is rather enthusiastic, but I give it for what it is worth:

The life and activities of their great commercial and industrial men do not greatly differ from the life and activities of industrial men in our country-nor does the financial man-banker and organizer of industry differ so much from those that perform this service in other countries. There are privileges and luxuries that our financial leaders buy. In the Soviet Union these privileges and luxuries are given to him by the people. They honour service. Honour, appreciation and trust of comrades spur and inspire men to plan and work for the common good of all. Man cannot exploit his fellowman. There is no unemployment in the Soviet Union. Conditions are improving very rapidly. Everyone is tremendously enthusiastic. The health of all is cared for by the state. All people have the opportunity to rise as high as their talent and industry will permit in whatever field of endeavour they may select. Every persons s future is invested in the state. The state m turn provides for the education of children and an old age pension. This sense of security brings happiness and peace of mind and permits true culture.	.
Pasteur, the great French scientist, said, "The future belongs to science and woe to the nations that close their eyes to this fact." The Soviet government is building a gigantic structure on the solid rock of science and research. For this reason there now remains not a vestige of doubt as to the future success of the Soviet Union.
I give that as an example of a nation which has deliberately planned its life and has used the resources at its command to minister to the needs of the nation. I am not sure how they have financed. Their banking system is rather complicated. But they have controlled their own credit and have had natural resources at their disposal.
In this connection I should like to quote a statement by Stuart Chase in the January issue of Common Sense. Speaking of developments in Russia he said:
Occasionally, I answer them by telling them about Russia in 1927. In that year, I spent some time in the offices of the Gosplan in Moscow, watching a thousand technicians prepare the charts and figures for the first five-year plan. It was proposed to invest the equivalent of thirty billion dollars _ in new capital improvements-dams, transmission lines, railways, factories, apartment houses, oil wells, schools, coal mines, steel plants. Having a "sound" business training back of me, I was perplexed and a little sceptical. Russia was a poor country. She had no capital, no borrowing power, not a nickel of credit. "Where are you going to get the money?" I asked'. Ossinski, one of the best statisticians alive, regarded me with pity. "You should learn, my friend, to look under the veil of money at the real world. Wait and see." Five years later, in 1933, behold the dams, the transmission lines, the factories, the apartment houses, standing solidly-thirty billions worth, as planned. No money, no credit, no confidence, no profit, no "incentive"-yet there they were.
How can you explain that, Mr. Businessman? Your oracles and taboos do not permit of any such performance. But three superior forces do permit it, namely:

Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Hansell
Human labour,	_
Natural resources, including inanimate energy,
Technical skill.
Russia had the labour and the resources; she managed to import technical skill to add to her own not inconsiderable stock. The three cardinal factors for the creation of wealth were present. The power dams and factories rose. About them she threw a film of rubles, created as the tangible wealth was gradually created. The rubles only shadowed what the real agents were producing. Wealth came first and money came second. For new public industries in the United States, we have the unused labour of the unemployed, materials in abundance, and a plethora of technical skill. If they can be linked up, a huge amount of new wealth is ours for the taking.
To a certain extent I think I agree with the analysis offered 'by my social credit friends, and with the phrase which they are so fond of using, that what is physically possible is financially possible. I believe that is sound reasoning. However I cannot agree with their theory as to how this is to be done. Fundamentally, what is physically possible is financially passible. We can do it, if we really set our minds to it. In this article Stuart Chase states:
The first question which comes to mind is how new industries have been monetized in the past. In the last century, scores of industries made their appearance, and slid into the financial picture-railroads, bicycles, motor cars, bath tubs, radios, aeroplanes. Where did they get the money? Most business men can tell you only that they borrowed it from banks or investors.
Then he goes on to say that we can finance, just as banks have financed in the past. He states, however, that there have to be some new rules in the game. He suggests three: first, the use of income tax on the higher brackets as a prime method for financing public business. As I have said before, as long as there is wealth in this country, as long as there are people drawing large incomes from the wealth of this country, there is no reason why any single unemployed man should suffer. I would call that to the attention of the minister and if he means, as I think he does, that human needs must come first, then the welfare of these unemployed men must be looked after, even though it may mean very heavy taxation on those whose incomes come within the higher brackets. The second rule that Mr. Chase suggests is the use of non-interest bearing revolving funds of publicly created credit for additional financing of public works. Why not? If the banks can extend credit for profit, the nation surely ought to be in a position to do this in order to meet real human needs. Further this housing scheme might very readily become self-liquidating. Why should we not use national credit for such a purpose?
And thirdly Mr. Chase suggests the socialization of money and credit to prevent sabotage by private bankers, and to keep compound interest in its place. There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that this large group to my left is an indication that the people are insisting that something should be done to meet the real needs of the people. It may be that we cannot meet these needs in the way that the social crediters advocate. Personally I cannot follow their arguments, but nevertheless I think the principle that they hold, and that we in this part of the house hold, that the needs of the people are paramount, is fundamentally true. I take it that the government now have to decide whether they will place financial interests, the service of the debt and so on, in first place, or whether they will place first adequate provision for the needs of the people. I am glad that we have been permitted to have this discussion so early in the session. As the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) has stated, the plans of the government are in a formative stage, and we offer these suggestions to them in the hope that they may see fit to take advantage of the opportunity which the people of this country have accorded them.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches that have been made relative to the resolution before us. Before speaking to the resolution I should like to refer to one or two remarks that have been made in previous speeches which we have been privileged to hear.
The hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bra-dette) has suggested that the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) is being influenced somewhat by the environment in which he finds himself, but he was not satisfied to leave the matter at that. He went further and suggested that we in this comer of the house were elected upon promises that never, never would be fulfilled.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I certainly said that.


Ernest George Hansell: I am glad, Mr. Speaker, to hear the hon. gentleman confirm my understanding of his remarks, but I challenge him to state a single, solitary promise that this group in this corner of the house ever made in order to be elected. I was hoping that I might hear from the hon. gentleman-, but apparently he prefers to remain silent.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: As the question has been put to me, I may say that the party to which
262	COMMONS
Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Hansell
hon. gentlemen in that part of the house belong has, as I understand the situation, made a definite promise of at least $25 per month to every man and woman in the province of Alberta.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Will the hon. gentleman who interrupted deny that?


Ernest George Hansell: Is the hon. gentleman thinking of some other group?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: There are two groups
of social creditors? Then what group is that over there?


Ernest George Hansell: I will attempt to answer
the question if the hon. gentleman will please tell me what he thinks twenty-five dollars means.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I know what it means
because I have none too many of them, and I have never promised to distribute any myself.


Ernest George Hansell: I think the hon. gentleman is evading the question. If the hon. gentleman thinks any man in Alberta ever promised to hand out twenty-five dollars in new, crisp greenbacks once a month, he is wrong, but if he does not understand the matter correctly I am sure that if he comes over to this side of the house some time or another we shall be able to instruct him more fully.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Thanks very much. I
should like to get twenty-five dollars, too.


Ernest George Hansell: The resolution, as I look at it, resolves itself into a suggested remedy to take people off the dole and put them back into remunerative employment. The plan for housing, building, reconstruction, renovation, slum clearance, land settlement, reforestation and so forth, is only incidental. Therefore it behooves us to deal for a few moments with the unemployment situation.
In much of the discussion to-day we have heard about slum districts and crowded areas, and about sickness and disease. These conditions are more or less confined to the cities, and throughout the discussion the western farmer has more or less been left out of the picture. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hayhurst), however, has spoken along that line. I am wondering whether the western farmer who lives with his wife and children in perhaps a one-room shack, or in one of two or three rooms, should not have some consideration in a scheme of this sort.
There is one question I should like to ask in connection with the entire discussion, and

perhaps it might be called the proverbial question:	Where is all the money coming
from?
The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) in the second part of his resolution suggests that the money might be borrowed on a lower rate structure. I would like to point out that the entire discussion which has ensued upon this resolution has revolved about the present financial system. The logic of all the speeches has been an attempt to run our twentieth century civilization within an eighteenth century financial structure.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) has made the statement that for five years we have been trying to deal with the unemployment emergency. That is just the trouble; we have been dealing with unemployment as an emergency problem. We have not regarded the unemployment situation as being the result of some fundamental principle that is in error. Perhaps it might startle some hon. members if I were to suggest that we are not in a business depression. I might suggest that we are in a stoppage or short-circuiting of our laws of progress. 1 think all will agree that in no matter what field of science we delve there are certain laws of harmony to be found which must work one with the other. Take astronomical science and let us imagine for a moment that the stars in the heavens would say, "Well, boys, we have been going along at this rate for a good many millions of years; let us stop or turn round and go the other way." Something in the nature of a catastrophe would happen, and the same thing is true of mechanical science, physical science or any other branch of science. Yet it seems to me that we have overlooked this fact with regard to the science, if I may put it in that way, or the laws of progress. The age has progressed to a point where we need a new economic system that will care adequately for this very highly progressive and productive age. We are attempting to straddle with one foot in an ox cart and the other in an aeroplane. I should like to read a short quotation from a paper entitled To-day and To-morrow, published in Edmonton. In the issue of January 13, the editor says in part:
Public, or non-productive works, involving borrowing, will provide wages, but those wages must be taken by taxation from those engaged in productive work. This is a method of sharing the poverty of the people, and does not divide up, share, or make available, the machine-made abundance. There is, obviously, only one way out of the difficulty.
If we decide to keep the machines, then we must set up a method of giving people the wages of the machines which do their work. Incomes must be based on wealth produced and not on human labour performed.

Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Hansell
I should like to refer a little later to the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) with which I heartily agree. I admire his splendid spirit in making those remarks. I should like to quote from a little book entitled From Debt to Prosperity, by J. Crate Larkin. Speaking of the present world crisis the author says:
Of the present world crisis Major Douglas has written, "the break-down of the present financial and1 social system is certain." A comparatively short period will probably serve to decide whether we are to master the mighty economic and social machine that we have created, or whether it is to master us;
I want to emphasize the next few words. I continue:
-and during that period a small impetus from a body of men* who know what to do and how to do it, may make the difference between yet one more retreat into the dark ages, or the emergence into the full light of a day of such splendor as we can at present only envisage dimly.
On his return to England after visiting Canada last July, Major Douglas spoke at a banquet given in his honour on his return. The Calgary Herald of July 20 contains the following article:
Calling for a big electoral compaign in the United Kingdom to break the bankers' monopoly of credit, Major C. H. Douglas at a banquet given ini his honour on his return from Canada declared the world was facing an economic crisis of such magnitude that the next five years would fix the future of this planet for hundreds of years to come.
"Either the outcome must be the beginning of a virtual new epoch of economic freedom," he said, "or else there will be catastrophe and loss of all the freedoms and privileges on which the British empire has hitherto prided itself."
I wonder whether in the phrase in my first quotation, "During that period a small impetus from a body of men who know what to do and how to do it," I cannot see the little body of men who sit around me. Speaking to this resolution, the Prime Minister said that he desired cooperation and constructive criticism; that he was willing to accept any light upon any given subject that would enable the present administration to manage affairs in the interests of the people. I wish to say that hon. members sitting in this corner admire that spirit. I ask hon. members: How many of you have constructive criticisms to make? How many of you have suggestions of help instead of hindrance, suggestions of construction instead of destruction to make? We in this corner of the house desire to help by suggestions which may enlighten matters a little. We desire to help the. present administration to solve the problems that confront us in this parliament.
I suggest that three things are absolutely necessary: first, we must have an absolute and correct diagnosis of the disease. While we are not debating the speech from the throne, perhaps I may refer to it for a moment. I suggest that there was nothing in it to indicate the exact disease. In thinking over the speeches which have been made to-day, I doubt whether they would indicate to us the disease. The first thing necessary for the present administration to do is to diagnose and arrive at the proper disease. The next thing necessary is to discover the remedy to be applied. I have heard several statements made to-day, and in other days, concerning action. We are told that we need action; that we want action, but what we want is the proper kind of action. Third, we need a correct application of the proper remedy. We in this corner desire to contribute to the discovery of the disease, to the suggestion of a proper remedy and to throwing some light upon the proper application of the remedy. We do not desire to see any administration fail. We have no political axe to grind and we trust that the present administration will prove valuable to the country and that within a very few years this country may be taken out of the position in which it stands to-day, on the brink of chaos, to a place of economic, commercial and industrial security.


Thomas Vien: The government has been
criticized because it has not outlined all the remedies for the situation that is complained of. Is my hon. friend ready to give us his proper diagnosis, the proper remedy and the proper application thereof?


Ernest George Hansell: I understand there are
several other speakers who would like to take part in the debate. While I wish to be most courteous I would suggest that as parliament pursues its duties this session many matters will come up in their turn, and I believe we shall be able to contribute to a very large extent in our endeavour to find that remedy as the days go by. I do not wish at this late hour to engage in any particular economic discussion. I believe we in this corner know the remedy; we have diagnosed the disease and we know something of the way in which to apply that remedy. At the proper time that will be revealed.


Thomas Vien: Will my hon. friend allow me to suggest that if complaint can be made against the government for not having taken action earlier, it would be constructive
264	COMMONS
Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Hansell
criticism if he would give us that diagnosis and that proper remedy which he tells us now is in his possession.


Ernest George Hansell: I am not suggesting
that the government have erred in any way so far. I believe we must give them time; certainly we cannot expect them to divulge all their plans in one short week.


Thomas Vien: But if you have a specific
remedy ready, why not give it to us now?


Ernest George Hansell: This corner of the house
is not on the spot; it is those on the other side who are running the country.


Thomas Vien: We invited you to help us.
You have criticized us for not having taken action earlier-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order; the
hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) has the floor.


Ernest George Hansell: I am sorry if my remarks have been incorrectly interpreted. We do not desire to criticize destructively but to offer constructive criticism. And now, Mr. Speaker, I will close. By profession I am a clergyman, one of only three, I believe, in the present parliament. Now, as a clergyman, I marry people to make them happy; as a clergyman, I bury people when they are dead. A few months ago we witnessed, I think I can say, the pre-nuptials in the glorious election; I believe last week we perhaps arrived at the place where we witnessed the marriage ceremony, and hon. members opposite have begun to sail the seas of political matrimony in perfect harmony. How they do love one another! I offer them my sincere wishes, as I offer many young couples health, happiness and prosperity and, of course, the proverbial "May all your troubles be little ones." We desire to contribute something to their happiness and welfare; but I do trust-and I am saying this in all seriousness-that in the next five years I shall not have to suffer the embarrassment of having to take part in the funeral service.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): I shall detain the house but a few moments. I wish to congratulate my old friend the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) upon retaining his old time ability to draft an omnibus resolution which would permit the house to discuss almost anything under the sun, also upon his manner of presenting his resolution and upon the general tone and temper of the debate. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) contributed constructively; but naturally, oecupy-

ing a seat on this side of the house, I listened with great pride to the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Plaxton), in his maiden speech. The house gave him the usual respectful hearing accorded a first effort, and I feel sure that everyone, regardless of which side of the house he sat on, was pleased, that the hon. gentleman acquitted himself so well. May I also say that in my opinion, as the Hansard of this house of to-day is read in future years, it will be generally conceded that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) in his maiden speech made a notable contribution indeed. In fact, the debate as a whole has been on a very high level, if one excepts the somewhat partisan remarks of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). There is evident in the house a sincere desire on the part of all members to contribute something constructive toward the solution of problems, the existence of which we all recognize, and in connection with which we all assume our due responsibility for offering something, during the period of our presence here, to bring about improvement.
I only desire to say one or two words by way of information with respect to last session's housing act which has been discussed by several speakers. The hon. member for North Winnipeg was rather reproachful of the previous government and of this one as well, because greater progress had not been made. He spoke very disparagingly of the fact that less than a million dollars has yet been advanced out of the ten millions appropriated by parliament for this purpose. Of course, the less than a million advanced does involve five times that amount of construction. One should bear that in mind, and it is well also to bear in mind that while the legislation was passed in July of last year, we were already entering upon a general election. The legislation depended for its successful operation upon acceptance, by a variety of interests, of various responsibilities under the terms of the law.
Business interests generally are not inclined to assume new obligations just created by an expiring parliament. There was very definitely a waiting tendency on the part both of those who were expected to supply part of the funds, and of the construction industry generally in relation to the dominion housing act. The present government found that condition on coming into office, but it has decided that the housing act now on the statute books is worth a fair trial. No one in the house would claim perfection for it. I am sure the sponsors of it would not. We certainly do not regard it as perfect, but we do

Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Dunning
believe that the experience which the government and the house and the country generally may gain by operating it in its present terms will give us the surest possible lead as to the manner in which it may be improved and made more effective. The number of applications coming in is steadily increasing. The number of loaning institutions, life insurance companies and the like, who are taking advantage of its provisions, signing the agreements provided for in the law, is increasing. Some companies are even advertising for business under the terms of the act.
Someone mentioned the desirability of widening the terms of the law in order to create machinery whereby renovation and repair of existing properties might be made possible. Whatever merit there may be in such an idea, it is very doubtful if the machinery of the dominion housing act is the best means of effecting that end. We are watching very carefully the experience in the United States with respect to legislation of this character, that is legislation having to do with the repair and renovation of existing properties and also with respect to slum clearance. In the discussion last year it became quite apparent that no one expected the present housing act to effect what is described as slum clearance. That is a far greater and wider problem than the provision of new moderate priced houses.
As to the other subjects discussed, reforestation and the like, I can only repeat what I said a day or two ago with respect to the supplementary estimates, that each department of the government and each minister are now studying with the utmost care the possibility of providing productive public works expenditures. Perhaps I should not have used the term "public works." What I mean is expenditures to create employment which will be productive and self-sustaining rather than expenditures of such a type as to create further expenditure. To illustrate: We would like, if we could, to get away, as far as possible -we cannot get away from it altogether-from building that class of building which, while adding to a certain public facility, let us say a post office, does not increase the revenues of that facility one iota but does operate to increase the expense of operation. When you build a fine new post office in a small community, that is merely the commencement of the expense in connection with it, because for ever after you must keep it up; you must clean it; you must provide caretakers with salaries and so forth to look after it. That is an illustration of what I call relatively unproductive public expenditures, and I know those
who have served in previous governments will agree with me that it is rather difficult to provide a sufficiency of the other type of public expenditure. That question is engaging the attention of all the members of the government at the present time, and I think it is a little early in the session for the hon. member for North Winnipeg to reproach us so bitterly because we have not now, within two days of the conclusion of the debate on the address, brought down a full-fledged program to solve all the problems to which he referred.
We know the country is expecting much of this parliament; it has a right to. We will attempt to discharge our responsibilities. And we appreciate the manner in which hon. members generally have discussed the resolution now before the house. Probably the purpose of the resolution has been served by the discussion which has taken place. Perhaps my hon. friend who moved it will not agree with me, but to my mind the great advantage of these private members' resolutions is that the government is given an opportunity to learn publicly the constructive ideas brought here by every member of the house, no matter from what part of the country he may come or to what particular party he may belong. That is a great advantage. As to whether it is desirable to have a vote, of course that is in the hands of the mover of the resolution.


Thomas Langton Church: I wish to exercise my right to close the debate. I shall only take a minute.


Walter Edward Foster: I should like to draw to the attention of the house that if any hon. member wishes to participate he should do so now, because after the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) has spoken, the debate will be closed.


Mr. FAIR:: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour how many cents of each dollar spent on relief are used as overhead.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If the question would be put on the order paper I should be very glad to see if the information could be secured for my hon. friend.


Thomas Langton Church: In the eleven years I have been in the house I have never before exercised this privilege of closing the debate, and I shall be only a few minutes. But I am dissatisfied and disappointed to-night at the reply offered in the name of Liberalism 'by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). Let me teill him that ten years ago, long before he came to the house, I presented a resolution here for an employment commission after the fashion of Senator Couzen's
266	COMMONS
Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Church
inquiry into unemployment on behalf of the United States senate. Down there they get the senate to pass things: they do not take three weeks' holiday, doing everything by fits and starts. I may tell my hon. friend that his government voted us down when we asked them three or four sessions running what they would do for unemployment. Mr. Heenan was a real working man, and I believe a minister of labour ought to be a real working man. Working men sit in the British parliament, but it seems to me that as Liberal ministers in this country we have professors and chemists and doctors and last, but not least, judges. If any of these four classes of citizens start investigating anything, it is good-by and good-night, and it is put into cold storage at once. As to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), I have every regard for him. I will accept his suggestion and withdraw the motion, though I would rather have it lost on division. There will be another chance another day, but I can tell the Minister of Labour that his announcement in the house will disappoint not only labour throughout Canada but the municipalities who have such a hard time to meet their taxes.
This parliament created a day known as Labour day for the protection of labour. Allow me to say to the Minister of Finance that it is all right to put money in the estimates to protect farmers and fishermen, to protect coal and iron and steel, but have we no right to ask for a measure of protection in the two central provinces where forty-seven per cent of the people of this country have been engaged in industry, and where the homes of so many have been sold? The reply we have had from the young professor from Queen's university might be all right for a mock parliament or an intercollegiate debate, but it is hardly fitting to be addressed to the high court of parliament. As I said before, I admire the nature of the real Liberalism which inspired the miners of Cornwall to march to London town on behalf of Trelawney, in protest against the tyranny of King James II. I admire the spirit of the freeholders of Buckingham in supporting Hampden against the tyranny of Charles Stuart. But I am not in love with the academic Liberalism of the young Minister of Labour's reply. As I said, it may be all right for a mock parliament, but as addressed to parliament and to the workers of this country I think it is an absurdity. The minister says further that his commission, when it is appointed, will be appointed to coordinate measures to handle unemployment. Who will handle unemployment? Probably a professor of economics. The unemployed will all be dead before they get through with the young minister's program.

The minister says that he is not in favour of public works. Funds voted for public works may have been misspent in the United States, but in England this scheme has 'been a unique success, so much so that England has come out of the depression much better than any other country in the world. The minister is against any scheme of public works; he is in favour of allowing private and corporate business to expand employment. Let me ask this young * minister if he is aware of what the oil ring are doing now, working their employees sixty-three hours a week as a result of the references to the supreme court. These sweatshops are doing a land office business now. They were shown up by the price spreads inquiry, that did something for the working classes of this country. For the last two or three weeks the oil ring have been working their employees sixty-three hours a week, and nine hours cm Sunday. Where is the sweat shop and the alien labour laws? I am going to find out whether or not this department is functioning, because we want some measure of protection for the industrial workers of Canada. They are not going to be fooled any longer. We are not going to have some measure of protection for some classes in the community and no protection for others. I am for protection first, last and all the time for all the people of the dominion so that we may have a happy, contented country.
The minister has said that he does not want government finance to retard the expansion of private enterprises. Did you ever hear such nonsense in your life? We had a housing commission which sat for three months, long before the minister was ever a member of this chamber. That commission found that the government should help workingmen build their homes, and I believe that plan will be carried on long after the minister and all the rest of us have passed on. I gave the reason this afternoon, from government reports in England, which may be seen in Hansard to-morrow.
I am very much disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that all these matters have 'been referred to the law courts. Under the Liberal party we had first of all ambassador cure for unemployment; now we have the professor cure; again we are going to have the under secretary cure and last but not least the commission cure. Then there was this reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, judges who know nothing about employment, unemployment or economic matters. Half the trouble we have in this country is due to these economists. Political economy is not an exact science like physics, chemistry or biology. These

Reconstruction Policy-Mr. Church
scientists can argue from facts, 'but our professors and political economists cannot do that. They give their opinions, and they are not worth a scrap of paper, neither is the opinion of the minister with regard to unemployment worth a scrap of paper. Let me tell you, Mr. Minister, that when your commission takes a Cook's tour of Canada and sees conditions in this country, it will open its eyes. If you just go round the city of Toronto or the other industrial cities in this country and see the workingmen losing their homes because of the inefficiency of the Department of Labour you will have something to think about.
This is not the first time I have had something to say about this department. I do not wish to criticize the young minister; he is a young gentleman of great ability, who is very well liked, but I was very much disappointed in listening to a minister of the crown from his place in parliament give an answer such as he gave. If that is all the unemployed have to expect from the present government, unemployment is going to increase by leaps and bounds and you will see a great exodus of our young people. If that is all, these young people, these high school and university students, who are out of work, have to expect, there is not very much for them in this country. Why is parliament called to meet anyway? Are we a lot of office boys or rubber stamps called here to receive an academic reply like that one we heard to-night? I am sorry the industrial worker is not better supported in the house. I intend to ask leave to withdraw this resolution, but I shall do so with great reluctance; I would rather see it lost on division. However, this is only the preliminary hearing at this stage; we shall have a real trial of this case later on.
I hope we will have a proper Liberalism in this country along the lines I have suggested. The Minister of Labour in the previous Liberal government, the Hon. Peter Heenan, was a real workingman who was respected by the working people, but Mr. Heenan told me in the house that there was no unemployment, and that if there was it was a matter for the provinces and municipalities. At that time the government declined to contribute one-third of the cost of relief. They refused the application of the city of Toronto, which I presented in parliament some eight or ten years ago, but later on the government was forced to contribute. When the new government came in it gave fifty per cent of tli6 cost, and I want to commend the new government upon giving seventy-five per cent. I hope before long the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) will be able to go the whole distance and give one hundred per cent.
I have represented an industrial city in many spheres of activity. I have seen the suffering there; I have visited homes in which four generations of families have been out of work. That is an intolerable condition, and something should be done. Unemployment is the great scourge of the human race and it is going to engulf society unless something is done. Things have been going from bad to worse and the unemployed are getting disgusted with the whole performance. Something should be done for Montreal, Winnipeg, Vancouver and the larger cities of this country, which are suffering so severely from unemployment. Every municipality I have named, from Vancouver to Halifax-and I saw his worship the mayor of Vancouver here a moment ago-has had to put into relief work most of the money raised by taxes. They have not had a dollar to spend on necessary public improvements. This afternoon I referred to the fact that in England they are constructing all the necessary improvements for the next forty years in order to tide people over the depression, and that is going to help the farmers as well.
I hope there will be some reconsideration of this problem between now and the time the estimates come up. The other day the government announced that $25,000,000 would be devoted to reconstruction. The highly industrialized provinces of Ontario and Quebec are paying eighty per cent of the cash taxes of this country, but the industrial workers are getting no protection at all. We have had a commission on maritime rights, a commission on Pacific coast rights and a commission on prairie rights. I tell you the time is coming when we shall have to ask for a commission on the rights of central Canada.
So with great reluctance, Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to withdraw this resolution. I would rather see it lost on division. It. should be lost on division; the government is straight against it. What is the minister going to do about these shark loan companies, incorporated by parliament, which are charging forty per cent on second mortgages in the city of Toronto? What is he going to do about these trust companies, these insurance companies, and so on? I would ask that he use his good offices to see what can be done in that regard. I do not know whether or not they contribute to campaign funds, but they have a way of doing business around parliament. We all saw something
Wheat Pool
COMMONS [DOT]
of that in the days of Beauharnois; I know they drove me out of parliament. I would ask the Minister of Finance, also, if he will not use his good offices to stop these foreclosures and give the industrial workers a chance to protect their homes, as the farmers and fishermen have been given chances to protect theirs. With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask your leave to withdraw this resolution.
Motion withdrawn.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, February 18, 1936