THE LATE VITAL MALLETTE

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I deeply
regret to have to inform the house that I received only about an hour ago word of the sudden passing of one of our hon. members, Mr. Vital Mallette, the representative in this house of the Constituency of Jacques-Cartier. Word came to me in a telegram from an hon. member who informed me that at the noon hour to-day, or a little before noon, Mr. Mallette had been stricken with heart failure and had passed away while walking on the street in Montreal. I know that this word will come as a great shock to all hon. members. While Mr. Mallette had been a member of the commons only since the last general election, he was possessed of such a pleasant personality, he took such an active part in the general affairs of parliament, was so kind and

The late Vital Mallette
generous and friendly, and was so much liked, that in his passing I am sure all hon. members will experience a sense of real personal loss.
Mr. Mallette was in his fifty-first year. He was born at Pointe Claire. While he played an important part in provincial and national affairs his life was identified, in an intimate way, almost exclusively, with that municipality and the more varied activities and interests of Montreal. He served as an alderman of Pointe Claire for a number of years and for two or three years was mayor of the municipality. At the time of his death he was acting as secretary-treasurer of the municipality. The meritorious nature of his services in municipal affairs was recognized by one foreign government and was widely appreciated throughout the province in which he lived. Mr. Mallette was deeply solicitous of the welfare of his constituents and was most faithful in the discharge of his duties in this house.
It is mutely eloquent of Mr. Mallette's wide interest in affairs that on the order paper of to-day there appears a question in his name with respect to Canada's trade with Spain. Hon. members will recall that our late friend was much interested in social and international affairs. His life was given largely to an effort to further human betterment. His interest in young people, in particular, was deep and constant. The advancement of their welfare by the creation of national scholarships will be present in the minds of those who heard him advocate that proposal upon the floor of this house.
I might say very much with reference to the loss to our country which the sudden passing of one so gifted and so full of promise means at this time. I shall take occasion to speak of that on some future occasion. I will only say at the moment that those of us who sit on this side of the house have suffered an irreparable loss in the passing of one who was greatly loved by all the members of his party, who was exceptionally loyal to its policies and principles and at all times faithful in his devotion to its leader.
To Mrs. Mallette and her four children who have been so suddenly and so greatly bereaved there will go forth the deepest sympathy of hon. members from all sides of this house.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition) :: Mr. Speaker, it comes to us always with a shock when anyone is carried away in the prime of life, and to die at fifty-one is certainly to pass away in the very prime; but the shock is all the greater when the deceased is one with whom we have been in contact and whom we know fairly well. I had not the honour of a personal acquaintance with
Mr. Mallette prior to the present session, but I know of his long public service in the city of Montreal and its surroundings, and I do know this, that he was greatly beloved by all members on this side of the house. For example, on my way into the chamber this afternoon at least half a dozen of our members expressed to me their deep affection for Mr. Mallette. They spoke of his kindly disposition, his genial personality, the fine friendly spirit which at all times he manifested to alt of us. So for that reason at least, on behalf of this party I can speak very highly of him. For myself, I had a few contacts with him, and on the occasions on which I heard him in this chamber I admired his ability to express himself. I sincerely join with the Prime Minister in expressing to the family of Mr. Mallette our very deep sympathy, and that sympathy I also wish to convey to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself and his party in the loss of an active and able representative.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: On behalf of the group with which I am associated I wish to express regret at the sudden passing of one whom we have grown to respect and for whom many of us who come from other parts of Canada have conceived something of an affection. As one of those who come from western Canada, an English-speaking part of the dominion, I should like to say that Mr. Mallette was one of those in the house who have contributed to the well-being of the Dominion of Canada, inasmuch as he interpreted to us some of the thoughts and aspirations of the French-Cana-dian people from which he came. We deeply regret his passing. We should like to associate ourselves with those who have expressed sympathy for the bereaved family, and we also sympathize with the Prime Minister and the party to which Mr. Mallette belonged in the loss they have sustained.


Mr. R. S. WHITE (St. Antoine-West-mount):: As one of the members from the island of Montreal I desire to express for myself and, I am quite sure, for all my colleagues, our profound sorrow at the sudden and untimely death of Mr. Mallette. I had known him only foy reputation until he entered . the house. That reputation was high and well-merited, as I have come to know during the past three sessions. I do not exaggerate in saying that he was a model member, devoted to the interests of his constituency, a broadminded, tolerant man. His constituency contains a large percentage of English people, and among them he numbered only friends. Ha had the happy faculty, perhaps a somewhat
The late Vital Mallette

rare one, of making friends, and I venture to say that no one could come in contact with Mr. Mallette without conceiving the highest possible regard for him. He never introduced party feeling into his social or his personal relations. Wherever he was known he was not only respected but greatly liked, and his constituency, the province of Quebec, and this House of Commons have suffered no mean loss in the regrettable and lamented death of Mr. Mallette.


Mr. R. A. PELLETIER (Peace River):: On behalf of the group with which I am associated and of myself I desire to join in the expressions of sympathy which have been tendered the bereaved family in the death of Mr. Mallette. Mr. Mallette was a member of an opposing party whom I came to know very well indeed. I can go further and say that it was only in his honour and behalf that I have ever worn a ribbon distinctive of the Liberal party. I well remember the occasion on which his constituents tendered him a banquet upon his first being elected to the House of Commons, and Mr. Vital Mallette, out of the kindness of his heart, invited me to participate. From that time many members of our group became closely acquainted with him, and the news of his death to-day has come to us as a distinct shock. We wish to join with the others in offering sympathy both to Mr. Mallette's family and to the :government, who have lost a man of whom they might very well be proud.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Public Works) (Translation):: The terrifying news of the death of Mr. Vital Mallette has deeply saddened all the members of the house and more particularly the representatives of the French element of the population. Mr. Mallette, as the Prime Minister (Mr Mackenzie King) has so aptly said, was an exemplary man. Unassuming, most attentive to his various duties, profoundly devoted to his family, he was a remarkable citizen. In the province of Quebec, indeed throughout all Canada, the premature death of this eminently useful and respectable citizen will be greatly regretted. I wish to join the Prime Minister in offering my heartfelt sympathy to Mrs. Mallette and all the members of her family.


Mr. J. M. TURNER (Springfield):: Not only have I lost my deskmate, but I believe this house will always remember the late Mr. Mallette as one of the most lovable and popular associates. In this hour of sorrow we extend to his wife and family our deepest sympathy.


Mr. J. S. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: I, too, loved Mr. Mallette and admired his excellent qualities so continuously displayed. I desire that my sympathy with his family be extended through you, sir.


Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthern):: Mr. Mallette was such a dear and valued friend of ours in this part of the house that I simply cannot let this occasion pass without paying a humble tribute to his memory. In this part of the house we were like a family, of which he was a most beloved member. His memory will always be held dear by all of us.
I count it a great privilege to have known him and so to have come under the influence of as fine a Christian gentleman as I have ever knowm. His advice to me since becoming a member of this house has been very valuable. He was a true Canadian and an example to all of us in his genuine love of Canada, and in his kindly tolerance of those of other views and of other religious and racial origins. He was beloved by all of us around him, whether Liberal or Conservative and whether English-speaking or French-speaking. I feel convinced that he had a great future before him in the public life of Canada, and it must be a matter of the deepest possible sorrow and regret that he was cut off so early in that career of service to his country. We deeply and sincerely sympathize with his family in their inexpressible loss and sorrow



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. NEILL:: 1.	On what date last fall did the exchequer court sit in British Columbia regarding the seizure of certain seal skins?
2.	Has judgment been rendered yet in the matter?
3.	On what date were these skins seized?
4.	Are they deteriorating through having been kept so long in storage?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	September 12, 1938.
2.	No.
3.	50 skins on May 10, 1937; 21 skins on May 18, 1937.
4.	All reasonable precautions exercised for preserving skins during storage period. Degree of deterioration, if any, will not be known until skins are processed.

Motions for Papers


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE-CANADIAN CATTLE QUOTA
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	Has the quota for Canadian cattle exported to the United States been exhausted for the quarter-yearly period of April, May and June, 1939?
2.	If so, when was said quota exhausted?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Will the militia called out on service and militia duty for the king's visit throughout Canada be allowed any kind of pay, meals, or car or railway fares, or out of pocket expenses for being on parade, or any other per diem allowances in lieu thereof?
2.	Have any applications for allowances been received of this nature from the militia, and what replies have been given?
3.	Who makes these militia parade arrangements?
4.	(a) Is the government contributing anything to the provinces, or municipalities, towards the cost of local decorating; (b) is the government decorating federal buildings in Canada?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents, dated from January, 1935, to April 1, 1939, exchanged between the government of Canada, any minister or department thereof and C. R. Walrod of Rockyford, Alberta.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wonder if this motion could be made a little more definite. As it stands it means that the files generally have to be searched. If particular files were specified, it would help very much to get the order brought dowm promptly.


Charles Edward Johnston: I have
reference to all letters, telegrams, correspondence and other documents relating to appointments, dismissals or anything of that kind in regard to positions applied for, or dismissals or recommendations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In what department?


Charles Edward Johnston: I should
like to have it for any department.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should not
like to refuse the order, but I can say to my hon. friend that it is very doubtful if he will get the return within a short time. Possibly he might be able to frame his motion in a more definite way if it were allowed to stand for to-day.


Charles Edward Johnston: I will let
it stand for now and take it up-
Motion stands.


LA POINTE, N.S., WHARF
Mr. TUSTIN:: For a copy of all correspondence, papers, letters, telegrams, payrolls, vouchers and other documents in the possession of the Public Works department, pertaining to work undertaken on La Pointe wharf, in the county of Inverness-Richmond, Nova Scotia, during the years 1937 and 1938.


PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION
Mr. PERLEY:: For a return showing: (1) The names of the persons, other than the Minister of Agriculture, directing the operations of the prairie farm rehabilitation scheme; (2) details of the scientific training, experience or other qualifications, and salaries of such director or directors; (3) the names of the persons appointed in an advisory capacity and associated with the scheme; (4) the date of the last meeting of such advisory committee; (5) details of the procedure adopted in determining the advisability of constructing dams or other local projects under the scheme; (6) details of the procedure taken when land is condemned or adjudged sub-marginal under the rehabilitation scheme, the method of fixing land valuation, the person or individual in whose name the land is purchased, and the name of the person or government in whose name title is ultimately issued.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert James Manion: I was going to ask a question-I think I had bet ter ask it of the Prime Minister, (Mr. Mackenzie King) since it involves two ministers, and perhaps the Prime Minister can judge between them.
A few days ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) introduced a bill dealing with the wheat board in which an initial price for wheat was fixed at sixty cents. The press generally on Saturday carried a report stating that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) had announced to a caucus of members that the initial price has been raised to seventy cents. As this vitally affects not only the house but the country I should like to
Canadian Wheat Board

know whether the government has changed its original initial price from sixty cents to seventy cents, or do we still adopt the initial price as set out in the bill introduced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: The answer to the question is that so far as I know, there was no caucus held on Saturday or Friday, nor any meeting of the kind indicated in the remarks made by the leader of the opposition. Certainly I have made no announcement in regard to any change in the bill introduced by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Robert James Manion: I did not really care about the caucus; I merely mentioned it because it was mentioned in the statement. But has the government changed the initial price to seventy cents, or has the government decided 

I suppose I should not ask whether it is their intention, because the government does not have to tell us its intention-has a decision been arrived at to change the initial price from sixty to seventy cents?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps I had better answer that point. The decisions of the government are usually made known when the measures are brought down.


Robert James Manion: We thought so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If there is any change, it will be made known when the bill is under discussion.


Robert James Manion: But the statement made in the press is positive.


EUROPEAN SITUATION
[Stage Direction]
president Roosevelt's message to Germany AND ITALY-PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT TO UNITED STATES CHARGE D'AFFAIRES
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Members of the house
will no doubt have seen the message which the President of the United States on Friday evening last communicated to the chancellor of the German Reich and to the chief of the Italian government. On Saturday evening the Charge d'Affaires of the United States legation officially communicated to me a copy of the message. Later in the evening I addressed a reply to the United States government in which I endeavoured to set forth what I believed would express the feeling of the Canadian people with reference to the message.
I should like to table the message of the president, and also the communication which
[Mr. Manion.J
I sent to the Charge d'Affaires, which was sent on to the Secretary of State at Washington and which has since been given out at Washington along with replies which have been received from other governments.
It is unnecessary for me to read the communications, but it might be of advantage if they were to be of record in Hansard as part of to-day's proceedings, and with the permission of the house I shall lay them on the table with a view to their being so recorded.
Text of identic messages (mutatis mutandis) sent by the President on April 14 to the Chief of the Italian Government and to the Chancellor of the German Reich.
His Excellency
Adolph Hitler,
Chancellor of the German Reich,
Berlin.
You realize I am sure that throughout the world hundreds of millions of human beings are living to-day in constant fear of a new war or even a series of wars. The existence of this fear-and the possibility of such a conflict-is of definite concern to the people of the United States for whom I speak, as it must also be to the peoples of the other nations of the entire western hemisphere. All of them know that any major war, even if it were to be confined to other continents, must bear heavily on them during its continuance and also for generations to come.
Because of the fact that after the acute tension in which the world has been living during the past few weeks there would seem to be at least a momentary relaxation-because no troops are at this moment on the march

this may be an opportune moment for me to send you this message.
On a previous occasion I have addressed you in behalf of the settlement of political, economic, and social problems by peaceful methods and without resort to arms.
But the tide of events seems to have reverted to the threat of arms. If such threats continue, it seems inevitable that much of the world must become involved in common ruin. All the world, victor nations, vanquished nations, and neutral nations will suffer. I refuse to believe that the world is, of necessity, such a prisoner of destiny. On the contrary, it is clear that the leaders of great nations have it in their power to liberate their peoples tfrom the disaster that impends. It is equally clear that in their own minds and in their own hearts the peoples themselves desire that their fears be ended. It is, however, unfortunately necessary to take cognizance of recent facts.
Three nations in Europe and one in Africa have seen their independent existence terminated. A vast territory- in another independent nation of the Far East has been occupied by a neighbouring state. Reports which we trust are not true, insist that further acts of aggression are contemplated against still other independent nations. Plainly the world is moving toward the moment when this situation must end in catastrophe unless a more rational way of guiding events is found.
You have repeatedly asserted that you and the German people have no desire for war. If this is true there need be no more.

European Situation
Nothing can persuade the peoples of the earth that any governing power has any right or need to inflict the consequences of war on its own or any other people save in the cause of self-evident home defence.
In making this statement we as Americans speak not through selfishness or fear or weakness. If we speak now it is with the voice of strength and with friendship for mankind. It is still clear to me that international problems can be solved at the council table.
It is therefore no answer to the plea for peaceful discussion for one side to plead that unless they receive assurances beforehand that the verdict will be theirs, they will not lay aside their arms. In conference rooms, as in courts, it is necessai'y that both sides enter upon the discussion in good faith, assuming that substantial justice will accrue to both; and it is customary and necessary that they leave their arms outside the room when they confer.
I am convinced that the cause of world peace would be greatly advanced if the nations of the world were to obtain a frank statement relating to the present and future policy of governments.
Because the United States, as one of the nations of the western hemisphere, is not involved in the immediate controversies which have risen in Europe, I trust that you may be willing to make such a statement of policy to me as the head of a nation far removed from Europe in order that I, acting only with the responsibility and obligation of a friendly intermediary, may communicate such declarations to other nations now apprehensive as to the course which the policy of your government may take.
Are you willing to give assurance that your armed forces will not attack or invade the territory or possessions of the following independent nations:	Finland, Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain and Ireland, France, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxemburg, Poland, Hungary, Roumania, Yugo-Slavia, Russia, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, Iraq, The Arabias, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Iran.
Such an assurance clearly must apply not only to the present day but also to a future sufficiently long to give every opportunity to work by peaceful methods for a more permanent peace. I therefore suggest that you construe the word "future" to apply to a minimum period of assured non-aggression-ten years at the least-a quarter of a century, if we dare look that far ahead.
If such assurance is given by your government, I will immediately transmit it to the governments of the nations I have named and I will simultaneously inquire whether, as I am reasonably sure, each of the nations enumerated above will in turn give like assurance for transmission to you.
Reciprocal assurance such as I have outlined will bring to the world an immediate measure of relief.
I propose that if it is given, two essential problems shall promptly be discussed in the resulting peaceful surroundings, and in those discussions the government of the United States will gladly take part.
The discussions which I have in mind relate to the most effective and immediate manner through which the peoples of the world can obtain progressive relief from the crushing burden of armament which is each day bringing them more closely to the brink of economic
disaster. Simultaneously the government of the United States would be prepared to take part in discussions looking towards the most practical manner of opening up avenues of international trade to the end that every nation of the earth may be enabled to buy and sell on equal terms in the world market as well as to possess assurance of obtaining the materials and products of peaceful economic life.
At the same time, those governments other than the United States which are directly interested could undertake such political discussions as they may consider necessary or desirable.
We recognize complex world problems which affect all humanity but we know that study and discussion of them must be held in an atmosphere of peace. Such an atmosphere of peace cannot exist if negotiations are overshadowed by the threat of force or by the fear of war.
I think you will not misunderstand the spirit of frankness in which I send you this message. Heads of great governments in this hour are literally responsible for the fate of humanity in the coming years. They cannot fail to hear the prayers of their peoples to be protected from the foreseeable chaos of war. History will hold them accountable for the lives and the happiness of all-even unto the least.
I hope that your answer will make it possible for humanity to lose fear and regain security for many years to come.
A similar message is being addressed to the Chief of the Italian Government.
Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Statement by the Prime Minister of Canada, given to the Charge d'Affaires, United States Legation, Ottawa, upon receipt of a copy of President Roosevelt's address to the Chancellor of the German Reich and the Chief of the Italian Government.
Ottawa, April 15, 1939. At a moment of supreme concern, the president has acted with characteristic initiative and courage. His frank and realistic message is directed to the leaders and the peoples of two great European countries, but it is of vital interest to the people of every country. It gives the world a chance to halt on the brink of catastrophe.
The very fact that the danger is diffused, that there is no single issue, no one point of tension, has made it difficult to deal with the present situation. Now, the head of a great country, who appreciates what a conflict in Europe might come to mean to mankind, has brought the whole problem into sharp focus. He has presented an opportunity to all of sitting round a friendly table, where every grievance can be discussed frankly, and the readiness of each country, whether in Europe or outside it, to make its contribution to peaces and understanding, can be tested. In offering to join in the discussion of the disarmament and economic questions which lie at the root of so much of the world's unrest, the president has made a vital contribution in advance.
Mr. Roosevelt offers a peace conference before a war instead of after it. No country can lightly reject that opportunity of saving civilization and saving itself.
Canada welcomes the timely action of her good neighbour, and fervently hopes that it may meet with the response which the gravity of the situation demands.
2S40	COMMONS
The Budget-Statistical Information


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Last week, in reply to a question put by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), I intimated that I hoped to be able to bring down the budget on Thursday of this week. I now find that my hopes in that regard cannot be realized. In giving consideration to the matter, having regard also the desirability of expediting the business of the house, I may say it is now the definite intention to bring down the budget on Tuesday of next week.
I recognize, of course, that Tuesday is an unusual day, Thursday having the merit of permitting a week-end adjournment of the discussion in order that the opposition may have opportunity to study the document and all that it may imply; and for that reason I may say at once that the government will not object to any reasonable adjournment which may be requested following the budget speech.
I think I should also intimate to the house that it is the intention to try to follow this year, and possibly in future years, as the house may determine, the practice which is followed in Great Britain and also in Australia rf putting together what might be called the statistical and accounting information and ixplanations into one document, which is filed is a white paper and published as an appendix ;o the budget. This procedure will not only relieve me very greatly, but I am quite sure will relieve the house; since it will obviate the necessity of listening for quite a long period to figures and explanations of figures which it is quite impossible for anyone to carry in his mind and which in fact must be studied in their printed form before being used by any member in the course of debate or for any other purpose. I need not assure the house, I am certain, that the adoption of this procedure does not involve the giving of less information. Indeed, judging from my examination of the British and Australian records,
I think it may very well be a means of conveying more information than has been the practice in this house over a long period of years in connection with the 'budget, it being recognized that it is physically impossible to cover by means of the spoken word all the information which might reasonably be expected to be a part of the budget.
If, therefore, I have the consent of the house it is intended to adopt this procedure 
in the presentation of the budget this session. Of course it will be the right of the house in future to determine whether the procedure should be continued, in the light of the experience with it on this one occasion.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DENTON MASSEY (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. On Friday last the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) referred to a statement I had made the previous day, which appears on page 2756 of Hansard, as follows:
-thousands have died as a result of exposure, illness, actual starvation or lack of care.
At page 2785 of Hansard the minister stated:
-the hon. member for Greenwood refused to withdraw and placed me in the unusual position of disproving an assertion which he on his part was unable or unwilling to confirm, and in support of which he did not produce a word of evidence.
Later he added:
. It is impossible to condemn too strongly an irresponsible statement of this kind under existing conditions of public tension.
At page 2786 of Hansard I stated:
-I shall be quite prepared to make my statement to the house at the earliest possible opportunity, in substantiation of the statement I made yesterday.
May I refer hon. members to an article appearing over the signature of Hon. G. M. Weir, provincial secretary and minister of education of British Columbia, entitled A National Health Program, in which he states:
The public dependents alone number 1,500,000 and there are as many others who fall in the class of the "medically indigent."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Denton Massey: In other words according to Mr. Weir there are 3,000,000 people, or over 25 per cent of our population, who are not able to meet the costs-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member is not allowed to make a speech. He has not stated his question of privilege in regard to the remarks of the Minister of Labour to which he objects. I do not think he has the right to begin another speech.


Denton Massey: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour rose in his place on Friday and during the course of his remarks read seven telegrams, and then added a statement of his own.

Privilege-Mr. Massey


Mr. ROGERS:: One of the telegrams was from British Columbia.


Denton Massey: Yes, and one was from Alberta, if I am not mistaken. During the course of his remarks the minister challenged my statement. I said I would make a statement in reply, and I feel that it is as much my privilege to make a reply to the minister as it is his privilege to make a statement to this house in reply to what I said. I am sure that in view of the fact-


Walter Edward Foster: I should like to know what question of privilege the hon. member has to state. What is it?


Denton Massey: The minister stated that I made an irresponsible statement-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Denton Massey: -and hon. members who say "hear, hear" apparently are unwilling to have me show that it was not an irresponsible statement, because I am about to give categorical proof.


Walter Edward Foster: If the hon. member has any facts in point that he can cite to the house to disprove this assertion, he is at liberty to state them; but I do not think he has the right to make a speech, or to produce a number of letters from other persons to prove that his statement was responsible.


Denton Massey: I am quite prepared to recognize that the situation is such that one cannot give direct facts. Therefore I am giving such facts as are available, in a way that will enable the house to understand them. I ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and that of hon. members, in all fairness, to permit me to reply to the statement of the minister in which he accused me of irresponsibility.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that if he wishes to reply to the minister he will have ample opportunity to do so during the course of the present debate. The resolution is not yet adopted; it will have to be considered in committee, where there will be full opportunity to reply at the right time, rather than on a question of privilege.


Robert James Manion: I did not happen to foe in the house when the incident occurred, but I am informed that the Minister of Labour rose at the conclusion of the speech of the hon. member for Greenwood, or some time later on the orders of the day, and made a statement which took some few minutes, perhaps fifteen, during which he read a series of telegrams refuting the statement of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey). It seems to
me that since the minister was permitted to take such action the hon. member for Greenwood should foe permitted to substantiate his statement. The Minister of Labour simply gave evidence contrary to the statement of the hon. member for Greenwood, and now the hon. member for Greenwood merely wishes to give evidence in substantiation of his statement. The hon. member for Greenwood mentioned the matter to me, and my understanding was that he would take about five minutes, so that it was not to be a speech. Probably he would have completed his remarks by now if we had not got into this argument about the matter. It seems to me that in view of the minister's statement, in justice to the hon. member for Greenwood he should be permitted to finish what he has to say.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: In the course of his remarks the other day the hon. mentber for Greenwood made a tremendously serious statement as to the number of people- thousands, he said-who had died from exposure or starvation. The Minister of Labour communicated with those in charge of relief in the various provinces, who were naturally the people who could give information in the matter. He did not rise to a question of privilege the other day; he rose for the purpose of making a statement, as a minister of the crown, and to give the answers he had received from the various provincial departments. Now my hon. friend may have something to substantiate what he said. I do not think he has-*


Denton Massey: I have.


Ernest Lapointe: The place to do that will foe in committee on this resolution or during the discussion of the relief bill, not on a question of privilege. There is no privilege in the matter. If this course were to be adopted hon. members could state facts and repudiate statements, one against the other, before the orders of the day are called, all on questions of privilege. Certainly this is not what is meant by a question affecting the personal privileges of members of the house.


Denton Massey: It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, with all due deference to my very good friend the right hon. gentleman who just resumed his seat (Mr. Lapointe) that if I should have waited until the committee stage, so should the minister; but the minister saw fit to rise to a question of privilege and make a speech.


Ernest Lapointe: It was not on a question of privilege; it was a ministerial statement.
Privilege-Mr. Massey


Denton Massey: I believe he rose on a question of privilege.


Ernest Lapointe: No.


Denton Massey: Then he exercised his privilege as a minister, which privilege I do not possess as a private member. Under that privilege it appears that the minister may make a statement in regard to my alleged irresponsibility to which I cannot reply until the conclusion of this debate, which, it seems to me, is abridging the right of a private member of this house to rise and make a statement in his own behalf refuting a statement made by a minister; because my statement was not irresponsible.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend could have avoided all this if he had presented the evidence when he spoke.


Denton Massey: The minister could have
avoided all this if he had waited and had not interrupted me over sixty times, as he did.


Walter Edward Foster: I do not think the hon. member for Greenwood should discuss the merits of the question when he speaks to a question of privilege. If he is anxious to speak to a question of privilege, he should do so, and be brief in his remarks. I will consider what he has to say. .


Denton Massey: I thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was referring to the fact that according to the Hon. Mr. Weir there are at the present time in Canada-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Denton Massey: -3,000,000 persons, or over 25 per cent of the population, who are unable to afford medical care of any sort.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Edward Foster: In my opinion that has nothing to do with the question of privilege.
I ask the hon. member to wait until another opportunity, at which time he may state the facts. What he is saying has nothing to do with the question of people dying by thousands.


Denton Massey: I did not quite hear the last remark.


Walter Edward Foster: I do not consider that the last remarks the hon. member has made have anything to do with the statement made previously in the house, that people died by thousands.


Denton Massey: I do not wish to be objectionable, but-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
(Mr. E. Lapointe.]


Denton Massey: -the statement which I made contained the phrase "lack of care." It seems to me that surely-


Norman McLeod Rogers: Starvation and exposure.


Walter Edward Foster: I think what every person in the country had understood the hon. member to mean wag that people were dying by thousands, on the road, due to starvation.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Starvation and exposure.


Walter Edward Foster: The statement the hon. member wishes to make has nothing to do with this matter.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I do not
think your honour has the right to make that statement. The hon. member's words were not that they died of starvation; he gave a number of other reasons, such as exposure and so forth. I say that you, Mr. Speaker, have no right to misinterpret the words of the hon. member.


Walter Edward Foster: I did not misinterpret
the hon. member's remarks. The only point I wished to make was that I did not think the hon. member's remarks were an answer to the question which had been raised in the house.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order which has been discussed, may I say that the hon. member's original reference was to single transients.


Robert James Manion: No.


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Speaker, we are
speaking to a point of order, but very often a point of order-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Edward Foster: There is no question
before the house.


Denton Massey: May I suggest-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Denton Massey: While I appreciate the
point of view which your honour has taken,
I wish it to be noted at this point that subsequently in this discussion I-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a point of order.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member will
have the right at an early stage of the debate to continue his speech, and explain his position.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. N. J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe). While this matter may not be one of national importance, nevertheless it has to do with radio, and is of some importance. When I was home over the week-end I was advised of a situation respecting the occupants of a sanatorium who had radios supplied to them. These radios had been given them two or three years ago by friends. They are informed that they have to get licences before the first of May. or before the expiration of thirty days. They are at their wits' end to know where to get the money to pay for the licences for the individual sets in the rooms.


An hon. MEMBER:: You pay for them.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: This point arises: There is a general instrument in the building, which is looked after by the management. Particularly on Sunday mornings those of different religions like to listen to different programs.


Ernest Lapointe: Ask your question.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Is this to be a burlesque, or what is it?


Ernest Lapointe: What is
your question?


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I should like to know
this:	On each of those small room sets are
they required to pay 82.50?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) :: The regulations of the broadcasting
corporation are quite clear. If the sanatorium in question is a charitable institution, no licence is required. If the room sets are simply loud speakers, no licence is required. However, licence is required for the central station, provided the institution is not a charitable one.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

[Stage Direction]
UNEMPLOYMENT AND AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS-*

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, April 14, consideration of the motion of Hon. Norman McL. Rogers (Minister of Labour) that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide assistance in the alleviation of
unemployment and agricultural distress and for such purpose to authorize the execution of undertakings in the general interest of Canada and requisite for the purposes of the act, out of moneys appropriated by parliament, and also to provide financial assistance to the provinces by way of loan, advance or guarantee, out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund, and for the appointment of necessary officers, clerks and employees.
René-Antoine Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, when I first decided to take part in the debate my mind was fully made up to deliver the most blistering denunciation of the government's policy that I could possibly make. But upon reflection it occurred to me that if I did adopt an attitude of that kind it would be rather selfish on my part, and that such a speech could not possibly contribute one iota to the solution of the problems we face to-day.
I also reflected upon one of the opening sentences in the speech of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey), when he said he felt like a ghoul about to feed on the fresh corpse of a dead debate. I listened carefully to his speech and realized that it consisted mostly of denunciation. I thought it would have been more appropriate if he had said, more truthfully, that he felt like a gladiator eager and anxious to thrust another stabbing and painful blow into the body of a defeated and beaten opponent. Because of his close association with the work of spreading the teachings of the Christian doctrine, the hon. member will realize perhaps better than anyone else the great truth of the suggestion I have made.
It occurred to me that such methods were selfish, inasmuch as they do not principally seek to help as much as they seek to secure political advantage. From time to time in the house ive hear hon. members from all sides say, "Let us forget party lines, and cooperate for the common good." Have we thought exactly what is meant by those words? They mean that we should drop our selfish attitude. We cannot cooperate with others until each of us has set his own house in order. For example, last Friday the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) himself was guilty of a little bit of selfishness when he denied that people in Canada had died of starvation and exposure, owing to lack of food and shelter.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am sure my hon. friend does not wish to misquote me. I did not deny that some had died. I denied the statement of the hon. member for Greenwood that thousands had died from such causes.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Perhaps the minister alters the statement he thought he made the other day.
2844	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Norman McLeod Rogers: The hon. member will read Hansard and see my statement.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I am bound to accept the statement of the minister. Nevertheless the impression I got from his remarks and from the telegrams-I should say the gems- which were received from the various provincial governments was that nowhere in Canada could be found examples where people had died of exposure because of the lack of food, clothing or shelter. In order to have cooperation in this house, in order to forget party lines, we should begin with ourselves. I realize, of course, that the minister could not admit that such a thing could happen in this country. That would have meant his job; it would have hurt his political colleagues and done damage to his political affiliations. The minister read a telegram in this house from Mr. A. MacNamara, who is I understand deputy minister of labour in the province of Manitoba. It is to be found on page 2785 of Hansard of Friday, April 14, and reads in part as follows:
There have been no cases of death due to malnutrition, starvation or exposure attributable to lack of sufficiency, inavailability or amount of relief in Manitoba during the last four 5rears.
At the very moment the minister was standing up in this house reading this gem from the province of Manitoba, we found this article in the press:
Winnipeg, April 13.-The body of an unidentified man, believed a transient, was found to-day in an old coach in the Canadian Pacific railway yards here. Death was believed due to exposure and starvation.
This man had died and had been found in an old coach just the day before that telegram left Winnipeg. That is why I say that the minister or the official handling relief in Winnipeg could not admit that such things were taking place in Canada. The minister knows just as well as I that this is not the only case. He has himself read reports time and time again in Canadian newspapers describing happenings such as this. I admit at once that such items do not receive much prominence. I found this one buried on page thirteen of one of our local newspapers, just underneath the social column. The things most prominently displayed on that page are occurrences such as teas given by the Prime Minister. When a transient dies in an old coach, the report does not receive much prominence. As a matter of fact, the officials 
of that province did not think it necessary to tell the minister of what had happened just the day before the telegram was sent.
I turn now to another gem sent by an official in the province of Alberta who signs himself A. A. Mackenzie, commissioner of relief and public welfare. I venture to say at once that the government of Alberta was not aware that such a communication was sent to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). He refers in his telegram to the fifty cent bonus which the relief recipients received at Christmas and the statement is made that in most cases this money was expended extravagantly. All they received was fifty cents per capita with which to buy a Packard car, I suppose, or other things which they could not otherwise afford to buy. This official goes on to state:
Persons making such statements should be made produce evidence or action taken to prevent such prevarication in the future.
That gentleman should be made to prove that the people on relief in his province are just as healthy as the wealthier families. I mention these two examples simply because they are outstanding. While I hesitate to use the term, it seems to me that the facts are a direct lie to this statement. This transient was found in an old coach, dead from starvation and exposure. It happened the day before the minister made his statement. I am wondering just what happened in Manitoba. Did the official deliberately keep from the minister certain information which he must have had as to this occurrence? I quote these two gems, as I desire to call them, not because they happen to be typical of the provinces of Alberta and Manitoba, but because they are the two most outstanding examples at my disposal at the moment. I feel quite sure that similar things have occurred in other provinces of Canada.
The transient problem is not a problem belonging to one or two provinces; it affects the whole of the dominion. For fear that it might be said that this is the only example I could find, I should like to refer to another incident which occurred some time ago. It has to do with a transient who used to live on the Ottawa East dump-I ask every hon. member to note the address of this man. The report states that a train moving out of Ottawa struck a man described as Tony Mazuerko, aged sixty-six years, a transient who had been living on the Ottawa East dump. The report states further that apparently the man had not had sufficient food, the result being that he did not have enough strength to hang on to the box car when he

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
tried to climb on board. Exactly one week later, we find this report of an occurrence right in the shadow of this peace tower:
A week or so ago, city police found another so-called transient almost frozen to death in an empty garage. The report said he had collapsed because of "malnutrition," in other words, in a state of starvation.
Every hon. member of this house could go on reading reports of incidents like this the whole day long. This is not an isolated case, it is simply an example of what other hon. members must know.
I should like to refer to the situation which exists in Sorel, in the province of Quebec, and read a letter which I have received from that part of the country. This shows that the unemployment problem is widespread in scope and does not belong to only one part of the country. The letter is in French, and I shall read it in that language. It reads:
(Translation) Some of them are on relief, others are being assisted by means of public collections, and the remainder are just tightening their belts. We have taken all possible means to obtain assistance from the Ottawa government, but in vain. The city of Sorel has reached the limit of its borrowing capacity and the province has done all it could. Had the province not come to our assistance, many people would have starved to death by this time. . . .
In February last, when the people were about to make a slight demonstration to show their need of food, twenty detectives came on the scene, but after inquiry they decided in favour of the demonstrators. If the government does not help us, I do not know what will happen. Although we are opposed to communism, we are not going to let our children starve. The federal government should come to our assistance as soon as possible.


Mr. MICHAUD:: (Text): Who signed that?


Mr. LALONDE (Translation):: Who signed
that letter?


René-Antoine Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I refuse to say who signed this letter, for the simple reason that he would be subjected to no end of persecution.
(Text) I read that extract to show that these things are happening in various parts of the dominion.


Maurice Lalonde: I rise to a point of order. I do not think my hon. friend can be permitted to place on Hansard an anonymous letter. The rules of the house compel him to give the name of the signer. If he refuses to do so, I ask that the letter be kept out of the record.


Walter Edward Foster: Does any hon. member wish to speak to the point of order? I think the hon. member should state from whom he received the letter. I remember that a similar incident occurred last year.


Mr. LANDERYOU:: What is the point of order?


René-Antoine Pelletier: Speaking to the point of order, this letter is marked "confidential," and time and time again-


Walter Edward Foster: It should not be read.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Time and time again ministers and other members of the government have made use of documents which have been marked "confidential."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Ernest Lapointe: On the point of order, a letter or document ceases to be confidential when it is read in the House of Commons. The hon. gentleman has no right to place a letter on Hansard unless he gives the name of the sender.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I agree with that.
Instead of placing it on the record I shall relate the conditions that exist in the city of Sorel as I know them of my own personal knowledge. Because of certain transactions which took place not long ago, a large number of people became unemployed in Sorel. I have been informed that many hundreds of these people have had to go about the town begging from door to door in order to secure food for themselves. I can quite believe that, in view of the fact that not very long ago exactly the same thing happened in the town of Aylmer, close to this city of Ottawa.
Here is another example which is very much in point. It is case No. 127, taken from a report of case histories by Jean Graham Low, appearing in the Ottawa Citizen of Saturday, April 15, 1939:
This family is having tough sledding. During the time the father works, and is being budgeted, until they become eligible for relief again it seems to be starvation and no halfmeasures. There are seven children in this instance whose ages range as follows: three boys, 18-15-11; four girls, 13-8J-6-3 years. All of these children need clothes in the worst way, especially the three bo3's. Families w-ho are supposed to live in a similar state when employed as they would if they were receiving relief are to be sympathized with. When they are on relief, no back bills can be paid, and no one bothers them too much. Yet, when the man gets employment everyone to whom he owes money is after him, hotfoot. If he does not pay, his wages are garnisheed, and if he does pay, he simply cannot save. When he is penniless and applies for relief he is told that his earnings should have done him a certain length of time. The fact of his having bills to pay, as well as current living expenses, does not enter into his favour at all and the whole family starve during the "waiting period" until they are reinstated with the relief again, providing no earnings have been made meanwhile. The woman
2846	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
came to me and cried bitterly. She said, "We haven't a bite to eat for supper, I'm telling you the truth and you can believe me. Our relief does not come due until early in May. What we are to do from this, until that date, I don't know."
Simply another case, and, again, one not very far away, but in the very shadow of the peace tower. Yet the minister tells us that there is no such thing in this country as death caused !by starvation. I am sure that if we are to eliminate selfishness and bring about closer cooperation, forgetting party divisions, we must all first begin with ourselves. If we do that we shall make better and faster headway.
When the minister made his statement in the house on January 23 last he referred to the action taken by his party in securing foreign markets and thereby increasing private employment. I intend to refer to this, not in a critical manner, but simply to buttress the argument I am making to prove that under the present financial set-up the minister cannot hope to do more than anyone else in his place could do. I took the trouble to compare the amounts of our favourable trade balances in certain recent years with the number of people in receipt of assistance in the same periods. These records are taken from reports issued by the present government. In 1933, when Canada's favourable balance of trade was S128,500,000, one and a half million people were receiving assistance. In the following year Canada's favourable balance of trade was $238,250,000, with 1,349,000 people on relief. In 1937, which was the year of our greatest favourable trade balance, amounting to $402,000,000, the number of persons receiving assistance in one form or another was still as high as 1,215,000. So that even though we succeeded in increasing in a large measure our favourable balance of trade, that achievement has not been reflected in a decrease in the number of persons receiving assistance from the government. It seems to me, therefore, that it is logical and timely that we should abandon this idea that it is necessary for us to feed everybody else in order to be able to provide our own people with food, clothing and shelter.
Another proposition which is made to us is that we should spend sufficient money on public works, such as road construction, to lift ourselves out of the so-called depression. We are told that if we adopt that kind of program we can provide employment for practically all our people. That might be the result for a time; as a matter of fact I have no objection to spending large sums of money

on public works, because I am convinced that in any case the principal of our national debt will never be repaid. But to say that such a course will provide a solution of our problem is to my mind the height of folly. We could not have a better example of the results of any such action than the experience of the program entered upon and carried on by our southern neighbours. To use a term which is often used in slang, the people of the United States "went after it in a big way." In the last ton years they spent over twenty-five billion dollars in trying to get back to prosperity. But what do the figures show? In 1929 in the United States there were 469,000 people unemployed. Ten years later, after spending about twenty-five billion dollars, there are 10,981.000 unemployed. Yet no nation ever went to work and spent money on public works on a larger scale than did our neighbours to the south. It could be truthfully said that the United States spent more money to find recovery and found less recovery than any other nation in the world. I do not say this because I believe that it should not have been done. Of course it should have been done. The only thing wrong was that they borrowed money to do it, just as we propose to do, and at the end of a decade of effort they have succeeded in adding to their national obligations a fixed debt charge of one billion dollars per year. The result necessarily must be an increase in taxation. No permanent cure of unemployment has yet been found. It cannot be found through the present system, and the fact might as well be admitted.
I could go on and quote tables taken from a volume which I commend to every hon. member. It is a publication issued by Robert L. Owen, former chairman of the committee on banking and currency, United States senate. The figures I have just quoted are taken from a report of the National Industrial Conference Board, Inc., of New York city, which keeps a record of unemployment in the United States. The publication goes on to show, as I have said, that the only thing they have learned from their experiment is that by issuing a large amount of money they can reduce slightly, for a short period of time, the number of people unemployed. The reason there was no great success in the United States is simply that they continued under the old orthodox system of trying to get out of a depression by financing production instead of financing the consumer. However, I believe that they are learning the lesson, because since that time I have read an article from the Washington

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
bureau of the Wall Street Journal referring to a plan given out by the government, as follows:
A plan to dispose of surplus production will he put into operation about April the first this year. It will affect more than twenty million people. The aim is to give "purchase certificates"-
I underline ' the word "give."
-in addition to present relief cheques. The United States Department of Agriculture plans to distribute surplus agricultural products to the needy through regular retail channels by the use of these free purchase certificates in addition to all other forms of purchasing power now available.
They are doing something there which we in the province of Alberta have attempted to do. We tried to put this plan into operation in that province, but for certain reasons well known to most hon. members we have not been able to do so as completely as we desired. However, we have begun, and I believe that the record of the province of Alberta is better than that of any other province. In the last three years Alberta has gone ahead faster than any other province. At one time the amount of building contracts in Alberta was greater in value than those of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia combined. During that time our industries have been developed in that province to an unprecedented extent, and in addition to that we have initiated the greatest campaign of buying made-in-Alberta goods that this dominion has ever known. That is why the government of Alberta are in a position to say that conditions in that province have been better since they came into power than they ever had been before. I say this because we have been criticized for failure in that province to keep the unemployment problem under control, on the ground that it comes within the jurisdiction of this parliament alone. However, I do not think it can be denied that the province of Alberta can show a better record than any other part of the dominion. Let me read from a pamphlet, Now There's Treasury Branch Service in Your Own Home Town, to show what has been accomplished in Alberta, after many obstacles have been overcome. This pamphlet sets out "seven good reasons why you should make sure that you get all the benefits of treasury branch service." Let me quote one or two of these reasons:
1. Every time you spend a dollar by using transfer vouchers you get a bonus of three cents, provided at least one-third of your purchases were " Alberta-made."
2.	Your money or transfer voucher deposits earn two per cent or more interest for you when you deposit them in a treasury branch savings account.
I will leave out the other reasons. Number 7 reads:
7. As your use of the treasury branches helps to bring about their success, it will become increasingly possible to issue credit in terms of the needs of the people, and Alberta will go marching forward into a new era of plenty, in which everyone will share.
At least they have recognized that until credit is issued in terms of public need, no progress can be made. This government seemed to suggest the same thing prior to 1935, but their attitude at that time is now something that belongs to the dim and distant past. They forget what they said in those days and now we find they have taken the entirely opposite attitude.
There was a report in one of the newspapers on April 1. 1939, to the effect that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had been reliably reported to have told his caucus that it was useless to ask him, on behalf of the Liberal party, to try to end unemployment, because it could not be done. I submit that he was quite right when he said it could not be done, but he should have added "under the present economic system." I have no doubt that was what he meant, but he should have added those words, because it certainly cannot be done under the present system. After all, the proof is there; the record is there.
I am quite sure both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour wish to solve the problem if it can possibly be done. I am willing to concede that they earnestly desire to do what they can for the country, and I believe the record will show that they have taken every possible step within the limits of the system they follow to bring about the end they have in view. When the Prime Minister decided that he would solve the problem, what did he do? He got the best brains he could possibly find within the ranks of the Liberal party. For example, he got the present Minister of Labour. Let me read the minister's record, giving his degrees. I quote:
Rogers. Hon. Norman McLeod, B.A., M.A., B.Litt., B.C.L., (Kingston City, Ont.) .	.	.
Educated at Cumberland county academy, Acadia university and Oxford university.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Perhaps my hon. friend would spare the house all the details.


René-Antoine Pelletier: No, I believe the country should know how efficient a man the government has. I should like to continue the quotation:
Degrees, B.A., (Acadia), M.A., B.Litt.. B.C.L. (Oxford). University teacher. Won Rhodes' scholarship at Oxford where he completed hi?
2848	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
studies in 1922. Professor of History at Acadia university later admitted to the bar of Nova Scotia. Professor of Political Sciences, Queen's university 1929-35. Has written many articles for periodicals on economic and constitutional questions. In 1934 served as counsel for Nova Scotia government before royal commission of economic inquiry.
With such admirable academic training, and with such an organization behind him, the Minister of Labour has failed to solve the problem; and if he cannot do it, I ask in all sincerity, on behalf of the people who are asking the same question, how the government can hope to do it. If this gentleman, with such brains, cannot find a solution under the present economic system, who else will solve the problem?


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Aberhart.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Now you are talking. He has tried to solve it, and he has really found the fundamental cause of the trouble. That cause lies in the present faulty monetary system of the country, and that is what we in this corner have been trying to bring home to the house ever since we came to parliament.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why doesn't he pay his debts?


René-Antoine Pelletier: Your party goes deeper into debt. We are all on relief in this house, trying to pay our way out of our indemnity, but that is not true of all members, because some happen to be in a more fortunate position. However, that is by the way. We are discussing matters affecting the government. I would ask hon. gentlemen opposite to tell me when the public debt of Canada has ever been reduced. When have we ever paid anything on the principal? On very few occasions since confederation; and to-day the trend is to go into debt with accelerating speed.
However, I was discussing the qualifications of the Minister of Labour, and I say that with his splendid record, with the able assistance he has had and the powerful organization behind him, he has failed, and it is no wonder the Prime Minister gets up in his own caucus and says, "I do not believe that I should be expected to declare that this party can solve the unemployment problem to-day." I do not say that critically. I am not criticizing the government at all. AVhy should I criticize them? I think they ought to be commended for fighting to the last ditch to bring about some improvement under the present system. But it cannot be done under that system.
The Conservatives hope to become the next government, but that is doubtful accord-

ing to a statement made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) in London the other day. They also had one of the most brilliant men in the country as leader of their party-I refer to the last leader. Undoubtedly the present leader is an equally brilliant man, and the Conservatives also have a powerful organization. They get up and tell us about their eleven-point program, but they forget to ask themselves where the money is to come from. What is the good of their talking about carrying on public works, providing old age pensions at a lower age limit, and so on? We are all agreed that these things should be done, but the Conservatives should tell us the one thing which apparently they have forgotten, namely, how these ends can be achieved under the present economic system. We in Alberta have tried honestly and sincerely to get at the problem by understanding its fundamentals. We have realized that it is control of credit and currency that really counts. We are not blind to the possibilities of Canada, to the natural resources of the country, nor are we blind to the needs of the poor, and therefore we want to inaugurate the monetary policy which will serve to distribute the wealth of Canada to those who need it.
If the Minister of Labour did not regard the present system as hopeless, he would tell us why it was that, when he knew that there were vegetables rotting in the southern part of Ontario, there were at the same time people suffering from scurvy in the northern section of the province. Of course he will say it is a provincial question, that we have nothing to do with it. But it was this government who told the people that they would end unemployment; they were going to make this question one of national concern. Now I am beginning to believe that it was mostly because of his familiarity with the constitutional question that the present Minister of Labour was put into that position. He has shown a great deal of ability in getting'around these questions by hiding behind constitutional points. Undoubtedly there may be some grounds for his acting in that manner. I can only say that although they have at their command the very best brains and unlimited money, hon. gentlemen admit that they have failed. That is the greatest condemnation of the present economic system that we could possibly have, the greatest demonstration possible in any country of how useless it is to try to tax yourself out of depression and bring back prosperity, or to borrow yourself out of debt. It is not by a program involving the expenditure of $150,000,000 or $100,000,000 on public

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
works that we are going to get anywhere. For the time being it might help; it might help certain local interests, but it is not solving the problem. And with this admitted failure to solve the problem the time has come when this country must look to someone else to take hold and solve it.
I had intended to refer, but my time is getting short, to the back to the land movement. We were told the other day by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) that a nephew of his-he let us in on one of his family secrets-had refused to go back to the land, although he was offered every possible attraction. All I can say is that the people on the farms do not object to being on the farms; what they do object to is that there is nothing in it for them. That is the cause of all their misery. They do not object to working from dawn until sundown, provided that they are able to secure a living by doing so.
Any attempt to solve the problem of unemployment under our present economic set-up has been proved futile by the present administration. Everything that could be desired was at their disposal-brains, organization, money; yet the situation to-day is just as bad as it ever was. There are just as many people receiving assistance now as there were some time ago. Except in the middle of the summer, the number never goes much below a million. Why not come out and say in a straightforward way that there is no solution under the present economic system? We have tried everything; we have the example of the United States of America; we know that foreign markets are becoming more and more restricted, that nations which formerly were importing nations have now adopted a policy of national self-sufficiency. But that is beside the point; for I cannot agree that it is necessary first to feed the world in order to be able to feed the people who are starving within our own land.


Mr. W. P. MULOCK (York North):: First I wish to congratulate the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) on his statement in regard to youth training and youth employment. I know the deep and sincere interest he has in these subjects. He has strongly advocated youth training, and he realizes to the fullest extent the urgent need of employment for youth.
A few weeks ago I had the privilege of introducing to him representatives of the service clubs of Canada. At that meeting delegates representing Rotary, Gyro, Progress, Kiwanis, Optimists, Kinsmen, Lions and
Civitan organizations were present and testified to their personal desire and the willingness of the clubs they represented to cooperate with the government in any plan or plans for the employment of the youth of our country. I am glad that the government have shown their interest in forest conservation by referring to it specifically in the speech from the throne, in the words following:
As a means of providing an opportunity for useful work and national service to single unemployed men, the assistance given to forest conservation will be extended to include other work of national importance.
The beneficial results of the youth training program have demonstrated the wisdom of this experiment, and a measure wTiIl be introduced to increase its efficiency and expand its usefulness.
I am glad to see on the order paper the resolution which we are now discussing, and also Bill No. 94, to provide for the training of young people to fit them for gainful employment.
It is well that in considering this question of forest conservation we should have in mind the original state of many parts of Canada, particularly some parts of the province of Ontario, with which I am most familiar, observe what has happened over a period of years, and consider what steps can be taken to improve conditions.
Our forefathers claimed the land from the forests and laid the foundations of rural communities in the farming districts now in existence. At that time the forests were a great help to them in augmenting their food supply with fish and fowl and in providing building material for their farm buildings. But the pioneers had the problem of clearing sufficient land to raise crops to feed themselves and supply pasture and feed for their live stock. In those early days the forests seemed a veritable enemy which they had to conquer in order to exist. In many districts no market was available for the timber, and if there had been a market, there were no transportation facilities to enable them to reach it. As a result logs were piled and burnt in order to get the land cleared for the planting of crops. Throughout the years more and more timber has been cut, more and more land turned into pasture, and as time and opportunity permitted the stumps were pulled and the land brought under cultivation When the land was originally cleared it was very fertile and provided homes for many settlers, and as transportation facilities were improved there was a large influx of people.
For many years in those areas substantial woodlots and stands of valuable timber remained on the farms. But in recent years
2850	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
many of the timber stands have disappeared and a substantial proportion of the woodlots are being used for grazing-in fact are being overgrazed, thus preventing the growth of new trees.
Through the interest and financial support of Mr. Aubrey Davis, of Newmarket, Ontario, there was made possible the carrying out of a comprehensive survey of general conditions in the township of King during the last two years. Mr. K. A. Mayall, a graduate forester, was in charge of the staff which carried out this work. He had the benefit of the advice of a board of which Professor W. J. K. Harkness, of the department of biology, of the university of Toronto was chairman, and received the cooperation of the council of the township of King and a committee of representative citizens of that district. In view of the accurate and detailed information resulting from that survey, I wish to take that township as an example of existing conditions.
The township of King, with an area of nearly 140 square miles, is situated about twenty miles north and northwest of Toronto. Most of the township is rolling or hilly country, with a well-marked divide running across its centre from east to west. This ridge is the height of land between lake Ontario and lake Simcoe. The altitude varies from a minimum of about 670 feet on the banks of the Humber to more than 1,200 feet on the height of land. The normal precipitation in that district is about 28-94 inches and the average snowfall about 4 feet.
The peak of population in this township was reached about 1871, when it had a population of 7,500. By that time almost all the available farming land was cleared and cultivated The falling off of the local industries in the ten villages of the township has caused a steady drop in the population, which in 1936 was listed as 4,636. The population of King township is widely scattered and concerned almost exclusively with mixed farming, oats and wheat being the commonest grain crops, while practically every farm has a herd of dairy cattle. The sole remnant of the former industrial activity of the township is a planing mill at Schomberg. There are three remaining grist mills, but none of these now use water power.
In that township the percentage of wooded land required to maintain a sufficient water supply for farm use and to ensure soil conservation and wild life shelter varies according to soil type, climate, the slope of the land, the method of cultivation and the species of trees involved. In rolling land, such as the township of King, there is no doubt that at least fifteen per cent of well spaced, ungrazed
[Mr. MulockJ
woods is essential. In this township there are now only 4,042 acres or 4-9 per cent of the township in ungrazed woods. A further 4,499 acres of land is covered with woods or pastures in which overgrazing has left little or no young growth. Such woods are no longer sufficient in water-holding capacity. They supply no consistent yield of fuel to the farmers, and they provide little or no protection for wild life. The addition of the grazed woods to the present ungrazed woods in the township would only raise the percentage of all types of cover in that area to 10-4 per cent. The results of the survey of water conditions and soil erosion show that this percentage is inadequate to keep the land in stable condition for the greatest benefit of its inhabitants. Almost all the wood lots in King township are seriously understocked. The Dominion Fuel Board report states in part:
Not over ten per cent of all classes of wood-lots are producing within fifty per cent of the possible annual increment in wood volume per acre.
It is improbable that the average growth exceeds -6 cords per acre per annum. No data are available on the possible growth in well managed mixed woodlots in Ontario handled on the basis of sustained yield; but the hardwood forests of the Michigan Agricultural College have been yielding at the rate of 1-2 cords per acre per annum without reducing the growing stock. At this rate, if well managed, ungrazed and replanted in part, the 8,500 acres of wood in King township would produce more than 10,000 cords per annum without reducing the growing stock, instead of the present probable growth of about 5,000 cords per annum with a continual drop in the growing stock from woodlands ruined by overgrazing.
Of the two hundred miles of permanent streams which formerly drained the township only about thirty miles now remain. As an example, Hall's lake stream, which formerly supplied a permanent flow of water on which two factories and six mills depended, was dry in 1936. Twenty-eight mill ponds which formerly held a constant supply of water are now reduced to one pond. The mill ponds, with the permanent lakes and natural ponds formerly existing, made up more than five hundred acres of water surface apart from the rivers. The present permanent water surface in King township, exclusive of rivers or canals, is less than two hundred acres. The bureau of geology and topography of the Department of Mines and Resources carried out a ground water survey during 1937 which included this township. Of 1,572 wells in the township examined during the course of the

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
survey, 264 no longer can be relied upon to supply a permanent flow of water; and 72 others, while permanent, no longer supply enough water for the needs of the farmers concerned. These facts can lead to only one conclusion, that the ground water, or reserve of water supplying springs and wells, has been seriously lowered since the main woodlands in the township were cut. It is interesting to note that the four permanent streams now draining the township all have their origin in areas of ungrazed woodland. Coincident with the lowering of the ground water level there has been a noticeable increase in the number and severity of both spring and summer floods. The present trends in regard to the water reserves in the township are very low, and it can be forecast that further depletion of woodlots will lead to a further lowering of the ground water, with consequent drying up of springs and streams.
Both sheet and gully erosion are now very common in the township. The most spectacular form of erosion is the formation of gullies, but economically it is the loss of the topsoil which has caused the abandonment of many farm lands which never should have been cleared. All these lands are either too sandy or too steep to give any hope of sustained yield under cultivation. They are admirably suited to the growing of trees, however.
So far as this township is concerned the proper course to follow would be to release the present grazed woods from grazing and to replant some of the overgrazed woodlots, which would raise the percentage to 10-4. The further addition of 4,250 acres of plantation would bring the total woodlots in the township to 15-6 per cent, or within the margin of safety. In addition several small dams should be reconstructed near the headwaters of certain streams and the Schomberg and Kettleby dams should be repaired. The Schomberg dam drains an area of about eleven square miles and the Kettleby dam an area of about eight square miles. These dams will serve to reduce floods and soil erosion. They will make available a constant flow of water for stream improvement; they will aid in raising the ground water level, and their ponds will improve conditions for wild life.
More than 2,500 acres of former farm lands are now cleared but no longer cultivated. On practically every farm there are two or three acres of waste land, and exclusive of the Holland marsh it is estimated that there are at least
17,000	acres of land in the township not adapted to profitable farming. The project therefore appears practical if it receives the cooperation of the farmers.
In this connection I might mention that during the 1937 survey of the natural resources of King township more than 700 acres of land were made available by farmers for the immediate planting of trees.
The province of Ontario has made a substantial start on the work of reforestation, and a similar effort has been made in the province of Quebec though not on such a large scale. So far as Ontario is concerned this work was commenced in 1905 but was substantially increased in 1922 by the establishment of two additional nurseries, one at Orono in Durham county and the other at Midhurst in Sim-coe county. Since 1924, when these two nurseries commenced to distribute planting material, the annual output has increased from 1,000,000 to 22,000,000 for 1939. Until 1922 the distribution of trees was chiefly for planting on privately owned land, for supplementing existing farm woodlots and for windbreak planting for agricultural purposes. At that time the number of persons receiving trees was a few hundred, while in 1938 the number had reached 8,000.
The county forest system, which provides for a county buying thousand-acre tracts of waste land and having these managed under an agreement with the Department of Lands and Forests of the provincial government, for a period of thirty years, was commenced in 1922. At the present time there are sixteen of these forests in operation by twelve counties, with a total acreage of 18,227. In addition the province carries on inspection of farmers' wood lots. Advice is given to prospective planters and extensive educational work is carried on by means of lectures to service clubs, agricultural short courses, and other groups.
Let us consider the shift in population from the rural districts to the cities in Ontario. I have dealt with the population of the township of King, which reached its peak about 1871, when the population stood at 7,500. In 1936 it had fallen to 4,636. But that condition is not restricted to any one township. Let us consider the figures for the county of Bruce. In 1901 the population stood at 59,020. In 1933 it had dropped to 42,066, a loss of almost 17,000 people in a period of thirty-two years. No doubt some of those people went to western Canada, but it is also true that many moved into our cities. I have given the figures for the county of Bruce, as an example, but I might point out that nineteen counties in Ontario with large areas of non-agricultural land showed decreases in total population.
2852	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
The extensive cutting of trees, without proper replacement, has, I submit, brought about or contributed to the following conditions, not only in Ontario but in many other provinces:
1.	Insufficient protection of springs and creeks. In farming districts springs are disappearing and wells are drying up, and farmers have to drive their herds long distances to water, or haul water in barrels.
2.	The rushing of water in flood times causes the top soil to be gradually carried away, with the result that soil erosion is becoming prevalent in our eastern provinces.
3.	The lack of protection in the form of forests and substantial woodlots which tend to hold moisture has substantially contributed to the causing of floods which have caused injury and loss of life, and a tremendous amount of property damage.
We do not need to look to our friends to the south to see what floods mean. We have them in Ontario. For instance, one need only point to the damage done by floods in the Grand valley area in 1937 and the loss occasioned to the people of London. We have had floods at Port Hope and Belleville, points lying farther to the east, as well as in many other places in the province. We have reduced the flow in our rivers to a point where, from the health standpoint, their summer levels are positively dangerous. It has seriously affected our water supply. From year to year the fish and game situation has gone from bad to worse, and precipitation in the form of rain has steadily dropped because of the denuding of our land.
Our western provinces have suffered from drought condition, soil drift and soil erosion. We have an example of the useful work which this government has carried out under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, as proof that the construction of conservation works and reforestation is not an experiment but is a successful and proven fact. We have also as an example of its success the civilian conservation corps camps under the "new deal" program, put in operation by the government of the United States. It is generally agreed that the civilian conservation corps camps are by far the most successful of the relief measures adopted by the Roosevelt administration. Those camps were the first large-scale effort made by the United States government to bring definite physical and character benefits to its idle youth. They furnish employment annually to an aggregate number of about
450,000	young men, 50,000 war veterans and approximately 35,000 reserve officers. The maximum number in camps at any one time
	.
is about 300,000. Under this scheme more than two million young men and war veterans have found new opportunity in life. Useful construction works have been built, reforestation and conservation have and are being carried on, and the wealth of the nation is being built up.
Selection is made under uniform national standards of eligibility. These standards relate to age, citizenship, unemployment and relief status, marital status, character and physical fitness. As a condition precedent to enrolment each junior enrollee must agree to allot to a dependent relative a substantial portion of his monthly pay of $30. The man's family thus receives each month, directly from the finance office, an allotment cheque of from $22 to $25 to be used in meeting family needs.
I suggest the government should cooperate to the fullest extent with the provinces to bring this scheme into operation, not only to assist in the extension of the existing forestry work, but also, through a substantial enlargement of the program, to encourage construction work for conservation purposes. I would say that the federal ministers charged with the administration of this work and the responsibility for its success should, in cooperation with the provinces, consider making regulations to deal with the following:
1.	A form of education dealing with schoolyard planting of trees, to bring home to our young people the necessity of reforestation and conservation, and to impress upon them that it is in their own personal interests and in the interests of Canada.	.
2.	The replanting of areas on which timber has been cut.
3.	The clearing of slash.
4.	Controlling the location, size and quantity of timber to be cut.
5.	Controlling the wasteful cutting of young trees on lands planted under this plan.
The thinning out process will provide a substantial revenue and help to reduce operating expenses. According to a press release dated April 13, 1939, the government has decided it will set aside a million dollars for a national forestry program, as an extension of the youth training plan. This is a good start. It is estimated that at least 4,000 young men will be assisted during a period of about five months. I hope the government will consider extending the plan to larger proportions.
A program similar to that in operation in the civilian conservation corps camps, carried out in cooperation with the provinces, would,
I believe, have the active support of the provincial governments, county councils,
APRIL 17, ly39	2853
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
municipal authorities and large numbers of the Canadian people. We could do much to help the country. In the first place, we can assist our farmers by preventing soil erosion and ensuring soil conservation. We can preserve the natural water supply in wells and springs which now exist, and by a carefully planned program we can restore water where wells and springs are drying up. By replanting we can increase the value of the farms, and give to the farmers a steady yield of fuel. We can restore our fishing and wild life, which is of the greatest importance to the tourist business in Canada, and on which our federal government spends large sums annually for advertising purposes.
These conservation works regulating the flow from swampy districts and forming lakes in which the levels can be controlled, will substantially reduce spring and summer floods and create a more uniform flow of water in our streams and rivers throughout the year. We will be building up the wealth of Canada. When the money has been expended on these works, we shall have something definite and substantial to show in increased national wealth. In the northern parts of some of the provinces tremendous areas of our forests have been cut with the slash left on the ground. Apart from ruining the appearance of the country and ending fish and wild life, this has created a very serious fire hazard. Many of the regions which have been subjected to this type of lumbering operations should be cleared and replanted.
We will be assisting in providing more work throughout the country. Such a scheme would encourage and assist many people to return to the country from the cities. Many of these people were unable to make a living on their farms or obtain gainful employment under existing conditions. It might be well for us to recall the remarks made by President Roosevelt when addressing the people of his country. He said:
You have felt the rough hand of the depression. You have walked the streets looking for jobs that never turn up. Out of this has come physical hardships and more serious scare of disillusionment. The temper of our youth has become more restless, more critical, more challenging. Flaming youth has become a flaming question.
In other -words, he said that our youth want an opportunity to make an honest living and a reasonable chance to improve their conditions in life as they grow older. They want practical assurance against want in old age, and with it the right to enjoy the finer things of life.
I believe in the enlargement of the present scheme and I wish to congratulate the government on making this start. I hope it is a start by which we will be able to give useful employment to thousands of our young people and replace the despair which is now in their hearts with well-founded confidence in their future and the future of this country.


Mr. W. K. ESLING (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in his remarks on the unemployment insurance resolution, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) expressed the view that industry should recognize its responsibility and obligation to assist in the movement for the relief of unemployment. With the minister's view there was common accord. A few days later, during the discussion on the Canada-United States trade treaty, reference was made to the fact that certain industries in Canada were being jeopardized because the treaty permitted the entry into Canada of the mass production output of United States industries to compete with Canadian plants producing similar products. It is obvious that when you reduce production, you also reduce employment and increase relief. I believe that industry recognizes its obligation and is willing to cooperate with the government, but it does feel discouraged with the heavy taxation it has to bear and with the legislative enactments which have to do with its operations.
The present government and its predecessor have proceeded on the assumption that unemployment conditions were only temporary and that each succeeding year would show an improvement. Such measures as have been brought in for relief have been temporary in character. However, the government should be willing to receive suggestions from industry, even though some of those suggestions may be somewhat radical in character. The time has come when the government mtist cooperate more closely with industry. I believe we shall have to adopt the five-day week. If there is one example of the working of the law of supply and demand it is to be found in our present condition of an excess number of workers with a scarcity of jobs.
In my district we have a good example of what can result from the introduction of the five-day week. There are about 5,000 employees in the plant there, and when the depression came along it was a question of either reducing the hours of labour or laying off a great many men. The employees [DOT] chose to adopt the five-day week rather than have certain of their numbers lose their pay cheques entirely. When conditions improved the employees were given an opportunity to
2854 _	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
Bay whether they wanted to continue with the five-day week or go back to the six-day week. They chose the five-day week. The result has been that these men have had time for a little recreation; they have been able to improve their homes and gardens, and they are well satisfied. I think the government might consider conferring with labour organizations throughout the country with a view to ascertaining the opinion of labour generally and of industry with regard to accepting a shortening of the hours of work. This would certainly give employment to a great many people throughout the dominion. The bureau of statistics have figures to show that if the five-day week which has been adopted at Trail were adopted generally throughout the country, it would mean that 150,000 unemployed would be given employment.
I come now to a matter which I think should appeal to the government, that is, the apprenticeship system. The industry at Trail has a program by which the sons of employees are registered as apprentices. They are taken on at a fair wage rate, which is increased periodically. When they have served their time and become journeymen, if there is no vacancy in the particular department in which they have served their apprenticeship, employment is found for them in some other department until a vacancy occurs in which they can pursue the line of work for which they have been trained. There is also a training instructor who gives them four hours a week technical instruction. I do'not think there is anything which can contribute so much to the welfare of a young man as an apprenticeship service. I note from a release in the press that the Minister of Labour suggests that there shall be a training camp for air pilots, air mechanics and others; I know of nothing which would be more attractive to our young men.
In South Africa they have a regular apprenticeship system. Young men are registered legally for apprenticeship in various vocations, and in the past five years
12.000	young men have been registered for four and a half year apprenticeships, so that they will become skilled workmen, able to take their place in the industrial life of the country. The South African government has also a system for the training of youths from seventeen to twenty-two years of age in what is called a service battalion. These young men must be physically and mentally fit. Special educational qualifications are required. They receive daily training, and the government constitutes Itself an employment agency to find for them suitable positions in life. There
is also what is known as a pioneer battalion, consisting of men without special educational qualifications, but who are trained and well provided for and are used largely in the construction of public works. The government of South Africa takes the view that modern apprenticeship must have a place in the educational system of a nation, because it is the one and only sound way of training skilled workers.
I wish to refer also to the generous sum appropriated for the purpose of encouraging tourist travel in Canada, which is such an important asset. At the last session the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) referred to the construction of highways for tourist use,-and there is no greater attraction to the tourist than that of good roads. Paved highways over the state of Washington bring to British Columbia tourists from eastern Washington, Idaho, Oregon and various parts of the Pacific coast. They come here over hard-surfaced standard highways, but when they get to the section of British Columbia known as the Kootenays they find two highways connecting with the transprovincial highway, and both in a most deplorable condition. There is one which comes into Nelson, the capital of the Kootenays, from the international line at Nelway; another one joins the transprovincial highway at Rossland. This transprovincial highway is the only highway by which you can get from Vancouver to Lake Louise and Banff, and I ask the Minister of Mines and Resources to give consideration to the necessity of cooperating with the provincial government a.nd securing the improvement of those two highways.
What I wanted to speak about chiefly was the mining situation in what is known as the Silvery Slocan. For many years that mining section of the interior of British Columbia has produced a great deal of silver, lead and zinc. To-day the silver properties are idle and many of them which started production last year have found it necessary to cease operations because of the low price of silver. In the United States, as hon. members know, the government has a price of 64-4 cents per ounce for silver newly mined within the United States. That price they have extended for a period of two years. The various boards of trade in this silver district of West Kootenay have presented to the government resolutions asking that the government pay sixty-five cents or 64-4 cents per ounce for silver mined, not in all properties but in such new properties as are opened this year and which produce less than 40,000

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
ounces a month, and in such properties as were forced to close in 1938 because of the low price and which are reopened this year. It would be a comparatively small investment for the government, but it would be an excellent one, in view of the fact that it would put to work hundreds of young men and would reopen many properties. It would not affect any of the large mines. Last year there were produced in Canada 22,000,000 ounces of silver. I took the trouble to ascertain just what proportion of that production would be exempt from this excess price, and I found that 19,000,000 ounces would not be affected by it. I therefore ask the minister to consider this suggestion; to provide, in conjunction with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) this excess price for the product of newly operated properties. I am quite confident that the government will be making a very profitable investment, not only by saving the cost of the relief funds which are now paid to the unemployed, but in securing the sales tax on all materials which enter into the operation of these mining properties. The men who lease these properties-and most of them are leased-put their money into timbering, into . steel, into powder and equipment generally before the government provides a cent, and only if they get production would the government be called upon to pay anything over and above the world price for silver.
I hope the minister will give consideration to these and other suggestions which are intended simply for the purpose of relieving unemployment.


Mr. H. B. McKINNON (Kenora-Rainy River):: I feel that, from many points of view, the discussion in this house on the resolution to provide for relief assistance for the new fiscal year is the most important one which has arisen during the present session. So long as relief remains necessary, it will continue to be the centre of public attention, because the situation which gives rise to relief is one which must require the closest consideration by the members of the house and by the government of the day. Such observations as I shall make on this subject I wish to make without any partisan bias, without wishing to be critical of any government-whether past or present, whether federal or provincial- but rather in a spirit of helpfulness; for I heartily agree with that statement which is so frequently made, that only by united effort and concentrated study can Canada hope to eliminate the causes underlying the need for relief throughout the provinces.
In introducing this measure to the house on March 15, the Minister of Labour (Mr. 71492-180	*
Rogers) very properly outlined in a statistical manner the facts which stand behind the problem of relief administration. He showed the extent of the problem, translated into numbers of people who are existing as a result of the relief given to them by public authorities; he showed the main divisions of the problem of relief, and those main divisions indicate the causes for relief and suggest the general means which must be adopted if we are going to try to correct the present situation.
The minister showed that, in January of this year, of a total of 978,000 persons receiving relief to which the dominion contributes, about 32 per cent were on agricultural aid; that is to say, this percentage of those receiving aid are farmers and their dependents who, by reason of crop conditions, must have assistance. I would leave it to those more familiar with the farming industry than I am to suggest any solutions in the case of the problem of agriculture aid. During the last several years, as we all are only too well aware, crop conditions in the prairie provinces may be summed up as a series of disasters-drought, rust, grasshoppers and so forth. Even though those of us living in the parts of Canada which are not essentially agricultural have had our own problems to contend with, and still have to face all the consequences of continuing unemployment, I think we are all aware of what our fellow citizens on the prairies have had to go through, or of the uncertainties which large numbers of farmers still face, and are not unsympathetic to those measures of rehabilitation and assistance for the western farmer with which we are called upon from time to time to deal. We all hope that the time is not far distant when nature may once more deal kindly with the western farmer and when he may once again begin to receive a fair return for his labour and investment. Until that day comes, however, I for one shall always support any measure proposed which appears to offer any degree of advantage to the farmers who are afflicted.
In turning next to that phase' of the problem of relief which arises out of unemployment, I feel that I am on much more familiar ground than were I to undertake any discussion of the question of farm distress. Those of us who have worked for wages in any part of Canada during the past thirty-five years or so, know that unemployment is not a new problem, that there always have been persons willing and anxious to work who could not secure jobs no matter how much they needed them and no matter how painstaking they were in their search for employment. If any confirmation of such a statement is required,

2856	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
the statistics on the subject will provide abundant proof of the truth of this assertion. I would be the last to suggest, however, that because we have always had unemployment we should always have it. Surely a better arrangement of our economic system can be imagined than one that requires a percentage of our willing workers to rust away in idleness -at all times. Further, during the past ten years we have been the witnesses of a volume of unemployment which in earlier days, in pre-war days for example, we would have held to be unthinkable. I would not be the one to suggest that something has gone permanently wrong with our economic machine, and that, because before the war, we always had some unemployed we must now complaisantly take it for granted that at all times we shall have a much larger army of unemployed in our midst. With heavier unemployment it becomes all the more important for governments to seek out the means of correcting the situation and to endeavour to reduce to a minimum the number of our citizens who are without jobs.
More than once the present Minister of Labour has insisted that no one cure for unemployment which has been proposed up to this time, either in Canada or abroad, can be applied overnight to correct the whole situation. As an old trade union member I can claim to be one of those who, through trade union interest, have been required to give a great deal of thought and study to means of eliminating unemployment, and as a trade unionist I must admit that, even though trade unions represent the people who are actually affected by unemployment, the trade union movement in this and other countries has not yet been able to bring forward a formula which it could be claimed would cure unemployment if immediately and fully put into effect. Trade unions here and elsewhere have advanced many admirable suggestions, many of which have been given effect to with beneficial results. But I take it as deeply significant that the thoughtful consideration given by the workers' representatives to problems of unemployment has not resulted in the adoption by the trade union movement anywhere of a platform which it could be claimed would "mop up" unemployment in very brief order. The constant advocating of unemployment insurance by the trade unionists is an admission that unemployment to some extent seems inevitable. Incidentally, on this subject of unemployment insurance I wish once again to express hearty support of the efforts of the government to secure agreement on the part of the provinces to a measure of this sort in

Canada. One can only add the hope that the agreement of the provinces to the dominion proposal may not be delayed indefinitely.
We hear different cures for unemployment suggested from time to time, single remedies which only need to be applied for a brief interval to put everybody back to work at good wages. Obviously all of these cures cannot ibe right because frequently one contradicts the others. After experiments which we have seen in other countries one is entitled to feel that while many of these cures may have some merit, and if cautiously applied would ibe of some assistance, no one of them possesses all the strong points which its advocates claim. We know that a survey of unemployment made in the United States late in 1937 showed almost six million persons in that country then unemployed, apart from those on relief works, yet this followed after the most gigantic measures taken by any country in modern times to put people back at work. We cannot say that the United States experiment has failed; for presumably the situation there would be still worse were it not for the new deal, but we can conclude that, in spite of the tremendous expenditures of the government of that republic, large , numbers of people are still without work. Conditions being so closely similar in many respects in Canada and the United States, it is not difficult to see what the government here has been up against during these depression years. On the one hand we do not have the wealth to expend that the United States has, and on the other we could probably not hope for much greater success than our United States friends even if we had comparable sums to pay out for a new deal.
Early in the life of the present government a trade agreement with the United States was concluded, and that agreement has meant a great deal of extra business for Canadians. During the present session we have spent much time in debating a second agreement with the United States, which should still further extend our trade with our neighbour, and also assist us indirectly by facilitating the expansion of trade between Great Britain and the United States. I am one who believes that, given anything like normal conditions throughout the world, a policy of reciprocal trade treaties with the leading trading nations would produce unbounded prosperity in Canada. But although such treaties are, under any circumstances, a business necessity for this country, the fact appears to Ibe that unsettled international affairs, paralyzing to business in many directions, seriously restrict the advantages which should flow from trade agreements; and while we should not overlook any opportunities

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
to conclude any further agreements of benefit to Canada, at least until international affairs are on a more harmonious basis we cannot rely upon trade treaties to provide the volume of employment in Canada which we require effectively to minimize unemployment.
Measures which have been put into effect by the present government to ease conditions of unemployment have undoubtedly had beneficial effects. The expansion of the winter farm employment plan in the western provinces, the extension of assistance towards housing construction, the assistance in the training of youth in industry, the assistance for the rehabilitation of middle-aged industrial workers, the loans for self-supporting municipal utilities, the home improvement plan-these measures have all been beneficial; and while of themselves contributing substantially to the volume of employment offered, they have indicated what may be done through prudent government assistance.
As a member of this house, however- and I think all hon. members, whether they admit it or not, must have come to the same view-I have been deeply impressed by the habit of the public of always looking to the dominion government for assistance and completely overlooking the constitutional importance of the provincial governments in our scheme of laws and administration. To a very large extent the measures which this government has sought to operate to relieve unemployment have depended upon the goodwill and cooperation of the provincial governments. It would perhaps be much better if the public would shift some of the pressure which is constantly placed upon the dominion and apply it to the several provincial legislatures, to see to it that full cooperation is given by them to the dominion for the common good of Canadians. One cannot sit in this house for a number of years without realizing that the dominion government is not all-powerful, that a great deal of power rests with the provinces. In times such as these it is not enough that the provinces shall do their best within their sphere and that the dominion shall do its best within its sphere; it is extremely important that the provinces and the dominion shall work together on this grave problem of unemployment.
Until the world outlook becomes more promising, until we can look to external trade to furnish a larger volume of employment here in Canada, we must expect to continue those measures to relieve unemployment to which I have already referred, and must expect to spend even an increased amount on public construction, forestry projects, road building and the like. It is not enough for 71492-180J
us constantly to dwell on what a great country we have, how magnificent are our distances and how boundless our resources. Admittedly our population is not large in relation to our area, but since there is no immediate prospect of our population increasing rapidly we must make the best of the population we have. We cannot do this in any better way than by utilizing idle labour to develop those boundless resources and to provide transportation and other facilities to the limit to bridge our great, distances.	'
I disagree definitely with those who speak of money spent during the depression in relieving unemployment as wasted, in the sense that we have nothing to show for the expenditures we have made. We have provided ourselves with a number of splendid public buildings, we have improved our roads appreciably-and this means a great deal in such sections of the country as northern Ontario, which had been overlooked in the matter of roads until recent times-we have made our public parks more attractive for tourists, thereby improving the country's facilities to earn money. In carrying out these works the money spent has not been wasted; not only have we visible results to show but we have maintained the morale of the workers engaged on these projects by giving them an opportunity to earn money. As far as public projects of this sort are concerned, we have not overbuilt and we have not overspent, and as long as I continue to be a member of this house I shall support any further votes for like projects, and shall advocate that they be, if anything, on an increased scale. To repeat: money devoted to such purposes is far from being wasted, and I do not feel that those who claim that such moneys are wasted have a real understanding of the problem of unemployment or an abiding sympathy with unemployed workers; they simply lack an understanding of the fact that a man who is unemployed as far as industry is concerned, if he is used on a necessary public project is a much better citizen, and that it pays to spend money when necessary for a purpose of that kind.
There is one further suggestion which I have to make at this time, and which I consider to be of some importance. I do not need to weary the house by presenting statistics to prove that at all times we must look to private industry to provide the largest volume of employment for Canadians. Our whole system of government and industry is built on that principle. If at times we find it necessary to supplement private endeavour by public expenditures it is only as
2858	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
a stop-gap, and not because we have lost faith permanently in private industry to provide work for our people. In times such as these, on account of curtailment of markets abroad and anxiety and nervousness on the part of those who constitute the management of private business, there is not the tendency that there ought to be to develop new lines which would offer new avenues of employment. There is no doubt that nature has blessed us with a variety of natural resources, but it is up to us to put these resources to account by employing labour in the production of the commodities which we need. Without advocating high tariffs, I might call attention to the fact that present tariffs afford a fairly high percentage of protection to Canadian industry and to new industry which may be set up in the future for the purpose of utilizing our raw materials.
We often hear complaint made even in this house of the large numbers of public officials that we have in Canada. I am not one who has voiced these criticisms; I feel that in the main there is good and sufficient reason for having the number of public officials that we have. I do, however, feel keenly that the work of these public officials is not always turned to the greatest possible advantage, and in one particular direction to *which I wish to refer I believe this to be abundantly true. In the dominion government service there are large numbers of officials and employees engaged in cataloguing our natural resources.:	The provinces
also do a good deal of effective work along this line. On the other hand, we have numerous officers with technical training, for instance, in the national research council, the Department of Mines, the Department of Agriculture and so on, who devote their lives to research into the uses which can be made of Canadian resources. To some extent the provinces, and many of the larger cities, are constantly on the hunt for new industries.
Through trade statistics we have knowledge of those materials which we import which, with present tariff protection, could be manufactured economically from Canadian resources. What I have to propose is this: that there be set up a permanent body-call it a committee or a commission or what you will-of competent officials who would confer with private industry and with the various dominion, provincial and even municipal officers, studying and experimenting with resources and seeking to establish new industries, in order to discover ways and means of setting up new businesses which would give work to Canadians. In my mind there is no doubt that in the past we have

been too much inclined to leave this field to private business. That may have been well enough when there was work available for nearly everybody, but now that conditions have changed and that we must go out looking for means of employment, I suggest that there is no better way to find it than by correlating existing information and applying it specifically to the task of devising new industries w'hich might hope to succeed in Canada.
I know of no dominion government bureau that is definitely charged with this responsibility, and I think there should be one. The expenditure involved would be a mere fraction of the benefit to Canada, of what it would mean to this government in taxation revenue from newr industries, and of what we would save by providing jobs for thousands of Canadians. As I see it, this is largely a matter of collecting the information and the results of studies now available, for which we are already paying, in order that this material might be put to use in a practical way to provide assistance for our citizens. As a practical proposition there should not be a large additional expenditure involved, and I submit in all seriousness that this suggestion is well w'orth carrying out. I commend it to parliament and to the government as one means of adding to the payrolls of the country while at the same time adding to the prosperity of the community. I cannot help feeling that such a bureau, to coordinate, information in regard to what new industries might be set up to make use of existing materials and human resources, is something with which we should go ahead without delay.
The other measures to relieve unemployment are all excellent in their way, but we must recognize the fact that they are only temporary. New industries would give a permanence to the employment of Canadians which cannot be secured through short-term measures. From time to time new industries spring up through the foresight of some individual. Let us as a parliament assist that process. Let us, by more specific attention to these matters, anticipate the future; and rather than wait for individuals to act without urging, let the government assemble the facts and give an impetus to industry. Such a move is bound to result in increased employment if our confidence in the resources of our people and our country is justified; and I feel that our confidence certainly is justified.
Mr. J. A. MARSH (Hamilton West); Mr. Speaker, the government of this country cannot have realized the extent of this problem of unemployment. Had they done so, more

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
constructive means would have been taken during the last few years and more adequate legislation would be before us now to deal with it. We have had the problem for years; it is not new. It is not a temporary problem, or one that is getting any less in my riding; on the contrary it is getting worse.
Since I have been in this house I have made several speeches on the unemployment problem and have listened to many other speeches on the same subject, some of them very good and some not so good. Every plan on earth has been brought to the attention of this government for consideration, yet I am afraid very little has been done to cope with this problem by means of legislation. I am not going to contribute any lengthy remarks to this debate. I am going to read into Hansard the relief figures for the city of Hamilton for the last three years, and I will let those figures speak for themselves. On March 1, 1937, the number on relief in Hamilton was 14,300. On March 1, 1938, that number had increased to 17,600, and on March 1, 1939, there were 19,700 on relief. On April 1 of this year, just two weeks ago, that figure had reached 20,148. The population of Hamilton is approximately 158,000.
Those figures are from the welfare commissioner of the city of Hamilton. As far as I am concerned they indicate the inability of this government to govern and to solve the chief problem of Canada to-day. That is all I have to say. I am not surprised that I have received 2,100 ballots from people who are concerned with the future of this country. These people are very much interested in the government of Canada; in sending me their ballots they have also written sincere and intelligent letters. I do not take those ballots as a criticism of myself as a back-bencher of the opposition, although if any criticism is directed to me I am quite willing and anxious to assume my share of responsibility. I take them as criticism of the government.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, all I desire to say is that personally I will welcome more ballots, more interest in public affairs on the part of people and an early election.


John Mouat Turner: Mr. Speaker, on both occasions when I have had the honour of speaking in this house I have dealt mainly with the subject of unemployment, because I consider it the paramount question in Canada to-day. In view of the fact that we have a large country with a very small population, a country rich in land and all kinds of natural resources, it is difficult for me to understand why this should be our most important question. Unemployment was
first prevalent in Europe, I understand, and an attempt was made to cure it by sending people to new countries, such as Canada, where land could be obtained easily and cheaply. Now we find ourselves faced with the situation that at one time we helped to solve.
The alleviation of distress caused by unemployment has been during the past nine years a stubborn and persistent problem in practically every country in the world. Following the world-wide economic disturbances of 1929 and 1930 employment has been affected by industrial changes to such an extent that the re-employment of idle workers has fallen far behind the recoveries which have taken place in business generally. The principle of recognizing large scale unemployment as a permanent condition is being accepted in many countries, but surely there are few Canadians willing to accept that principle as applicable to a young, vigorous and richly endowed country such as Canada.
During the last nine years this calamity has cost this [DOT] government alone something like 8315,000,000. That, sir, is a tremendous amount of money, but in spite of this expenditure there were still in this great country of ours nearly 214,000 heads of families and their dependents on relief, as of November 1 of last year. We might overlook that amount of $315,000,000 if this problem had been cleaned up, or even if the end were in sight, but that is not the case. So I say, Mr. Speaker, that any war, particularly an internal one, that has gone on for over nine years and that has cost about $850,000,000, including the money spent by the dominion, the provinces and the municipalities, without counting the greatest cost of all which is the cost to our youth and the general suffering and misery which those on relief are experiencing, no longer can be considered a temporary condition. It must be looked upon as a national calamity and must be dealt with from a national point of view.
There is work of all kinds to be done in this dominion right now, work of a kind that will make Canada a greater, better country, and at the same time build up our national income. Some of these works I have mentioned in this house previously, but I intend to	repeat them	now.	First, there	is thetourist industry,	which	is the third	largestin	Canada. Let	us complete a good, wide,hard-surface highway from one end of the dominion to the other, with connecting links to	our national	parks	and to the	United
States. Let us eliminate all dangerous railway
2860	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
crossings, either by means of subways or by overhead crossings, in order to provide a complete safeguard against train accidents. In the unprotected sections we might plant the proper kind of trees, which would not only beautify the highway but act as a permanent snow fence and enable the road to be kept open longer for tourist business.
Then there is the important work of reforestation. In my own riding of Springfield, where millions of cords of pulp and cordwood and thousands of railway ties, as well as millions of feet of lumber, have been cut during the past thirty or forty years, the question of reforestation is now one of vital con. cern. At Pine Falls in my riding we have the only paper mill in the three prairie provinces. Here is one way of placing thousands of our young people at work over a long period of years, doing something to-day w'hich will benefit the generation of to-morrow; in other words, building up the country.-
I now come to the subject of water conservation. Here also, sir, is where many thousands of men could be put to work to do something of great national value. I give the government much credit for what it has already done in this regard under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, but I would suggest that it should be extended many times over and that it should include the constituency of Springfield.
Turning now to the subject of the supply of electricity in rural homes, I believe that through cooperation with the provinces the government should try to extend this convenience to nearly all farm homes. I mentioned last year that one of the reasons why so many of our young rural people are found unemployed in our cities is that they have not even a few of the simple conveniences, such as electric light and power, which city people enjoy. I believe the extension of power and light to the rural areas, particularly in the west, would do a great deal to curb the flow of our young people to the cities.
With respect to mining development I would say that here is a great industry that could be developed or expanded many times over. It is about the only industry I know of which in late years has really done something worth . while to help the labour situation. The mining roads have done a great deal towards helping, but the government should go farther in that direction. If we had better transportation facilities, particularly in our great north country, this would open up more mines and give still greater opportunities to thousands of our own people to get gainful work in that industry. I note the minister has in his
(Mr. Turner ]
estimates this year a substantial amount to be spent on mining roads, and I hope there is still more to come.
I turn now to the subject of sugar-beet and canning factories. Here also we have an opportunity to put many men to work. As I have said before in the house, the Manitoba government has already gone on record as backing the bonds of a sugar-beet factory to the extent of $600,000. I understand a sugar-beet factory will employ about fifty permanent employees, about 250 temporary employees, and also a great many more during the tending operations and at harvest time. This is something the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) might well consider. An extension along this line would help the farmers, who could stand a little extra cash at this time.
I now turn to youth training. May I heartily congratulate the Minister of Labour upon what he has already done in this direction, and more particularly upon what he has outlined in the companion resolution introduced at the same time as the one we are now discussing. I notice he has increased the expenditure for youth training to $4,500,000. I sincerely hope the government will see fit to establish a youth training school in my constituency.
I have tried to outline suggestions which I believe would add to the wealth of the country, and at the same time provide employment. May I repeat those suggestions:
1.	Trans-Canada highway, and connecting links with our national -parks, and the United States.
2.	Reforestation.
3.	Water conservation.
4.	Extension of electric light and power to rural areas.
5.	Mining development and mining roads.
6.	Sugar-beet and canning factories.
7.	Youth training.
Very few hon. members have risen in their places and offered solutions to this great problem. I believe, however, the one offered by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), which in short is to the effect that Canada can increase her money supply to an amount of four billion dollars without going into debt, and apply it towards relieving unemployment in works such as I have already mentioned, and others I could have indicated, should receive the serious attention of the government. May I add I had a letter from Mr. Clifford Barclay, of Tyndall, Manitoba, who sat for nine years in the Manitoba legislature, and from others, sharing this view. I believe the suggestion is at least worthy of close investigation.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
There has always been seasonal unemployment in varying degrees in Canada. It is agreed that provision should be made for the care of the workers of the country during periods of enforced idleness. This government has announced its intention to put into effect a plan of "unemployment insurance" as soon as constitutional barriers have been eliminated. Briefly speaking, I should like to see the government use all the power at its command to bring all the natural resources and wealth and, last but not least, all the brain power available into play in a concerted effort tcf solve this problem.
May I repeat that an enormous amount of money has been spent by governments on this serious matter, and I believe, as I said at the outset, that the question is a national one and should be treated from that point of view. Therefore I would urge upon the government that in fairness to our hard working Minister of Labour it should take over all unemployment and relief, and set up a new department or board responsible directly to him to concentrate on this one problem. This question is too large to be involved with any other department. If it could be straightened out, I believe all our unrest and the differences existing among the various provinces would pass away. I do ask that this serious matter receive the attention it deserves.
The reasoning that the government must prepare to care permanently for large numbers of unemployed cannot be accepted by the average Canadian, and there is an evergrowing belief throughout the country that the final solution lies in the expansion of private industry, with the government assisting within its powers by maintaining conditions which will ensure that expansion. Let me add that if private industry or the so-called capitalistic system is to continue in this country under a high protection, then it is certainly up to these protected interests to carry their fair load of the problem of unemployment. That is only common sense.
I note that the resolution calls for alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress. I believe this would be as good a time as any, because I do not speak very often in the house, to say that in my judgment the setting of the initial price of wheat at sixty cents, or very close to that amount, is adopting the principle of contraction, and I am bitterly opposed to it. It will mean that the railways will be the first to be affected, through lack of business, and will mean the laying off of employees all along both lines, because at that very low price the farmers will not deliver any more wheat than they have to.
Every industry, particularly machinery, and so forth, will similarly suffer. At this time the government should adopt the principle of expansion, and keep the price at eighty cents or higher, if it wants to lessen unemployment, and prevent our municipalities from going into bankruptcy. Does anyone suggest we can cut the purchasing power of our farmers by twenty-five per cent without seriously affecting unemployment?
In conclusion, to the youth of the country I would say that Canada is still a land of opportunity, whose natural resources per capita are perhaps the greatest of any land. Youth should not be willing to accept the dark picture which is too often painted for them by those who should know better. Recent years have been difficult, but as Canadians, whether young or old, we must regain the old-time pioneering spirit which conquered greater difficulties than those which confront us to-day. .


Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to dwell at length on this subject, although to-day, as in 1930, and also in 1935, it is perhaps the most important question with which parliament has to deal. The observations I shall make will certainly not be in criticism of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) or the government. Like most hon. members who have spoken I wish to say that no doubt the minister and the government are doing their very best in a difficult situation.
Nevertheless I feel something more should and can be done. From my experience it is my view that most countries will settle their troubles by paying more attention to the rural districts and the people who populate those districts. The statement that mother earth will provide a living for any man, woman or family who will diligently cultivate the soil, is as true to-day as it ever was.
Our thoughts go back to the land to see if to a certain extent we cannot solve the problems which confront us. I would remind the house once more that through the farm placement scheme, which I am willing to admit was adopted by the former government, at the suggestion of the provincial deputy minister of labour in Winnipeg, and which, with certain added provisions, was carried on by the present government, we were able to close the relief camps of this country. That was done by putting the single unemployed out among the farmers. In doing that, I believe I am safe in saying that we cut by two-thirds the cost of main-
2862	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
taining those single unemployed. If I remember rightly, the minister gave the cost of maintaining the relief camps during the last year they were in operation as 811,000,000. The following year we had the farm placement plan, and we were able to close up the relief camps. It cost the taxpayers of the dominion only something over $3,000,000 to place thousands of men on farms.
We all know that when the spring opens up, thousands of men who are now idle in the cities will have an opportunity to get out and help the farmers put in their seed. We all know that they march to the harvest fields even though they have been unemployed during the summer months. They look forward to the time when they can get out to help to garner the crops. I can remember quite well many years ago when we used to have what we termed in western Canada the eastern invasion. We welcomed that invasion. At that time western Canada was able to absorb 30,000 to 35,000 young men and some women from eastern Canada. Of course, conditions have changed and harvest excursions to western Canada are now a thing of the past.
In reply to a question asked the other day the minister stated that 1,500 single unemployed had been taken from Ottawa last summer and placed on farms. I believe that a possible solution of our unemployment problem is the settling of people on the land. The employment commission recommended that a more extensive farm settlement scheme be evolved. At the present time we have a back-to-the-land scheme which is participated in by federal, provincial and municipal governments. I do not need to tell hon. members or to remind the minister-in fact he has reminded us of this fact-that this scheme has been only a partial success. I understand it has been discontinued in some of the provinces.
1 received a letter only this morning from a young married man with a family of six or seven small children. He was placed on a farm under this back-to-the-land scheme, but after three or perhaps more years he found the going so hard that he had to move back to the city of Winnipeg. This man had hard luck because he lost his horses on account of the sleeping sickness which was so prevalent in western Canada. He was on his farm during a period of poor crops and low prices. It was a most inopportune time for him to go on the farm. He drifted back to the city after trying to get work as a carpenter- 
and he is a good one. He is now making an effort to be reestablished on the land, and I should like to quote the following from his letter:
You know the difficult position we were in out there. We sold out last fall because we had lost so many horses and then on top of that the poor crops. We could not get any assistance from them-
I believe he is speaking about the rehabilitation committee in Winnipeg.
[DOT]-so they told me. I had hopes of being able *to get enough work at the building trade but that is pretty slack so I have put in an application for resettlement but was told that the dominion government was thumbs down on any resettlement under the rural rehabilitation scheme.
I draw that to the attention of the minister because it seems to me that we are standing in our own light. I know this man and I know his wife who was born in my own district. They are hard working, industrious people and they should have another chance. Why allow this man to drift into the city and possibly displace somebody else who is not capable of taking up habitation on the land?


Mr. GOLDING:: Why should this government make an exception?


Harry Leader: If I may be allowed to continue with my remarks-


William Henry Golding: The hon. member cannot answer that.


Harry Leader: Yes, I can answer it. There should not be any exception; they should all have consideration. I say to the government, I say to the minister and I say to this house: It is time that we adopted some intelligent scheme for keeping our people on the farms and for resettling our land. Some years ago -I believe it was during the first session of this parliament-I directed the attention of the house to a resettlement scheme. I believed that such a scheme would keep our people on the land instead of having them drift into the cities. I am not going to go into that again, except to say that the federal government should at least take a lead in regard to this matter. I am not arguing that they should undertake any expenditures or work out an intricate policy without the aid and advice of the provincial governments, but I do think they should show a lead. I suggest to the government that they should take up this matter with the provincial governments and the municipalities.
The first thing they should do is to try to make conditions on the farm so attractive that the young people will want to stay there.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
That condition does not exist at the present time. If we are going to keep our young people on the land, we shall have to make conditions such as to make them want to stay there. My proposition to the government at that time was that by working through the municipalities, which were in the best position to know conditions in the immediate district, and through the provincial governments, they could find out how many young men were willing to stay on the old homesteads and carry on the business of farming.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Harry Leader: Before six o'clock I was pointing out a method whereby the government might make conditions better for those who till the soil. I used the word "attractive" -make farming more attractive. One hon. member suggested to me that in order to make it more attractive perhaps we should have a radio on the plough and a telephone at each headland, but really that is not what I had in mind. Perhaps it would have been better if. instead of using the word "attractive," I had used the word "secure."
The plan which I mapped out in a previous session is, in a few words, as follows. I believe the dominion government should take the initiative in this work and say to any province that wishes to cooperate with them, "We are willing to offer financial assistance to your government if you will join with us in a scheme to stop the drift of our farm population to the cities." It is, I think, for the dominion government to accept the financial responsibility. They should be prepared to loan money to the provinces, which would take the matter up with each municipality. The officials of the municipality, who are right on the ground floor, knowing their people in every part of the district, are in a position to take an inventory of not only lands available for resettlement but lands which the present holders are trying to farm but a part of which they would be extremely glad to sell to anyone who had the cash. The provincial government could take note of these inventories, communicate with the dominion, and say, "We have plenty of land in various districts, and we have many young men who would like nothing better than to set up a home either on part of their fathers' lands or elsewhere." Then the three organizations working together could purchase this land,
title being taken, of course, in the name ol the crown. It would be hard to get a better investment. The land could be resold to a farmer's son or some other young man who wished to farm.
I believe the effect would be to keep many of the older people on the land because they would have less responsibility; they perhaps would be in a position to pay off the mortgages on their farms. At the same time the young men would be satisfied to settle on these farms, because they would have good land, the price would not be exorbitant, and the rate of interest would be low; by this means thousands of young people would be retained in the rural districts. If you keep the young men on the soil it naturally follows [DOT] that you will keep the young women there also. I shall not go into this scheme in detail at this time. I did so on a previous occasion. I submitted it to the employment commission which operated last year, and anyone who cares to turn up their files will find it in detail there.
The problem of keeping people on the soil is one which is bothering the wits of every nation. I picked up a paper to-day and cut out this clipping with regard to Ireland, "Youth wanted on farm":
Ireland is trying to solve the problem of where to place its youth. Because of the slump in agriculture farmers are sending their children to Dublin and other cities to take up professions, all of which are crowded. Not only the poor but the middle classes as well have difficulty in finding employment for their young. Government leaders are being criticized for not making farming more lucrative and thus more attractive to young people.
At Portage la Prairie, my own city, there was held this winter a rural class under the youth training scheme. It was my privilege to visit that class before coming to Ottawa. At that time-I believe that the class has since been disbanded for this year-there were over fifty in attendance, with able instructors. I was informed that the class was most enthusiastic. I knew personally most of the boys; nearly all of them came from farm homes; I believe that every one of them would like nothing better than to get on to a farm and start a home for himself if he could possibly make his farm pay, and it should be our job to see that these boys do make it pay. I do not want the house to take that literally. I know it is not the duty of a government to see that everyone makes a profit; people must exercise their own brains, ability and knowledge. But there is something lacking in agriculture at the present time because men with brains, ability and knowledge are falling by the wayside every'



Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
year. Speaking as a farmer, I believe that something can be done by this government along the lines I have suggested to keep these men on the farms rather than have them drift into the cities to displace working men there.
In conclusion, I should like to say that the government has a hard task, one which will need all its ingenuity and ability. I appeal to all hon. members in this matter: I believe that the government should have the cooperation of every member-


Mr. BLACKMORE:: It has it.


Harry Leader: -and every group of
members-


John Horne Blackmore: Has it not that cooperation?


Harry Leader: -because it is only by the application of the energies and knowledge of us all that we shall be able to solve this important problem.


John Charles Landeryou: Unemployment is one of Canada's most urgent problems. It has been a serious problem in this country for man}' years, because unemployment means poverty and distress; unemployment means want and misery walking throughout the land. I am reminded that a Conservative government promised before the election of 1930 that they would solve the problem of unemployment. They failed to do so. The Liberal government did not promise to solve the problem of unemployment, but they promised to abolish poverty, which is the result of unemployment, and in this connection I refer to the statement made on the night of the election by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). He said:
In the new era which dawns to-day, the struggle for the rights of the people will, in the realm of economic liberty and security, be carried on as never before. Poverty and adversity, want and misery, are the enemies which Liberalism will seek to banish from our land. They have lain in wait at the gate of every Canadian home during the past five years, and their menacing mien has served to destroy the souls, as well as the minds and bodies, of an everincreasing number of men, women and children in our land.
We take up at once, as our supreme task, the endeavour to end poverty in the midst of plenty, starvation and unnecessary suffering in a land of abundance, suffering and distress in a country more blessed by providence than any other on the face of the globe, and to gain for individual lives, and for the nation as a whole, that "health and peace and sweet content" which is the rightful heritage of all.
If the government had carried out that promise instead of searching for means of providing employment; if they had fulfilled their promise to abolish poverty due to unemployment resulting from technical develop-

ments in the past, we would commend them. Unemployment has resulted from technical developments and is a consequence of industry having taken advantage of the work of scientists and inventors to displace man, to substitute the machine for man, to substitute solar energy for human energy-and, believe me, they have done a good job of it. The problem is one, not of providing work for people, but of getting rid of the poverty which has resulted from unemployment, many people believe that only through work can a man live, when as a matter of fact machinery power has displaced man power.
I will now indicate the impossibility under the present relief rates of abolishing poverty in this land. The other day a delegation of the unemployed visited me in my office and I asked them a few questions. I asked them whether the position of the relief recipient, of the unemployed, was any better to-day under the Liberal government than under the Conservative, and they said, "No." I said to them, "What do you fellows want anyway? What is it you are after?" They replied, "We want the right to secure a living in this country, a living which we feel can be produced from the abundance of our natural resources. We want a home. We want the right to marry. We want to know where we shall sleep at night and where we are going to eat. We want to live like other human beings." I asked, "Where are you sleeping now?" They answered, "We don't know; we have nowhere to sleep." I asked, "Where are you eating?" They answered, "We are eating in soup-kitchens"-they were transient unemployed. They said there were soup-kitchens in various parts of the country. I asked them where they were eating in Ottawa, and they said they got meals for two or three days and a bed ticket, and then were told to move on. The federal government will not assume the responsibility; the municipalities will not assume it, and the provincial governments refuse to take it. And so these men have to move back and forth across the country. They are no better off than when they were in the camps initiated by the previous Conservative government.
Last year I asked the minister to give the relief rates paid in Canada. These are the figures:
Per capita
per month
For the dominion	 $6.43
Prince Edward Island	 2.24
Nova Scotia	 4.49
Quebec	 6.10
Ontario	   7.77
Manitoba	 6.50
Saskatchewan	 5.45
Alberta	 6.78
British Columbia	 7.67

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
That is the per capita relief paid for food, clothing and shelter for one month. The relief rate is no different now from the relief rate paid under the Conservative government. The condition of these people is no better than it has ever been.
Let me now cite some figures given by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). The usual charge for food and other things required daily are from S12 to S15 a month. That does not cover overhead, wages of guards, cost of buildings and so on; it covers only the maintenance of prisoners. In other words, in answer to a question I directed to the Minister of Justice as to how much it costs to keep a prisoner in gaol he said that it cost this government from $12 to $15 a month, just for maintenance, not including wages of guards, overhead, cost of buildings and so on. Let us see how that works out.
A Canadian on relief in Prince Edward Island receives, from the sums provided by the municipal, provincial and federal governments, $2.24 a month for material aid-that is, for fuel, food, clothing and shelter. For the year a Canadian on relief in that province would receive, for material aid, $24.88. A family of six good Canadians would receive in that province for material aid, contributed to by the three governments, the sum of $149.58. It costs the federal government alone from $144 to $180 a year to keep a criminal in the penitentiary-and he gets little enough. In other words, for six prisoners in the penitentiary the government has to put up from $864 to $1,080, just six or eight times as much as it costs to keep six persons on relief in Prince Edward Island.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend is giving,
of course, the per capita cost of relief in the various provinces. He is not giving the relief scales. For example, a family with five children would receive at the per capita cost over the dominion, which the hon. member stated to be $6.43, a total of $45 a month. I mention that, so that there will be no misunderstanding of the figures my hon. friend gives.


John Charles Landeryou: The average varies
from province to province and from municipality to municipality. In fact, in the suburbs of a town a different rate is paid, and even in the same town the rates vary.
Here is the situation that does obtain in Prince Edward Island, for example. It costs the government from eight to ten times as much to keep a prisoner in gaol as to keep a man on relief. In Nova Scotia a Canadian on relief receives $4.49 a month for material aid-fuel, food, clothing and shelter-or $53.88 71492-1814
for one year, from the three governments. A family of six would receive S323.28. In Manitoba a good Canadian citizen on relief receives $6.50 a month or, for one year, $78, from the three governments who share the cost of relief. A family of six would receive $468 for the year. It costs this government alone from S864 to $1,080 to keep six criminals in the penitentiary-pickpockets, bank robbers, and so on. In Alberta, a good, law-abiding Canadian citizen receives $6.78 a month for material aid, or $81.36 for one year, and a family of six would receive $488.16; yet it costs the federal government from $864 to $1,080 to keep six criminals in the penitentiary. In British Columbia a citizen on relief receives $7.67 a month, or $92.04 a year for material aid. A family of six receives from the three governments $552.24 a year for material aid; yet to keep six bank robbers in gaol costs the government $864 to $1,080 a year just for the daily requirements. There would be a good deal more space between the vests and the desks of hon. members if they had to live on that relief rate.
The problem is not to find work for these people; it is to abolish poverty. That is what the Liberal party said they were going to do, but they have not fulfilled that promise. If it were a matter of lack of goods, of lack of production; if it is not realized that we are in an age of plenty, then I suggest to the minister that he read the statistics showing the production of Canada and how 234,000 men in Canada can produce $1,400,000,000 worth of commodities. Put the 450,000 people who are prepared to go to work in Canada to-day to work and you will produce billions of dollars' worth of new wealth. No, it is not a question of producing wealth; we cannot get rid of what we have, of what we are producing to-day. The government say, Let us restore confidence. You may buy with confidence,-but you cannot pay for goods with confidence. You must pay for them with money. People have to have increased purchasing power before they can buy anything.
I refer to a statement made by the Prime Minister in regard to unemployment and to what this government has done towards solving the problem of unemployment. He said, as reported at page 64 of Hansard'. ,
I am surprised that members of this parliament, I care not to what particular party they may belong, should seek continually to persuade the people of this country that this parliament has not been doing what it should for unemployment, or that the unemployment question is what it is to-day because of some lack of effort here at Ottawa. Hon. members of this house are responsible for what is done with the public funds of this country raised by federal taxation. Instead of belittling what has been
2866	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
done, why do they not point out to the people of Canada what has been done by the parliament to which they belong^ and by the government at Ottawa, since this government operates by virtue of the power given it by this parliament? Why do they not take upon themselves to show the people that session after session this government has passed measures to assist in the relief of unemployment; that year in year out it has been giving more and more and more in the way of public funds to the provinces to help them in working out their share of the solution?
Well, what is the result? Last year the premier of Ontario said that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) had offered no effective solution of the question of unemployment, and he said that the speech made by the Minister of Labour was a headache. Well, after he reads the one the minister made this year he had better reach for his aspirin tablets, because he is going to have another headache.
The other day the mayors had a conference in Ottawa and went away dissatisfied. They are carrying on radio broadcasts at the moment asking the federal government to assume complete responsibility for the cost of financing relief. I listened to Mayor Houde of Montreal last night declaring that it cost him 4-61 per cent to capitalize relief costs in that city. The governments, that is, municipal, provincial and federal, who contribute to relief, have spent somewhere in the neighbourhood of $900,000,000 on relief since the depression started. I believe that it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $480,000,000 that the provinces have borrowed in order to maintain relief. The federal government say that last year they spent $17,000,000 on relief. Now they are paying as much in interest to the bondholders as they are paying out on relief- possibly a good deal more. I wish the minister would get the figures and check up, find out how much the bondholders are making in interest on the money that has been spent for relief purposes. He will find that they are making a considerable amount of money, capitalizing on the poverty in this country.
As I say, the Conservative party failed to solve unemployment, and the Liberal party cannot find work for the unemployed. The government of the United States have spent billions of dollars trying to put the people to work, through PWA projects, WPA projects and CCC projects, but they still have a tremendous number of unemployed. I am absolutely in accord with the attempt made by the government of the United States to solve the problem of unemployment. By doing so they minimize the effect of poverty. I know that those who were single unemployed transients in the United States were 
put in CCC camps and given a dollar a day; the WPA workers are busy throughout the country building ' highways and parks; the PWA workers are busy throughout the land building schools and other government buildings, and they are receiving wages and salaries which help to maintain the economic system of the United States to some extent through the expenditure of the money they receive. But the United States government has been unable to cure unemployment. I agree with anyone who says that unemployment is here to stay; millions now living will never work again. We have to face that. But why? Because they have been displaced by the machine, must they live in abject poverty? That is the question I direct to the minister now.


Mr. HANSON:: Has the hon. gentleman a solution to offer?


John Charles Landeryou: Yes-increase in purchasing power of the people.
Mr. HANSON; How is that to come about?


John Charles Landeryou: I will tell hon. members how it is coming about. We have told them many times before, but I will go over it again.
Mr. HANSELL; When the Liberal party is defunct is when it will come about.


John Charles Landeryou: This is another statement made by the Prime Minister:
Look at the financial statements of Britain to-day; look at the financial statements of the United States to-day, and see what proportion of the national income is going into war armaments or munitions and into the training of men for war. That has had another effect. It has had this effect. It has thrown capital out of productive industries and put it into unproductive industries, with the result that there is much less capital left to invest in anything of a productive character.
But it has had an even worse effect than that. It has helped to prevent the investment of capital altogether. It has had a paralyzing effect upon the investment of capital. That is the position, above everything else, of this country and of some other countries to-day. Men will not put out their money to invest in the different industries. They are withdrawing their capital from industry. Ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), who is sitting here to-night, how much of the investment of capital to-day is going into government securities at a low rate of interest in comparison with what took place in former years. It has deprived manufacturing industry and our primary industries, and the like, of the capital they need.
I am surprised that he should make that last statement that it has deprived manufacturing industry and our primary industries

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
of. the capital they need, when he had promised time and time again to issue money and credit in terms of public need. He continues:
Why is that? Fear is paralyzing people with regard to their savings, and they are not investing them for productive purposes.
There is nothing at all mysterious about that. What are people to invest their money in to-day with any assurance that they will be able to sell the goods? If the minister tvould talk to these men who have money to invest he would find them asking him what assurance they would have that they could sell the goods that they invested their money to produce. If someone were to build houses, or build apartments, because they had money to do it with, what assurance have they that they can sell them or rent them, with the relief rates, such as they are, being paid to the unemployed?
Assume that I had 810,000,000-just say I had-I see myself in a difficult position. Would I put my 810,000,000 into the production of coal in Alberta? I know there is plenty of coal there and I know there are many people cold in Alberta, also in Quebec and in Ontario, and all through Canada. People want more coal, but I am not going to put my money into the production of more coal because I know the people have not the money to buy it.


William Henry Golding: Put it into oil.


John Charles Landeryou: It does not matter
what I put it into. If I want to manufacture radios, what is the position? I find that the factories are working part-time, that they are unable to sell the radios they are producing to-day unless they take fifty cents down and fifty cents the next time they catch you. If I want to manufacture automobiles I find the same thing. They cannot sell the automobiles they are producing to-day, and they are away below their productive capacity, as all industries are. They are not turning out all the goods they could produce. Why? Because they cannot sell what they have produced already; so they say, "What is the use of pi'oducing more when we cannot sell that which we have already produced?" Yet some hon. member rises in his place and asks me the question.
How is this problem to be solved? Why, millions of dollars worth of goods are sold every day on the instalment plan, and then some shark loan company comes along and says, "Here, we will save you from the sheriff. You are unable to meet your payments, so we will come to your rescue." People pay from twelve to twenty per cent more for every bit of merchandise they buy on the instalment plan; I think the average is about
twelve per cent, and then along comes the shark loan company and lends money at 24-8 per cent to make the payments due and save the goods from seizure. Yet the hon. member asks me, " What must we do to solve the problem?" My answer is: Give the people purchasing money so that they can buy the goods.


Olof Hanson: Is this socialism or fascism?


John Charles Landeryou: I cannot understand what the hon. member is saying. I notice I have only six minutes left, and I want to refer to a -book called National Economy and the Banking System of the United States, an-exposition of the principles of modem monetary science in their relation to the national economy and the banking system of the United States, by Robert L. Owen. At page 60 I find this:
The lack of stable, permanent employment compels labourers to demand higher prices for their labour when their employment is for comparatively short periods of time. This accounts for the complaint often lodged against labour when the labour unions fix wages at a price deemed too high. Such arbitrary high figures have a necessary tendency to prevent the building of houses for the shelter of labour.
The national policy of government should be directed to stabilizing employment. Stability of employment depends upon stability in the medium of exchange. There must be an adequate supply of money, neither too little nor too much, and only the government with its financial power and legal authority can accomplish this end.
By brain or by brawn, practically all of the people of the United States labour and are producers and consumers. A man of wealth directs the employment of his wealth, but as a consumer he draws no more in food or clothing than millions who are not wealthy. The accumulated wealth is distributed by law as the men of wealth die.
It is a grave fallacy to believe that scarcity is unavoidable or that abundance for all is unattainable because scarcity afflicts millions of people in a land of unlimited natural opportunities. Many men believe and have been taught to believe by suffering that scarcity is unavoidable; that there is a necessary limitation on the demand for labour; that many must of necessity go unemployed; that, therefore, the demand for employment should be distributed by a fewer number of working days and by a shorter number of working hours. A fewer number of working days and shorter hours will be justified when the American people shall have fully developed and fully employ the machines their inventive genius has developed, and the power produced through coal, petroleum water power, and electricity. This objective has not been achieved.
But until abundance for all is produced and full employment is provided through an adequate supply of the medium of exchange, the energy and intelligence of statesmen should be directed toward furnishing an adequate medium of exchange for the transfer of maximum products and services of the people to each other.
Labour leaders have had the artful appeal made to them that a rise in the index of the
2868	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
price level means a rise in the cost of living. This means this argument opposes a rise in the volume of the money required to create abundance and to create a larger volume of products. This argument has been shown oeretofore to be entirely fallacious beca'ise as the money supply rises employment and wages increase and of course the products increase in volume as labour increases in the number employed. When the volume of money and the volume of commodities rise together, as they do, the purchasing power of money remains unchanged and the average price of commodities remains unchanged as far as money is concerned.
In Loeb's "Chart of Plenty," which had its origin in the Department of Commerce and the labour of a number of experts, it has been demonstrated beyond the possibility of successful contradiction that with the existing machinery, technological processes, manpower, organization, increase of electrical energy, and our natural resources the people of the United States could easily produce $130,000,000,000 annually, if they were fully employed. This chart should be studied by patriotic men who desire our country to reach the highest standard of living for all of the people. It should be studied by those who desire to end human misery in the United States. It should be studied by those who desire equality of opportunity for the children who are daily born into the world. It should be studied by those who desire the farmers of the United States to have a fair reward for the hard labour they perform. It should appeal to those who have been disturbed by the growth of organizations based on discontent and which not only has caused a widespread demand for the protection of the weak and defenceless by the federal government, but has also caused the igrowth in this country of subversive organizations which regard democracy as incapable of -.giving all of the people sufficient food to live on.
There wras a great leader who proclaimed His purpose in entering the world that He came to bring life, and life more abundantly. He told His disciples the first means by which to accomplish it. As I remember it, He said, "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you."
National prosperity and abundance cannot be founded on blind selfishness. "It must be founded upon the doctrine which declared, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."


Olof Hanson: What is the hon. member quoting?


John Charles Landeryou: I gave the reference just before I started to quote.
I have another volume before me, the title page of which reads as follows:
Monetary policy of plenty instead of scarcity hearings before the
Committee on Banking and Currency House of Representatives Seventy-fifth Congress Third Session on
H.R. 7188 (Mr. Goldsborough)
A bill to provide a national monetary policy
which will have a definite relationship to . the requirements of domestic industry and

trade under the conditions imposed by our power economy, which will increase production and consumption to the limit of the country's power to produce, and for other purposes.
I should like to place this whole volume on Hansard, if I could, for the 'benefit of those hon. members who still believe in the age of scarcity. They object to any statement we make and consider that we are offering the people of Canada something that is absolutely impossible of achievement, but we find that there are many people in the United States who hold the ideas we advocate.


Mr. HOWDEN:: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman a single question, strictly for the sake of information.


John Charles Landeryou: I have not very much time and would prefer to have the hon. member ask his question when I have finished. On page 119 of this volume I find:
In the following section I speak of the national consumers' dividend, which is omitted from this bill, and I would like to point out here another justification for the dividend- an economic justification. We are all familiar with what is known as the problem of technological unemployment. We knt>w_ that the purpose of labour-saving machinery is to save labour, is to displace men from industry, is to make them outcasts from industry. They are not wanted any more. A labour-displacing machine does fulfil its aim.
You cannot absorb those men expatriated from industry at the rate at which they are thrown out. It is perfectly true that you can absorb some of them. We can point to statistics from time to time and say that unemployment figures are down now, that there are new trades, new services, and that we are reabsorbing the unemployed. Nevertheless again it is a question of a rate, the rate at which they are being displaced from industry, which must be greater, thanks to modern invention and applied science, than the rate at which they can be reabsorbed into employment.
I also find this:
In the whole history of economics, I do not know of anything quite as audacious as the presentation of Douglas, not of a theory, but of a theorem, a statement that there is a " chronic and inherent deficiency of purchasing power. This is a challenge, and it is a challenge made only by an appeal to facts. The only question is, Is it true or not? It is irrelevant to argue about a theorem. The relevant thing to do is to test it experimentally.
We say that the A plus B theorem has been proved a priori, a posteriori, inductively and deductively. We say that you can get experimental proof of it every week in any factory, and if you set a cost expert to work, it will be discovered that during that week the cost of the products manufactured for the market will be greater than the sums distributed to the employees. The cost expert will prove that it is impossible for the individuals receiving income payments from a factory at the end of the week to buy back the products made in that factory during that week. This has been presented to orthodox economists in the world during the last twenty years, and a great many

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
of them remind me of the old lady who saw a giraffe for the first time and said, "I do not believe it." The orthodox economists have said, "I do not believe it," but they do something different from what the old lady did. The old lady did not go on to prove elaborately that such a creature as a giraffe could not possibly exist, which is what the orthodox economists have attempted.
Now, as I said before, a theorem has to do with rates, and rates are difficult for most of us to understand. Perhaps this illustration will clarify the matter. Let us consider the matter of births and deaths. Very well; every person who is born dies, and therefore the birth rate and the death rate are the same; therefore, population is stationary. We know of course that population is not stationary, that if the birth rate is faster than the death rate the population increases, and vice versa. If the mortality rate is faster than the birth rate, population declines.
In the United States they recognize that we have reached the age of abundance, and now it is simply a matter of distributing the goods that we are so capable of producing. The means by which these goods can be distributed is by having a proper medium of exchange in sufficient quantity to do the work.


William Henry Golding: But the hon. member is not forgetting that on Friday night he said his policy would not solve the unemployment problem.


John Charles Landeryou: I did not say it would not solve the unemployment problem. I said it would not solve unemployment. I never said that the payment of a dividend would solve unemployment, but it will do this; It will take the people out of poverty, and it will give them the increased purchasing power which will turn the wheels of industry. Increased purchasing power put into industry will employ more men. The employment of more men means more wages and less unemployment. But it will never do away with all the unemployed, because the world over there is a surplus of labour which is idle and of goods which are unused.
Why, here is one illustration: Let us consider coal, for example. We have a certain market in Canada for coal. People in Russia want to ship coal to this market. People want to ship coal to this market from Wales. People want to ship coal to this market from the United States, and possibly from other countries. But we can supply all our needs in Canada. There are unemployed coal miners in Canada. There are unemployed coal miners in the United States. There are unemployed coal miners in Wales-I do not know whether there are any in Russia, or not.
The same thing would apply to machinery. Germany wants to ship farm machinery to
Canada. She wants to trade farm machinery for our wheat. But we have facilities in Canada to manufacture all the farm machinery we need, and more for purposes of export. The world has reached a period of plenty, but we have yet to learn how to distribute those goods. People to-day are suffering from the lack of goods that we are capable of producing in Canada. It is only a question of relating our monetary system to the facts. We must have our monetary system reflect our ability to produce and distribute the wealth of the country. It is not a difficult problem, but if you continue to borrow money for relief as you are doing to-day you will bankrupt the municipalities and bankrupt the provincial governments. You cannot bankrupt this government-they are only mentally bankrupt. That is the situation here.
If we would adjust our financial system and assume our responsibilities-adjust our money system-this problem would cease to exist. But what do we do? We try to borrow ourselves out of debt and tax our way to prosperity. It is no wonder the municipalities are asking the federal government to assume the responsibility for this problem. They are objecting, because the cost of relief is increasing taxes to such an extent that people will not build homes. We have reached a period of diminishing return so far as taxation is concerned, and still the government goes on, piling up debt, piling up taxes, and the unemployed continue to live at the rate of $6.43 a month for food, clothing and shelter.


John Power Howden: Would the hon. member answer my question?
Mr. LANDERYOU; Yes.


John Power Howden: How does he propose to place purchasing power in the hands of the people?
Mr. GOLDING; The hands of the unemployed?


John Charles Landeryou: Well, I have answered the hon. member, but I will do it once more: Pay them a national dividend. Place money directly in their hands, as purchasing power. There is nothing remarkable about that. They are doing it in the United States.


John Horne Blackmore: They are doing it here -relief.


John Power Howden: Would it come out of the general revenue fund?


John Charles Landeryou: Wait until I answer the first question. No, it does not come out of taxation. But do not get into any technical argument at this point. I have only five
2870	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
minutes left and the hon. member wants me to cover the whole subject of money. Briefly, it comes out of the national credit. That should be a sufficient answer. It is created money. I will not go into the matter at greater length at this time, but the point is that in the United States they are dealing with this very question by increasing the purchasing power of the people, in order to get rid of their surplus commodities. The sevent million WPA workers are given $4 a week in scrip form. I know the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) said that we were scrip teasers. Well, in regard to that I have before me something I should like to place on Hansard for his benefit. I quote from page 14 of the booklet, National Economy and the Banking System of the United States, by Robert L. Owen:
During the depression of 1929-32 the hoarding of currency by the citizens of cash and deposits and the contraction of check money by the bank was so great that nearly a thousand cities and communities established barter exchanges and/ or issued scrip money in large volume. Detroit issued about $40,000,000; Flint, $118,000; Grand Rapids, $840,000; Lansing, $40,000; Milwaukee, over $12,000,000; Dayton, $750,000; Atlantic City, upward of $5,500,000; Paterson, N.J., over $2,000,000; Knoxville, more than $3,500,000; Birmingham, over $1,000,000; and Atlanta, about $6,000,000. All this scrip money was later retired.
Another substitute for currency has been the issuance of clearing-house certificates. During the depression of 1929-32 over $600,000,000 of clearing-house certificates were authorized, although only partially used.
There is nothing mysterious about where money is coming from to pay the national dividend. The banks have created billions of dollars by the simple expedient of using a fountain pen. It may cost them three per cent, but-


John Power Howden: Do I understand the hon. member to advocate that the government create money by simply writing it out and handing it to the people?


John Charles Landeryou: By using the instrument that parliament has created they can create the money necessary, or the medium of exchange necessary, or the credit necessary, or whatever you wish to call the medium of exchange you will distribute.


John Power Howden: Does it have any value, at all?


John Charles Landeryou: Use it in such a way that you will pay dividends to those people in need, to increase the purchasing power. They will spend it on the goods and services that we have in this country in abundance, and the wheels of industry will turn.
['Mr. Landeryou.]


Olof Hanson: Russia, Germany and France did that after the war. I have still a million kopeks for which I paid fifteen cents, and I doubt if I could buy a meal with them.


John Charles Landeryou: For the benefit of the hon. member I shall deal with this bogey of inflation, as it is dealt with at page 65 of Mr. Owen's booklet. It is headed, "The Inflation Bogey," and states:
It would be a grave error for students of modern monetary science to ignore, or to overlook the fact that the establishment of the principles of modern monetary science is skilfully opposed by the advocates of the old system under which we have suffered. We have not all suffered. Some of our people -have become enormously wealthy under the old system, during which monopoly has flourished and bull movements and bear movements have been caused in security exchanges by skilful propaganda.
It would be unintelligent to ignore the fact that there are some people who know how to make money on a large scale, through bull markets and bear markets, and that this money is made not by creating wealth, but by acquiring wealth under operations in the security exchanges where the sagacious few know how to make money at the expense of the others. The general public, through propaganda, is induced^ in bull markets to make the attempt to acquire wealth by speculation without creating it by labour and services.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. member has exhausted the time at his disposal.


John Charles Landeryou: Might I complete this quotation, in answer to the hon. member.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Not the whole book, though.


John Charles Landeryou: It continues:
In depressions, which follow inflations, the sagacious few who have acquired available credit can profit by buying property below its normal value.
The old system is vigorously defended. Its advocates and defenders fill the American press with articles dealing with the question of our economic life in which they attribute the evils arising under the existing system to many other causes than the real fundamental cause. Modern monetary science exposes the real cause beyond the possibility of doubt or successful contradiction. But the advocates of the old order minimize or denounce monetary causes as being responsible for'our national distress. The purport of these various articles seems to be to warn the members of the Senate and House of Representatives and the people against "tinkering with the currency," against "fiat" money, against "printing press money" and against the dangers of " inflation."


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.
Mr: LANDERYOU: I have unanimous consent. I would ask that you let me finish the sentence.


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not think the hon. member has the unanimous consent of the house; therefore he cannot continue.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


John Charles Landeryou: Yes, I have the unanimous consent to complete this quotation.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Unanimous consent, if the remainder is confined to a sentence.


John Charles Landeryou: I will just complete the paragraph; that is all.


Norman McLeod Rogers: All right.


John Charles Landeryou: It continues:
The experience of Germany following the world war is pointed out as a terrifying example, in which inflation resulted in the destruction of the value of bank deposits, bonds, insurance policies, mortgages, and other evidences of debt, by reducing the German mark to zero value through the inflation of the German mark billions of times.
The term "inflation" has thus .been built up as a bogey warning the people against any necessary expansion by using the term as equivalent to a defensible and necessary expansion of the money supply.


Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a few observations with regard to only one aspect of the unemployment problem, that relating to the non-resident or migrant unemployed, sometimes described as the single homeless men. I find it more difficult to discuss this subject than almost any other that could be mentioned. This is perhaps because I have had a direct and personal contact with this problem and have had some distressing and appalling revelations. I do not propose to indulge in any dispute as to statistics or to discuss at this stage any political or economic theories. I feel that certain statements should be made with regard to this problem because of its urgency and its present threatening aspect. I shall venture several suggestions which have been approved in various quarters throughout the dominion, which I believe to be practicable and which I believe could be adopted immediately without any constitutional amendment or without any serious dislocation of our economy.
I was impressed with a remark which was made by a friend of mine who has had a great deal of experience in dealing with single homeless men. He said that if to-morrow we could solve our unemployment problem, we would still be faced with the gigantic problem of the rehabilitation of our young men, made necessary because of conditions which have prevailed during recent years, because of their life of aimless wandering, because of their frustration, because of the instability and inactivity, and, he added, because of the cheap, greasy meals they have had to consume. He told me that it was appalling to consider all that was needed to be done again to deal
in a constructive way with the innumerable misfits which have been created as a result of policies pursued during recent years.
I do not wish to be unfairly critical or to berate the officials of the federal and provincial governments, but surely it must be as apparent to them as it is to me that the .present policy is much more costly and wasteful than would be a constructive national plan. Surely it must be apparent that in order to solve this problem we must have immediately the necessary leadership from the federal government. In no other way can we achieve an effective solution of the problem of the migrant or homeless single man. I hope the minister will discuss the dimensions of this problem frankly when either the resolution or the bill is in committee. At that time he may desire to correct me with regard to certain estimates of the problem which I intend to venture, but I should like to refer immediately to a statement made by the Canadian welfare council in their book entitled, The Problem of the Non-Resident and Migrant. They say this:
Some of the registration statistics, issued by the national employment commission, indicated that even at its lowest level, our non-resident and homeless men must have exceeded 50,000: doubtless the total has been as high as 100,000 at some times. Only those who are accepted as in receipt of aid as individuals in some one centre are registered and the general experience of our larger centres, (possibly a fair reflex of the movement through the smaller cities and towns) is that from a quarter to a third of the number aided at any time are non-resident. The more mobile elements in these groups are not likely to be stationary, unless in the depth of winter, for the one constant factor in local policy in many centres is to keep these men moving.
May I emphasize those last words where they say that the one constant factor in many centres is to keep these men moving. That has been my own experience, and it has been the experience recounted to me by scores of social service workers across Canada. For a moment I should like to touch upon my own personal experiences, which perhaps in many respects have been duplicated by other hon. members. I have had a direct personal contact with many young men in suburban communities. I refer to my own experiences because of the assertion which has often been made in this house that these men are not willing to work. My contact has been with young men in the age group between seventeen and twenty-two years who have demonstrated clearly their willingness to work. These young men when they have secured work have been accustomed to perform the most arduous manual labour. They, have done such work as cutting shingle bolts, cutting wood, packing rock, shovelling gravel, working in the canneries, and they have done
2872	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
occasional work in the bush. My experience has been that this work has been performed satisfactorily. But never hate they had an opportunity, of gaining permanent employment. To my personal knowledge on various occasions these young men have walked as many as eight or ten miles in order to look for work.
I have known some of them who in order to follow up some clue of possible work have actually had to be pried off the top of buses in an almost frozen condition after having attempted to get a ride. I have seen them attempting to ride the freight cars or hitchhiking in severe weather until their feet were in such terrible condition as to require medical treatment. There can be no doubt that this particular type of young man has a desire to secure work. They are the type of men who are transients in the making. On occasion I have discussed their problems with groups of these young men who have been engaged in a systematic endeavour to secure work. I have gone on their behalf to the employment service of Canada, but the officials of the service have said quite frankly that they had no answer to their problem. These young men may register if they so desire, but the officials could offer them no hope of employment, particularly when they were unskilled workers.
I have known them systematically to tramp the streets of Vancouver, calling at warehouses, departmental stores, making the rounds of the docks, going anywhere where there was any hope of work. They would do this morning after morning, making a careful canvass of all the opportunities of employment. Out of such a group only one or two would secure employment, and that employment would be of a most casual or temporary kind. There is one young man whom I know who secured work after the most strenuous efforts. A business man who had followed his efforts carefully finally secured temporary employment for him, but only at the rate of $6 a week. But he was severely handicapped because he did not have the necessary clothes, and there was no source to which he could turn to secure the clothes which his employers required him to wear when he was occasionally needed to meet the public.
I wonder if the officials here have any clear idea of how we are making transients? Some of these young men who are only seventeen or eighteen years of age started to ride the freights. They heard there might be work in the interior of British Columbia and they attempted to get to the different points. I followed the experiences of one group very closely. They boarded a freight in Vancouver, stopped off at Penticton and at various other

points in the interior, and finally came back through Kamloops and other points on that loop through the province. Most of the time they lived in jungle camps. They went from ranch to ranch in the interior of British Columbia seeking employment. I met this particular group of three or four young men later, and they had been living for three days on green apples and were completely discouraged. Nowhere could they find any work, and nowhere could they find any interest in their problem.
I desire to give full credit to those who are in charge of recreational centres or other training projects. When I applied on behalf of these men I was told that the quota was filled or that they were not eligible because their parents were not on relief. The majority of these young men to whom I refer are from homes where the parents were in receipt of very low incomes. They felt, and quite properly so, that they were a distinct burden on their parents. We are making transients by not giving proper attention to conditions confronting the young men of Canada. Again I emphasize the fact that they have demonstrated their willingness and eagerness to perform any kind of work at almost any wage. On behalf of this particular group I urge greater coordination between community efforts, the employment service and youth training projects. Otherwise these men are within a step of joining that greater group of wandering transients who are to-day without hope and without any elementary form of security.
My experiences also relate to the results of present policies. I visited Oakalla gaol in Vancouver just after 107 transients had been sentenced for what we call tin-canning, a technical breach of the law. It was generally recognized by the police officers, the police magistrates and the warden of Oakalla gaol that the men in the main were not criminals. They were sentenced for terms ranging from four to six months, and even at the time they were sentenced plans were in preparation in British Columbia for opening up ca,mps to care for these transients. W'hen I visited the gaol through the courtesy of the warden, I found a distressing situation. The warden made it clear that he was quite sympathetic, but after all he was running a gaol, not a hostel, and he had to enforce the regulations prescribed by the lieutenant-governor in council. The men on the other hand felt that they had a legitimate grievance. They had been given these long and severe sentences for what they thought was simply a technical breach of the law.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
After all, as a result of their organized protest against almost intolerable conditions, within just about a week after they were sentenced all their comrades were permitted to go to camps specially arranged for in British Columbia. Finally they were released just before Christmas time by clemency exercised by the crown upon recommendation of the attorney general for British Columbia. But for three days pandemonium reigned in Oakalla gaol. The men, because of their grievances arising from scanty breakfasts and from overcrowding- two men were placed in cells intended for only one occupant-attempted to protest within the gaol and completely disorganized the prison routine. They were pounding their cots on the concrete floor, pounding their boots on the floor, rattling across the bars, and they refused to take their bedding back into the cells. Some were punished. Some were given solitary confinement. Some lost their shoes temporarily. All had their privileges curtailed. The whole thing was stopped immediately we could bring them assurance that the outside world had not forgotten them and their legitimate grievance. Surely imprisonment is not an answer to this problem. Imprisonment accentuates rather than ameliorates the problems of the single homeless man. One hundred and seven men in gaol may not seem important, but hundreds of others have been sentenced in Vancouver in the past year. It seems to me terrible that men should be asked to undergo the blighting experience of a gaol sentence because of attempts of officialdom to crush any organized protest by these men against insufferable conditions imposed upon them. Public opinion in British Columbia finally demanded and secured their release.
Again, I visited the camps in British Columbia which were provided for those who were described as eastern transients, that is the men who, it was claimed, had residence at points east of the great lakes. There again I found difficulties. It might be interesting to the house to know the conditions which prevailed there. I have no criticism to offer of the officials of the forestry department of British Columbia who were in charge. We visited the camps through the courtesy of Mr. Manning, the chief forester, and Mr. Forse, supervisor of the camps. As far as I could discover, their attitude was completely sympathetic and they were attempting to deal with the problem with some vision. Nevertheless they had turned over to them for the performance of specific tasks men who were in a very bad condition as far as their
health, clothing and general outlook on life were concerned, and I appreciate the fact that the officials had tremendous difficulties.
But in the camps set aside for the eastern transients the men were expected to work a 44-hour week for wages at the rate of thirty cents an hour. These wages were not paid in cash. The net earnings were credited to each man and applied toward the estimated cost of his transportation to eastern Canada. The sum of $5.31 was deducted weekly for board and workmen's compensation. Each man was allowed to draw against his credit amounts for personal necessities to the value of SI.25 weekly and clothing to the value of $16 for the working period, from the camp commissariat. That amount was originally S10, was then raised to $12, and finally to $16. After the clothing allowance was paid for, the man received a net credit of $6.64 for a full working week until the total accumulated credit equalled the return transportation cost, plus the deferred pay of $8 supposed to be for payment upon arrival at point of destination.
At the time I visited the camp it was estimated that a man from the maritime provinces might work eleven or twelve weeks and then be shipped east on his own earnings. At that time these men were not getting a cent in cash although they were working eight hours daily. Each man got goods to the value of $1.25 a week from the commissariat for personal necessities. I found several men suffering from toothache, and in order to get an extraction they found it necessary to trade off various articles they had obtained at the commissariat.. If a man wanted to make himself presentable and get his clothes fixed up by a farmer's wife in the neighbourhood, he had to trade off various things he had acquired from the commissariat. These conditions were not wholesome. To a certain extent these difficulties were ironed out following a personal investigation by the chief forester and negotiations with the Minister of Labour. The whole atmosphere of the camp was one of smouldering rebellion and frustration. The men felt that they were reduced to that low stage of beggary and subjection, with complete isolation from all social amenities, where nothing more worse could happen them.
That is not the end of the story. Since visiting these camps I have met some of these men in eastern Canada; they have called at my office in this building. They left the camps and were given transportation to the east, with two four-dollar cheques to provide for their immediate needs. As far as I could discover, not any of these men could establish domicile at any point in eastern Canada.
2874	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
As a matter of fact, by the courtesy of the officials we went over a large number of files and also personally interrogated the men, and found that in the majority of instances they could not establish domicile anywhere. They were men who had moved from point to point, with casual employment only at each point, and could not establish residence anywhere.


Mr. BAKER:: 
Mr. GRANT:: Let him go to Charlottetown.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I know that in a number of hostels men are not admitted without a medical examination, and if there is need for hospital care it is given. I had occasion to make inquiries to-day with respect to an institution in Montreal, and I was told that all who were admitted to that hostel for single unemployed men were first given a medical examination and that if there was any illness they were sent to hospital for proper care.


Charles Grant MacNeil: As far as my personal knowledge goes, it is only in urgent cases that they will admit men unless they have the necessary residential qualifications in the community. In many of the smaller towns and cities they ship a man out of town quickly. A man has to be desperately ill to get into a hospital. The hostels are overcrowded, and men are sent iback while convalescent and under conditions that make it impossible for them to make an effective recovery. Surely the minister will not minimize that aspect of the situation, because it is serious and has led to loss of life and permanent impairment of the health of a large number of men.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend has referred to the number of accidents that have occurred to transients while riding on freight trains. He gave the figure for 1938 as 120; that is my recollection. Has he inquired as to the number of transients who lost their lives before this present period of depression, back in 1928 and 1929? He will find that there were just as many accidents at that time as there are now, suggesting that they were as a result of the fact of men riding on freight trains illegally, and under conditions affording the minimum of safety. It is not in any way on account of relief conditions or relief administration. I mention that because there is no reason why we should confuse the issue.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I was coming to that, but
this is a special problem that does not arise only out of the depression. If we solved the general unemployment problem to-morrow we should still have the problem of the homeless migrant. I was about to refer to the findings of the Canadian welfare council on this particular point, and I intend to quote from their booklet, because they have stated the problem in lucid language. We are all under a great debt to the members of the
committee who compiled these two studies, "The Problem of the Non-Resident and Migrant," and "Wayfarers Perforce." These pamphlets recently issued by the council discuss the conditions that prevail in the primary industries, agriculture, lumbering, mining anc fishing. I quote:
These occupations, subject anywhere to fluctuating employment conditions, are peculiarly susceptible to heavy seasonal variations in oui climate, which is true also of our other great outlet for comparable labour, construction, in which the average working year is but 26 weeks. Further, the extent of the Canadian territory and the wide distribution of these primary activities over it demanded not only that there by this large reservoir of comparatively young labour, but that it be mobile, ready to shift suddenly from one part of the country to the other. . . .
So, not at all as a depression problem but as a normal feature of our employment structure, Canada has long had a large floating population of men who -were part of the raw material of her development in agriculture, mining, lumbering, fishing and construction.
They also analyse the situation carefully as it has arisen in recent years, showing that owing to the exhaustion of free land, marketing problems, the spread of mechanization in agriculture there has been a back-log in that industry, which has created a condition of incessant trekking across Canada that is becoming more acute and certainly more dangerous in its effects on the lives of the men concerned.


Richard Langton Baker: Is there a large percentage
of these young men who really want to get work? I ask only for information. Is that their wish?


Charles Grant MacNeil: Speaking from personal
observation and contact with the men, I say that the great majority of them desire work. My experience has been, when the question has arisen and I have secured the cooperation of large employers of labour-I refer particularly to the manager of a large mine in British Columbia-some of these men were offered work, accepted the work and I followed up their records with the company and found that they gave satisfactory service when so employed. All they were asking was a type of employment which was not a blind alley. Once they got employment that offered some future, some permanency, some hope of advancement, some opportunity to learn something, they grasped it eagerly. The Canadian welfare council goes on to say:
As we all know, labour supply and demand is not confined within provincial boundaries. Many of the largest employers of labour are Canadian corporations, operating on a dominionwide basis, and they may move their employees or "gangs" from province to province and from
2876	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
one part of a province to another. Consequently a man may have a fairly continuous record of work, spread over different provinces with short seasonal breaks, and yet he may be utterly unable to establish residence in any province of Canada. He may have been born and brought up in one of the maritime provinces, but his settlement may have been lost by five years continuous residence outside that province. Yet he may not have worked in any other centre long enough to have acquired a new legal residence.
I think they make a convincing case that our present residential qualifications have severely aggravated the problem. There is no uniformity in residential qualifications across Canada. The council has classified the non-residents or migrants into four main classifications: local residents, provincial residents, interprovincial residents, and migrants or casuals, and have suggested a practical plan, in my opinion, to deal with this matter. I think it important that this plan should be brought to the attention of the house. It is stated succinctly, and I think it is something that should be put into effect without any delay. They say, in the "The Program-in Summary," incorporated in "Wayfarers Perforce" :
Consequently, the control of the problem of dependent non-resident persons would appear to call for:
1. As the liability of the provinces-
The enactment by each province of Canada of comparable residence legislation which will set up uniform practices in each for-
(1)	the acquisition of legal residence at tjie expiration of a specified period of self-supporting residence therein, or, alternatively, at the expiration of a much longer period, for persons dependent upon social aid within that time.
(2)	reciprocal action among the respective municipalities therein, whereby legal residence will not be lost within one municipality until acquired within another, and with reciprocal adjustment of costs of maintenance, when necessary.
(3)	reciprocal action between the province itself, and its respective municipalities to provide for the establishment of legal residence within the province as a whole for persons who may have lost or never had legal residence within any one municipality therein, and the adjustment of maintenance costs accordingly.
(4)	reciprocal action among the different provinces of Canada for the registration, and if need be, maintenance or alternatively, orderly return of persons with established legal residence within one found without such legal residence in another.
Then they go on to deal with the liability of the dominion, with several useful concrete suggestions. It is true that a man may have been bom and brought up in Ontario, may leave the province in a legitimate attempt to secure work in western Canada, move from point to point as the work develops, probably land finally in British Columbia, and on returning to Ontario within perhaps two years
[Mr. MacXeil.l
have completely lost all residential qualification or "rights of domicile" in Ontario. That, I think, largely accounts for the seriously aggravated problem with which we are confronted at the moment.
May I suggest to the minister that the problem is going to be still more acute, certainly in British Columbia, according to the information now reaching me, because the camps there are about to close. In Vancouver the situation is acute. I have here the statement of the superintendent of Abbot house, giving the following information:
1936	1937	1938
Men interviewed	 9,618 15,795 12,518
Free meals issued.. .. 19,614 30,717 31,231 Free beds issued	 5,618 13,937 13,861
And I am informed that' according to the last report the situation is growing rapidly worse.
Here I think something may be done. The federal government should give leadership. They extend grants in aid to the provincial governments for assisting unemployment relief. These grants in aid are made subject to certain conditions or stipulations. The provincial governments, if they accept the grants, are required to carry out these conditions. I see no objection to the federal government also stipulating that the provincial governments shall secure uniformity with regard to residential qualifications among municipalities within the province. I see no reasonable objection to the federal government stipulating that there shall be reciprocal arrangements, not only uniformity of residential qualifications across the dominion but reciprocal arrangements so that transients who are making a legitimate effort to secure work may when in distress apply to the proper authority for aid, and receive such aid without the present difficulties. It seems to me the height of absurdity, it seems even insane, that under the conditions described by the welfare council by which we require men to show some enterprise in seeking work under the circumstances that prevail in Canada, we should immediately penalize them for their enterprise. Yet that is exactly the situation existing in Canada to-day. I recommend to the consideration of the house the final words of the report of the welfare council:
The importance of bringing about greater uniformity in our procedures concerning residence cannot be overstressed nor can we overemphasize either the values attached to properly organized works and training projects as contrasted to direct aid. But the especial significance of this latter statement, as it concerns this problem lies in the fact that, we must constantly avoid the tendency, which is perhaps only natural under our system of local responsibility, to exclude the "outsiders" or

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
non-residents from the special measures of aid or rehabilitation that a community devises for its "own" people.
Some one has said or written that "pioneers built this country." Pioneers had to move about from community to community, from province to province, from coast to coast. And it is difficult to see why Canada, still so largely a pioneer country, needing, as she does, with her seasonal variations and primary industrial occupations, a seasonal mobile labour corps, can fail to see that the ultimate development of our entire country will be retarded if we allow the idea to become prevalent that remaining in one spot for the purpose of being assured of aid is to be preferred over the spirit that impels another person to risk the loss of eligibility for aid by moving off in search of work.


John Horne Blackmore: During this debate this house and the Canadian people have been listening for some hint from some speaker showing the possibility of a solution of this problem of unemployment. Unquestionably there must be a solution. As has been reiterated time and again, if this country could not produce the milk and cream, the butter and eggs and cheese, the lumber and brick and every other thing that the people of this country need to give them a high standard of living, then indeed there would be cause for anxiety. But the fact that this country can produce in great abundance and variety and of high quality practically everything which the people of this country need for a high standard of living indicates beyond question that there must be a solution. The people of this country have been looking for some hint of that solution to come out of this debate.
Thus far there have been three outstanding and perhaps typical speeches, I would say: that of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) ; that of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette), which was probably the typical Liberal reaction, and that of the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman), which was very difficult to classify in any serious way at all. Each of the other speeches, apart from those delivered by the outlaws, so to speak, fell within one of these classes. These three speeches, together with the record of the Conservative administration between 1930 and 1935 and that of the Liberal administration from 1935 until the present time, testify against the old-line parties and constitute a convincing and condemning bit of evidence as to the intellectual bankruptcy, financial decrepitude and incompetence of both these parties. It is easy enough to stand up and advocate an elaborate system of reforestation or an elaborate system of water control or elaborate highway systems; a twelve year old boy with ordinary intelligence anywhere in the Dominion of Canada would suggest
those things and know they ought to be done. Why we should spend a great deal of time in this house discussing such matters is more than I can see.
The speeches of a number of members of the government and their supporters remind me of the title of a play, The Doll's House. As boys we usually found it difficult to play house without finding the play rather tedious and unsubstantial; but our ministers of the crown seem to be carefully schooled nowadays. They have endured this sort of unsubstantial dolls' play for three years with an astonishing amount of complacency, and occasionally they even manage to whip up some enthusiasm about their shallow play, which completely amazes me.
One of the best examples of this unsubstantial make-believe to which we have been treated and which a number of people seem to find rather satisfying is our youth training program. Let me hasten to point out that I value the youth training program, but I think anyone who tries to be at all realistic must acknowledge that it has been a great disappointment. To illustrate what I say let me refer to a booklet which I have in my hand, beautifully prepared, beautifully printed, attractive and romantic, entitled, Training Canada's Young Unemployed. At page 24 I find that in 1937-38 there were 55,457 young people trained in Canada, out of which number there were 3,282 employed. I wish to be perfectly just, so I will point out that at the bottom of this page it is stated that only 14,649 of these young people finished the courses. Even at that, only 22-4 per cent of those who finished the courses found employment.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my hon. friend will permit me, I think the statement is rather that of those taking the courses leading to employment, that percentage were placed. Physical training and rural courses naturally were not designed to lead directly to new employment.


John Horne Blackmore: Thank you. I needed only that comment by the minister to finish my contention as to the unsubstantiality of this program. If we set to work to solve our problem of unemployment by giving our young people training in dancing and in forest lore and general conditioning, then I think we are really getting out of touch with realities.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Is my hon. friend expressing the view of his own government in Alberta?


John Horne Blackmore: No, I am expressing my own view, the view of any ordinary, matter of fact person. I have been a school nrincipal
2878	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
for a good many years, and I will say that if we could not qualify for active participation in the industrial life of the country a higher percentage than that, we would not be given a chance a second year. This whole thing reminds me of my boyhood, when I used to attempt to satisfy a six-inch appetite by eating dainty, fluffy inch-square sandwiches supplemented with milk in an inch-deep play dinner cup. Of course the play dinner was better than nothing, but imagine trying to live for years on play dinner banquets! Evidently that is what the government is endeavouring to teach the people of Canada to do.
I am now going to turn for a few moments to the speech of the hon. member for Huron North. I should like to point out that while there have been several who have occasionally taken flings at us, I think hon. members will agree that we have very rarely answered them. We have taken the attitude that the people who had unkind things to say about us just did not know what they were talking about, so why worry about them. Personally I can easily remember the time when I would have said just such foolhardy things as have been said in this house, and that time was only four years ago. But I know that whereas I was blind, now I see; and I know that while they are blind now, soon the day will come when they will see. Otherwise they probably will be mercifully removed from the scene of action so that more intelligent people may take their places. That may sound strong, but we could say stronger things than that if we took the notion. But I am going to say a word or two about the speech of the hon. member for Huron North. He has been here long enough to know better.


An hon. MEMBER:: He will never learn.


John Horne Blackmore: We will tell him about it, anyway. The hon. member, without making any contribution himself, saw fit to undertake to ridicule the social credit proposals. I am going to read a passage from his speech, appearing at page 2770 of Hansard:
What have we from the different parties or groups? We have our friends the social crediters. What is their program? Always it is the same thing-more money, scrip! They are the scrip tease artists of Canadian politics. But all this scrip teasing never eventuates in anything. We go on trying the same thing, but there is always the same idea in the background: if only we had money.
May I break in there to point out that this last is the statement of every hon. member of this house; and of all hon. members the one who most frequently uses it is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). Yet because we

social crediters -use it also, it is supposed to be a reflection upon our intelligence. How far a man who prides himself on possessing a measure of intelligence will let himself get off the track of reason and common sense! Now I go further:
Goods do not matter, give the people money. Money enables a man to purchase goods, and when you give him money you give him goods. When you give him goods you are giving him something for which you or someone else must work. You cannot settle the problem with currency issued on the unshot buffaloes of Canada or the uncaught fish of Alberta.


An hon. MEMBER:: What a brain!


John Horne Blackmore: An hon. member says, "what a brain!" I say, what a shameful abuse of an otherwise good brain! I will comment in a few minutes on some of the remarks. I say, at the outset, that it would be exceedingly difficult for a man to put into that amount of space more absolutely foolhardy remarks than that man succeeded in putting into that one little passage- more distortions of the facts, more misunderstandings, more misinterpretations, more misconceptions, more absolute untruths. The hon. member is inaccurate in his learning, his understanding and his reasoning, as shown in this passage. As an inaccuracy, for example, may I point out that he says, "more money, scrip." May I point out to the hon. member [DOT]-and I see he is not in his seat; I had hoped he would be, because I want to talk to him 

that not once in this house has the word "scrip" been used by any member of this group.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame.


John Horne Blackmore: It is a shame for a man to go to work and make a statement like that, in the face of that condition. He was put-well, I will not say that. We will let people draw their own conclusions as to why he put that in there. In spite of what the hon. member has said, we have never said anything about scrip in this house or outside it. The first thing we pointed out was that this government ought to have purchasing power. We have advocated state money, currency and credit, just as the Prime Minister of Canada advocated currency and credit. Yet when we advocate the same thing we are scrip teasers. Think of that, for intelligent reasoning!
I have referred to the $26,000,000 printed by the government between 1915 and 1917, and used by the government for governmental purposes. According to the hon. member for Huron North I presume that was scrip. I have referred to the Bradburys experiment in England, as a result of which
APRIL 17, 1939	2S79
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
Great Britain was able to fight the war. I presume that was scrip! I wonder if the hon. member would call either one of those scrip. If so, we do not mind being called scrip teasers. But the difficulty is that many misinformed people throughout the country who read Hansard are deliberately-no, I will not say that-but the hon. member allows them to be able to form misconceptions of the contentions of a group of people whom that hon. member knows to be sincere in their contentions, at a time when no one in the dominion parliament knows what to do in order to solve the problem. And the discussion of the last three days abundantly proves it.
What ails the mentality of men like the hon. member for Huron North? He makes the remark about our being scrip teasers. That is a great compliment to this group. We were sent here to advocate monetary reform, because after a more careful study than I ever heard of people making, in the history of the world, the people in our province came to the conclusion that the only solution of world problems lay in monetary reform. They sent us here to advocate such monetary reform and we have done it. We have done it consistently, in season and out of season, in the face of all sorts of attitudes. We take it as a compliment that we are called scrip teasers.
May I point out to the hon. member for Huron North, and to a good many other hon. members, for whom he was speaking- if they are here-that if the Liberals had been better teasers for some of the things they were sent here to advocate and to get, this country would be farther on the way to recovery. If they had brought to the attention of their Prime Minister the fact that he undertook to remove poverty from the midst of plenty; if they had insisted upon it- teased upon it-and if they had called upon him to make good his promises about monetary reform, or if they had insisted that some time before the next election he should commence that famous battle with the money powers, and had teased a little bit about it, we would probably have had him engaged in battling against the money powers instead of apparently letting somebody else do all the fighting while he remains impassive and inactive, and allows the money powers to go calmly on their way.
The hon. member for Huron North uses the expression, "goods do not matter, give the people money." I point out to every hon. member in the house, and to this particular one, if he cares to read it in Hansard, that the very first thing this group did when it
came to the House of Commons was to point out that there was an abundance, that there was plenty. Canada had solved the problem of production. And yet this hon. member has the effrontery to imply that we disregard goods. When we came to this house, the air and the press were full of remarks about over-production. Over-production means only one thing, and that is a surplus of goods. How in the world when there is a recognized surplus of goods everywhere could you by issuing money be disregarding goods?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Does the hon. member agree with his colleague who spoke a minute ago, that the way to get this purchasing power into the hands of the people is to issue dividends from month to month in terms of, let us say $25 certificates? Is that the way in which he would do it?


John Charles Landeryou: I never said that.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If I misunderstood my hon. friend I would be glad if he would say it now. But I was quite clear that he meant that.
Mr. LANDERYrOU:	I never said $25 a
month, and I never said from month to month. I said, "by a national dividend."


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. The
hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more) has the floor.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the hon. member ask his question as I get farther along in my speech. It would be more appropriate at that time.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am asking it now; the
hon. member may keep it in mind.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not for a moment hesitate to say that. it must be a dividend paid in terms of tickets or credit-


Norman McLeod Rogers: Or scrip?


John Horne Blackmore: We will not call it
scrip. If the minister wishes to call it scrip, all right. But we have never used that term.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I wanted to know what
the basis of distinction was.


John Horne Blackmore: Credit instruments.
However, this is just as good a place to talk about it as anywhere. I had not proposed to talk about it, because I was afraid I would be called out of order. Credit instruments, tickets, tags, dollar bills, paper bills, figures-in-a-book dollars-call them what you will, or let them be what they will, if they are created to represent or to correspond to the goods in the country, and they are not allowed
2880	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
to exceed in amount those goods, you can distribute those tickets to the people in the form of dividends, and the people will buy the goods. This will be dealt with, as I go farther along.


William Henry Golding: A regular monthly dividend to everyone in the country.


John Horne Blackmore: That is what will
come, as sure as we are in this house-and must come.


William Henry Golding: Never.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member can say, "never," but that is just a sign of his own lack of vision. I wish to tell the hon. member through you, Mr. Speaker, that his inability to see that is evidence of his lack of vision, and his unfitness to be in the house at this time.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member's remarks are unparliamentary and must be withdrawn.


John Horne Blackmore: I withdraw everything that is unparliamentary.


William Henry Golding: You do not hurt my
feelings.


John Charles Landeryou: You haven't any.


John Horne Blackmore: May we come back to the line I was following. The hon. member for Huron North has said, "goods do not matter, give the people money." I have pointed out that the first thing we said when we came into this house was that we had an abundance of goods, that there was over-production. We stressed "plenty" to the extent that the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean) at one time rose in his place and challenged our remark. It is in Hansard as an enduring testimony to the fact that we had contended that there -was plenty. We stressed a deficiency of purchasing power in the hands of consumers. That contention could mean only one thing, namely that there was less money than goods, and consequently a surplus of goods.


Norman McLeod Rogers: One other question:	If
that is so. does the hon. member contend that this dividend shall be paid to individuals regardless of whether or not they work, and thereby add to the total stock of goods?


John Horne Blackmore: Unquestionably, because they have had no work; the dividend is to enable the consuming public to consume the products of industry, and therefore to enable industry to get markets.


Norman McLeod Rogers: You are paid not to work.


John Horne Blackmore: You are now paid not to work-


Mr. THORSON:: Might I ask a question of the hon. member?


John Horne Blackmore: There is just one difficulty. Hon. members have never seen me hesitate to answer any question, but I have a speech to make and there is a time limit. I wonder if my hon. friend would allow me to finish my speech and then ask his question in the time that may be left? I shall be on my feet a number of times within the next two weeks, and I shall welcome any and every question of which he or his friends may think. We have nothing to hide. We are not playing politics.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: My hon. friend cannot understand anything but politics. He is now dealing with a group which is not concerned with politics, but which is concerned with the welfare of the children of its members and of his children.
If we can go forward now, perhaps a word should be said at this point on this particular matter. The question has been raised, and I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) to the fact that he is now giving relief to people who do not work. Why is it that when we propose to give a dividend of $25 to everybody, immediately the objection is raised that we are giving a regular income to people who do not work? It is just a matter of degree. The governments are now providing an income to relief recipients in such a niggardly fashion that we are destroying the body economic and the body social of this country. Beyond any shadow of a doubt we are destroying the morale of the people. We are destroying their ability to marry, to have children and to support their families. We are destroying the very body and soul of this Dominion of Canada simply because of the meagre stipend we are giving. This is totally inadequate end yet these men cannot supplement it by getting a job. The minute they do get a job their relief is cut off, as has been indicated by many good speeches to-day. If anything in the world is designed to discourage initiative, to discourage a willingness to work, it is the system which the minister is applying to-day in this dominion. To raise this objection against our proposals is not to indicate that clarity of thought which the minister ordinarily possesses.
I am now going on with the question of how the social crediters define money in relation to goods. When I was interrupted I was

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
endeavouring to point out that we have contended consistently that this is an age of plenty. As evidence of our contention may I point out that one of the greatest writers on the social credit theory is Mr. C. Marshall Hattersley. This gentleman has published a book entitled, This Age of Plenty, which indicates beyond any shadow of a doubt that he takes for granted, first, that there is plenty, and then, the possibility of the creation of money in relation to goods. I am glad to see the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) in the house. If the hon. member had paid as close attention to the social credit proposal as his speech seemed to indicate he thought he had paid, he would have known that long ago. A speech which he delivered on March 14, 1938, indicates quite clearly that he had in mind that there was an abundance of goods. I regret that I have not the page of Hansard, but these are his words:
While it might in normal times, or would in normal times, be employed in the production of capital goods-
He is. as I recall it, speaking of the money which is on hand.

it does not now go back into the production of capital goods because money is invested in capital goods for the production of consumer goods, and if there is no demand for consumer goods then money will not flow in capital production.
The goods are there, here and everywhere; they are in our stores; they are on our shelves, and yet there is no effective demand for those goods. The social credit proposal is to create that effective demand for those goods. Yet the hon. member, along with the whole brotherhood of hectic-minded devotees of his type are ready to claim that the social creditors disregard goods!
# Mr. ROGERS: I question whether my hon. friend is using parliamentary language.


John Horne Blackmore: What word is unparliamentary? Is it "hectic-minded" or "devotees?"


Norman McLeod Rogers: Devilries.


John Horne Blackmore: Devotees. Of all the men in this house, I am most surprised that the Minister of Labour would not have recognized that word.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) is using unparliamentary words.


John Horne Blackmore: WThich word is unparliamentary? "Devotee" certainly is not unparliamentary.


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not think that was the word used.


John Horne Blackmore: I can show my notes to my hon. friend to prove that I had no other word in mind.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am quite satisfied.


John Horne Blackmore: I beg the pardon of the hon. member for Huron North for having given him the thought that I would think of that kind of word. The hon. member for Huron North speaks of giving goods or something which someone else has worked to produce. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning', made a good deal of that the other day. 1 have not the page of Hansard upon which he is reported; but if my memory serves me aright he stated that if you created a dollar biL and gave it to somebody, you gave to that person the power to force someone else tc redeem that dollar bill with goods that someone else had worked for. I suppose that is the idea which is in the mind of the hon member for Huron North. I can forgive him more easily for that misunderstanding than 1 can for the other, but I am going to forgive him completely. I shall leave it entirely to misapprehension or the inability to apprehend I am going to point out to the hon. membei for Huron North and to every other person in this country who has been deceived in the same way, that we already have in this country an abundance of means of storing wealth which represent work which someone else has done.
I shall refer to a few classes of this kind. In the first place we have goods. We have an abundance of wheat, fish, shoes, brick, lumber and furniture, just to mention a few. Work has already been done in the production of these goods. But these goods are lying' idle and falling into decay, and the fact that these goods which have been produced by the hard work of men are being wasted seems not to cause my hon. friend even the slightest amount of distress. Why can he not see that having worked to produce lumber, for example, a man would be far happier to see that lumber given to someone to make a house than he would to see it lying in decay in the lumber yard. It is this lying in decay which appears not to disturb the members of the present government. It is that fact which seems entirely to escape their attention.
Let me turn to another kind of wealth, a type of wealth which has needed an abundance of work to produce. All over this country we have factories, railroads, farm equipment, mining machinery, fishing equipment and lumbering equipment. According to the
2882	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
March, 1939, monthly letter of the Bank of Commerce, industry in Canada to-day is only 69 per cent occupied. In other words, 31 per cent of the potential capacity of the industry of Canada is lying idle. This represents that upon which work has been expended to produce. Is the hon. member for Huron North at all concerned that this work should be wasted, that it should lie idle? He is, but he does not realize how much he is neglecting it; for if an industry is allowed to lie idle, the work which produced that industry is going to waste. There is no other way in which an intelligent man can interpret the matter.
Not only is industry lying idle and going to waste, but we have capital in this country. The hon. member for Huron North has said several times on the floor of this house, even in the speech from which I quoted, that much of our capital to-day is unable to find profitable investment. It is going into government securities. That is cause for alarm to the hon. member and it is cause for alarm to every informed individual in this country. But merely to point out the difficulty is not to find the solution. The solution lies in so adjusting the economy of this country that industry will be able to find sufficient markets to encourage the putting into it of the money which is lying idle. It is all a question of these markets and how to obtain them. If we neglect to put purchasing power into the hands of the people to provide those markets we are thereby forcing the capital of the country, which has cost the work of millions of men through scores of years, to lie idle and consequently to waste.
Money or capital represents work that someone else has done. Much money now is idle, invested in mortgages at a loss, invested in homes and property at a loss, invested in government securities at a low rate of interest, when it should be deriving a larger rate of interest through investment in profitable industries; lying idle, again at a loss. But the loss of the result of the work which went into the production of that capital is not, apparently, distressing the members of this government at all. They do not realize that they have the responsibility of protecting the things which cost work. They are causing to be lost, that which cost work. But the minute we propose the creation of one dollar bill in Canada to put in the hands of a widow, for example, so that she can buy a dollar's worth of coal, so that the producer can sell the coal for money he can spend, and so that the miner can produce another ton of coal, we are told that we are "giving away" something which somebody else worked 
for. Well, any mind which cannot see the absolute absurdity of such reasoning as our opponents follow needs to be retrained.
There is another product of work in this country which is being neglected. What is there in Canada which requires more work to produce than a man? Into the production of what being has gone more work of heart and soul and body than the production of a man? Somebody's mother produced every single one of those transients and every one of those unemployed. Somebody's father strove and toiled to raise each of those boys. Are we caring about the waste of that work? Not one bit.


John Charles Landeryou: They are afraid to give a dollar.


John Horne Blackmore: Rather than protect the work that these loving souls put into raising that man-I think I will start it in another way; I was going to say something a little too harsh. We will not create one dollar of new money. We will not depart from the sacred rules of high finance in order to protect that precious heritage, that precious possession-a human being. One rule of the laws of high finance handed down to us from five generations ago is of more value in this government's sight than are these men.
It cost work to produce the intellect of a man. Think of the teachers who have toiled to cultivate the intellect of a man; think of what the mother, the father and the neighbours have done for him. Do the powers that be care about all that work? Not at all. It can go to waste.
Think of the work the man himself has been put to in training himself through five or seven years, perhaps even a longer period of hard work, to condition and equip himself to fill a niche in the economic life of the country. Are we caring about the work which went intq that man's training? Not at all. It can go to waste. Before the hon. member for Huron North vented his scorn upon the people who have or at least think they have the way out, why could he not think his way through, just a little?


Mr. DEACHMAN:: I have.


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member needs to do a good deal more thinking. I can remember when I was at his stage, a good many years ago. He says that you cannot settle the problem with currency issued on the unshot buffaloes of Canada, on the uncaught fish of Alberta.


Mr. EVANS:: A lot of fish are caught in Alberta 1

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


John Charles Landeryou: There are more fish caught in the Liberal party.


John Horne Blackmore: To comment upon that for just a minute or two, did not the banks, in the days when they used to advance a line of credit to the farmers, advance money-credit against unproduced grain which the farmer was going to raise? Of course they did. Then why not upon uncaught fish or unshot cattle? If the hon. member wanted to be really accurate he would have said " cattle " instead of " buffaloes ''-that is, if he had not been trying so hard to be funny.
When banks loaned freely to producers over Canada, men everywhere got jobs and got money, and they bought goods which the producers could sell. But the hon. member contends that you cannot " settle " your problem. True, Mr. Speaker, you cannot settle your problem with any device, but you can help to settle it. When a man is stricken with peritonitis and near to death you cannot solve his problem with a knife, but you can help to solve it if you are skilful enough to use the knife aright. I maintain that the peritonitis from which this country is suffering cannot be solved except by the use of a device which has not yet been tried. You cannot settle without currency, used upon goods already waiting effective demand to buy them, and upon uncaught fish and unmined coal and unsawn lumber and ungenerated electricity and unfabricated woollens, rayons, automobiles, paper, et cetera. I will lay that down as a principle and it will never be challenged successfully. You cannot solve your problems until you do have currency and credit issued upon such items of real wealth-goods.
What is the fundamental cause of unemployment? I am not going to discuss this to any great extent to-night, because others have not been discussing it and we have been called to order when we attempted to discuss it. You can talk all you like about our troubles, but you must not talk about the solution. However, there are one or two things I am going to say in the few minutes which are left to me. What is the fundamental cause of unemployment? It is lack of money. There are many people who say that is not so. I am not now going to take the trouble to read something which I shall read at a later time. This is a set of figures shown on page 53 of Senator Owen's National Economy and the Banking System. It shows conclusively that where the amount of money in circulation in a country falls, unemployment grows; where the amount of money in circulation increases, unemployment falls off. Hon.
members can read it. I shall put it on Hansard later on, when I have more time. It shows that the cause of unemployment is lack of money, the hon. member for Huron North to the contrary notwithstanding.
What is the remedy? The remedy is adequate banking management. I am going to read a passage by William A. Shaw, no social erediter or monetary reformer or unorthodox thinker, but one of the most orthodox of men. This man is secretary to the editor of the calendar of treasury records of his majesty's government. I am about to read from a book called, Principles of Currency, Credit and Exchange, By William A. Shaw and Alfred Wigglesworth. This book is in the library. I am reading from page 52:
In enunciating for the banks the simple principle which must guide them in this task of controlling an upward or prosperity phase, it is not difficult to lay down a rough-and-ready datum line from which to start. That line is simply such a level of prosperity as will keep the whole of our economic system functioning healthily, and will provide suitable sustenance to every man, woman and child in the land, and suitable employment to every employable person-


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. I must remind the hon. gentleman that he has spoken for forty minutes.


John Horne Blackmore: I have been interrupted a good deal and much of my time has been used in that way; otherwise I would not have infringed.


Mr. FURNISS:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to know whether the Speaker will give me time to answer. The other day somebody asked the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Jaques) a question and he was not allowed to answer.


Stephen Joseph Furniss: This is a simple question. If the hon. member had twice as much money as he has now would he go out, if he needed wheat, and pay $1 if he could buy it at fifty cents?


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member for Lethbridge is possessed of some slight measure of intelligence. He would not do anything foolhardy like that, any more than would my hon. friend who asked the question.
Motion (Mr. Rogers) agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There is a slight amendment to the resolution which I think might be made in committee. My colleague the
2884	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will move this amendment. The amendment is that in the ninth line, following the word "guarantee," the following words be inserted:
in respect to this act and the Youth Training Act, 1939.
The resolution will then read:
Resolved, That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide assistance in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress and for such purpose to authorize the execution of undertakings in the general interest of Canada and requisite for the purposes of the act, out of moneys appropriated by parliament, and also to provide financial assistance to the provinces by way of loan, advance or guarantee, in respect to this act and the Youth Training Act, 1939, out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund, and for the appointment of necessary officers, clerks and employees.
I might say in. explanation of the amendment that formerly the appropriation for youth training was in the supplementary estimates and was spent under the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act, and this simply recognizes the practice that has prevailed hitherto.


James Garfield Gardiner: I move that amendment.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: Will the amendment mean that there will be no vote in the supplementary estimates for youth training?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The reference is rather to the loaning power. The hon. member will now see that in the resolution before the house, as amended, provision is made whereby a loan may be made to a province to assist it to carry out its obligations under the Youth Training Act.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Frederick George Sanderson: Shall the resolution as amended carry?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Before the orders of the day this afternoon the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) was prevented by the rules of the house from making a statement with regard to an assertion contained in his speech a few days ago. I believe it was understood that when this resolution was in committee he would have ample opportunity to make the statement he was prevented from making this afternoon.


Denton Massey: I have no desire to speak at any length, nor do I wish to delay the passage of the resolution through the committee stage, but in view of the attitude that the minister has taken in regard to the statement I made, and his reference to it on Friday last, I think I should 
say something on this occasion. In the course of my remarks on Thursday last I made the following statement:
. . . thousands have died as a result of exposure, illness, actual starvation or lack of care.
I chose that language carefully, and I expressed it, I felt, with equal care. If it is examined in its entirety it will be found that it does not say that thousands have died as a result of starvation, which is the only interpretation put upon my words by some. I used the phrase, "exposure, illness, actual starvation or lack of care." Surely these words are about as broad in their meaning as any words could be. "Lack of care" itself is a phrase which embraces much. For example, as a result of lack of care it is fully possible that one person would move from one place to another. Accordingly, in using that phrase as I did I meant to include the accidents that have resulted on the various railways, on highways and in similar ways. In fact, in answer to a question from the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean), I used the word "accident."


Norman McLeod Rogers: Later.
Mr, MASSEY:	The minister will permit
me to make the statement. He will realize when I was making the statement in question the other day, he interrupted me and I had not completed what I had planned to say at that particular point. Then the discussion took the turn which it did. He says now that I used the word "accident" later, but I certainly had it in mind at the time I made the statement, for the reason I have just stated.
This afternoon I commenced my remarks with a reference to an article which appeared in the issue of March 15, 1939 of Maclean's magazine, by the Hon. G. M. Weir, who is provincial secretary and minister of education of British Columbia. The article is entitled, A National Health Program. It is considered, so I am told by those who are in a position to make such statements, one of the best articles of the type which have appeared in recent years. There is a note beside the article stating:
Thousands of wasted lives and millions of wasted dollars could be saved by an adequate health policy, says this authority.
During the course of his article the hon. gentleman uses this language:
The public dependents alone number 1,500,000 and there are at least as many others who fall in the class of medically indigent.
In other words, according to Mr. Weir, there are 3,000,000, or more than 25 per cent, of our population who cannot afford the

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
cost of any medical attention whatsoever. It is an established fact, which we all know, that when medical care is curtailed in the case of those who are unable to afford it all, and those in the low income groups, death rates are higher among this section than among the rest of the population. For example, on October 12 last year, in a statement of the medical health officer of the city of Toronto there was the following:
In the city of Toronto the general mortality rate for the twelve month period ending September 30, 1937, was 13-0 per thousand in the area from Yonge street to the Don river and from Carlton street to the bay where the majority of citizens are on low wages or receiving relief. In other districts in Toronto the highest general death rate was 9'9 per thousand.
In other words, there was a difference of 3-1 deaths per thousand between the area first referred to and the rest of the city. In the light of the figure of three million individuals unable to meet the cost of medical care it becomes shockingly evident that if the death rate among this so-called underprivileged class is only one-tenth of one per cent higher than that of the rest of the population-and may it be noted just here that in the example I gave it was 0-31 per cent higher-three thousand individuals will die this year as a result of their inability to obtain medical care and treatment equivalent to the care obtained by the rest of the population. The statement I made was that "thousands have died as a result of exposure, illness, actual starvation or lack of care." And in this year alone, if the present situation prevails, there will be three thousand wbj will die as a result of lack of medical caret


Mr. DUPUIS:: Will the hon. member allow a question?


Denton Massey: I should like to be permitted to make my statement. Those closest to the actual situation in Toronto, for example, admit that the condition of those receiving public assistance is not satisfactory. In support of that statement I may read the opening paragraph of a letter dated April 16, addressed to me and signed by the general secretary of one of the outstanding philanthropic associations of the city of Toronto. This paragraph reads:
Our day to day experience with many hundreds of families shows conclusively that there are many people in the city of Toronto who are not getting enough to eat.
Further, I may refer the minister to the mortality table for the year 1936, published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, which indicates that the staggering number of
10,505 persons died in Canada in that one year alone without any medical attendance of any kind.


Olof Hanson: Could not those in need call in a doctor without being asked if they could not pay for the service?


Denton Massey: I do not suggest that all of these would necessarily have survived if they had received such care, but surely it is a fair inference that some of them at least would not have died had they been financially able to obtain medical service.
Finally, may I refer to another publication of the bureau of statistics, entitled, Statistics of the Steam Railways of Canada, 1937. On page 42 we note the statement that for the years 1932 to 1937 inclusive, 918 persons were killed while trespassing on the property of the Canadian railways, and 1,496 were injured. It may be assumed that the majority of those killed and injured were unquestionably indigent transients.
There are no figures available in the bureau of statistics, I am informed, as to the number of indigent transient pedestrians who have been killed on the highways. Hon. members all know personally of such cases.
In conclusion, in the light of such statistical evidence as exists in support of the statement I have made, I ask the minister to withdraw his adjective, "irresponsible" or in the alternative to give a clear indication to the committee of the extent to which he considers my statement in error. I do not believe he is prepared to go to the length of maintaining that no one has died as a result of lack of care, or to the extent of saying that those who have done so are insignificant in number. He realizes, as I do, that to obtain full and complete statistical evidence of those who have died as a result of malnutrition or undernutrition or whatever the case may be, or those who have died as a result of lack of care, is difficult. I have here a letter addressed to me by a medical man who, I believe, is beyond reproach. He states:
There can be no doubt that adults, and particularly children, who are underfed or improperly fed are much more susceptible to infection, and once having contracted a disease, their resistance having been reduced to a minimum there are many unnecessary fatalities, and the convalescence of those who survive is much more prolonged.


Thomas Vincent Grant: Who is the doctor; what
is his name? Perhaps he is a horse doctor.


Denton Massey: 
Denton Massey: I am afraid I cannot permit the minister to-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Denton Massey: On a point of order-


Norman McLeod Rogers: What is the point of order, Mr. Chairman?


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member will state his point of order.


Denton Massey: The minister has no right to impute motives to any hon. member, and he cannot refer to "exuberance of party feeling" in connection with my remarks.


Frederick George Sanderson: In my opinion the point of order is not well taken.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The first point we have to determine in connection with the matter is the statement actually made by my hon. friend, and I suggest to the committee that he has not correctly given that statement in what he has just said. The statement actually is in the following terms:
Single transients to the number of thousands upon thousands beg here and there in an effort to keep body and soul together, and thousands have died as a result of exposure, illness, actual starvation or lack of care.


Denton Massey: Quite so.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend was referring to single transients and was condemning the government at that time because of its lack of provision for single transients. That is all that one can deduce from the context.


Denton Massey: No.


Norman McLeod Rogers: In the explanation my hon. friend gave the committee to-night he did not make a single reference to single transients.


Denton Massey: I included them in all I said.


Norman McLeod Rogers: He referred in the first place to what he said was an increase in the mortality rate in a certain section of the city of Toronto. He then applied that increase in the mortality rate of that section of the city of Toronto to the number of 3,000,000 people in the Dominion of Canada who, he said, were lacking full medical care.


Denton Massey: H the minister will permit me-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Denton Massey: I permitted him to interrupt me seventy-seven times when I was speaking the other day, and I am sure he does not want to misrepresent me. I did not take the increase in the mortality rate. The increase in the mortality rate in that area of the city of Toronto to which I referred was 0-31 per cent. I used only a third of that figure, namely, one-tenth of one per cent, or 0-1 per cent.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I desire to place on Hansard, with the consent of the committee, the mortality talbles for the whole Dominion of Canada from 1929 to 1938. My hon. friend will find in these tables that there has been a fairly constant rate throughout the period of the depression. I suggest that his method of computing his wholly hypothetical figure on that basis is not a method that could possibly be followed iby any statistician.


Mr. HARRIS:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I object to this going on the record. We cannot follow the discussion in this way.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read it.


Frederick George Sanderson: The minister may place it on Hansard by unanimous consent.


Joseph Henry Harris: He has not received
unanimous consent.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall be pleased to read it. These figures are for the dominion, and are furnished by the vital statistics branch of the bureau of statistics:
Year
Death rate per 1,000 persons
1929		 11-3
1930		 10-7
1931		 10-1
1932		 9-9
1933		 9-6
1934		 9-4
1935		  9-7
1936		 9-7
1937		 10-2
1938	(9 months)		8-5


Joseph Henry Harris: Could the minister say when the nine month period ended?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I assume it would end on December 31.


Major James William Coldwell: Has the minister the figures broken down showing the number of deaths from malnutrition?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I even have something on that. While I am on that point, Mr. Chairman, I would remind the hon. member for Greenwood that in his reference to the thousands of single transients he said had died-


Denton Massey: I did not say " thousands of single transients."


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is written here; I do not need to read it again. In that reference my hon. friend emphasized starvation and exposure.


Denton Massey: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I shall have to raise a point of order. I do not object to the minister making his statement without interruption on my part; I wish it might be so, but he cannot deliberately state what is not so. There is the record upon Hansard, which says:
1-thousands have died as a result of exposure, illness, actual starvation or lack of care.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read the whole sentence.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have the figures from the bureau of statistics covering the years 1933 to 1937 inclusive, and 1937 is the latest year for which the figures are available, showing deaths from starvation and exposure as reported to the bureau from all over Canada, not within just the class of single transients but covering the entire population. The figures are as follows:
Deaths from starvation and exposure .	12
.	12
.	10
.	8
.	9


Denton Massey: Quite so.


Norman McLeod Rogers: And I would defy my hon. friend to add up those figures in any way and approach a figure anywhere near the thousands that he mentioned.


Denton Massey: Will the minister permit me a question?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to make my statement now. He then went on to say that he had in mind accidents, and later on he mentioned malnutrition. As to the matter of accidents, he referred to the number of accidents that had occurred to transients in recent years through riding on freight cars illegally. That point was also discussed briefly when the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) was speaking a short time ago. I had occasion to obtain from the board of transport commissioners a statement of those killed while riding illegally on freight trains in the years preceding the depression, when no question could properly have been raised as to any lack of care on the part of governments in dealing with an unemployment situation, as well as in the later years. I would remind my hon. friend that he did not include accidents specifically in his original statement, but for
Year
1933.
1934.
1935.
1936.
1937.



Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
the time being I will assume that he wished to include accidents in. that general designation. I am going to give the numbers of those so killed in successive years going back to 1926:
1926..	..
1927..	..
1928..	..
1929..	..
1930..	..
1931..	..
1932..	..
1933..	..
1934..	..
1935..	..
1936..	..
1937..	..
1938..	..
121
142
142
125 118
126 130 122 122 119
So, clearly from those figures one cannot possibly draw a conclusion which reflects upon the administration of relief or policies with respect to unemployment. There were more of these unfortunate deaths among transients in the years preceding the administration of relief than have occurred in these recent years.
So far as malnutrition is concerned, I wish to refer to a statement given by the deputy minister of pensions and national health in the preface to the National Health Review, and to a study of nutrition in Canada which was made by a special committee for the British Commonwealth Scientific Conference. These are the words of the deputy minister in respect of nutrition:
The principal findings of the subcommittee as given in this brief report show that in respect to Canada:
(1)	There is an abundance of food of different varieties sufficient to give balanced diets containing all essentials.
(2)	These can be provided under the existing government rates of assistance to families of the unemployed.
(3)	Economical menus or diets, adequate for the maintenance of health, have been suggested for the use of people of all ages.
(4)	There is no evidence of increased incidence of nutritional ailments among the children since 1929; in fact, there wipuld appear to be a reduction, owing to organized welfare work everywhere, With fewer missed cases. There is a halt in the decline of the tuberculosis death rate, but its importance is not yet admitted to be due to dietary causes.
I would also refer to a special study made by the director of social services in McGill university, Professor L. C. Marsh, in which he states that there has been less actual want, and in recent years more medical care during the depression than before. I think most hon. members will acknowledge that through the relief administration, and the medical attention attached to that, we have had developed in these recent years for the total population a far greater degree of medical attention than we have ever enjoyed before.
There may be hon. members who will still say that this attention is not adequate. But certainly in what I have submitted to the committee at this time there is not the slightest evidence to substantiate the suggestion of the hon. member for Greenwood that through inadequate relief administration there has been a marked increase in deaths, as a result of malnutrition. As a matter of fact malnutrition does not arise entirely from lack of food. There may be malnutrition, with great quantities of food available. It arises rather from a lack of balanced diet.
To sum up, I submit my hon. friend has failed entirely to produce any more evidence in support of his original statement than he did when that statement was made and challenged in the house. And I suggest it would have been far better had he withdrawn that statement then, particularly in view of the natural deductions which would be based upon it with respect to relief administration in this country. He has not seen fit to do so; that is a matter entirely for his conscience. But I submit to the committee that the statement was unfortunate and without foundation, and that it ought to have been withdrawn when it was made originally.


Denton Massey: Mr. Chairman, I rise only
to address one or two remarks to the minister in virtue of the fact that he requested me to refrain from interrupting him, which I was happy to do. The minister has left the impression with the committee that there has been an inordinately small number of those in this dominion who have died from starvation or malnutrition. The figures he gave are figures which I myself knew existed at the bureau, and I have seen them.
On the other hand he must know that malnutrition is an indirect rather than a direct cause of death, and that as a result of malnutrition such diseases as tuberculosis, pneumonia, stomach ulcers and other such ailments are brought about. The further result is that upon the death certificates of those who have been undernourished there appear such well known diseases as those I have mentioned. I am sure the minister will agree with me in that statement.
Second, the minister points out the fact that transients-if we may call them such- who before 1929 were killed on the railroads, and transients who have been killed on the railroads since 1929 are about equal in number. Mr. Chairman, surely what was wrong yesterday and prevails to-day is not made right by the fact that it prevails to-day. I was endeavouring to the best of my ability to bring to the attention of the minister the

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
plight of those who are within the country to-day and who are faced with the problems of relief-for they are problems-the problems of unemployment, low wages, and part-time, not only among our youth but among our people of all ages. And I have noticed tonight that in the minister's reply to the statement I had made he seemed to be more anxious to justify the present relief administration than to recognize the condition which exists in this country from coast to coast.
I am not concerned about what conditions were five years ago or six years ago or eight years ago nearly so much as I am with conditions which exist to-day, and with what - is going to be done about those conditions which exist to-day. That is the point upon which I stand, and that is what I was endeavouring to bring to the minister's attention in the remarks I made the other day. The minister is not going to stand in his place in this house and say he is satisfied with conditions of relief in this country, and that they cannot be made better? I have placed upon Hansard to-night the figures which show the conditions in my own city of Toronto, where those who are in contact with that situation from day to day, and are in a position to know, people such as medical health officers make statements showing there are conditions prevailing which should not be permitted to exist in any civilized country.
My whole endeavour has been to draw to the attention of the minister and to present to the committee the deplorable conditions prevailing in Canada, conditions which demand the full consideration of this parliament. We are at war within our own country, social war. We have the ways and means of handling the situation in time of war, and we do it without hesitation. I say the situation within our dominion to-day among those who are unemployed and who are underprivileged, from the youngest infant to the oldest man or woman, demands the immediate and most serious attention of the government; and it is in their name I have made this plea in this chamber.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I doubt very much if my hon. friend, with respect to the point at issue, has added anything to his original statement.


Denton Massey: I would not expect the minister to think so, no matter what I said.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There was no question before the committee as to whether or not the relief administration in this country had reached a state of perfection. All of us acknowledge there is much still to be done to improve its efficiency not only in one part of the country but, one may say, in all
municipalities. On the other hand it is equally important that we remember that in all provinces and all municipalities there are people engaged in the administration of relief who are doing their work well, and whose work ought not to be distorted and misrepresented in this place and to the country at large. I suggest it was originally a very serious reflection which my hon. friend made not only upon those in charge of relief administration throughout this country, but also upon private, voluntary welfare organizations throughout the dominion, and, indeed, upon what one might term the common humanity of us all. His statement was absolutely wide of the facts, and if he declines entirely to withdraw it, then that is a matter for him to decide.


Denton Massey: Mr. Chairman-


Joseph Henry Harris: The first observation I should like to make is that we do not seem to have the amendment before us. I listened to the amendment which was read to the committee, and there was almost as much in it as there is in the original resolution. In the absence of the amendment, it is difficult to discuss it.


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but the amendment has carried.


Joseph Henry Harris: No.


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes, the amendment was carried some time ago. The question is on the motion as amended.


Joseph Henry Harris: Then I shall speak on the motion as amended. In the absence of the text of the amendment, I shall endeavour to follow the discussion of the minister which, as I remember it, had very little to do with the amendment. As I remember it, the amendment had to do with youth training, and the minister was discussing mortality here, there and yon in all its phases, including mortality among transients. My first observation is that in 1934 the death rate was 9-4 per thousand; in 1935 it was 9-7, and in 1937, it was 10-2. So far there is no twelve month indication for the nine month period .which the minister quoted. We have seen a general rise in the mortality rate.
I should like to make a few remarks based upon actual experience covering the last decade in connection with the responsibility of providing some 537,640 patient days in connection with a hospital over which it has been my privilege to act as president and chairman of the board. In connection with that organization I was fortunate in having associated with me for some years the hon.
2890	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey). Each month the hon. member received a detailed report consisting of some ten foolscap pages, which outlined all the activities of that organization. As I say, this organization has provided over one-half million patient days of service to all classes of hospital patients, ranging from those well able to pay their way to those indigents who are unable to pay anything toward their care. The hon. member knows whereof he speaks. The minister has said that there was not the slightest evidence to back up the statement which the hon. member made, but from my own knowledge I know there is evidence.
The minister has said that the hon. member should let his conscience be his guide, but I say to the minister that he should calmly think over this situation and let his conscience be his guide. The minister said that the facts had been distorted, and he used some other expression which I cannot remember. Perhaps it would not be a bad idea if now and again some emphasis were given in this chamber to certain facts, even to the extent of going beyond the ordinary, in order to wake up and get some action from the administration in connection with one of the most vital and difficult problems which Canada has to face to-day.
Let me give a few facts. I have just received a letter from the auditors of the Toronto East hospital reciting some facts with regard to the difficulties which they have been encountering over the last three-year period. I should like to mention these difficulties as an illustration of the difficulties which all organizations giving service of this kind have had to meet. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) has been generous in receiving deputations and requests from organizations of this kind. He has given them every consideration, and I believe that in his calm moments he realizes the difficulties faced by organizations which have to look after the class of people to which the hon. member for Greenwood made reference and that class of people requiring hospitalization, to which the minister made reference when he was quoting his statistics.
These institutions find it more and more difficult to balance their budgets because there come to them for service more and more of the indigent class, more and more of those who are on relief, who are able to pay only the minimum for the service they receive. In the final result, those charged with the administration of these institutions find themselves up against a problem which seems almost insurmountable. That problem, as one year succeeds another, becomes more and

more difficult. As time goes on, a greater number of the classes of people of which we have been talking, including transients, those on relief and those unemployed, find themselves physically unable to stand up with the assistance they are getting from the government. If these same individuals were employed their state of mind would be more serene, they would be happier and their health would be better. Then, when they happened to come to these institutions, they would be patients in connection with whom there might be some hope of success. According to the evidence which the minister was kind enough to place on record, our mortality rate is steadily rising. So much for that side of the picture.
I come now to the financial side. It is admitted at once that those who are unable to pay are generally those on relief or transients who have been brought in as a result of accident. Those who know the geography of Toronto and vicinity will appreciate the fact that the Toronto East general hospital is the nearest hospital to the Danforth yard. This is the yard where trains are broken up, and transients from the jungle just outside the Danforth station hop on and off the trains at this point. When accidents occur, they are brought to the Toronto East general hospital. Each Sunday afternoon for the past ten years it has been my pleasure to visit many of these patients. I know from actual observation that the available statistics do not reflect the actual number of those who are killed because of accident, or those who are injured and subsequently pass out. They do not indicate the number of those to whom service is given in these different institutions, service made necessary because of malnutrition. Many of these patients are not able to stand the effect of an operation.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, April 18, 1939