REPORTS OF COMMITTEES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Hull) presented the second and final report of the special committee appointed to inquire into the operation of the Civil Service Act.
Mr. DUNNING:: It is very voluminous.
Perhaps it is not necessary that it be read.


Mr. MANION:: We should like to hear it.


Mr. RINFRET:: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the reading of the report be dispensed with; it will be printed in the votes and proceedings.



AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION-CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald) presented the first report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Second report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Vien.

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

Mr. HOWDEN:: What are the total expenditures incurred by the Canadian National Railways for the construction of new railway equipment from 1929 to date:	(a) in Canadian National Railways
shops; (b) by private or independent car shops?


Mr. HOWE:: Equipment built in Canadian National Railways shops, 1929 to 1938, $8,620,923; equipment built in private or independent car shops, 1929 to 1938, $91,861,186; total, $100,482,109.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	What is the aggregate of all capital invested in the properties comprising the Canadian National Railways?
2.	What is the total liability of the Canadian National Railways, and of this, what are the totals of securities in the hands of private corporations and individuals, and the total of securities in the possession of the government?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	The capital investments of the Canadian National Railways at December 31, 1938, were as follows:
Investment in road and equipment	$1,856,468,592
Improvements on leased railway
property	   4.300,970
Miscellaneous physical property	61,614.511
Sinking funds	  576,580
Deposits in lieu of mortgaged
property sold	 5,453,905
Investments in affiliated companies	 36.139.090
Other investments	 1.120.247

Foreign Propaganda
2.	The capital liabilities of the Canadian National Railways at December 31, 1938, were as follows:
Capital stocks of subsidiary companies owned by public	$	4,583,800
Funded debt:
Held by public. .$1,243,800,534 Held in special funds and accounts..	6,195,889

 1,249,996,423
Dominion of Canada Accounts treated as assets in public accounts of Canada-
Loans	$48,144,805
Canadian government railways working
capital	 16,771,980

 64,916,785
Canadian National Railways
capita! stock	 18,000.000
Canadian National Railways securities trust capital stock 266.612,869 Capital expenditure for Canaadian government railways 388,075,722


$1,992,185,599 BRITISH FAMILY SETTLEMENT
Mr. HAYHURST:: 1.	What is the total number of settlers who were allotted farms under the 3,000 British family agreement?
2.	How many of these wrere settled in: (a) Alberta; (b) Saskatchewan; (c) Manitoba?
3.	How many are remaining on the farms in: (a) Alberta; (b) Saskatchewan; (c) Manitoba?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	2,672.
2.	(a) Alberta, 855; (b) Saskatchewan, 626; (c) Manitoba, 302.
3.	(a) Alberta, 576; (b) Saskatchewan, 366; (c) Manitoba, 163.


UNEMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
CLOSING OF COLISEUM IN TORONTO TO TRANSIENTS On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) a short question in reference to the transients who were in the coliseum in Toronto. The coliseum is now closed, and 276 of these men are walking the streets of Toronto. The city and the province disclaim responsibility for them. I understood the minister to say that the provinces are responsible for transients. What action will the government take about these hungry men in Toronto? Surely we pay enough taxes, $90,000,000. to make it possible for these men to be taken care of.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): I have dealt with this question before. I have placed on Hansard a copy of the telegrams exchanged between myself and the Minister of Public Welfare in Toronto. As a result of that exchange of telegrams the time during which assistance was given to these transients was extended, first to April 15, and then, as I understood it, until May 1. There is nothing I can add at the present time to the statement I made in response to the earlier question.


Thomas Langton Church: Just "passing the buck" again.


FOREIGN PROPAGANDA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: I note that from my own city come continued protests against the pro-nazi activities of the Deutsche Zeitung juer Canada published by Gutenberg Publishing Company. It is claimed that this paper is not only antiBritish and anti-Semitic, as shown by translations recently published in the Winnipeg Tribune but that the ownership has been for very many years largely in the hands of the former German consul at Winnipeg, and that a large block of stock is still held by him. I wonder if the government have made any inquiry regarding this matter and have anything to report, or are taking any steps towards seeing that some control be exercised in Canada over any publication which is actively promoting strife between different sections of the community.


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Of course this is a matter in respect to which it may not be advisable to state the extent of the supervision of the government authorities, or to report as to certain information that we are getting; because if we do, our sources of information would not be so effective. But my hon. friend may be sure that supervision is being exercised over those activities-press, circulars, clubs, committee meetings, and similar organizations. It is also pretty difficult to draw the line at which interference may be justified, so long as force is not advocated to effect changes in governmental institutions. I am sure my hon. friend would not advocate having in Winnipeg a certain law which in another province has excited his ire in many instances. I know that in certain small sections of the country efforts are being made to gain support of the population for forms of government
Criminal Code-Trade Unions

which we do not want in this country. My hon. friend may be sure that if circumstances point to the necessity of intervention on the part of the government, we shall agree with him that intervention should take place.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If I might emphasize two points briefly: while as the minister indicates I stand for free speech and do not want any unwarranted interference on the part of the government, at the same time I think it worth while to inquire, first, as to. how far these publications are maintained by foreign money, and, second, whether we are justified in permitting activities which distinctly tend to promote friction in the local community.


CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 90, to amend the criminal code.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Inciting to mutiny.
Ernest Lapointe: Sections 1, 2 and 3, as hon. members will notice, are merely for the purpose of adding the word "air" or "airmen" in the clauses which are amended by these sections, putting them on the same basis as the militia and naval forces.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Search.
Ernest Lapointe: This is just to correct a clerical error.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Prohibiting driving.
Thomas Langton Church: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question. I do not want to oppose the bill in any respect, but we spent a whole day last session considering what should be done about the great loss of life in Canada through motor accidents on the highways. A private bill was presented and the minister promised that during the recess of parliament he would look into the matter. We are sitting here as the high court of parliament and all that needs to be done under this section is for provincial magistrates and judges to notify the registrar of motor 
vehicles of a conviction. Surely the government have a better policy than that. The minister promised to look into the great loss of life and the large number of injuries caused by accidents in Canada on highways and at level crossings. What has the government done to lessen this great loss of life, either by legislation under the code or otherwise? For the last five years I have introduced substantive motions and bills introduced in this connection but nothing has been done. In England they have done a great deal towards reducing the number of deaths in automobile accidents. I would not like to see the Minister of Justice injured by some motor car, but even in front of these buildings one has to step pretty lively at times to avoid motor cars. When we see men, women and children slaughtered in Canada as they are, I believe the penalties should be more severe than anything we have adopted as yet. This section provides:
-the court or justice may . . . make an order prohibiting such person from driving a motor vehicle or automobile anywhere in Canada during any period not exceeding three years. In the event of such an order being made the court or justice shall forward a copy thereof to the registrar of motor vehicles for the province wherein a permit or licence to drive a motor vehicle or automobile was issued to such person.
I do not see that this is necessary, because most of these charges are laid, not under the code, but under the different motor vehicles acts. The Ontario act has been amended to cover just this point, and surely if that is all we are going to do we shall continue to have this great loss of life in Canada. There were eighty people killed and nearly 2,500 injured on the streets of Toronto last year. Why, you could fill every seat in this House of Commons with the number of people killed in this way in three large cities of this country. Should we not do something more than merely notify the highway departments of the various provinces? That is provided for now in four or five provinces; when magistrates or justices of the peace register convictions it is their duty under the highway traffic act to take the action that is proposed under this section. Surely with all these commissions roaming around the country a matter concerning the very life of thousands of our people could be better dealt with. I do not want members of the cabinet to be killed on the highways, but even on this speedway in front of the building we all have to watch very carefully, because we never know who is going to be killed next.
I want to ask the minister if he will not consider, during the recess of parliament, a thorough national investigation into this great

Criminal Code-Trade Unions
loss of life to which I have referred, with a view to taking steps such as those that have been taken in England, where they have drastically reduced the number of accidents of this kind.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend says the motor vehicle act of Ontario, provides for what is contained in this amendment, but the Ontario act applies only to that province. This is to make this provision applicable to the whole of Canada, and it has been requested by persons and governments interested in this matter.
In regard to the stringency of the law concerning motor accidents, that question was thoroughly considered last year, when amendments were made to our code after consultation with attorneys general and others. I believe the law now is as severe as it can be. My hon. friend has been advocating that we should follow the law of England in the matter. We did; we brought in amendments last year which made our law similar to the English law. I am afraid there will always be accidents unless we entirely prohibit the use of motor cars, but we have gone as far as justice and fairness warrant in making it a crime to do certain things when motoring on the public highways.
For the information of my hon. friend I may say that the law has been severely applied, I have been sorry many times to be compelled to refuse requests and applications made by members of the house either to reduce sentences or to restore licences which have been taken away from persons convicted of these crimes. I was sorry to have to do that, but there has not been one case in which I have intervened to give back a licence that was revoked by the magistrate. I do not think my hon. friend is quite fair in saying that we are not doing all that can be done, but I am quite willing to consider his request that we should continue to look into the matter during the recess, and if the law can be improved in any way I shall be pleased to cooperate with my hon. friend in the matter.


Thomas Langton Church: Last year the minister said he would consider the amendments proposed in the bill I submitted. Among those was an amendment providing that persons who have caused death should not drive for two years. That has been found to work well in some of the states of the union, and I think it might be of great value here. The men who have been killed in these accidents had as much right to live as those who killed them. The section I proposed read:
Everyone is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to not more than six months' imprisonment and a fine not exceeding one hundred
dollars who, having caused the death of any person while driving an automobile or motor vehicle, thereafter drives an automobile or motor vehicle at any time during the next ensuing two years, notwithstanding that such death was not caused entirely or partially by fault of such driver.
In my opinion it takes two people to cause an accident, but surely there should be some penalty when a jury decides that an accident was sixty per cent the fault of the killer and forty per cent the fault of the man killed. I know if I killed a man I would never want to drive a car again. That is one reason I do not drive a car now; I am afraid of hurting somebody on our streets. I believe we should tighten up the laws in order to protect the people who use our highways. Would not the minister consider such an amendment?


Mr. BERCOVITCH:: I should like to revert to section 2 of the bill, which reads:
Everyone is guilty of an offence punishable on indictment, or on summary conviction before two justices, who, not being a seaman in his majesty's naval service, an enlisted soldier or airman in his majesty's service-
There is no definition of the word " airman " in the bill, and the question might arise as to who is an airman. Is it the aviator who flies a plane, or would it apply also to a member of the ground crew? I submit that it would be just as important to have the section cover the members of the ground crews of the air service as it would be to have it cover only the airmen. There is nothing in the section as far as I can see, nor is there anything in any of the amendments that I have glanced through, defining an airman. The door may be left open to some technicality which might arise on a very important occasion.


Ernest Lapointe: "Airman " is the usual term. It means an enlisted airman, and that is the way it has always been interpreted.


Peter Bercovitch: Would it be so
considered if a case arose? I doubt it. If we take the word " airman " and consider the ordinary acceptation of the term, it would mean, I suppose one might say, someone who is up in the air.


Mr. STEVENS:: That would be a big crowd.


Peter Bercovitch: As I understand the word it actually means one who flies an aeroplane; it would not apply to the ground crew.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford):: What is the difference between an enlisted soldier and an airman? Is there any difference?


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend may see that this applies to persons
Criminal Code-Trade Unions

serving in his majesty's forces by land, sea or air. This applies only to persons serving in the Canadian forces.


Mr. MASSEY:: Would the minister be good enough to state what offences are covered by subsections 1, 2, 4 and 6?


Ernest Lapointe: The
penalties are defined in the section. Is that what the hon. member wishes?


Denton Massey: The section reads:
Where any person is convicted of an offence under the provisions of subsections 1, 2, 4 or 6 of this section-
What are the offences covered by those subsections?


Ernest Lapointe: The section which is now amended appears in the statutes of 1938 as follows:
Whenever, owing to the presence of a motor car on the highway, an accident has occurred to any person or to any horse or vehicle in charge of any person, any person driving the motor car shall be guilty of an offence and liable, either on indictment or on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars and costs or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months if, with intent to escape liability either civil or criminal, he fails to stop his car, tender assistance, and give his name and address. Such failure shall be prima facie evidence of an intent as aforesaid.


Denton Massey: It deals only with accidents?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Publication of false advertisements to promote sales, etc.
Mr. MacNICOL:: I suggest that the publication of false advertisements on billboards during an election campaign might also be prohibited.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think that those would be either business or commercial interests.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But it affects a lot of business.	.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 8, 9 and 10 agreed to.
On section 11-Refusing to employ, etc., members of a trade union.
Mr. LAWSON:: Mr. Chairman, judging
from the number of resolutions I have received from trade unions .and other organizations in the riding I represent, it will not be popular to offer any opposition to this proposed amendment to the criminal code. Nevertheless I feel it my duty to point out two things which in the past have come to my attention in connection with matters of this kind.

I should like to make it very clear that I am most anxious and willing to subscribe to any legislation which in its final result is for the benefit of members of trade unions in general, or people who earn a living from physical labour. Having regard to this section I want to recite to the committee in general, and to the minister in charge of the bill in particular, circumstances which came to my attention eighteen months or two years ago. I shall try to be accurate in my statement of the facts.
A certain industry in Canada employing, according to my recollection, between 450 and 500 workers, had for many years what was known as a shop committee. There was no organized union in the industry, and no branch of any recognized national or international union. But each year the employees of the different departments met, a group of so many employees electing one to represent them on the shop committee. Thus they had an organization of representatives of employees who periodically, either four or six times a year, met with the management, discussed labour problems and complaints or other matters which the employees thought worthy of consideration. Over a period of nine or ten years this procedure had worked out very well, and there had never been labour trouble of any kind in the plant. Apparently the employees were happy and satisfied.
At the time of the intrusion in Canada of the unions of the Committee for Industrial Organization a committee of two or three walked into the manager's office one day and said, "We are officers of Union No.-" so and so "-of the Committee for Industrial Organization which has been organized in your plant, and we demand that we be recognized as the representatives of the employees of this plant." They laid upon the table certain demands for changes they desired in connection with working conditions, wages, or matters of that kind. The manager said, "Oh, no, you do not represent this plant; we have a shop committee. I have not heard from the shop committee; we have had no complaint from them." The manager sent for the shop committee and, as the result of a talk he had with them, he did something rather unusual, something which, in the vernacular, might be described as taking the bull by the horns. The next morning, as each employee came to the plant and approached one of the entrances, he was confronted with a ballot box and a ballot, and was asked to vote then and there as to whether he wanted to be represented by his shop committee, as he had been in the last nine or ten years, or by the Committee for Industrial Organization.

Criminal Code-Trade Unions
I believe a period of fifteen minutes was given for the employee to consider the matter, but he was not permitted to enter the plant until he had cast his ballot. As a result of that procedure an overwhelming majority voted in favour of the shop committee. Thereupon the manager refused to recognize the officers of the union of the Committee for Industrial Organization or to have anything to do with them. They called a strike. About ten per cent of the employees went out on strike, and the manager promptly dismissed them. He first gave them three days to return to their jobs, and be reengaged, or failing that, he would replace them with others. Most of them were so replaced.
Let us take this specific case. The men would go to the court under this section and say, "We were fired because we went on strike, and we went on strike because we were members of a union." The sole reason for the manager or owner dismissing those men was that they belonged to a particular trade union. I cannot conceive that the majority of the representatives of the people in this house would want legislation which would create that situation.


Mr. THORSON:: What would the judgment be?


James Earl Lawson: It is impossible for me to anticipate what the judgment might be. I trust I shall not be considered irreverent or disrespectful when I say that having practised law for twenty-four or twenty-five years I have seen some amazing judgments given by magistrates. I think most hon. members who are of the legal profession have had similar experiences, particularly when only a small proportion of the magistrates have legally trained minds, quite apart from their being qualified as lawyers.
I know the minister is honestly endeavouring by this legislation to meet a difficult situation, and I simply point out this specific example and ask the minister and his officials to give serious consideration to the question whether there should not be some further change in the wording of this section. I acknowledge the difficulty in meeting the situation.
There is another aspect of the matter to which I should like to refer. It frequently happens that there are two unions in the same plant. One group of men may belong to union A while another group may belong to union B.


Mr. MARTIN:: Craft unions.


James Earl Lawson: It does not matter what kind of union it is. I see my hon. friend's
point; men may belong to different unions in a plant where different craftsmen are employed -there may be one craft union and a general union. But let us call them union A and union B. One union becomes much stronger numerically than the other. We all know the struggle which has been made for years by the unions to obtain what they term a closed shop; in other words, they want to impose upon the owner or the proprietor the obligation that he shall not employ anyone who is not a member of a particular union. That situation was not so bad in the days when there was only one union, but where you have two unions in a plant and one becomes more powerful than the other, the more powerful one may go to the management and say, "Unless you make this a closed shop so far as our union is concerned and employ only our members, we will call a strike." That manufacturer or industrialist may have no quarrel with his employees as to wages or hours of labour, but in such a case the sole point at issue is that he shall be required to employ only the members of the one particular union. If that employer complies with such a demand, he is committing a breach of this section, because he would be dismissing employees for belonging to a union.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Not for belonging to a union.


James Earl Lawson: Because they do not belong to a particular union. That will serve my purposes just as well. I do not think we should say by legislation to any worker in this country, "You must belong to a certain union " or " you must belong to a union."


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: This section does not touch that.


James Earl Lawson: I think it touches it, very clearly. My learned friend and I have disagreed before on the interpretation of the law, but I think the last occasion on which that occurred I happened to have in mind the case which decided the point I was alleging, and was able to cite it immediately. At the moment I have not such a ease available. If my hon. friend disagrees with me, he can state his position later.
As I interpret this section, if the situation which I have just outlined arose, the owner would be in an extremely difficult position. I was wondering if there would be any possibility of meeting this difficulty by including one or two words in the section to make it an offence to dismiss an employee solely because he belongs to a union or because he does not belong to a union. In other words,
Criminal Code-Trade Unions

I think you could cure the situation I have outlined by having the section read:
. . . refuses to employ or dismisses from his employment any person for the sole reason that such person is or is not a member of a lawful trade union. . . .


James Shaver Woodsworth: As I have been interested in legislation along these lines, I should like to congratulate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) upon introducing this bill. While perhaps it does not go as far as a similar bill which I introduced, it does go a long way toward meeting the situation now existing in Canada. I have received a large number of messages from trade unions all over the country. As was stated during the debate on Bill No. 5, the official organizations of labour have endorsed and indeed have for a number of years asked for legislation of this kind. I can assure the minister of the appreciation of a very large number of trade unionists throughout the country.
A few days ago I happened to be reading a brief outline of trade unioD history published by the Department of Labour. It seems to me that this is simply another step in a long series of steps by which labour has tried to secure something like its rights. In Great Britain in 1799 and 1800 parliament enacted the combination acts. That was at a time when industry was organizing and labour was being placed very much at a disadvantage. It was claimed then that there was equality of treatment before the law, since the employer also came under the combination acts. As I listened to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson) it seemed to me that in his thinking he was back in the days of 1799 and 1800. Anatole France rather laughed at this idea of equality as between employer and employee, or as between one class of the community and another, when he said:
The law in the majesty of its equality alike forbids rich and poor to sleep on park benches.
Thus showing, as the Labour department paper points out, that identical treatment is not always equitable treatment. The combination acts were repealed in 1824. Then we had in 1834 the formation under the influence of Robert Owen of the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union. At this time also came the difficulties encountered by the first agricultural labourers' union which had been organized in Tolpuddle in Dorset. There followed the Chartist movement. I am touching on just a few points in the trade union movement. Then an act in Great Britain gave legal status to trade unionism in 1871.
In Canada a Nova Scotia act in 1816 prohibited combinations and referred to the numbers of working men of Halifax and other

parts of the province who "by unlawful meetings and combinations endeavoured to regulate the rate of wages." I am not going over that history in any detail. I want simply to point out that it has been a long struggle extending over many decades to secure for trade unionism anything like its rights. I wish I had time to answer from the trade union standpoint the argument, if such it may be called, of the hon. member for York South, who instanced the case of a shop committee, a company union, you might call it, where the management is supreme and the men are called together in a fashion that did not give them any real power.


James Earl Lawson: You go and talk to the men and you will find them satisfied.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have talked with them. I know the trade union movement fairly well.


James Earl Lawson: But go and talk with the men in that plant.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Men in individual plants may be satisfied, but I submit that we cannot found legislation on exceptional cases; it cannot be done. The men have the right to organize just as much as the company. Merely because an association of gentlemen get together and agree to go into a partnership, without any legal basis, is no reason for carrying on business generally in that way. I think the hon. member for York South will admit that business generally cannot be carried on without legal documents or contracts simply because in one instance three or four gentlemen voluntarily enter into an agreement to carry on their business in a certain way. We have gone beyond that stage. The hon. member for York South mentioned an instance in which men were forced to cast ballots in a certain way, and as the management dictated, or be dismissed.


James Earl Lawson: I did not say they were required to cast ballots in a certain way and as the management dictated. They cast their ballots as they wanted to; that is all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should have altered the order of my clauses. What I meant was that in a perfectly arbitrary fashion they were required to cast their ballots. If you are going to have anything like real freedom and real justice you cannot have the men treated in that way. The very case instanced by the hon. member for York South is about the best illustration one could get to show the need of some such protection for the workers such as I hope this legislation will afford.

Criminal Code-Trade Unions


James Earl Lawson: My hon. friend's associates compelled me arbitrarily to cast a ballot last night on five minutes' notice-a public ballot for all the world to know.


Mr. MacINNIS:: But the hon. member voted the way he wanted to, didn't he?


James Earl Lawson: Of course I did; so did the men.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That "ballot" last night was cast in accordance with the generally accepted rules and regulations.


Mr. MacNEIL:: And after long discussion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: After long discussion. It was not forced arbitrarily on individuals who had no right to speak for themselves. and no right to sit in the house the next day if they voted contrary to what was considered proper. I do not think impossible illustrations of that kind should be dragged in.


James Earl Lawson: It was a secret ballot.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Even if it was a secret ballot, that does not alter the situation. My point is that it was a perfectly arbitrary mode of procedure on the part of the employer. The employees should have the right to conduct their affairs in an orderly, sensible, self-respecting way. I frankly recognize that undoubtedly there are difficulties when there are several unions in the field. There are difficulties that face labour men themselves owing to the development of industry. They have to determine whether an organization shall be a craft organization or an industrial organization, whether or not the headquarters shall be in Canada and the union a national one, or whether, as is the case with many industrial companies, it shall be an international organization with headquarters perhaps across the border. These are problems to be worked out. But that does not touch the main question at issue here. The main issue is that labour people just as other members of the community, shall have the right to organize for their own special purposes. Industrialists have the right to organize for their purposes; why not labour?
I received a letter a few days ago from a trade union official from which I should like to read a sentence or two:
There is no doubt Canadian workers should be encouraged to respect our democratic institutions, and the best way to do that is to give them a fair wage, fair working conditions, and a fair security for their dependents, also a definite feeling of better prospects and understanding with their employers.
I think that is really what the ordinary working man wants. He believes in our democratic institutions; he wants to live under
our democratic institutions. But if we are to have real democracy in the industrial field we must provide some machinery through which democracy will work. I do not think it is possible to separate political democracy from industrial democracy. The one runs into the other, and I warn the house that if we deny industrial democracy to any large group of people we are in reality endangering our own political democratic institutions. I do not think that can be put too strongly. If you are to have a law-abiding population that will refuse to take matters into their own hands and get what they want by force, then you must provide machinery through which they can work and obtain their legitimate rights.
I take it that more and more we are coming to the place where industry cannot be said to belong only to the man who owns the capital invested in it. The idea apparently held by the hon. member for York South is surely out of date. An industry does not belong alone to the capitalist or to the management. The employees have a vital interest in it, and should have their place in the management of the industry; and I believe that we are rapidly coming to a recognition of this position. If the employees are to have that share in industry, and their liberty in a field where liberty counts perhaps for even more than it does in the political field, the workers must have the full right to organize their fellow workers and must have a voice as to the conditions under which they shall work.


Mr. YIEN:: Is there not a difficulty in
determining where the liberty of one ends and the liberty of the other begins?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Always. That is
the very essence of government.


Thomas Vien: I am talking of industrial
liberty.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite so, but until such time as we have something very near to socialism in this country we shall have to leave this matter largely in the hands of the workers themselves.


Thomas Vien: Do you think that would
cure it?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think they will have to work it out for themselves, and I believe they can be trusted. The trouble as I understand it is that we do not really believe in democracy.


Thomas Vien: We do.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then we do not practise it.
Criminal Code-Trade Unions


Thomas Vien: We practise it here much better than they do in Russia.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite so. I do not know why the hon. gentleman should introduce Russia into this discussion.


Thomas Vien: I will tell the hon. member. It is because a system has been introduced there by the workers themselves, and my hon. friend suggests that if labour were left to adjust these difficulties they would be ironed out. It does not seem to me that I would relish the way they have been ironed out by the labour classes in Russia.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I quite agree,
because I do not believe that in Russia they have, either in the political or in the industrial field, what we would call democracy.


Thomas Vien: I agree.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But there are other countries which have proceeded farther along these lines than we have. Take the Scandinavian countries. They have found that in the working out of their democracy three or four things must go hand in hand. They have their cooperative organizations, their trade union organizations, their own kind of political organization, and perhaps above all a generally educated public assisted along lines of what we call adult education. It seems to me we too must work along those lines if we would have in this country a thoroughly educated people capable of carrying on democratic institutions. In the meanwhile, if we really believe in democracy, we shall have to leave organization in the industrial field very largely in the hands of the workers themselves.


Charles Grant MacNeil: As regards collective bargaining.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, as regards collective bargaining.


Mr. SLAGHT:: When the hon. gentleman says that we do not really believe in democracy, may I ask of whom is he speaking?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am speaking at the moment of the Canadian people.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: And of the group for which the hon. member is speaking?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was not thinking in political terms. I would say that we as Canadians-perhaps if we had to narrow it down, I would say, we as a parliament-do not really trust the people. It is in that sense that I use the word "we." Generally speaking we do not trust the people. We are inclined to impose something on them. I am talking at the moment merely about

trade union activities, collective' bargaining and that sort of thing. I think that to a large extent we must leave the working out of these matters to the trade unions themselves. I quite agree that if the unions were to resort to force to compel people to come in, the law would have to step in, as it would in dealing with rival concerns if two merchants came to a clash on the street.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Or the sit-down strike, for instance?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, a sit-down strike is caused only because the existing machinery is not sufficient to enable the parties to settle their differences in the proper way. If we are to avoid sit-down strikes or appeals to force we shall have to set up machinery through which the various groups can work in a constructive way. Then the process will be an orderly one. But if we allow things to continue so that, when an employee wants to join with his fellows, a big corporation can dictate to him whether or not he shall do it, and can even put him out of employment, democracy has no opportunity of functioning.
I had not intended to say so much this afternoon, but when I think of the way big United States corporations have come- into northern Manitoba, northern Saskatchewan, and northern British Columbia, and I believe the same is true to a certain extent of Ontario and Quebec, and proceed to erect a state within a state, and dictate to their employees how they are to live, how they are to organize, even how they are to vote, it seems to me that democracy becomes a farce. That is the situation with which we are faced in Canada. Surely we should protect the workman's right to be a free man and to carry on as a free man. That is all this legislation asks for.
On some occasion I should like to ask the Minister of Justice what effect certain limiting words may have-in the second line "wrongfully and without lawful authority"; later I notice the adjective "lawful" trade unions, "lawful" association, "lawful" right. To whose authority does that refer, dominion authority or provincial authority? I am a little in doubt as to what is meant, what lies behind and what will be the legal effect of these terms.


James Earl Lawson: Before the minister replies, may I be permitted a few minutes? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has endeavoured to turn my statement, with respect to difficulties I saw in the way of this section, into an effort on my part to oppose the organization

Criminal Code-Trade Unions
of workmen into unions, or collective bargaining, or anything of that kind. I wish to make it very clear that I have always supported collective bargaining; I have always been and .always shall be willing to support any legislation which gives to the labouring man every possible opportunity of organization. That is not the point in connection with this particular legislation. I was trying to point out that I agreed with the section in the principle which I believe it seeks to accomplish, but that the wording of it should have further consideration lest it create an evil which I believe we do not want to create. May I say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, so that he may have some regard for my sincerity in connection with the principles I have just enunciated, and so that he may not carry through life the notion that I have the trade union ideas of 1700 and 1800, that long before the days when he had an active interest in trade unionism, at a time when his main objective was leading the souls of men to eternal life, I was learning trade unionism at my parents' knees from my earliest years until 1911. Because it so happened that my father was not only a union man but president of a union, I know something of trade unionism and something of the problems of labour. I am most anxious to help in every possible way labour organization, but I still say that if this section as it now stands is carried it will lead, I fear, to inequities which in their final results will only cause its repeal, and so will not effect the purpose which the hon. member so sincerely, I believe, desires to accomplish.


Mr. McIVOR:: I am very happy to support this resolution. It 'backs up what I have been saying about the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), that he is in favour of men organizing and being protected in their labour organization. I know- of organizations and companies the heads of which understand how to treat their workers. I could name a number, but for my own protection perhaps I had better not do so. Those companies and their superintendents know how to treat their men; the officers go out with them in the summer and they have a social time with them in the winter. But I know the other kind, too. If there is any law which is true in nature it is the law of struggle, and trade unionism is no exception to that law. I have seen men scared in their shoes when they were asked to join a union. I know that because they worked with me and I had something to do with their employment. They were afraid lest they lose their jobs or get a cut in their wages. I congratulate the minister upon
bringing in this legislation at this time; for if he had received, as perhaps he has, letters similar to those which I have received since I supported this year Bill No. 5, with respect to refusal to employ or dismissal of employees for belonging to trade unions, and a corresponding one previously, it would cheer his heart to read them. At the head of the lakes I know of a group of people who would allow their superintendents to organize, but these superintendents would not allow their workers to organize. That is not fair. I know, too, that not all craft union leaders are unselfish. To my mind, craft unions do not go all the way. I have known of plants that have been thoroughly organized and people were working in those plants for 35 cents an hour. We need all the men organized, because a man who has a wife and family and has to live on 35 cents an hour becomes discontented if he finds that in the same plant there are men getting $2 an hour.
I commend the minister heartily for his progressive legislation. This to me is one of the commendable measures introduced in this house. I defy the Globe and Mail to leave blank the little space headed " What has Parliament done?" They should insert this: " Protected the right of men to organize and be protected in their organization." I hope the day will come when Christianity will have its full power in all organizations of labour and of those who employ labour; when the superintendents of corporations and the presidents of labour unions will confer together, and the superintendents will try to find out, just like the provincial or dominion whips, where there might be discontent and then in a fine way seek to alleviate it in constructive fashion. When labour and capital get together and cooperate for each other's good, legislation such as this will not be necessary, but as things are to-day it is essential and has my full support.


Angus MacInnis: My reason for rising to
say a word on this subject is an unusual one. I am going to say a word for the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson). I think my leader, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre misconstrued the motives of the hon. member. As is not unusual with a lawyer, he examines the wording and construction of a bill for loopholes, and makes suggestions as to how they may be overcome. However I doubt whether some of his suggestions would be helpful. If I understood him rightly he said the bill should be amended by adding some such words as "who is-or is not-a member of a lawful trade union." Under those words I think an employer would have
Criminal Code-Trade Unions

to continue in his employ a person who is a member of an unlawful trade union, if there is such a thing, and could not dismiss him.
I can visualize such an hypothetical case as the one he first mentioned-that is, where there might be a break from the established trade union and a new one set up, the conditions that he mentioned might arise. But I do feel that if so, a judge hearing the case would, and justly too, make his decision so that all the employees could be in the trade union in which the majority of the employees were at the time. I think that is the situation now in the United States, where they can take a poll as to which organization has the largest number of members in a particular industry, and the union with the largest membership becomes the recognized union, I doubt very much if any great difficulty will arise bec'ause of such contingencies, and if it does, I presume we shall have to do as we always do, provide for it when it comes.
I can speak in this matter only as a trade unionist. I have been a trade unionist now for almost thirty years, and I have to look at this bill from the trade unionist point of view. I cannot look at it from a lawyer's point of view because I have not had a lawyer's training. But I know from my association with trade unionists that the trade unionist, like the rest of mankind, or all the animal world if you like, is a conservative animal. He does not want to disturb the conditions under which he gets his livelihood if they are at all reasonable.


John Ritchie MacNicol: All Conservatives are
reasonable.
Mr, MARTIN:	Did the hon. member say
all Conservatives are reasonable?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I did.


Angus MacInnis: I may tell the hon, member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) that I did not refer to the Conservatives to my right. I referred to conservatives in another sense.


Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: What
about the Tories across the way?


Angus MacInnis: I never use that word.
I was saying that trade unionists are reasonable people. They do not want to have the conditions under which they work disturbed in such a manner as to interfere with their livelihood. They want to carry on with their everyday work; it is very difficult to get trade unionists to act when there is not an essential grievance in which they are vitally concerned. I know because I have been in a number of struggles with them.

I am satisfied that this bill when- it becomes law will do a great deal to improve the harmony between workers and employers, as all the legislation referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has done down through the years.
Just one other point. I wish it might not continually happen that when we on this side refer to certain things someone opposite jumps up and says, "What about Russia?" Whether we like what the Russian people did at the time of the revolution or not, we must realize that they did the only thing they knew how to do, because they had not been taught before, by their rulers, to do differently. A people who lived for centuries under an autocracy as did the Russian workers could not possibly do otherwise, and it will take years of training in democratic procedure before they come to realize the necessity of the democratic method, if they are to make the best of themselves and get the best results for themselves in the administration of their affairs. They now adopt democratic procedure in some of their affairs, just as democratic as any other people, and they have autocracy in other parts; but the latter is the legacy they carried over from the old czarist regime. I wish hon. members would keep that in mind. If we are to have orderly development let us have it step by step, so that we shall not have changes come all at once and the same things happen as happened in Russia.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It will be noted that in paragraph (a) of section 11 the language is "refuses to employ or dismisses from his employment any person for the sole reason that such person is a member of a lawful trade union or of a lawful association or combination of workmen." Could the minister indicate what present legal or constitutional interpretation there is of the terms "lawful trade union" or "lawful association"?


Ernest Lapointe: This, as in the case of other words in this section, is for the purpose of ensuring that the section will be held valid and within the jurisdiction of this parliament. As my hon. friend knows, in a general way relations between employers and employees and labour matters in general are under provincial jurisdiction, and if in any province there was anything that provided that a certain union was not lawful in that province, of course this clause would not apply.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think the minister has made it clear, but there is no federal jurisdiction and no statutory definition of what is a labour union?

Criminal Code-Trade Unions


Ernest Lapointe: No; all unions are lawful, provided they are in accordance with the laws of the land.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to say just a word or two in regard to this matter. I think we ought to keep in mind the fact that the trade union movement is peculiar to democratic countries. If we look over the world to-day we note that in all totalitarian countries trade unions have been abolished. Employees are not at liberty to form associations or gather together for their own purposes in unions of any kind. Therefore in countries such as Canada, the United States, Great Britain and France, the trade union over a long period of years has grown up as an institution within a democracy for the purpose of promoting the interests of the workers. With this I am entirely in accord. I think the time is past when any thoughtful person in a democratic state would question the value to the state, to the community and to society of a trade union. I do, however, dislike introducing into the criminal code matters which might be dealt with in other ways. Unfortunately in Canada, with our divided jurisdiction, we are frequently compelled to deal in the criminal code with a grievance or a circumstance such as that with which we are faced here, because it is the only source of jurisdiction. I have given a good deal of thought to this subject, hoping that there might be some way in which it could be dealt with other than by means of the criminal code, but I must confess that I have not been able to think of any other way.


Ernest Lapointe: It would have to be dealt with by the provinces.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That was my conclusion, based upon advice from the Minister of Justice and others learned in the law. But having come to this conclusion I am forced to the view that we owe it to legitimate aggregations of workers that they shall be entitled to the protection of society to exactly the same degree that associations of employers are entitled to that protection. Obviously in a country like Canada we cannot tolerate a condition in which men are forced under duress to give up an otherwise lawful association. If such a condition obtains we must provide against it, and I understand that it has obtained; there has been definite information to the effect that it still obtains, in some instances. Therefore this legislation has been introduced, and, much as I dislike dealing with questions of this kind through the criminal code, I will support this amendment because I believe in the fundamental and
underlying right of workers, as of others, to associate themselves together for the protection of their interests and their welfare.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) upon the success that has attended his efforts, and I should like also to commend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) for bringing in this amendment. The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) referred to the fundamental right of workers and others to organize. I think that is the justification for dominion intervention in a matter of this sort, and I believe that would be sufficient to give the dominion jurisdiction if it did not otherwise have it. There are certain fundamental rights such as the right of free speech, the right of free assembly, and the right of free association, that belong to the whole of Canada. They do not belong exclusively to any one province. These are fundamental rights underlying the whole Canadian constitution; I think it is the duty of parliament to see that the fundamental right of free association is protected to the fullest possible extent. I am very glad indeed to commend this legislation.


Thomas Langton Church: This section has been found necessary by the minister in view of the existing state of affairs, but the general principle contained in this section, that of trade unionism and its right to function, has been in the code for nearly thirty years. This amendment is merely an attempt to bring the labour union legislation up to date and interpret it. Since when has it become a crime in this country to belong to a labour union? The Conservative party has always been a labour union party.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Langton Church: Hon. gentlemen may smile, but in Ontario the Conservative party introduced the workmen's compensation act. Our party believes in the protection of both the worker and the employer. Yesterday I referred to one industry in Canada which, as the result of one invention, has been able to get along with 4,746 fewer employees than it formerly required, thus reducing its pay-roll by over three and a half million dollars. Surely protection should be reciprocal; it should be for employer and employee alike. Fifty-one per cent of the people of Canada are engaged in industrial pursuits. Ninety-five per cent of our manufacturers are loyal, patriotic citizens who lead in social and patriotic work, and who in spite of heavy taxation burdens, artificial barriers and restraints to trade put on them by legislation, have striven as best they might to carry on.

Criminal Code-Trade Unions
I have consulted some of these gentlemen, many of whom have no objection to the principle contained in this section.
Previously I have referred to the proceedings before the committee of inquiry at Washington in 1927 with regard to the very principle contained in section 11. In the United States, according to the Couzens report, it was found that senior employees were being laid off at the age of forty-five; they were being turned adrift in the world. That committee dealt with the very principle contained in this section, and it took evidence from all over the world for a period of weeks and months. This senate Couzens report, which was adopted in 1927, contained these words as to protection for senior employees:
Many of them are still in the prime of life and are able to meet the requirements of industry. They are not old in the sense that they have outgrown their usefulness. Yet once they have been discharged they find it exceedingly difficult to secure new employment. It is the duty of American industry to keep these men on their payrolls rather than to turn them adrift upon a labour market which refuses to absorb their services.
I know some few of the industries in Toronto and elsewhere, and I can tell you this: They tell these men they are forty-five and that they have no work for them, but the real reason for laying them off is that the men wanted to or did belong to a labour union under the old trade union system. Just read Green's history of England to see how membership in these great trade unions spread in England, from the time of the Shaftesbury report of 1847 to 1938. Then there has been wise labour legislation by the Chamberlain government.
We are getting behind in our legislation for the protection of some of the workers in Canada. The Stevens commission did more for the workers in Canada of that day, even if it did cost $300,000, than has any other agency since confederation. The Conservative party has always been a labour party. It was the party that started the cry for cheap light and power, and cheaper fares so that the worker would not be charged large sums of money for such services. This legislation was started in England. What was the result of similar legislation in England for the workers? A general strike was prevented in England and a civil war avoided by wise labour legislation and insurance In the present world crisis two and a half million men voted for rearmament at Norwich. In the old land they have not had a civil war in a hundred years. Why does that condition exist over there? Because of England's industrial reforms. Right Hon. Ernest Brown, the able Minister

of Labour in the Chamberlain cabinet has been responsible for sensible, modern labour legislation to cure some abuses. He has brought about legislation for the benefit of those whom Disraeli called the suffering millions.
What is the policy of the industrialists of Canada? I have carefully looked into it. I believe the principle of the legislation now under consideration has been before the house for many years. If I remember correctly, my late leader last year supported the principle of a similar measure. I am going to support any wise and sensible legislation, no matter where it comes from in this house, whether it is introduced by the government, by the opposition, by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, or by others. If it is for the benefit of public rights or of the worker or the toiler in this country I will support it. I have always supported any reasonable, sensible labour legislation.
This clause has been found to be most useful in aiding employment. We have seen the reports of the Minister of Labour in connection with employment and it will be realized that this clause will be beneficial. I should like to read what I said on a former occasion with respect to the way in which five per cent of industrialists treat their senior employees. They say to them, "If you join a trade union you will have to get off the payroll." The real reason is that the employees are no longer wanted because they are over forty-five years of age. Two years ago I said this:
Senior employees, whose lifeblood has been drawn from them by long years of faithful service, are in many cases cast out without retiring allowance to make room for younger and cheaper people. It matters not what suffering is entailed for human beings so long as the stockholders are paid their dividends. This amazing selfishness and shortsightedness of the modem industrial system is creating a progressively lower standard of living and a vicious struggle for existence philosophy on the part. of the people, increasingly serious social problems which must find their tragic solution either in war or in revolution. In the face of modem methods of competitive living the royal law of love, bear ye one another's burdens and so fulfil the law of Christ, is a hollow mockery in Canada, presumably a Christian country. This is the contradiction of modern life: a truly wonderful appreciation of the value of the single soul in some quarters, but an absolute denial of any such value in others.
From the experience of the Purvis commission, the Couzens commission and the Chamberlain government, and from the experience of the Minister of Labour in the old country, who has not only supported legislation of this kind, but has imposed heavy penalties on some of the five per cent of industrialists

Criminal Code-Trade Unions
to whom I have referred, and because of the manner in which some in Canada have treated white-collar workers, I believe it can be said that this clause is a proper one.
We do not hear much about this matter in the press. They do not seem to report anything that goes on-with the exception of a few

so far as I can see. They refuse to give the people the facts on all these public questions. The people do not get all the facts. If they got the real facts of what is going on here, if they knew the way in which, for example, senior employees of forty-five years of age were being treated in some industries, if they knew that those men were being put out on the street through the evils of the system, they would say it is high time for this high court of parliament to do something. to act and aid employment and provide work for all.
I have always supported trade union movements. Municipalities have led in support of them, and in their contracts they have the fair wage clause and other provisions to help protect Canadian workers. Labour is respected by the public utilities in the municipalities in Canada.
This should be a salutary lesson for industrialists who have been enjoying high protection. I believe in real up-to-date protection for all the people all the time, not for just some of them some of the time. Five per cent of the industrialists, that portion to which I have referred, want to reap all the benefits of protection for themselves, and they are the greatest enemy a system of protection can have in any country. They abuse the privileges of a tariff system and deny privileges to their employees; they do not let the employees share in it as they should in a fair and just way, in order that the workers may live.


Robert James Manion: Unfortunately I was out of the chamber for some time and it has not been possible for me to speak until now. If I heard correctly I believe this clause is an incorporation in the criminal code of the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). I supported that suggestion at the time it was up for discussion in the house, and I wish to add only a few' words at this time.
It seems to me this is a time when industry may show its advanced ideas for the purpose of preserving the very system in which industry generally believes. The difficulty seems to me to be in the fact that there is in industry a small minority-I do not think there is a majority-which is thoughtless in its treatment of the worker. Seven or eight
years ago, on the first occasion on which I ever expressed an opinion in the matter, I said the time had come when industry during depressed times must not take the attitude of guarding its machines and plants and putting on watchmen to ensure the safety of only the inanimate part of the industry, but should include also the human element, which is more important than all the rest put together. I still think the wise industrialist insists on that.
The clause before us is along the same lines, and carries the same principle a little farther. After all it is not more than about seventy years since it was a crime in the advanced country of England to support or belong to a trade union. I wish merely to say I think the great advances which have been made along these lines in England have saved that country from many of the troubles some of the continental countries have had.
If we are to preserve-as it is my desire to preserve-the economic and democratic systems which we have, we must put into force such advanced legislation as this. Therefore I believe the Minister of Justice was wise in adopting the proposal of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I heartily endorse the principle behind the clause.
May I say only one word about the phraseology, which, I presume, is well thought out. I was wondering how an employer might be found guilty of refusing to employ any person for the sole reason that such person belonged to a trade union. I mean that an employer might be accused unjustly, it seems to me, under that phraseology. I presume however that the law officers and the minister have gone into the matter and have decided that this is the wisest phraseology. Having that in mind I do not wish to argue about it, because I realize it is a legal matter. It just struck me as something which might be difficult to prove or disprove. However, so far as I am concerned I wholly support the principle behind the proposed legislation.


Ernest Lapointe: Obviously this section meets with the approval of all hon. members in the committee. I may say the drafting of the clause was difficult. The difficulty arose in framing it in such a way as to permit its being upheld by the courts. We had it in mind also to frame it in such a manner that it would not result in unfairness or injustice to anybody. That is why certain words, which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsw'orth) has mentioned, such as "wrongfully and without lawful authority'' have been inserted in the section.

Criminal Code-Trade Unions

I agree with the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) that it is not desirable to use the criminal code for all sorts of purposes, especially in connection with matters which are rather within provincial jurisdiction. When the bill proposed last year by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was being discussed, I referred to the decision of the privy council in connection with the Insurance Act of 1917, and I quoted the words of Chief Justice Duff, who sat on that case. I quote them again:
. . . their lordships think it is no longer open to dispute that the parliament of Canada cannot, by purporting to create penal sanctions under section 91, head 27, appropriate to itself exclusively a field of jurisdiction in which, apart from such a procedure, it could exert no legal authority, and that if, when examined as a whole, legislation in form criminal is found, in aspects and for purposes exclusively within the provincial sphere, to deal with matters committed to the provinces, it cannot be upheld as valid.
That is what made the matter difficult. There is no doubt that matters concerning labour are provincial in scope. The provinces have to do with hours of labour, wages and relations between employers and employees. I was afraid that the bill presented last year could be challenged successfully by any employer against whom proceedings might be taken. As the committee knows,, employers would have the means to go through all the courts. It is desirable that legislation should be proof against the possibility of adverse judgment by the courts. The trade union officers realize that and they have applied to all the provinces to do what my hon. friend recommended should be done by this parliament. As my hon. friend said last year, and as the trade unions stated in their brief presented to the Rowell commission, the trade unions want the federal parliament to supplement the provincial legislation and take a stand as to the validity of labour unions and the right of labour to belong to a union.
Last year I gave a list of the provinces which had adopted legislation making it unlawful for an employer to dismiss an employee because he was a member of a union. Practically all the provinces have now adopted legislation which entitles us to pass this implementing legislation. In spite of what the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) said, the province of Ontario has no legislation of this kind. However, I am happy to see in the press that a bill has been presented. If it is accepted by the Ontario government, there will then be no province in which the act of an employer in dismissing an employee for membership in a labour union will not be considered unlawful. In Quebec the fair wage

act, chapter 50 of the statutes of 1937, and another act, chapter 49, respecting workmen's wages, deal with this question. It is specially stated that whoever prevents by threats or otherwise an employee from becoming a member of an association, and so forth, or who makes an attempt upon the freedom of an employee by dismissing him because he is a member of an association, commits an unlawful act.
I am sure, and it is the opinion of the officers in the Department of Justice, the legislation of the various provinces being with what it is to-day, that parliament has the right to pass this legislation and adopt the principle of the bill of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre merely by adding the few words which have been inserted in the section. As to the fear expressed by the hon. member for York South, I do not think he needs to worry. The section has been carefully drafted, and as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) mentioned, the word "sole" is put there for the purpose of protecting the employer who may have other reasons for dismissing an employee. An employer is committing a crime only when he dismisses an employee for the sole reason that he belongs to a labour union. I think that is protection against the situation suggested by the hon. member for York South.
In conclusion I need only say that the bill of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was discussed last year. Even this year there was almost unanimous approval, the constitutional difficulty being the only obstacle to its acceptance. I think that has been overcome, and I believe this legislation will make it clear that employees in this country have the right to belong to trade unions.


Mr. WALSH:: I am predisposed to view this legislation with much favour. Like the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) I was a trade unionist at seventeen. I joined the textile union in the town of Valleyfield, and I presume I am still a member of a trade union, although we call it an association of teachers which is both provincial and dominion-wide in scope. Naturally I have a great deal of sympathy for labour unions and their aspirations. I feel confident that legitimate business will not oppose a provision of this nature, but I am afraid that in one respect legitimate business will view it with a question mark. For instance, more than one trade union may be operating in a particular plant or city. We have the international, we have the national, and in the province of Quebec we have the Catholic

Criminal Code-Trade Unions
trade unions; then there are the local trade unions which are confined to one shop or one city. Sometimes there is a conflict between these various unions, and the employer finds himself in this peculiar position, that after negotiating with one trade union a different trade union endeavours to come into the dispute and causes a certain amount of disruption. The presumption in this section is that that second trade union is a legitimate and recognized trade union and needs protection for its members under this clause such as the other trade union is getting. Yet the employer feels bound to give protection to the first trade union. So there is a conflict of opinion, and it is apt to lead the employer against his will into a certain amount of legal difficulty which he wishes to avoid, and to cause difficulty also within his own plant where the conflict of opinion is taking place.
As I was reading this clause I was turning over in my mind what would be my attitude as an employer if I found myself in a difficult situation of that sort, where two or three unions were endeavouring to secure membership from the workers in the plant and to force their desires on me as the employer.
I go one step further and say that sometimes labour leaders are not always discreet, not always willing to look at two sides of a question. An employee gets in a difficulty of some kind and is dismissed, we will say. Immediately he goes to his labour union and puts it before them that the sole reason for his dismissal was that he belonged to that union; he emphasizes that. The labour union discusses the matter with the employer, who tries to make the labour leader see his point of view, that dismissal was not for that reason but because of other difficulties. The question in my mind is this: If there is a prosecution, as there may be under this clause, on whom does the burden of proof rest to show that the employer has acted contrary to the law' under this section? Must the employer produce definite and absolute proof that he has not acted contrary to section 11? These are some of the points on which I have some difficulty, and which I should like to have cleared up.
So far as trade unionism is concerned, like the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens), I believe that trade unionism should be fostered and developed along proper lines. I believe it is one of our best bulwarks against the advance of communism, nazism, fascism, or any other "ism" that may attempt to creep into this country, and for that reason
I welcome every opportunity to foster, develop and strengthen trade unionism in this country. At the same time I do not want to promote the possibilities of friction between employer and employee, and I should like to be assured that this clause will lead not to such friction but to a closer alignment between employer and employee.
It occurred to me as I was reading the clause that if employer and employee would only incorporate into their own personalities Christian doctrine and teaching-and I use the word Christian in the broadest sense of the term-we should not find it necessary to have a provision such as this. I am hoping, therefore, that along with this clause will go an educational program that will help to develop a better understanding between employer and employee.
I should like to have some of the points I have mentioned made a little clearer.


Ernest Lapointe: As to
the onus of producing evidence to convict anyone under this section, the ordinary rules of law and procedure will apply, and it will be on the prosecution to prove that the accused comes under the clause.
As regards the point made by my hon. friend, where there may be different unions in the same shop, and the difficulty he anticipates therefrom, I would point out that the purpose here is to carry out what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wanted, namely, to have the principle of the freedom of labour to organize and belong to a union recognized and sanctioned by the federal parliament. The words have been carefully selected to prevent any unfairness of the kind my hon. friend suggested. It would have to be the sole reason. If an employer has a contract with a group of workmen to employ them and he refuses to employ somebody else because of that contract, a man who was refused employment would not be refused because he belonged to another union but because of a contract involving a civil obligation on the part of the employer. I do not think there will be any such difficulty as has been suggested by my hon. friend in the application of the law'.


Miss MACPHAIL:: It will take me but a moment to congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) upon his pioneer work in this regard, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) upon incorporating in the criminal code the principle of the bill introduced by the member for Winnipeg North Centre. I do feel that all of us will be encouraged by the unanimity of
Criminal Code-Trade Unions

opinion in the house on this matter. It does mean that we do make progress. There is no doubt at all that the bill is necessary, even if it gives only moral support to the workers.
I think there may be difficulty about the words "sole reason," because some other reason can always be found by the employer for the dismissal of an employee. Nevertheless when all provincial governments and the federal government emphasize in their legislation and in the criminal code the right of employees to organize, it gives them a moral support. That will be an education in itself.
The hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh) says that we need an educational campaign. I do not think there is any doubt about that, and I think we are having one right now in this house in the attitude which hon. members are taking. There is no doubt, and every hon. member knows it, that in a town where the employers are liberal in their attitude-not alwa3rs Liberal with a capital L, I am afraid, but still liberal,-


Ernest Lapointe: Both are desirable.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: -where they want their employees to organize, and where they honour the employees' organizations there is a different spirit from that which prevails elsewhere. It happens that in my constituency there are two towns only about twelve miles apart where furniture is manufactured. In one of those towns the employers are very reasonable; they do not object to organization; they deal with a committee of their emplojmes, and the spirit of that town is one of freedom and of happiness even though the wages may not be very much better than in the other town, where one family have always predominated in the manufacturing business and have had a really mediaeval attitude towards the organization of labour- an attitude which they still retain and which gives a tone of fear to the whole community. Only two years ago, when the organized employees in the first mentioned town thought they would come in to help their fellows in the other town, they had to meet in a bam or some building on the edge of the town so that it would not come to the ears of the employers of the unorganized workers whom they had been trying to organize. And when the news got out, men with wives and families lost their jobs because they v'anted to organize. This happened in Grey-Bruee, w'hich I think, of course, is the most enlightened of constituencies. If it is true there, it must be true of many other parts of Canada. The need of legislation such as this is very great.

I am sure that we honour and congratulate the two men who have had most to do iwith this, namely the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the Minister of Justice.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Before the section is carried, there is an amendment of a minor nature to 'be made:
That clause 11, page 4 of the bill, be amended by striking out after the word 'threat" in line forty, the word "or" and substituting therefor the word " of."


Henry Herbert Stevens: Strike out the comma?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes.


Peter Bercovitch: I should like to say a wrord or two upon this amendment to the criminal code, if for no other reason than that it has been my privilege for a period of at least thirty years to represent labour unions in the courts of the province of Quebec. I think this amendment is a great step in advance in labour legislation, and I would offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre upon having submitted this legislation to the house, and to the Minister of Justice for having so generously consented to incorporate it in the criminal code. However, speaking in all sincerity I should like to see this go a little further. It is my opinion that to a very great extent, apart from its moral effect, the section is illusory. I doubt very much whether it would be possible at the best of times to obtain a conviction under the section as it reads. Of course, as I say, the moral effect is considerable, and no doubt it will help largely in the progress to still more advanced labour legislation in the future. For example-and I throw this out only for the purpose of illustration-we who are connected in any way with labour unions know the pernicious influence which company unions have; and by the organization of a company union it would be a simple matter to thwart this entire section. But I think it is a step in advance, and I repeat my congratulations to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and to the Minister of Justice. I hope that by next session we shall have even more advanced labour legislation, and that this section or some other section of the criminal code will be amended accordingly.


Denton Massey: I have no desire to delay the passage of this entirely to be commended and desirable legislation. I wish, representing, as I have the privilege to do, an industrial riding, to express to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) the appreciation which I have of his efforts in introducing this legislation and bringing it

Criminal Code-Trade Unions
to the point where it is to-day. I have received in the last three years many communications from labour unions, members of labour unions, and constituents of mine in support of this legislation, and I am sure it will be a great satisfaction to them, as it is to me, to see it in the form in which it is to-day when about to be placed on the statute books of this country. I agree with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Bercovitch) that this legislation is a step in the right direction, although perhaps it does not go as far as some of us would like to see it go. We all realize and appreciate the great truths uttered this afternoon by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in his references to the trades union movement. We all realize that within our own country there are those who have failed to respect the rights of the individual; and as the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorscra.) said, free speech a.nd free assembly are twin foundations, coupled with free association. As I say, I feel that this legislation is a step in the right direction, and I hope that in the near future we shall advance even further.


Mr. HAYHURST:: I should like to add a few words to this discussion, because, although I do not know very much about the criminal code, I do know something about labour unions and the men who constitute them. The hon. member for AVinnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), a colourful and picturesque personality, and whose reputation was familiar to me many years before I came to this house, at all times has advocated the cause of liberty and freedom so far as it concerns legislation to foster the organization of trade unions. I should like to congratulate him not only presonally but, I believe, on behalf of this group, because I know that our members have a high regard for him, and also for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) who has so ably promoted the present legislation.
Amendment (Mr. Michaud) agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 12-Limitation as to powers of money lenders.


Thomas Langton Church: Just one question about this section. Would it not be well to have some federal officers to enforce the statute, because, as I understand the law, the enforcement of all federal statutes and of the code rests with the provincial attorneys general. This is a very important matter to the people, whether they are working or not working. I hope the minister and some of his officers are cooperating with the provincial attorneys general so that there will be some reasonable enforcement of the law. In other
words, we should have federal officers to enforce federal statutes like this that affect the liberty of the subject.


Ernest Lapointe: As my hon. friend knows and says, the administration of justice is in the hands of the provinces. But there is much in his suggestions, and I have no doubt that the superintendent of insurance will see to it that there is someone under him cooperating with the attorneys general of the provinces to enforce that law.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 13-Refusing to make alterations, remove materials or supply apparatus when ordered by proper authorities.
Mr. ROBICHAUD:: While I would not
wish to be classed as a purist, nevertheless it seems to me, with all due deference to the draftsman, that the phraseology of this section is not a very happy one. It appears to me that the insertion of the two words "or orders" puts the machinery out of operation. You have the words-taking just the main words in the first three lines and then jumping to line 37:
When any . . . officer . . . recommends to or orders the owner . . . that any reasonable change . . . should be made-
I do not think that is very happy. I think if the two words "or orders" were put after the word "view" in line 43, and the section were made to read "or orders such owner, lessee or other person as aforesaid to make such change, alteration or addition or cause such removal as aforesaid", it would be better.
Or there is a shorter way. After the word "recommends" drop the word "to" and simply say: "When any . . . officer recommends or orders that the owner should make," instead of "that any reasonable change . . . should be made".
Then he is ordered to make those changes. The recommendation or order is like a court order; it goes to the owner by registered mail; therefore it is really not a recommendation "to" the owner. I think the shorter way would be better. The section as amended would then read as follows:
AVhen any dominion, provincial or municipal fire officer or authority, pursuant to any law in that behalf, recommends or orders that the owner, lessee or other person controlling or operating any building, structure, factory, shipyard, vessel, dock, wharf, pier, or saw mill or yard in which logs or lumber are stored or held, should make any reasonable change, alteration or addition in or to such building, structure, factory, shipyard, vessel, dock, wharf, pier, saw mill or yard with a view to safeguarding life or property from destruction by five, or, with such view, should remove any material therefrom or supply any apparatus therefor. . . .

Criminal Code-Trade Unions


Ernest Lapointe: I think the hon. member for Kent, New Brunswick, (Mr. Robichaud) is right. I accept his amendment.


The CHAIRMAN:: I have not the amendment yet.


Ernest Lapointe: We will allow the section to stand.
Section stands.
Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.
On section 16-Service of summons upon corporation.


Mr. CAHAN:: Mr. Chairman, if you rush them through before we can read them we shall have to insist that they be read.


Frederick George Sanderson: Clause 16, "service of summons upon corporation."


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 17 agreed to.
On section 18-Notice of appeal.
Ernest Lapointe: This is to meet certain conditions in the Northwest Territories.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 19.
Ernest Lapointe: This is at the request of the attorney general of Nova Scotia.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 20 to 26 inclusive agreed to.
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, will you now revert to section 13.
On section 13-Refusing to make alterations, remove materials or supply apparatus when ordered by proper authorities.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I move:
That section 13 be amended by striking out in line 25 on page 7 the words "the terms of such order" and substituting therefor the words "those terms."


Henry Herbert Stevens: It does not strike me as any improvement. I think the wording is better as it is.


Ernest Lapointe: It will not hurt.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The only point is that the words "such order" do not refer to "recommendation." You need "those terms" in order to cover both the word "recommendation" and the word "order" in lines 21 and 22.


Ernest Lapointe: That is what my officer was pointing out to me.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Joseph Enoil Michaud: Then a further amendment :
That section 13, subsection 4, line 33, be amended by striking out the word "to" after the word "recommends" and adding after the word "orders" the word "that";
In line 36 by striking out the word "that" and substituting the words "should make";
In line 37 by striking out the words "should be made."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Frederick George Sanderson: Shall I report the bill?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to ask one short question in regard to the last clause. I wonder if during the recess the minister would consider-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Bill reported.
Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East) moved the third reading of the bill.


Thomas Langton Church: In view of the large number of transients going round the country I should like to ask the minister and the government to consider during the recess some amendment of the law in regard to vagrancy, which is some three or four hundreds years old. Some magistrates throughout Canada, including the magistrate at Timmins, have been commenting on the present state of the vagrancy sections of the code in regard to youthful transients who cannot get work, and I think the government might consider an amendment covering the cases of these young people who are in custody only because they cannot get work. There is no offence charged against them; they have done very little harm, but they are not able to get work. I think it is in the public interest in a Christian country and in the interests of the youth of our dominion that something should be done along this line. I do not think any extensive amendment of the code would be necessary, but I do believe there should be some proviso to take care of cases of the better class in connection with which there has been some comment on the part of various magistrates, and I only ask that the minister consider the matter during the recess of parliament.


Ernest Lapointe: I shall be pleased to give full consideration to the suggestion of my hon. friend.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

Unemployment-Youth Training


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 94, to provide for the training of young people to fit them for gainful employment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to assure the continuance of the dominion-provincial youth training program. The principle of this cooperative undertaking has already been accepted by parliament. Two years ago the supplementary estimates of the Department of Labour contained an item of $1,000,000 to be expended on training projects for unemployed young people. Last year the amount of this special appropriation was increased to $1,500,000. It is now intended to place this training program on a statutory basis and to provide for its continuance over a period of three years. The annual contribution proposed under the bill is $1,500,000, making a total allotment of $4,500,000 during the three year period.
I might say that a number of considerations impelled the government to bring forward this measure. In the first place the assurance of the continuance of this program over a period of three years will permit greater continuity in the several programs arranged in cooperation with the provinces across the country. Under the present arrangement there has been a certain amount of inconvenience arising from the fact that the contributions terminated as of March 31 each year. Occasionally this meant that the provinces were unwilling to continue courses beyond March 31 until they had some definite assurance that their allotments would be continued during the coming year. The present bill will enable the provinces themselves to make more adequate and accurate provision in their annual estimates for their part of the joint program, and it will also encourage, we believe, the establishment of special training centres more adequately equipped to meet the need. In other words, by this legislation we are creating a period of three years during which the provinces will be fully entitled to make plans covering that entire time. It will also facilitate the engagement of better personnel for instructors, placement officers, vocational guidance officers and supervisors by providing more security in their positions. Finally, it will permit greater publicity to arouse public interest and cooperation particularly in the matter of the placement of those who have received training.
I am not going to speak at any length in support of the motion for second reading
of this bill. When we are in committee I intend to place upon Hansard a record of the results obtained under the dominion-provincial youth training to date. At this time, however, I think I should point out that the proposals of the dominion-provincial youth training program were set out specifically in the recommendation which came to the government from the national employment commission, as follows:
The commission recommends the following as a basis upon which training plans should be framed:
Training projects of an occupational nature.
Short term learnership courses, not exceeding one year in duration, devised to provide theoretical training concurrent with specific employment;
Work projects incorporating reconditioning, training, and conservation features, for the purposes of restoring morale and of conserving natural resources;
Training projects of a physical nature to assist in the maintenance of health and morale pending employment.
It will be seen from an examination of these objectives that certain of these training projects look to the placement of trainees in industrial employment, but it is recommended that these projects should be supplemented by others which would provide for training in rural occupations not necessarily leading to new employment, and that other projects should look to physical reconditioning and the restoration of morale in those who may be employed on such projects.
I mention this because there is quite obviously a tendency sometimes to assess the entire results of a youth training program upon the basis of those who have received training and have been placed immediately in industrial employment. As a matter of fact, even upon that basis the results obtained under the dominion-provincial youth training program, in so far as projects which were designed to fit trainees for employment are concerned, compare most favourably with those obtained, for example, under the civilian conservation corps of the United States.
But apart from that entirely I would point out to the house that in addition to the benefits received iby trainees who have been placed in industrial employment, many thousands of young people across this country have received training in rural leadership upon plans based largely upon the Danish model, which already are producing beneficial results in the prairie provinces. Many thousands of other unemployed young people have received benefits through physical training, particularly in British Columbia and Alberta.
[Stage Direction]
Unemployment-Youth Training
As a matter of fact, including all types of projects-and in that I include those designed to train unemployed young people for specific occupation and those designed to provide rural training and physical training-some 100,000 Canadian young people have come in contact with this program and within its framework have received a measure of training. That, I submit, is a foundation upon which we can build solidly for the future.
The plan as devised rests upon a cooperative basis with the provinces. I recognize that from an administrative point of view there would have been advantages had we been able to proceed entirely upon the basis of the federal government making the appropriation and carrying out the projects by itself. That, however, would have involved a duplication of educational facilities, particularly in technical education and equipment, and it would have involved the dominion government in paralleling employment services and contacts with industries which are already most intimately established in the various provinces. We have proceeded, therefore, upon the basis of dominion-provincial cooperation, and almost without exception the provinces have responded whole-heartedly to the invitation for such cooperation.
One advantage arising from that basis of cooperation in connection with these training projects has been a far greater flexibility than would otherwise have been possible. We can adjust courses to the needs of particular provinces. The procedure followed is to ask the provinces to submit to the dominion government for approval projects which will be best adapted to the conditions existing in the province making such submission. This has meant that we might have in Nova Scotia a certain set of projects which would differ materially from those carried out in British Columbia. But through an exchange of information, which I hope in the future may be arranged on some permanent basis by means of an annual conference of those engaged in the work of instruction, undoubtedly there will tend to be greater uniformity with respect to those projects which have succeeded in carrying out their objectives.
For the reasons given I move second reading of the bill and reserve such further information with respect to results obtained under dominion-provincial youth training operations until the bill is in committee.
Denton Massey: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to speak at length at this stage. There are a few remarks more directly connected with youth training than its general phases, which I should like to

make. Would the minister rather have me make them now or in committee? It is immaterial to me.


Mr. ROGERS:: Whichever the hon. member wishes.


Denton Massey: I shall speak briefly now, if I may. I am sure the minister will realize that in the course of my remarks the other day in connection with Bill No. 96, I discussed at some length the question of youth and youth training. That discussion I do not wish to repeat here. The minister will also recall that during the course of those remarks I did not criticize what had been done under the youth training plan; in fact I spoke in laudatory terms of the efforts which had been put forward by Mr. Thompson and his organization. I also referred to the conference of January last, I believe it was, when those responsible for the various training courses met in Ottawa, and to the impressions that one received from the reports which were presented at that particular time.
The criticism I had to make of the minister's training plan dealt only with its extent. I pointed out that it just touched the fringe of the problem, and did not deal with the whole of it. Since those remarks were made there has been an extended debate in the house not only upon the subject of unemployment among adults, but upon the problem of unemployment among our youth. During the course of that debate the hon. member for Wellington North (Mr. Blair) made what I believe many hon. members on this side of the house felt to be a most unfortunate reference to the youth who are today unemployed and who are earnestly seeking employment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think the hon. member might refer not only to members on his side of the house, but to members on this side as well.


Denton Massey: I was going on to make my comment. I know the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) did not applaud- but he did not rise in his place to refute the statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was not in the house at the time.


Denton Massey: I am sorry. I did not intend to do the hon. member an injustice. I know his feelings in regard to the matter and I am sure, had he been in the house, he would have rebuked his colleague.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have.

Unemployment-Youth Training


Denton Massey: But not in the house. I was going to say it was surprising to some of us who sat in the house that the remarks were greeted with applause from many quarters opposite. Since those remarks were made I have received many communications from youth across the country protesting against such remarks.
I have in my hand an envelope containing sixty or seventy letters written by a resident of the city of Hull, a young French-Canadian who came to see me the day following the remarks were made. He introduced himself to me by saying, "I am one of the "yaps," one of the "spineless youth" who do not want to work; but I just want to show you what I have done." Then he proceeded to present to me this envelope containing the voluminous correspondence he had conducted with some score or more companies in and around Ottawa and Hull, and outside them, in an endeavour to obtain work. He was acompanied by two other young men who were able to produce similar evidence of their activities. I cite this case as only typical of numberless ones which could be found not only around Ottawa and Hull, but across the whole of Canada.
The hon. member for Wellington North also referred to the fact that he had endeavoured to secure young men for farm work. He referred particularly to young men who came from the city and who virtually laughed in his face when he suggested that they go to work on the farm. In response to that statement I have received many communications. One in particular, which I hold in my hand, tells about nine or ten cases in which young men have applied for and obtained work on farms, and the treatment afforded them has been extraordinarily unfortunate. Not for a moment do I suggest that all of the young men who go to farms have received such treatment as those young men in the cases explained to me, over signatures, but I am sure the minister will realize that many of those who have been placed on farms have been subjected to treatment which cannot be considered as being other than intolerable. I mention these matters in passing because they seem to me to be important in view of the aspersions cast upon our youth which are wholly unjustified and without any foundation. In my hand I hold the report of the unemployment survey conducted by the Ottawa youth federation in the week of November 21, 1938. Dealing with the city of Ottawa, this report states:
The entire city was divided up into forty-five districts and every tenth house listed. In this
way a representative portion of the population was visited-2,283 addresses, 2,081 (90-9 per cent) of which yielded results of statistical value. Of the 9,369 persons contacted, 562 were unemployed young people between the ages of 16 and 30. Because of the prevalence of parttime employment it may be observed that even more than this number are affected by the unemployment situation.
Then on page 2 the report continues:
To notice a few rather outstanding points we see:
That the number of unemployed young people between the ages of 16 and 30 is 50 per cent greater than that of those over 30;
That there are 70 more males than females unemployed;
That the modal ages of 23 and 19 show that these individuals are not fresh from school;
That over two-thirds are native to Ottawa, and over four-fifths have lived here for 3 years or more;
That 20 per cent of the males and 30 per cent of the females have received no occupational training whatsoever;
That the average unemployed young person has been out of work for a minimum of 40 per cent of his time since leaving school;
That there is a tremendous percentage of young people 16 to 30 still at school (26 T per cent of those 16-30) who are ready at any moment to take their places in the ever increasing glut on the labour market, and are doomed to a probable 2 or 3 years of idleness.
Then further on:
Twenty-two per cent of the males and 15 per cent of the females failed to complete elementary school-an exceedingly high percentage for less than the minimum of education. Any training projects must take into consideration those individuals who come from families who cannot afford education higher than elementary school and those who are not mentally equipped for further education. All these need trade training and something a little more practical than merely high school academics.
The unemployed are too often criticized for their lack of desire to work-for their "don't care" attitude. The fact is that those who have worked for any appreciable length of time, as a general rule, never lose their desire to work. It is those who have never worked, who have never had the chance to feel independent, who gradually but surely cease to care. This is the point of greatest danger to our young people to-day, for 24-8 per cent of those unemployed between 16 and 30 have never worked. What can be done to counteract the ingrowth of an apathetic attitude?
A composite picture of the young unemployed male might well be as follows: He is 22, having left school at 16, his education incomplete. He is not adequately trained for any occupation and has been employed for but half of the six years since he left high school, much of which was only part-time work. While he may still have hope for the future, he has little to anticipate but unemployment. He is just approaching that state of mind where his unfortunate situation will cease to concern him, though it may be due to no fault of his own.
I place that portion of the report upon Hansard because I think it indicates in concise language a situation which we may consider



Unemployment-Youth Training
exists not only in Ottawa but in every city in the Dominion of Canada. That report reveals a dreadful condition, but I have another report which indicates a further dreadful condition. This is the report of the lieutenant-governor's committee on housing conditions in Toronto, published in 1934. On page 41 I read:
Effects of Bad Housing on Health and Morality
Tuberculosis.
The evil effects of bad housing on health are demonstrated most strikingly by an examination of the relation between slum conditions and tuberculosis. In Toronto, June, 1934, the number of cases of tuberculosis known to the department of public health for the seven ward divisions of poor housing was 299, or 37 per ten thousand of population. This is in contrast to an incidence of 25 per ten thousand for the four districts of good housing. The highest rate, 64 per ten thousand of population, was reached in ward 4, subdivision 3, which has the highest population density of any subdivision in the city.
On page 44 there is an article on general mortality, which reads:
Only a few further examples of the effects of housing on public health need to be given here. Dr. Chalmers, medical officer of health, Glasgow, is overwhelming in his indictment of bad housing. At a time when 60 per cent of the population lived in one or two room apartments Dr. Chalmers wrote:
"In one-roomed houses the death rate was 29-9 per 1,000.
In two-roomed houses the death rate was 16-5 per 1,000.
In three-roomed houses the death rate was 11-5 per 1,000.
In four-roomed houses the death rate was 10-8 per 1,000."
Dr. Chalmers goes on to say that "Bad housing increases the incidence of all infections, contagious and verminous conditions, of respiratory diseases, and of anaemia, debility and constitutional maladies. The worse the housing, the higher the death rate." After the reconstruction of slum areas in Edinburgh, the death rate of these areas fell from 45-5 per thousand in 1892 to 15 per thousand in 1910. Following the intensive housing program in Germany, where the bulk of the working class was formerly housed in one or two room apartments, there has been a marked drop in the general death rate.
Then on page 53 under the heading "conclusion," there is the following:
In conclusion, it is abundantly clear that bad housing is opposed to the true welfare of the community. It generates disease and increases mortality. It leads the young into delinquency and the old into crime. It breaks up family life. It throws increased financial burdens upon the taxpayer. And by the intensity of its attack upon such conditions may the social conscience of a community be judged.
I have endeavoured to present from these two reports, which are not my own words, a picture of the situation which I think we may regard as prevailing in our cities and among the youth of Canada generally. I am con-

fident that the minister is not unaware of these conditions. I am confident also he does not feel that the vote to be granted for youth training and reconditioning under this legislation is sufficient to begin to deal adequately with this great and serious national problem.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Is the hon. member aware that in the supplementary estimates there is another item of $3,500,000 for single unemployed people?


Denton Massey: If the minister had permitted me to continue I was just about to mention that. The item of $3,500,000 in the supplementary estimates, added to this $1,500,000, gives a total of $5,000,000 for youth training and reconditioning. The minister will correct me if I am wrong in my statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is $4,500,000.


Denton Massey: A total of $4,500,000. With this pamphlet entitled " Training Canada's Young Unemployed" before us, and with the expenditures made in the year ending March 31, 1938, those of us who are close to the training projects realize that the work which was done, although good to the extent to which it was carried on, did not, as I have already said, begin to touch even the fringes of the problem. The expenditure in that year was $1,000,000 in round figures, whereas the amount now proposed to be spent is $4,500,000, or four and one-half times as much. Even that amount cannot begin to meet this problem adequately.
I have in my hand a brief on national youth administration, prepared by the national committee of the Canadian youth congress, which I shall read in part:
We greet with great favour the announcement that the federal government is prepared to continue the dominion-provincial youth training projects on a three-year basis.
Two general observations are essential to our criticism of the program as it has been carried on in the past. The first deals with the question of employment for youth. While approving the youth training projects, we are sensitive to the fact that work has been provided for only a small number of those trained and for a gravely small number of the total of unemployed young men and women. We are emphatically of the opinion that future development and success of a program to aid youth must lie to a much greater extent along the lines of providing employment. Training projects are essentially subsidiary to employment and programs must be designed to greatly increase employment opportunities.
Our second observation deals with the matter of administration of youth programs. At this point may rve express our very sincere appreciation of the work of Mr. R. F. Thompson, dominion supervisor of youth training and of that of his assistants in the provinces.
To which I should like to add my own word of commendation. The brief continues:

Unemployment-Youth Training
We are pleased with the disinterested manner with which he and his co-workers have sought the best course of action on behalf of youth and with which they have sought the cooperation and advice of the young people. Recognizing the greatly increased scope of activities and the impossible burden placed on a few individuals charged with their execution; and recognizing also the need for a more highly developed and comprehensive machinery for this work, we are strongly of the opinion that there should be developed a youth administration, maintaining the principle of dominion-provincial cooperation which has obtained heretofore.
The brief proceeds to present and discuss its recommendations:
A. Administration.
1.	We recommend the establishment of a permanent national youth administration, with the necessary personnel under the Department of Labour in Ottawa; and cooperating with provincial government authorities. The perfection of functions of this administration would cover a period of years; but we urge immediate steps be taken to initiate it. The functions of this administration we would conceive as follows.
The functions are then detailed under the following heads:
(a)	Research
(b)	Planning
(c)	Executive
(d)	Supervisory
(e)	Employment
Then follows their second recommendation:
2.	We further recommend the establishment of a voluntary national advisory committee.
This brief is of some length, Mr. Speaker, and I shall not read more of it, but I commend it to the attention of all hon. members.
The other evening the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross) placed upon Hansard a brief prepared by those who had lived in John Frank's house, Toronto, during the course of last winter. I think the minister has read this brief and will agree with me that it is one of the best which has yet been put forward. I shall not take time to reread it to hon. members, but I commend it to their worthy consideration.
I have in my hand a telegram which was sent me the other day by Mr. Andrew Elliott of the Toronto hostel association and John Frank's house. It reads in part as follows;
May I compliment you on the way you went to bat yesterday for single unemployed men and offer you some information which may be of value in your efforts to bring their plight to the attention of the public. Last fall when the men whom Reverend John Frank was caring for at Trinity church were given physical examination to discover their fitness for work several were found to have tuberculosis. At present we have one man age thirty-nine at this institution who has received treatment for tuberculosis in sanatoria in Manitoba, British Columbia and Quebec. Released from sanatorium in Quebec in nineteen thirty-eight helped
71492-209}
by a private agency to get to Toronto in June nineteen thirty-eight in expectation of work which did not materialize. Came to us destitute. Cannot get care through any public agencies. Here is part of a letter received January sixteen thirty-eight from a twenty-two year old transient:
"I got as far as Oakville and was going to stay there overnight. I was walking down the main street when all of a sudden I keeled over and fell down on the sidewalk. A policeman came over to me and took me to a doctor who rushed me to Hamilton on an ambulance for an emergency operation for a ruptured ulcer of the stomach."


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is this still part of the
telegram?


Denton Massey: Yes, this is still part of
the telegram. It continues:
"I was fed through arm for five days but am feeling much better now."
To-day a twenty-five year old lad came in from Montreal. He had been in hospital there for appendicitis from December fifth to January twenty-first and under an oxygen tent five days. From January twenty-first to February twenty-seventh he was in convalescent hospital. A private agency in Montreal had cared for him since. He hopes to go to work as fireman on a boat next week. He isn't fit to but what else can he do? He is not eligible for relief and this institution is caring for him for time being.
I think it is obvious, Mr. Speaker, from what I have just placed on Hansard, that when we on this side of the house rise in our places on behalf of the young unemployed and those of our youth who are, we may say, underprivileged in education and the other advantages of life, especially in regard to nutrition, we are not speaking of a problem which is not evident on every hand. I feel fully confident not only that the job of work which is before the minister at this time is one which deals with the training of young people and fitting them to take positions as a result of that training, but also that we are challenged here to have regard as well to that which is even more fundamental than education, namely, health.
It will be noted from the brief prepared by the inmates of John Frank's house that they have recommended that there be camps set up. May I read a sentence from the brief itself:
These camps, however, must be small-each with a capacity of 125 men at most-if they are best to serve their purpose in making selfreliant citizens of their members.
I quote in this connection what the minister himself said in this house in 1937, as reported in Hansard of April 9, at page 2839:
Mr. Rogers: I believe that the CCC. camps in the United States have operated with considerable success. I may remind my hon. friend that those who are in the civilian conservation

Unemployment*-Youth Training
corps are enrolled and are subject to discipline while in those camps. That is an important consideration in the general scheme of the CCC. camps. I doubt whether under this vote we shall be able to make substantial progress in the country generally in setting up such camps, but there are some provinces that have already expressed their interest in work connected with the forests, and there we may very well be able to carry out the idea my hon. friend has in mind.
The literature which has been issued officially by the government of the United States in connection with the CCC camps indicates clearly the practice followed in this venture. The minister said in the early part of his remarks that the record in the Dominion of Canada as a result of the dominion-provincial youth training plan was just as good as the experience in the United States under the CCC camps.


Norman McLeod Rogers: With placements.


Denton Massey: That is what I mean.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Even better.


Denton Massey: Even better, but the minister will bear in mind that the CCC camps were designed not so much for training as to provide work of a definite kind; they were designed not to help men directly into subsequent employment but to provide them with immediate employment through, shall I say, self-liquidating public works, such as reforestation and afforestation, and work on waterways and other such schemes. Primarily they were camps in which young men were to work as well as to be trained, but it was not their primary purpose to train men for the purpose of obtaining jobs for them later on. But, as I understand it, many of the projects under the dominion-provincial youth training plan are of a kind where young men are to receive training and do practical and direct work.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Denton Massey: When the house took recess at six o'clock I had essentially come to the conclusion of the remarks which I wished to make. I am sure the minister will appreciate that in what I had said up to that time I desired not to be destructive or provocative, that I was earnestly endeavouring to lay before him what I consider to be the extent of the problem in some of its aspects, and something of its nature-the problem of youth reestablishment and youth training. I am sure all of us must realize that as a result of the efforts which have been put forward to date by the minister under his training plan,

some good has been accomplished, and the complaint I have been making is that these efforts have not been carried forward nearly as far as they might have been, nor does the legislation proposed at the present time carry them nearly as far as they should go.
Just before I resume my seat I should like to refer hon. members to the Vocational Education Act of 1931 to which I alluded in an earlier speech. This act was designed to provide $750,000 a year for ten years for dominion-provincial cooperative efforts on behalf of vocational training. As a result of conditions in 1931, the year in which this act was passed, there was a letter written over the signature of the then deputy minister of labour, reminding the provinces that no grants would be made under this act until conditions warranted. From that day to this there have been no grants whatever.
May I draw to the attention of hon. members the sort of use to which, it appears to me, this act may be put? I have in my hand a copy of a letter received on February 11, 1939, signed by Doctor W. H. Butt, chairman of the board of education of Toronto. Attached to the letter is a brief laying out the claims which the board of education make for federal assistance to enlarge the central technical school for a particular project, namely the expansion of the teaching of the aircraft mechanics' course now being given at that school:
Since there was not sufficient space in the main building, the board of education rented a garage a few blocks from the school, with the thought that this would be a temporary arrangement. The work is still being taught in this garage.
Then again:
In addition to training the boys for work in the aircraft industry, the course fits them for positions in: fine instrument work; machine and radio servicing; transmission work.
To date slightly more than 100 boys have graduated from this four-year course, and about 90 per cent of them are employed. Most of them are working with firms engaged in aircraft work, but some have obtained positions with firms that put a premium upon a high degree of accuracy and carefulness.
Last June, 36 boys graduated from the aircraft course, and 21 of these secured employment in aircraft work. Most of the others have positions with other firms.
Then later:
It will be seen that this building will be entirely devoted to aircraft work, and will also be operated as a night school.
The cost of the building is estimated to be $155,000. The equipment will cost $25,000.
The Ontario government has agreed to pay 25 per cent of the cost of the building and the equipment.
The acquiring of the site will cost the Toronto board of education about $40,000, possibly slightly less.

Unemployment-Youth Training
I fully realize that the extension of a grant under this act to Toronto for the purpose just outlined would be reducing to brick and stone the dollars forwarded by the government to the board of education of that city, and that a precedent might be set in this regard. On the other hand, if vocational training is to be carried forward there must be an enlargement of the facilities through which that training is to be done, and perhaps it is not too far from the purpose of the act to suggest that here may be a commencement of work done under the act which may be regarded as highly constructive and most beneficial, not only in Toronto but in other places as well.
In what I have said I have simply been attempting to make in moderate terms an appeal for the youth of this country, an appeal not for the individual alone but for all future Canadians. As his excellency has reminded us, we all owe a debt to the past, and the only wray in which we can pay our debt to the past is to put the future in debt to ourselves. Not only is it incumbent upon us to regard these young Canadians as those for whom we have simultaneously a direct charge and an indirect charge at the moment, but they are the ones who will be responsible for the future of this dominion, and we should be prepared to do our part for them in equipping them not only for the lives they have to lead, but also for the contribution that they can make to this dominion. It is on their behalf and in that spirit that I have made this appeal to the minister to see if there is not some way in which he may substantially increase the program which he has at present in mind.


Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: As I understand the purpose of this bill, it is to put the youth training scheme, which has been in operation for the past two years, upon a more permanent basis in order that those who are planning this work may do so with some sense of stability and with some idea of continuity for the years which lie ahead. With that principle, I think, all of us will heartily agree, and it is unfortunate that more of the projects which are undertaken as relief measures were not placed on a longer term in order that those who are planning in the provinces could do so with something in mind for one or two years. Therefore, in my opinion, the idea of putting this on a three year basis is an admirable step.
The presentation of this bill gives me an opportunity to say some things about the youth training scheme which I think ought to be said. When the resolution was presented in 1936 by the hon. member for Greenwood
(Mr. Massey), I believe I spoke immediately after him and at that time corroborated what he said with reference to the need of a scheme such as has been carried on during the last two years in Canada. In common, I believe, with the other men in the house who were interested in this work, I was pleased when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) graciously accepted the resolution in principle and the following year brought down supplementary estimates with that in mind.
We have now had two years of this scheme in operation. I suggest first to the minister that those two years have shown the inadequacy of the extent to which we are tackling this problem. As a response to a normal condition this scheme has been satisfactory, but as a response to an abnormal situation, as a response to the terrible times in which we live, this scheme, to my mind, has been inadequate, puerile and in some respects actually asinine.
Let us consider it. To begin with, it covers only a fraction of the young people in Canada who need training and guidance. The pamphlet which was issued by the Department of Labour, entitled, "Training Canada's Young Unemployed," in its tabulated dominion statistical summary of March 31, 1938, places the total number given training at 32,301 men and 23,156 women, making a total of 55,457. The minister this afternoon, however, said that there had been considerable increase; I believe he said about 100,000 young people had come within the framework of this scheme. I point out that this touches only a fraction of the problem. I point out further that even of the fraction that are touched the number who are receiving adequate training is very much less. For instance, in the same summary in the pamphlet entitled "Training Canada's Young Unemployed" issued by the Department of Labour, we find that although 55,457 young people were given training, only 14,649 finished courses designed to train for employment, and of these 3,282, or 22-4 per cent, found work. In other words, of the 55,457 who began training, only 14,649, or about 25 per cent, finished, and of the 55,457, only about 6 per cent were placed in employment.
Of course, it is easy to see why only 25 per cent finished and why such a small number were actually given training. In the first year, 1937, this parliament voted $1,000,000; and last year, $1,750,000, making a total of $2,750,000, assuming it was all spent. The minister said this afternoon that aibout
100,000	young people had come within the framework of this scheme, which means that for all purposes the average amount that could be spent per individual was $27.50,

Unemployment-Youth Training
which of course could not possibly cover instruction, training, equipment and cost of administration. Even if we assume that the provinces paid their half, it still would not provide adequate training. So what actually happens is that while we have a big figure of
100,000	young people coming within the framework of this scheme, the actual fact is that a very small percentage of these young people actually receive adequate training to enable them to be placed in industry.
I take a concrete illustration in the city in which I live. I speak subject to correction, using it merely as an illustration. The amount voted for the training of unemployed male youth, I believe $1,850, was turned over to a committee who did the very best they could with that amount of money; no criticism can be levelled at them. What happened? Of the $1,850, $1,600 went to giving a course in mechanics and electricity and welding which took in altogether about sixty-eight young men. They received a good training, I know they did. But the other $250, of course, had to do for all the rest, who were merely put into a course of gymnastics, allowed to play basketball for a couple of nights a week. They could have got that at the collegiate or with the boy scouts or a number of organizations in the city. So it does not cover the matter to say that 100,000 young people have been brought in. The number of these young people nominally associated with the scheme is out of all proportion to the number who will actually receive benefit.
To substantiate that I call attention to a statement in the Leader-Post headed:
Department control for youth training is Weyburn idea.
This is a statement made by a gentleman who was in charge of the committee for youth training in the city, certainly not critical of the government, an interested citizen. This is what he said:
Weyburn, April 3.-George F. Bell, chairman of the Weyburn committee of the dominion-provincial youth training movement, will recommend sweeping changes in the set-up of the scheme to Dr. J. G. McKechnie, deputy minister of education, he told the Leader-Post in an interview at the close of the course last week. Greater interest by farm boys.
Although he was enthusiastic about the success of all phases of the winter classes conducted in Weyburn during the past five months, Mr. Bell emphasized the fact that present division of activities between the department of education and the extension branch of the university of Saskatchewan was not satisfactory.
He felt very keenly that it did not give farm boys opportunities they were entitled to under the scheme and he believed farm boys would take greater interest in the classes than sons of urban dwellers.
IMr. T. C. Douglas.]
At the present time, funds are divided between the department of education and the university, and the department's share is used for urban training while the university portion is earmarked for rural training.
Only three weeks for farm boys.
The extension branch of the university provides a three weeks course for farm boys and the urban makes provision for a five months course. The brief three weeks course, too short to be of much benefit, according to Mr. Bell, entails additional expenditure for professors' travelling expenses because they have to go from Saskatoon to rural training centres.
The department of education should have complete charge of the youth training movement, said Mr. Bell, the university should drop out of the picture altogether, school boards should administer the scheme locally and thus remove need of setting up local committees that often had little experience in these matters.
Mr. Bell cited the case of a centre that failed to start classes on time because it was difficult to get a local committee to act. The school board there, on the other hand, could have begun the task in hand at once, Mr. Bell pointed out.
Dividing the program into urban and rural sections served only to slow up the plan and did not give all boys equal opportunity.
A total of 47 boys took advantage of the courses and there were 26 in motor mechanics, machine works and vulcanizing classes-
And twenty-one took the classes in electricity. I said a total of 68, it was really only forty-seven.
I draw that to the attention of the minister. I realize that this scheme is in the experimental stage. While I know there are some excellent men carrying on this work in Saskatchewan, while I know that in many instances they are only feeling their way, the fact remains that if this scheme is to mean anything at all, if it is to mean even a fraction of what those who brought it before the house envisaged that it might mean-I include the minister in that-then a much larger sum of money must be voted for this purpose and a different system of administration adopted,
The second thing I want to draw to the attention of the minister-I am sure it is hardly necessary-is that this bill provides for a continuance of divided jurisdiction between the dominion and provincial governments. As the minister said this afternoon, the scheme was on a cooperative basis, and under this bill it is going to continue on a cooperative basis for three more years. Last year in this house the minister made a speech in which he pointed out quite correctly the unsoundness of the principle of having one governmental body raising money and another body spending it. He pointed out the difficulty of having provincial governments carrying out projects initiated and financed by the

Unemployment-Youth Training
federal government. No one knows better than he the tremendous difficulty encountered in carrying out that kind of scheme. Of course the excuse given is that under the British North America Act we cannot do anything else. But a report of the dominion-provincial relations commission is expected this summer. It is expected that some action will be taken to bring about a clearer apportionment of jurisdiction between the provincial and federal governments, and it seems to me unwise to continue to carry on a scheme in which the federal government is putting up the money and has no direct control over the scheme which it is financing to the extent of 50 per cent. Because that is happening, the situation outlined by Mr. Bell arises.
I have in mind numbers of young men on farms, for instance. There is one young man in particular who a number of years ago went to the United States, where he took a course in electric welding. Then he was called back to the farm on account of the illness of his parents. On his farm he fixed up a shop, where he has done a great deal of electric welding for the people of that neighbourhood. Along come these courses. He wants to take the electric welding course in order to round out the work he has already done, but he is not eligible. He is eligible for an agricultural course but not for this course, while on the other hand young men who are eligible for this course are, in many instances, not interested in it at all. It seems to me the young men on farms have not had the opportunity they should have had under this scheme.
Then there has been no provision at all for the so-called white-collar unemployed youth. I refer to young men who have perhaps gone part way through university and have had to stop on account of lack of finances. They are not primarily interested in blacksmith courses or agricultural courses. No provision at all is made to provide for them the type of work for which they are trained and fitted or to permit them to go on and be further educated. So this group of young people, whose name is legion, are entirely left out under this scheme. The other night the minister made an announcement at a banquet in this city. It seems to 'be becoming a habit with this government to make most of their pronouncements at banquets. I believe this was a banquet of the Twentieth Century Liberal club, at which I understand some members of the Nineteenth Century Liberal club were in attendance as honorary guests. The minister announced that the sum of $1,000,000 was to be spent in forestry work.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my hon. friend will permit me to correct him, actually that announcement was made some time before in a press release. The announcement at the function to which he refers was simply a repetition of that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: During that very same week this house was discussing unemployment and the announcement was not made here, which is significant. However, that is not particularly important. The fact is that $1,000,000 is to be spent, and the minister says it will give employment to some
10,000	young men. I hope when we get into committee the minister will give some details about this scheme; how much these young men will get and what kind of camps we are going to have; whether we are going to have a return to the sort of camps that were condemned by the Prime Minister in 1935. I have in my hand a booklet entitled "Mackenzie King's Speeches to the Canadian People," published by the National Liberal Federation, Ottawa. With regard to the regime of that day the Prime Minister said:
Youths are sent to the camps.
Then he goes on with an indictment of the practice of sending young people to camps. We have a right to know, and I am sure the minister will want to tell us, what kind of camps will be set up. Some camps can be beneficial. Are these to be camps of that type? On the other hand the minister no doubt has received a brief from the national vocational corps, advocating camps. I am not going to quote extensively from it, but I think one or two paragraphs at the beginning are worthy of consideration:
January 20th, 1939.
National Vocational Corps
It is an established and well known fact that in excess of 400,000 young men are unemployed in Canada to-day, in spite of the fact that Canada is the fifth trading nation in the world. The two facts, taken together, would indicate that the unemployment of youth is not a condition that exists temporarily, but is a condition that has to be aggressively approached and handled as a permanent measure.
Due to the lack of facilities for the training of apprentices, young men are not being trained in any of the trades to an appreciable extent.
The day when Canada could rely on its isolated position as its only means of defence is past. The increase in the cruising range of aircraft has brought the shores of countries from whom we may have to defend ourselves, side by side with our own. The mineral wealth, agricultural wealth and vast spaces which we accept as part of our every-day life, appear to the over-crowded countries of Europe as a paradise to be attained at almost any cost. The young men of this country must be trained to enable them to provide, in ease of need, a

Unemployment-Youth Training
defence force sufficiently strong to retain for themselves, who are the future of Canada, the homes in which they live.
I read that to a group of single unemployed young men and' they burst out laughing. I did not realize until then how funny it was that a group of young men who had no homes and no place to sleep were to be given the privilege, according to these gentlemen, of being put in camps in order to be trained to protect the homes of somebody else. Then they go on to advocate the setting up of these camps, which would be primarily military camps and which would accommodate large groups of young men running up to
5,000	in number. I need hardly say to the minister that we do not want camps of that kind; that if camps are going to be set up in Canada, this should be done with the idea of training young men, giving them proper recreation, reconditioning them physically and, finally, placing them in industrial life so that they will not become a glut on the labour market.
I want to refer for a moment to a brief with which I know the minister is familiar, in order to draw it to the attention of the house. It is a brief on national youth administration prepared by the national committee of the Canadian youth congress and submitted to the minister on March 1, 1939. This group of young people have done some commendable work. Perhaps the most commendable thing they have done is their effort to get other young people like themselves to concentrate on thinking through their own problems and to endeavour to make constructive suggestions to those who are in positions of responsibility. While it has not always been Dossible, I am sure, to accept their sugges-,ions, the fact that they are doing some constructive thinking along these lines is an admirable sign, and these young people are to be congratulated and commended.
The program which they outline for the government with respect to Canada's young unemployed they classify under four headings: educational, placement, employment and recreational. Under the first heading they deal with the academic problem by saying:
There are large numbers of young people every year who are compelled to leave schools or colleges, due to inadequate financial resources, and who thereby swell the ranks of untrained job seekers, causing greater competition in the labour market, forcing down working standards and impoverishing the human wealth of the nation.
With that in mind they proceed to make a number of suggestions concerning national scholarships, special work projects for students and the setting up of technical training facilities. Also under the heading of education

they outline technical work that might be undertaken, such as learnership courses, apprenticeship courses and so on.
Under the second heading, placement, they outline the setting up of a vocational guidance system to take these young people who are brought within the framework of this scheme; find out what they can do apd train them along those lines for which they are best suited; give them some guidance and some direction in finding that niche in the industrial world into which they can best fit.
The third suggestion is that of employment projects. In part they say:
We recommend development of opportunities in mining, forestry, fisheries and agriculture. With specific reference to the last two mentioned, we urge that moneys be made available in the form of loans for young people desirous of establishing themselves in these fields; and these loans to be at low rates of interest, repayable over a long period of time, with reference to economic trends.
Then they go on to outline a number of schemes in the industrial field which might be taken up to give these young people some type of employment, and set them to work.
Finally, they recommend recreational projects, and say:
We have observed with enthusiasm the development in British Columbia and Alberta of the provincial recreation centres and their excellent program of physical recreation. We urge that special publicity be given to this program, with the purpose of developing a nation-wide campaign of physical fitness and the facilities for its development in all provinces.
That is a fine suggestion. Yesterday when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) was talking about needing defence equipment to defend our religion and our economic security, I could not help thinking that the best defence Canada could have is a group of young men and young women throughout the country with recreational opportunities to get out in the fresh air, get to camp and have proper diet and proper exercise. I am sure it would be appalling, if it were possible to conduct a physical examination of the young unemployed in Canada, to find how many of them are not physically in shape.
Sometimes in our smug complacency we are content to sneer at other countries. There are countries with which I and no doubt other hon. members do not agree. But when we see what countries like even Germany, Italy and Switzerland are doing for their young people by means of their strength-through-joy movement, and through summer camps, we realize that what we are doing is not very much. They are giving their young people training and opportunities to put their

Unemployment-Youth Training
bodies into shape,. We are doing comparatively little to give the underprivileged young people in Canada an opportunity to have healthy bodies, the basis of healthy and sound minds.
May I conclude my remarks by saying to the minister that I think there is presented to him a greater opportunity than is presented to any other man in Canada. He has an opportunity to make a lasting contribution to his day and generation. I am not proAmerican, but I have studied in the United States, and in the last two summers I have had opportunities to come in close contact with men who are managing some of the NYA, WPA and the CCC camps. I have had an opportunity of making observations first hand, and I say that the people in the United States, without patching up figures to make them look as though they are doing more than they are actually doing, have tackled this problem in a big way. First of all we must take notice of their 1.500 CCC camps, where their young men are not only learning something, but receiving physical training, laying aside some money, and going through a placement service which endeavours to place them successfully when they have finished their courses.
I went to a number of states, and talked not only to the young men in the camps but to the parents of young people who had gone to those camps. The parents expressed their pleasure; they were thrilled with what was being done. Under their WPA projects they have done something for classes of people whom we in Canada have totally neglected. Through their WPA they have taken young musicians, teachers and actors, and university graduates who could not find work, and have given them employment. They have set up little theatre guilds, symphony orchestras and universities for the unemployed, so that unemployed professors may teach unemployed young people. Orchestras composed of unemployed young people are going about the country putting on concerts. Other groups are putting on plays in different parts of the country. By these opportunities the administration is doing two things, it is keeping up the morale and spirit of independence of those young people, and at the same time it is making some contribution to society.
The same observations would apply to their employment projects. One could go into districts just as hard hit as the southern part of Saskatchewan, and he would see under the WPA where they have torn down old school houses and erected in their place new ones with excellent recreational facilities and the very best of equipment. They have
erected hundreds of little hospitals in towns which could not afford to build hospitals of their own. They have built good roads and have erected some of those great dams. One may see these young men working in the camps, quarrying rock to foe sent to the dams.
Here are young men who are retaining their self-respect and getting 'back the esprit de corps which will make them good citizens. In the second place it is adding to the natural assets of the great republic of the United States. One cannot begin to value that in dollars and cents. The NYA have set up scholarships whereby young people who, under normal circumstances would have had no opportunity, find it possible to go to school, a university or a technical school.
I am not suggesting that we follow that program slavishly; I am not suggesting the people across the line have not made serious mistakes. They are the first ones to admit that they have. But they are facing this problem with courage and initiative. They have taken hold of a difficult problem, one for the handling of which there are no precedents, and they have had the courage to tackle it. They are tackling it in a big way.
When I look at the situation in Canada and see that only about 6 per cent of the young people who obtain training are placed, and only about 25 per cent of the people who take training finishing that training-


Paul Joseph James Martin: How many have been
placed in the United States?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have not the figures with me, but I know they have carried on an excellent placement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The percentage is lower.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But one cannot compare percentages; that is hardly fair. If you are placing a hundred men in one place and a hundred thousand in another, naturally the percentage will be higher where there is the smaller number. It is much easier to place a small number than a large number. The fact remains that they have one of the best placement systems. It is well organized-and when you are handling half a million young men coming out of camps it is a much different problem from that of placing 32,000 coming out of our camps.


Mr. McNEVIN:: It is quite similar in
similar populations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not
think so.


Norman McLeod Rogers: What is the difference?
Will the hon. member explain? It is not very clear up to the present time.

Unemploy men t- Y outh Training


Mr. HOMUTH:: We have not done it here; that is all.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister knows perfectly well without trying to quibble about it, that there is no proper placement system here. People who have been placed in Canada have not necessarily been placed in work for which they have been trained. There has been no proper follow-up. If a man gets a course in electric welding and then gets a job sweeping out a barber shop he thinks he is well off.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend is using
his imagination. However, I will deal with the matter in committee.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If he goes
on a farm he is placed, although that may not have been his training. There is no attempt at proper vocational guidance or proper placement, and the minister knows that. It compares with someone popping up in the house and saying that United States unemployment figures are larger in proportion than ours; but the figures are not comparable.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend has not the figures. Why does he not leave this question until we are in committee and I can give him the figures?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am dealing with the matter of comparison. For instance, in the United States they still figure in their lists of unemployed the young people who are in the camps. When young people go into the camps in this country they are considered as being employed. When they go on farms under the farm placement scheme they are considered as being employed. They are taken off the lists in this country when, as a matter of fact, they are still unemployed. They are still under the care of the government. I call it padding statistics by this government with a view to trying to put the best possible face on a most deplorable situation.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Is my hon. friend unemployed?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Am I unemployed?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Sometimes I think I am much more profitably employed than the minister has been for the last three years.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: That is the hon. member's opinion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 1 started out in a most conciliatory manner. Instead of

attempting to find a way-out of this difficulty, instead of attempting to follow constructive suggestions by which these schemes can be changed to meet the situation, the minister has now reached the point where he feels that any criticism must be refuted, where he feels that figures must be twisted to make them mean one thing even though the situation all across the country is viewed in a totally different light by everyone else. As I said before, the minister has an opportunity to do something. He should take hold of this problem and insist on this government dealing with it on a large scale. We need something more than $1,000,000 for these camps in which 10,000 young men can be employed and each receive an average of $100. The minister should tackle this problem and insist on not being held back by the timidity of his associates and colleagues. He should refuse to be held back by a political philosophy that came from Manchester 200 years ago.


Malcolm McLean: It is still a great deal younger than the hon. member's philosophy.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean) can make his speech later on. If the minister would tackle this problem of our unemployed and dispossessed youth as courageously as he is capable of doing, he would have the cooperation and admiration of hundreds of thousands of people across Canada. He would be making the contribution to the welfare of Canada which he is capable of making, but which he is not making to-day.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, replying at once to the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) I do so as one who represents in this house a large industrial and rural section. At the outset of my remarks may I say that had I been in the house the other day when certain observations were made by the hon. member for Wellington North (Mr. Blair) I certainly would have dissociated myself from his remarks and from his characterization of the young unemployed of our country. I like to think that the hon. member for Wellington North made an unintentional mistake when he said what he did.
Mr. MaeINNIS: From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In any event, may I tell him, may I tell this house, speaking as one who has had considerable experience with unemployed young men, that the character of our young men is as high as that of the young manhood in any country in the world. No doubt there are some who are indolent,

Unemployment-Youth Training
but the vast majority of our people, old and young, are not indolent. Not much good will come from observations of the kind made by the hon. member. Having said that much, may I say to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) that I do not think he was as fair as he generally is when he attributed the point of view of the hon. member for Wellington North to hon. members sitting on this side of the house.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: He was well jeered.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The leader of the opposition knows the individual members, not only on his side but in this section of the house. He knows the vast majority are not of the opinion that the unemployed youth of this country are spineless. He knows that is not our point of view. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) made a most admirable speech this afternoon, but he marred it to some extent by seeking to make political capital out of the observations of the hon. member for Wellington North.


Denton Massey: I was merely commenting on the obvious.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There can be no doubt that regardless of our political affiliations-I speak not only for the members of the group with whom I sit, but, I am sure, on behalf of all of us-the majority of the members of this house believe that our youth, unemployed or employed, that our adults, unemployed or employed, are not indolent, spineless people. That is our collective belief. I believe the members of this house, regardless of their political affiliations, will do more for the unemployed youth of this country by taking a non-partisan view than they will by trying to make politics out of the observations of one member. This problem of our youth is an extremely difficult one to solve. One can make any number of generalizations, but I trust I shall not be guilty of that sort of thing to-night. This is a problem that is not common alone to this country; it is common to the whole world. Among other things, it is a characterization of the economic crisis through which we have passed and through which we are passing. It is part of the inevitable transition, both social and economic, which is taking place in this day and age.
I hope I shall not be charged with playing politics when I say that the task of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) has been rendered more difficult by the fact that the previous administration, elected to cure unemployment within a period of thirty days, did nothing to alleviate the problem that faced the youth of this country. Not one cent was spent by the previous government from 1930
to 1935, and consequently the task which faced the present government was a great one. It was no easy job in 1936 to begin a task that had been allowed to grow through the years until it became more and more serious. The hon. member for Greenwood said that in 1931 the Vocational Education Act was passed. Can he explain why it was that that act was passed but never implemented?


Denton Massey: Will the hon. member explain why it has not been implemented since?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am coming to that. The hon. member for Greenwood said that this government was remiss in its duty for not implementing the Vocational Education Act of 1931. I agree with him in so far as this administration is concerned, but he was condemning this government and the implication he sought to leave was that the party of which he is a member did not fail in its handling of this problem. I ask him again, why was it that this meritorious act was never implemented although it was brought into being by the administration of his own political party?


Denton Massey: Is the hon. member asking me?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Denton Massey: Does he want me to answer him now?


Malcolm McLean: It was a
rhetorical question.


Denton Massey: I thought it was an oratorical one.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Answer the question.


Denton Massey: If the hon. member (Mr. Martin) will sit down I shall be glad to do so. I presume he may have heard that there was a world depression, although judging by his speeches his ignorance in that regard is abysmal.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman's reply is as characteristic-


Denton Massey: As the question asked.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -as the extravagant utterance of which he was the author some weeks ago, and which has brought him into deep ridicule in this country. If I criticize the hon. member for Wellington North for his ridiculous assertion, I also criticize the hon. member for Greenwood for his over-emphasis and extravagance, which were not fair to the youth of this country. The hon. gentleman whose friendship I enjoyed until this moment-

Unemployment

Youth Training


Denton Massey: Mutual.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -would, I suggest, do himself greater credit if he were able to harness his emotion and his oratory with a measure of that common sense which I know he possesses. The hon. member for Greenwood rose in his place in the house this afternoon and said that the program of the government in respect of youth rehabilitation was a fairly good one, and he was prepared to accord it faint praise. He paid tribute to Mr. Thompson of the Department of Labour who has done so much under the Minister of Labour in respect of this whole problem. The hon. member for Greenwood knows Mr. Thompson, and knows him well. He knows Mr. Thompson's views on this problem. He knows well that Mr. Thompson would be prepared if he were asked, as I am sure he has been asked by the hon. member, to say that any analysis and comparison between what we have done in Canada and what has been done in other countries in respect of this problem would be favourable indeed to us. But would the hon. member for Greenwood admit that? Would he offer a single bit of praise? No. I do not think I would be unfair to the hon. member for Greenwood, or for that matter to the hon. member, the Solon from Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), in suggesting that above their interest in a solution of this problem they are thinking of their own political interests.


Denton Massey: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? Does he mean by that statement that I am insincere in what I say? I should just like to get his reply on Hansard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What I meant by that was that the hon. gentleman has a happy faculty of not being able to distinguish in his own case between sincerity and political interest.


Denton Massey: I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the hon. gentleman in all fairness to withdraw that remark without any comment of mine.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If it offends the melodramatic character of my hon. friend I withdraw it.


Denton Massey: No. Withdraw it just from a sense of common decency, which I share with my hon. friend.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is withdrawn.


Denton Massey: Thank you.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I hold in my hand a publication that is issued by the authorities in charge of the youth program in the United States. It is entitled, "Youth a World Problem-a Study in World Perspective of Youth

Conditions, Movements and Programs." It reviews the program of youth rehabilitation in sixty countries of the world.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: By whom is it written, and what is the date?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The date is 1938. It is a compendium by W. Thacher Winslow, who is the administrative assistant in the national youth administration at Washington. I ask hon. gentlemen who are anxious to compare the record, as detailed in this book, of this government in respect of this problem with the records of other countries, to study this compendium. While I am not going to say that we have done all that we should have done or all that we can still do, I think it behooves all of us to recognize that in respect of this problem, which is inevitably in its experimental stage, we have done a great deal and, in comparison with other countries, infinitely more than all except one.


Angus MacInnis: Where did the author get his information?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not write the book, but I assume that we might take i>t as authoritative. It is based on an analysis of what has been done in other countries, and I think we might regard it as authoritative. At any rate I do.
Before coming specifically to what we have done, let me say that the hon. member for Weyburn has referred to what the totalitarian states of Germany and Italy have done for youth. I should have thought he would consider those two countries the last ones to look to for a solution of this problem. In 1937 the hon. member for Greenwood and I were in Rome together, and one afternoon we saw the head of the Italian state review almost half a million young men between the ages of fourteen and twenty who passed by him in an almost unending procession, wearing the uniform of the fascisti. That was how II Duce was handling this problem. That is Hitler's way of handling this problem.


Mr. LANDERYOU:: And what do you do?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Taking an ultimate view- and that is after all what we should do-I would say that our relative indifference perhaps, or our relative inadequacy, in handling this problem will in the long future prove to be more constant in its permanent values than the regimentation of youth in modern Germany and Italy. I ask the hon. member for Greenwood to recall the impression which that procession had on him.


John Charles Landeryou: May I ask the hon. member a question?

Unemployment-Youth Training


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would remind hon.
members that the house is not in committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have no objection.


John Charles Landeryou: Is it necessary to regiment the single unemployed before we can do anything for them?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend would listen, I was coming to that. I was referring to the suggestion of the hon. member for Weyburn that we might follow the classic example of Hitler and Mussolini.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker,
I rise to a point of order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. member. He can clown as long as he likes, but he must not put words into my mouth. In addressing myself to this problem what I did say was that while we differ fundamentally with those countries on their ideologies, nevertheless they have looked after the physical rehabilitation of their young people-a matter we have sadly neglected.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not mind a question, but I object to a speech. The fact is that the regimentation of the unemployed in Germany and Italy is not simply a question of physical training. It is the use of the youth of those two countries for destructive purposes, which in the long run will mean destruction not only for those two countries but perhaps for our civilization. To use those two countries as an example for Canada to follow, as the hon. member for Weyburn has done, makes one wonder whether the hon. member, who parades as a democrat, has possibly not a greater love for fascism than he is prepared to admit.
I admit, Mr. Speaker, that our record is not perfect. There are many things which, in my judgment, the Minister of Labour might have done, 'but he has done a great deal, and to that extent I propose giving him credit to-night.
First of all, let us look at the problem generally. Under the Minister of Labour the following broad types of projects were undertaken. One would think from the remarks of hon. members opposite that nothing had been done.
First, work training in occupations allied to forestry and mining.
Second, urban occupational training for men and women, including assistance in training apprentices and learners in industry.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: At $5 a month.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) will just listen he will find, I think, that he and I are not as far apart as the distance between us would seem to indicate.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Well, then, come over here.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Third, training in agricultural subjects and rural homecraft for young men and women from the farming communities.
Fourth, physical training and recreational projects.
The latter two categories were not designed to train youth for wage-earning employment, which was the object of the first two, but were to improve conditions of rural life and increase the physical fitness and morale of unemployed youth.
I have not the time to go into greater detail into this program. But I do think I should say this much. Take mining training as one project; that has been carried out in Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. Forestry training in New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia. Woodlot cultivation in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. Surveying and prospecting in New Brunswick. Home service training schools in all provinces except Prince Edward Island. Women's specialized services in Manitoba. Women's urban occupational classes in Quebec, Manitoba. Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. Industrial apprenticeships and learnerships in Ontario and Manitoba. Men's uilban occupational classes in New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. Male nurses in Ontario. Parks and gardening, tobacco curing, farm apprenticeship, Ontario and Alberta. Fisheries, Prince Edward Island and Quebec. Women's rural courses in all provinces. General and specialized agricultural courses in all provinces except Ontario. Cooperative and credit unions in Quebec. University agricultural courses in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Physical education and recreation work in British Columbia.
There in itself is an impressive record given in a general way, indicating, as the Minister of Labour said this afternoon, that over 100,000 young people have been in one way or another affected by the program for youth rehabilitation under this government. It may not be everything; it may not be all that hon. gentlemen want, but to say that nothing has been done is to give expression to something which is not the case.
Under urban occupational classes for men and women the following were carried out: radio servicing, motor mechanics, diesel engineering, machine shop welding, painting, plastering, carpentiy and woodworking, frame house construction, electricity and house wiring, art, textile designing, commercial refreshers, dressmaking. power sewing, machine operating, waitress training, home nursing and so on.

Unemployment- Youth Training
Does that not represent on the part of this administration, an administration which began this work for the first time in the history of this country, an honest and fairly all-embracing attempt to deal with this problem?
Hon. gentlemen have said that, admitting that something has been done, our work under the placement schemes has not been successful, and in this connection much has been said about the United States civilian conservation corps camps. I wonder how many members have visited those camps. Near my own city, within a very few miles, is one, and I have been to it many times. I have spent weekends there watching the men at work, and I will not deny the great value of the civilian conservation corps camps in certain particulars, but I think I am giving expression to what is said by those in charge of those camps when I state that their limitations are definite. In the first place the young men remain there for but a short period, and as far as placements are concerned, the results are less than the placement results under our various schemes.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Correct.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nevertheless those camps deserve our adoption. The hon. member for Weyburn has said that this is not a fair comparison. Let me remind him that the United States has a population of over 130,000,000 people with a great domestic economy which lends itself to more internally elastic operations than ours. Yet the fact is that under our scheme we have succeeded in making a proportionately greater number of placements. Surely that reflects to a considerable degree upon the character of the work we have done.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the hon. member the figures?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have the figures, and so has the Minister of Labour.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I will give them in committee.
Mr. MA.RTIN: Three years ago in this house I introduced a resolution which I believed in and which I believe in now, a resolution asking this government to consider the advisability of setting up a system of national scholarships. The idea was not a new one. It was based upon a program which has been in existence in the United Kingdom for over fifty years and has been in existence in many other countries in the western world. The hon. member for Greenwood supported that resolution; so did the hon. member for Weyburn, the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh), and many other hon. members. Did the hon. member for Greenwood com-

mend the government for at last recognizing the meritorious features of this proposal? Did the hon. member for Weyburn to-night praise the government for at long last accepting in part the resolution which I introduced and which he and others so vociferously and enthusiastically supported? Did the hon. member for Greenwood tell the house that his party had incorporated in its program the proposal of a system of national scholarships? No. It is sometimes difficult, I think, for some hon. members to give credit where credit is due.
The other day the Minister of Labour announced that the government had accepted in part the principle of the resolution which I introduced, with the result that student aid in the form of scholarships on a contributoiy basis with the provinces is to be launched: 300 scholarships for the first year, 500 scholarships in the second year, and 700 scholarships in the third year. That is something. That is a record. The hon. member for Greenwood, speaking on that very subject two years ago, said that if this government did nothing but implement a system of national scholarships it would commend itself to the country and would evoke his heartiest approval. Yet there is not a word from him to-day.


Denton Massey: May I ask the hon. member for Essex East if the scholarship plan has been announced in this house, or is it still in the after-dinner speech stage?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, when the Minister of Labour speaks he will speak for himself.


Denton Massey: Quite. But I thought the hon. member was speaking for him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, the policy has been announced, no matter from what agency it comes.


Denton Massey: I have not seen it yet.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member knows about it because he and I have discussed it.


Denton Massey: That does not say that I know about it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I commend the government for the adoption of this student assistance based, as I say, upon the principle of a resolution which won wide approval in this house and which has promoted a great deal of public support throughout this country.


Denton Massey: Would the hon. member permit me a question? He referred to his resolution on scholarships, and seems to be delighted with his personal triumph in the result.

Unemployment-Youth Training


Paul Joseph James Martin: Absolutely.


Denton Massey: Would he expect me, as a result of having introduced the youth resolution in the first session and having had it adopted, to rise in my place and blow my horn in the manner in which he has been blowing his horn during the last few minutes?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I blow my horn because the hon. gentleman is not big enough to blow it for me. If the hon. gentleman had achieved what I have in that particular I would certainly have praised him, but there is a difference between the hon. member and myself.


Denton Massey: I did not wish to interrupt the hon. member.


Mr. POWER:: One man cannot have a monopoly of horn blowing.


Denton Massey: I am sure the hon. member wants me to ask him as many questions as he asked me when I was speaking. I have listened with great interest to the hon. member's opinion of the youth training plan, which perhaps he might feel was a result of the resolution I introduced in this house in the first session.


Ernest Lapointe: Blow the horn some more.


Walter Edward Foster: I remind hon. members that the house is not in committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say as sincerely as I can to the hon. member that if any good had come out of his marathon speeches I should be the first to recognize it.


Ernest Lapointe: You would be second.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I say to the Minister of Labour that unfortunately the difficulty in respect of this whole program arises out of our divided jurisdiction. Unfortunately it is not possible under the constitution for the central authority to deal with this problem in the efficient way in which I think it must ultimately be dealt with. And that situation has brought about a greater achievement in some provinces than in others. Not much rise will come of my saying that one or two provinces have failed to take advantage of the offer of the federal government, but the fact is that in at least two provinces the youth have not been given the opportunity that is accorded to youth in the other provinces. That is a situation with which, until the British North America Act is given the necessary legal refinements, we cannot adequately deal. Last fall I went to the minister of labour of Ontario-I had an interesting and, I think, a worth while conference with himto urge upon him the opportunity that this kind of assistance might give for the setting up of recreational work. The hon. member for Weyburn rather laughed at the recreational work of the youth program in some of our provinces; but our recreation suggestions are based upon the experience of the United States, and I have it on good authority, the best authority in the United States, that recreational work is regarded by the authorities there as of preeminent importance. In my own city of Windsor-and I take it as a good example of what may be done-in 1935. 1936 and part of 1937 a gentleman by the name of Angus Buchanan who had been employed by the Y.M.C.A. made a canvass of the citizens and collected a few thousand dollars. With that money, for five nights in the week several thousand young men and young women were given training in various courses of athletics, various kinds of homework, mechanical training, and so on. He was able out of the funds thus collected to give to various people who acted as instructors small honoraria. That work was commendable, and it had an important effect on the community; it took out of many homes young men who had never been in a gymnasium-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: What had the federal government to do with that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am now criticising the federal government, if the hon. member will just listen. That I consider to be a worth while work. It did not give jobs, but it did provide thousands of men and women with an opportunity to use their leisure time profitably. Unfortunately, let me say in answer to the hon. member for Waterloo South, in our present circumstances it is not directly possible for this government to prescribe that this sort of work should take place. I had hoped that the government of Ontario would see fit under its powers of administration to recognize the value of this sort of work; but the policy of the government of Ontario is otherwise, and I cannot change that. I do ask the Minister of Labour, if there is any way in which it can be cultivated, to consider the importance of this recreational work.
Having mentioned the one organization, I should like to take the opportunity of mentioning work along similar lines, done by the Catholic youth organization of Windsor, utilizing the leisure time, whether the whole day or part of the day, of young men, and giving them an opportunity of learning things which under an unorganized system they would not have had. I should like to see that work carried on; it cannot be carried on endlessly by private philanthropy, and I believe

Unemployment-Youth Training
the experience of other countries in recreational work would certainly confirm our efforts along these lines.
I have spoken longer than I intended. In conclusion, may I simply say, in no political sense, but speaking as one young Canadian to a group of young Canadians who sit in this house and who represent thousands of our people, and addressing myself also to older men who, I am sure, are as much alive to this problem as we are even if they are not as close to it, that this is a great problem. Its social implications are great. The opportunities of government for dealing with it are limited. Industry, the school and all other agencies in the community can do their share. Surely it is not too much to expect that we might segregate from our political controversies this one problem and all of us try to give it the leadership it deserves, try to give to our young people some hope, some opportunity which at the present time, in so many instances they are denied. I firmly believe that the Minister of Labour and the government of this country are to be commended for the work begun, a work which, alongside the programs of other countries, is as commendable as anyone can make it appear to be.
But there is still much to do, there is still a great opportunity for the Minister of Labour, and I know that as he faces his task on the morrow he will realize, just as we all do what this problem means in the future of this country. Hon. gentlemen opposite will make a great mistake if in addressing the youth of this country, as they do and as I perhaps often do, we place the emphasis solely on the economic side of life. We have all gone through pretty much the same sort of experience; we all know that a job is an important thing; we all know that a man who is in economic want is suffering possibly one of the greatest of human needs. But life is not made up of dollars and cents only. Those who go about preaching that there is no opportunity in this country for youth are not being fair to youth or fair to Canada. There are opportunities in this country, opportunities of building a great nation. While I would be the last to deny that we must do something along the lines followed in these instruction courses, in these national scholarships, in all sorts of other programs, we should not hesitate, standing in this house or speaking in other places, to lay emphasis where emphasis is due; to say to our young men: True, our problems are great, true, the task that lies ahead of you is great, possibly unprecedently great; but for any hon. member of this house 
to say that it is hopeless as some hon. gentlemen have said outside, is to do the youth of this country the greatest possible injury.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Unemployment-Youth Training
all of Canada at least 600 or 700 fine young men could be employed. The very best of our youth go into that line of work.
If the bill covers assistance in connection with the erection and fitting of schools I believe money might well be spent in that direction. My recollection is the board of education said that of an expenditure of $40,000 they would have to pay about $20,000. If the bill covers activities of that kind it would have my support.
I also found in Washington that their scheme of sending youth to finish courses in universities, courses that they had started but not finished, or to take additional lessons after they have finished the course-sons and daughters of parents who are wholly unable to send them further, either to commence or to add to what they have already learned- was that they divided approximately 90,000 unemployed young men and women they had decided to send to the various universities of the United States on a basis of 9-3 per cent of the enrolment of each university.
From the remarks of some hon. members who have preceded me I gather the impression that they were opposed to the government, through this appropriation, giving further education in universities to the youth of our land. I am not. I am in accord with such a plan, and I would support heartily expenditure the minister may have in mind for the re-education or the completion of education, of youths in universities. I understand the government in Washington advances $15 a month to a beginner in a university and $30 a month to one who has graduated but who has returned to the university for further studies, or to perfect his education.
I do not know how the government can take care of the problem completely unless it takes care of it along many different lines. Some time ago in this building I saw pictures of forestry operations in British Columbia. Well, such operations would take care of one class of youth. Then, in line with the suggestion I made a moment ago, young men who are mechanically inclined or want to be machinists or toolmakers or craftsmen of one kind or another might be placed in plants, by the government. I am sure manufacturing plants would be glad to avail themselves of the opportunity of having such young men. If I were arranging for an industry to absorb a. number of young men either through vesti-oule school training or training under practical conditions within a plant, I would arrange for young men to stay in a plant for a sufficiently long period to learn a trade. It would not be sufficient to remain only a few months, as has been suggested. A man cannot learn 
a trade in a few months. It would require three or four years for him to receive proper training.
If I were in charge of a program of that kind I would say to industry, "Here, we will provide for you fifteen young men"-or twenty-five young men, depending on the size of the industry. I would say, "We will allow your company so much per youth a month to train these young men. So much will be allowed for each one on the understanding that when they have been trained and have graduated three years hence they will be absorbed into your business." In the meantime other men will have graduated off the map, altogether. They will have gone, for one reason or another. They may have gotten too old, or died in the meantime, or may have left the business for some reason or another. Therefore, if a permanent three year plan could be made to operate in the manner I have indicated, I am sure a good many young men could be at once placed where they would be learning something that they cannot learn at the present time.
Money has been spent in the old country along these lines. I have in mind one particular plant, a very large one, in which approximately 4,000 youth were working, and I believe they were working on some such basis as that. The government supplied so much, and the company so much. So that, as someone has said, through industry quite a number of young men can be placed in training. And, knowing as I do about the dearth in this country to-day of trained mechanics and the training of mechanics, in my judgment it would be a fine thing and a fine national investment if the federal government would take action along this line.
Someone has said something about the CCC camps. Perhaps I have visited as many of those camps as any hon. member in the house. I have covered a great number of states, and I believe I can say that I have visited fifty different CCC camps. My experience, however, has not been the same as that of other hon. members whom I have heard speak to-night. In the great majority of the camps I visited, my experiences were satisfactory. Later, on discussing the CCC camp problem with the head of the department in Washington, I was shown placement figures different from those which have been recorded to-night. I have not any late figures, so that perhaps I should not quote any percentages. Although I did not speak with the secretary himself, I did speak with the official immediately under him, the man in charge of the whole program, and he was more than pleased with the record. He told me these

Unemployment[DOT]-Youth Training
young men were well trained, and I may say my observations convinced me that young men were well trained in many walks of life, although in that statement I woulc not include the industrial field about which I spoke a moment ago. However, they wen certainly well trained in civility and smartness. They were taught to use their minds, hands and feet. They were well set up. The head of the department told me there was a marked demand for these young men, and a great deal of the work of the department was taken up in placing young men trained in those CCC camps. It was acknowledged that they were much better, in many respects, than the young men on the street corners who, in many instances, were uncivil, with the result that business and industry did not wish to employ them.
I do not believe I have much more to say. I rose merely to present the ideas of one who should know something about industry and employment, and the position youth may take in industry. If I have said anything which would help the minister, or if I have said anything which would direct him along the line of encouraging industry to take in more young men, as a matter of school training, I shall be satisfied. I believe the minister, who is presented with a difficult problem, would be well advised to call together the heads of perhaps fifty large companies in Canada who would each be in a position to take on at once fifteen or twenty-five trainees. I would invite heads of labour organizations to attend and to sit round a conference table to discuss the problem as I have presented it.
Even with the adverse conditions under which it must operate to-day-I shall not say anjdhing about the causes at the present time for fear of being accused of playing politics- I am sure that industry is ready to encourage the improvement of the young men of our country. It is ready to assist the government and this country in making more pleasant the lot of these young men. No one knows better than the heads of industry how necessary it is that these young men should be trained; no one knows better than the heads of industry how necessary it is that young men to-day should receive training similar to that wdiich their fathers received. Perhaps this can be done through a system of apprenticeships and vestibule schools in industry assisted by the government, and there may have to be some guarantee by industry that these young men will be taken into the plants after they have been trained. I am sure a great number of young men could be trained, and it would all be for the best interests of this country.


Malcolm McLean: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up much of the time of the house, but I think this is an opportunity for those who know something of the work that has been carried on to tell other hon. members what has been done. Encouragement should be given to the minister, to the ministry and to the house as a whole to continue along such lines as are being discussed this evening. I am glad to see this bill being introduced for the purpose of assisting in the training of young people to fit them for gainful employment. I assume that this is going to be worked out in two ways, or with two objectives in view. The first is to help these young people to get through a most difficult period in their lives. An effort is to be made to fit them for more useful occupation in order that they may live better, happier and more useful lives. This difficult period through which the youth of our land is passing is not entirely on account of lack of material wealth, but is aggravated by the infection which has spread from the old world to the new. This has had an effect upon the minds of many of our youth. They have had to listen to so many unsettling theories and untrue sayings that they find themselves in the difficult position of not knowing what to believe. Very often they find themselves floundering round in an unnatural way and they are not to be blamed for seeking the truth.
In my opinion one of the greatest things that could be done during the formative years of our youth is for the government and the local authorities to come along and offer these young people an opportunity of acquiring further knowledge to fit themselves to play a more active and useful part in the community. The work of this kind that has happened to come under my observation has left no doubt in my mind that it was well worthwhile. Attempts have been made to convince boys and girls that there is no place for them in the scheme of things. They do not know whether to believe the statement they hear so often, that there is no hope for them in the system under which we now operate and under which our forefathers lived for so many years. That system encouraged individualism and there was greater individual responsibility; a man was taught to hoe his own row. At times our youth do not know whether that saying still holds true. Some do not know whether they must lean on the state and must bend their wills and ambitions to the will of the state. In difficult times like these it is most encouraging to them to realize that the dominion, provincial and local authorities are

Unemployment-Youth Training
making it possible for them to acquire that wider knowledge which will make them more capable citizens.
While they are gaining that knowledge they will be in an environment which will open up a page of life that they did not know existed, a page that will reveal to them the story of the learning of the ages which their teachers are ready to pass on. During last fall I had an opportunity of visiting many districts in which short-term schools were being held. These schools were being conducted for only two weeks at a time, but valuable instruction in agricultural subjects was given by instructors from the extension department of the university of the province from which I come. Boys to the number of seventy or seventy-five gathered together for two weeks, and during the mornings, afternoons and evenings they were getting new pictures of progress in the industry in which they had spent their young days and in which the majority of them are likely to spend most of their future time. Every new lesson had its particular appeal. Instruction was given in many phases of agriculture, such as live stock breeding, and feeding, field crop cultivation, conditioning of implements, poultry-keeping and killing, bee-keeping, horticulture and other cultural activities. When these classes were being held, many of the older people attended to encourage the younger people by their presence, but in fact being helped through being able to carry away some new knowledge or to learn some new wrinkle from the teacher.
Other schools were held for longer periods to teach motor mechanics. Young men were given instruction in actual shops with tools that are in everyday use. These schools continued for three, four and sometimes five months. When the boys from the country or the town went back home after having attended one of these motor mechanic schools, they were better fitted to do the necessary work on the farms, in the forests and in other industries that demand mechanical knowledge. To-day an evolution is occurring in agriculture and newer methods are more in use than ever before. A more exact knowledge is required to-day both in agriculture and in industry, and it is well that young people should have an opportunity to fill in what would otherwise be idle time by acquiring this knowledge. I am firmly convinced that only by a deeper and sounder education can we hope to solve the problems confronting us at the present time.
There are many schemes being put before the people of the world to-day. Some of these are not sound and have led certain nations

along a most dangerous path and other nations seem likely to follow the same path. The fact that certain people seem ready to follow such a course is not due to any badness of heart of the people, but rather to a lack of knowledge and the ability to follow through to an ultimate sound conclusion. We should not be satisfied, as so many of us are at the moment, with knowing only one phase of the truth. Knowledge is the way by which we can ultimately escape from the dangers confronting us.
I should like to give a picture in a few words of some of the work that was done in youth training schools in the province from which I come. As many hon. members know, conditions have been extremely difficult in the last few years in many rural parts of Saskatchewan, although the people I represent have been more fortunate than many others in that they have had fairly good crops. But prices and other circumstances have been such that it has been difficult for them to get along as they would like to do and as they did in previous years. But in spite of conditions the enthusiasm of these people for the youth training schools was great.
Coming to one centre where a school was going to be held for a short term. I found that arrangements had been made by different organizations. One had put a large hall at the disposal of the school authorities, and another had responded to the appeal of local people by offering sufficient cots and beds to look after the boys 'who were going to attend the school for a couple of weeks. Kitchen utensils were also provided so that if the pupils liked they were able to live in that hall.
I hold in .my hand a page from a small rural newspaper published in that district, and because it tells an interesting story I should like to read a short extract. The paper is dated January 5 of this year, and says:
A youth's training class for girls will be held about February 15. In order that rural girls may participate in these classes it will be necessary for them to remain in town for a period of two weeks. The club therefore makes a special appeal to the residents to provide lodging for these girls.
In exchange for these services residents may be asked to accept farm produce such as wood, meat, vegetables, butter, et cetera.
Then on the 30th of March, over two months later, indicating that the course must have lasted longer than two weeks, I find this: Youth Training Course Closes
The provincial youth training course was brought to a successful close on Friday afternoon when the club served a banquet to the class at the Elks', hall.
The instructors of the extension department of the Saskatchewan university expressed great

Unemployment-Youth Training
satisfaction in the class of sixty-five young women, the largest during their ten months' term.
On Saturday afternoon the work of the girls was on display at the Masonic hall and tea served to a number of visitors from town and district.
According to the dispatch sixty-five girls from the immediate district spent a certain length of time receiving instruction from teachers in the extension department and then went back to their own homes. Some of them will go into employment away from home; some will stay at home but will be better fitted to carry on their daily labours in the sphere in which they were before the school was held.
The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey), speaking in this house about a month ago. referred to the small percentage of those who were given employment following a course at such schools or receiving other training given by the administration. But I say. Mr. Speaker, that it does not matter very much whether those taking this training afterwards go away from home to get a job for money hire, or whether they simply return to their homes, better equipped for a lifetime of service, to lead a more satisfactory life all round and to be of more use to the community round their own homes. So I say that it does not always matter whether a pupil secures occupation outside his or her own home. The important thing is that opportunities to acquire that knowledge were given, were accepted, and that afterwards came the opportunity to use the knowledge so acquired.
In small towns in the district of which I speak classes were held for young men and girls. There were also classes for the training of boys in motor mechanics. In Saskatchewan, which has suffered so severely in recent years from natural causes, there have been for the past two years, at any rate, youth training schemes in force at the university of Saskatoon, and boys and girls from all over the province have been accorded scholarships and taken into the university to study courses lasting from three to five months in various subjects. I know that the short-term course in agriculture has been most useful to many young men from the rural parts. I visited in January the diesel training school in motor mechanics which was earned on part of the time at the technical school in Saskatoon, and for the rest of the course at the university, and I could see from the progress that was made by some of the young men attending that the training was well worth while. I have been in touch with quite a number of young men during the past few years, as at the present time, and I have received many
letters from young men over a wide area of country telling me what they were learning, the progress they were making, what they wanted to do, and telling me every once in a while of jobs they had secured as a result of training received, and of the pleasure they were getting out of the training and out of the work to which it led.
I want to deal for a moment with the training of youth in industry. My good friend the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Mac-Nicol) made a statement that I believe to be absolutely correct. He said, if I understood him aright, that there was a dearth in this country of trained mechanics, and I think he was right; and in the years to come there is going to be a greater dearth of trained mechanics, not only in aircraft but in many other lines, if something is not done by industry and the authorities to give young people an opportunity to learn these trades. But I do not know that I would agree with my hon. friend when he suggested, if I heard him correctly, that industry could not afford to train young men. My belief is that industry cannot afford not to train them, because if industry does not train them, with a little assistance perhaps from the authorities, and that would be all right, how is industry going to perpetuate itself? That is a serious problem and more attention should be given to it.
Some two years ago I met, in the province of Saskatchewan, a noted British shipowner, Captain Dalgleish, of Newcastle-on-Tyne, of whom I am sure many hon. members have heard, owner and managing director of the shipping company that pioneered the Hudson bay route and whose ships have been successful on that route. He told me that one of the great mistakes which the British people had made during the early years of the depression was to allow the apprentice system to go out of use. The result was that when they needed mechanics they were not available. He told me that two years ago last fall, before he left England, he had to go to the secretary of the labour union and tell him that his company needed more engineers and found none available for work in the shipyard in which he was interested. The government had previously asked him to close that yard because they wanted to rationalize industry and combine that particular yard with others, but he had refused to do it because he said the yard would be needed again. While he may be old in years, he is younger than many of us in energy and spirit. He refused to close his yard because he foresaw that it would be required, and the time came when he wanted more engineers.
He went to the secretary of the union, and he was told that the only place where he

Unemployment-Youth Training
could get engineers was from the ranks of the superannuated. So he went to the superannuated and, commencing with three old men from among their ranks, by the time he had left England for Canada he was employing fourteen from the ranks of the superannuated and they were doing good work in the yard. This is what he said, and I thought it was significant. At the beginning these men were a little slow in their work; they were not able to turn out as much as the younger men could; but at the end of three months they were able to do practically as much as they had ever done, and the value of what they did was as great as it had ever been, because, he said, skill had never left their fingers, and after they had "suppled up" a little in their work they were just as good as they had been before. Now, to get men whose fingers had retained their skill through the years, through the period of superannuation and perhaps of unemployment that preceded it, there had been great skill developed in those fingers in their working days. "But," said Mr. Dal-gleish, "we made a great mistake, because the apprenticeship system has not been maintained, and so we have not available the number of skilled men we should have and the number that was available at one time." I believe that if there should come the world struggle which so many people believe to be unavoidable, and which everyone of us hopes yet may be avoided, victory is likely to rest with the country which has the greatest number of well-trained and highly skilled mechanics and workers of all kinds.
A good deal has been said in the past few hours and few sessions regarding scholarships. I think they are very important. I am glad to see that the minister has made provision in the bill which is now before us for enough money to devote some of it, as we hope he will do, to scholarships. Canada has already done something along that line. The Canadian people have always placed a high value upon education, and I believe its value will be increasingly recognized in the days to come. But it is not a problem for governments only or for the official authorities of any part of the country, dominion, provincial or local. I believe that the providing of scholarships is something which should appeal to our wealthier citizens, to those who, like Andrew Carnegie, Donald Smith and other men who have been great benefactors of their fellow men on this continent and in the old land, had not obtained a high degree of academic knowledge in their young days, but who appreciated the loss they had sustained, and who, when they came into pos-

session of wealth, set aside much of it to encourage education. I believe we have many people in Canada to-day who would respond to a lead to provide sums of money for tire training of the less fortunate youth of our land.
The state has been providing scholarships in some degree. I noticed in the press a few days ago an item recording the winners of forty-one or forty-two scholarships given by the national research council. Seven of those scholarships went to the province in which I live, and the names of the seven recipients were published at that time. The amounts ranged from $650 to $750 or thereabouts, and were for further study and research. I think that is something which should be encouraged. This country has not been wholly negligent of its young people. I believe we have done more under the circumstances than almost any other country has done to help young people in some ways which will be useful. I, too, have seen the civilian conservation corps men in the United States in training and moving round their camps and coming and going. I agree that these camps have done useful work so far as they have gone, but I do not know whether they are fitting their young men to stand on their own feet more successfully after they come out of the camps. I do not know whether they are making the men more self-reliant. I am not sure that they are enabling them to fight their own battles better after they come out than before they went in, assuming they are the right type of boys. If you encourage people to lean on government for everything, to allow government to do their thinking for them, to feed them, clothe them, tell them when to get up and when to lie down, and all the rest which goes on with regimentation, it is questionable-or rather it is not questionable at all, it is certain-that it will be difficult for them to preserve their initiative if that course of training is carried on for any length of time. However, that is our neighbours' problem; it is not ours.
I hope that the forestry work which will be carried on under this measure will proceed more in the way that lumbermen or forestry men actually do their work than in the manner in which army or civilian conservation corps training camps are conducted in the country to the south of us. I believe this would be better for the state and for the boys who are getting their training. Above everything, I would deprecate the using of our youth under this or any other legislation in the way in which the totalitarian states of Europe are using them. The hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Douglas) was to-day quite laudatory of

Unemployment-Youth Training
Germany for the way in which she is training her youth. I think it is terrible, the worst thing which could befall the youth of any country, that they should be taken and used in the way in which they are being used for the purpose for which the totalitarian nations intend them when "the day" comes.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that many of our people were suffering from discouragement because of the infection which has spread from Europe to this country, because of ideas which are different from those of the pioneer forefathers in this country. It is not so much because the simple necessities of life are absent, at least in rural areas, that many of our young people are suffering. To give them, when they are confused, the encouragement which is forthcoming through a measure of this kind is of the greatest value to them. To give them the training they can acquire, the exact knowledge they can get in forestry and mining classes, geology or mineralogy, agriculture and industry, which may be provided under this bill, will be of the utmost assistance to them, will help them to get over difficult places on life's road, will give them time to think and to orientate themselves while they are acquiring that skill of their hands and judgment of their heads which will enable them to enjoy useful lives in this country and will enrich the state many times over for what is going to be spent on them.


Thomas Langton Church: The bill of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), for which I wish every success, is a bill for the training of young people to fit them for gainful employment. With all due respect to the government and to the minister I fail to see where there is any gainful employment obtainable in Canada through this measure, with all the changes in tariffs, quotas, favoured nation treaties, lowering of tariffs, dislocation of industry, and ruin of our home market. The bill is on the wrong basis. The scheme deals with unemployed young people between sixteen and thirty years; it has had a year for trial, and now the minister wants it to have a longer term trial of three years, involving expenditure over that three year period of approximately $4,500,000. That all looks very rosy if you take it at its face value, but when you get down to brass tacks you find that the government of the day have spent one-third of the amount of money which they expended on relief-I think all told it is about $900,000,000, on relief, dominion, provincial and municipal-


Norman McLeod Rogers: Since 1930.


Thomas Langton Church: -I say that one-third of
that, or $300,000,000 has been spent on roads, uneconomic roads, away in the back concessions of Quebec, Ontario and the Northwest Territories, and from coast to coast. It is all very well for the hon. member who preceded me to speak as he did; he comes from Saskatchewan, whose premiers for many years have believed in free trade for the grain industry. If the industrial provinces of Ontario and Quebec, to which this scheme very largely applies, were to have one iota of the protective measures which Saskatchewan is receiving, the industries of Ontario would not ask for a bill like this, No. 94, and would not need the aid it provides, but would train these apprentices themselves. They would not need it.
Ever since the start of this bill I have had very little faith in it. In the first place I do not believe in the system. I believe that after a year's trial the system has been weighed and found wanting. First as to the parties; the government of Canada deals directly with the provinces. Those who wish to come under it have to go through a circuitous routine; sums have to be appropriated for these young people, and there are the provisions of the Interpretation Act about who are unemployed young people; they have to register with the employment service and be certified by the clerk and the appropriate provincial authority and all that.
To get down to brass tacks, if the minister would follow the principle which has been opposed by hon. members opposite for many years, namely the system of bonuses, subventions and subsidies as applied under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act in agriculture and in the fishing industry, and apply some of the millions that are being spent in Saskatchewan on agriculture, in bonuses and subventions and subsidies for the industries of this country that would operate a proper apprenticeship system, we would get somewhere. I was a member of a board of education and a school board; I have talked to many teachers not only in the public schools but in separate and high schools of the city from which I come, and many of them are very much disappointed with this scheme. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey), the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) and I have, in our ridings, several of the largest secondary schools, high schools and technical schools and collegiates in the country; I have consulted with those who go to these institutions and with teachers and members of the school boards, and they are very much disappointed with this scheme.

Unemployment-Youth Training
In the first place who is in charge? Many industrialists are keenly interested in education ; they are on university boards, school boards and all kinds of boards of education; why are they not used to head this department of youth training? Why should the government go to the pulpit and get as the head of this department a former minister? I have nothing to say against him; he is a fine man but he is not a practical man, he has not had the necessary business and industrial training.
In connection with this subject last year I think I read from the discussion in the United States, where the Purvis commission got some of its recommendations regarding youth training and youth employment, showing that gainful employment is not to be had. There is not an industry in Canada to-day that is working full time fifty-two weeks in the year.
Let me read three or four lines of the Couzens report on unemployment and industry and youth to the United States senate. At page 495, section 2 it says:
To say that all industries are seasonal would hardly be an exaggeration. It would be most difficult to find an industry which showed an even distribution of production and employment throughout the year. An individual plant here and there, to be sure, may show steady and regular employment from month to month, but such plants are exceptions and by no means the rule in any industry.
The bill is based on wrong premises, because gainful employment will not be forthcoming. One of the saddest sights to be seen is the jobless. It is saddening and sickening to see these young transients, many of them from the high schools, riding the rods and sometimes losing their lives. I have here a dispatch dated Ottawa December 29, stating that a man was taken off the train at Arnprior frozen and had to be taken to the hospital. At Timmins Magistrate Atkinson said he had noticed a large number of such cases, when seven youths came before him charged with vagrancy, their only offence being that they could not find work. This is an indication of the growing seriousness of the unemployed youth problem. The magistrate in passing sentence in the Timmins police court said:
It is a terrible indictment of our social conditions that young men should be sentenced to gaol simply because they cannot find work.
The board of education of Toronto have a technical school system. That city is spending almost $13,000,000 in maintaining schools of all kinds and education; every year these children come out of the schools and are unable to find employment. I get every week fifteen or twenty letters on the subject. If

we had a proper national apprenticeship system with industry and national service with it such as they have in the old country, where industrialists take charge, it would give the youth a better system. As I said a year ago:
The urgent need of the present day is to control the entry of juveniles into employment, to make the termination of full time schooling coincide with that entry, to modify or eliminate all regulations or examinations which are obstacles rather than aids to that transition, and to ensure that the first years of employment shall be treated as years of training and continued education. This policy involves, first of all, not merely an educational but an industrial reform; the imposition on organized industries of a statutory duty to formulate their schemes or recruitment and training, or in other words a revival in a new form of the idea of apprenticeship as the path to a definite professional status. It involves in the second place an extension of compulsory full time school attendance, not to some fixed and unalterable point dictated by the requirements of school courses, but to points corresponding with the various approved recruitment schemes of industries.
Thirdly it means a new cooperation between the state and industry in the establishment of a system of part time education, designed to assist the gradual transition from full time school to full time employment and to combine a continuation of general education with the training of industrial skill. Finally it means the encouragement during full time school life of every contact with practical, including occupational, life outside the school which does not endanger health or unduly interfere with school work.
In our educational example one of the chief weaknesses of the body politic is the dislike manifested by many of the most enlightened industrialists, who are really keen on education, for any organized system of part time education and part time employment.
This idea needs careful testing before it is put into practice. As I say, many of these industrialists are keenly interested in education. There is the five day working week during which the employed juveniles receive training in the factory, with the universal system of Saturday morning continuation classes.
The industrialists of this country have not shown the interest in this work that they should. And I can tell hon. members why. It is because of the instability of business, of the tariff, of these foreign agreements and tariff tinkering, giving our home markets to others with the result that industry does not know where it is at, cannot expand, and fears to do anything. Therefore industrialists are lukewarm towards the minister's scheme or any scheme that would be proposed by this government after the fashion of the Purvis report. The chairman of that commission is the head of Canadian Industries Limited. That company has underwritten a large number of industries in this country, engaged

Unemployment-Youth Training
in agriculture, transportation and distribution. What is he doing in some of his own industries? He is utilizing machines in a way never before known in this country. He is a director of one of the largest companies that I referred to yesterday, one of these public utilities where they installed an invention that means loss of work to 4,630 employees and a reduction of $3,000,000 to $4,000,000 in the wage bill. So I say I have little faith in this scheme because, owing to the instability of business in Canada, the industrialists will not take part in it.
Another thing is that industrial life is continually changing. You may have certain conditions in an industry in January, and in April different conditions altogether, and business practically eliminated or changed in it by September. We have seasonal, casual and technological unemployment. If we bonused the industries of this country to a small percentage of the extent we are bemusing the farming industry, the way the Minister of Agriculture is acting as Santa Claus on the prairies; if the industries of this country and the industrial provinces could have some of this Santa Claus treatment, we might get somewhere with an apprenticeship system, and not only solve the youth problem but aid in this emergency industrial power and, with it, national service for the emergencies bound to come to Canada soon. But when we have nothing but artificial barriers, restraints and burdens placed upon industry, not only in Montreal but in Quebec, Halifax, Vancouver, Hamilton, Toronto and all the other industrial cities, that cannot be done, for these employers do not know what security they have. If we had a few of these Santa Claus hand-outs for Saskatchewan, given to the men engaged in industry, they would be glad to enter into some sort of scheme with the provinces or this government under which they would look after the high school youths on a proper apprenticeship system, and all those who do not get into high school.
I criticize this scheme on another ground. It lacks modern education in its outlook and in its effect. There is too much book-learning and too much red tape; there is too much of going round in a circle in order to qualify so as to come under this measure. In all our education in this country there is too much dependence per se on mere book learning; we seem to forget to teach the duties of citizenship, love of country, service and sacrifice for our fellow men. Duty and patriotism seem to be almost forgotten.
Another point is this: What has become of the policy of the government in regard to Bill No. 94? The Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) and the Minister of National Defence 71492-210
(Mr. Mackenzie) should have had by now some national policy related to defence adapted to our circumstances. We may have a rude awakening by to-morrow morning. A very important speech is to be made tomorrow by a dictator. What have they done about the unemployed youth and national service in England? What have they done about the apprenticeship system there? I have referred to the way in which British industrialists, under a proper system, have taken advantage of part-time apprenticeship and part-time education to help look after the youth of that nation. The right hon. Minister of Labour in England, Ernest Brown, understands the situation. He went to the old city of York, where he saw a large number of men standing about the market place, youths from sixteen to twenty-four, and he took advantage of that opportunity to address the unemployed at a luncheon given in his honour by the council of that city. What is the trouble with the Minister of Labour? Some of the provinces ignore this government. Take the legislature of Ontario, which just closed its sessions an hour or so ago. They refuse to have anything to do with this government; they refuse to qualify under any of these schemes. They want a system of unemployment insurance such as they have in England. The Couzens report of ten years ago referred to the necessity for a proper system of unemployment insurance, and that would do more for the unemployed than all the minister's schemes, palliatives, quack remedies and patent medicines.
At the present time Quebec and Ontario are willing to enter into an unemployment insurance scheme. The minister of labour of Ontario, Mr. Hipel, put through a bill under which, if this house will pass enabling legislation, Ontario will enter into such a scheme; and if they cannot get a joint arrangement they will start a scheme of their own under the Ontario act. They are ready to go ahead and do something without waiting for the report of the Rowell commission, which really is not the Rowell commission any more, because unfortunately that able gentleman who has done so much for this country is no longer a member of that commission. But what will be done with the report of that commission if, as and when it is made? It will be buried in the archives of this government; "earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust."
Next Monday is May day. If this is all the Toronto members can offer the unemployed of that city, I am afraid there will be a very large delegation of the unemployed go to Queens Park and many other places. What



Unemployment-Youth Training
about the transients? There is very little ahead for them to-day, and there will be more coming out of the high schools on June 30. I saw some of them on the Canadian National right of way near Torrance. I talked with some of them, and they told me they were going to ride the rods right through to Vancouver and look for work until they found it. Some of them come from the finest homes in this country. Their fathers are out of work and they do not want to loaf round home, so they have taken to the road. We had 286 of these young men who had been housed all winter in the coliseum, tramping the streets yesterday. They have closed the coliseum to these poor transients and they are without house or food. The Reverend John Frank, the able young rector of Holy Trinity Anglican church near Eaton's store last fall opened a hostel for others.
This afternoon the minister said he did almost a little begging with the Ontario government in order to get a few more meals for the transients after April 15 and got it extended to May 1. Look at the millions they are spending on the prairies and tne millions they are spending on wheat! Why not announce a policy for those on relief under which there will be a greater domestic consumption of grain? They talk of these people going on the farms. Why, most of these young fellows who have been raised in the cities are not qualified for work on farms. If the government want to do something to feed the poor people on relief in a country with such abundance of plenty, let them go to work and use more of our domestic grain products; let them nationalize a portion of the wheat crop in order that the people on relief may use far more of the grain that is stored here for home consumption. To-day these poor transients are walking the streets of Toronto, without homes. The province will do nothing for them, and certainly they are not the responsibility of the municipality, because the minister announced that the transients were to be looked after by the provinces. I should like to refer to the bill itself in this connection:
(iii) deserving transients certified as eligible by an appropriate provincial authority.
There you have it again; they must go to Queens Park and have some provincial authority approve them as eligible to come under this scheme. The other day I received a letter from a gentleman in Owen Sound criticizing the lack of attention to getting work for transients and youth. He is Mr. Ivor Wagner, general manager of the Dominion Transportation Company Limited of Owen

Sound, which operates a large service all along the upper lakes, Georgian bay, lake Huron, lake Erie and the ports of that vicinity. He is a returned soldier, and he states the case for these transients in three paragraphs:
A few nights ago a young fellow, he wasn't any more than nineteen knocked at our door, and asked for the price of a bed and breakfast. He was clean-cut, intelligent and sober, just one of the great army of transients which call at the house almost every day. The next morning on my way to the office, I passed group after group of boys and girls of all ages heading for the nearby public and high schools. Happy, boisterous, carefree youngsters, and I wondered just what the future held for them *when school-days were over. How many of those eager, lively kids would join the army of transients tramping the country from one end to the other, aimless, hopeless, and demoralized. Not a nice thought is it? . . but real nevertheless.
Then my thoughts travelled back two and half years ago when I joined my old comrades on a pilgrimage to France to witness the unveiling of the Vimy Ridge war memorial. At that time I spent a week in Germany to see how our erstwhile enemies were faring. I was greatly amused to see the variety of uniforms everyone seemed to be wearing; the young men marching with brightly shined shovels over their shoulders, the nine and ten year old boys stepping out smartly with little haversacks on their backs; the young girls in brown shirts with swastikas on their arms; the storm-troopers and the regular army men. My Canadian up-bringing whispered . . . "It's all wrong, its medieval . . . you cannot regiment people forever." That was two and a half years ago, and I still am 100 per cent sold that democracy is the best bet. but as I look back, I cannot help but recall that the youth of Germany were clean, clothed and fed, and most important of all were absolutely sold on Germany.
I wonder if that young fellow who called at our door for a bed and breakfast is sold on Canada, or if our school boys and girls will be sold on Canada when, in a few short years, they step out as men and women? If they are not, then believe you me, it will be too late to start a sales talk on the benefits of democracy. No, I haven't got the solution, but I'm thinking darned hard.
What did they do about such conditions in England? At .the luncheon in the old city of York the minister of labour and the secretary of state for war announced a policy of national service under which the youths would sign up under the apprenticeship system for five years. They would get board, lodging, pocket money, training in industry, some military training for national service and deferred pay, and at the end could qualify for jobs in the air force as mechanics and pilots, and in other key industries. A policy like that, on a volunteer basis, adapted to Canada's circumstances, near the large centres of population, I have advocated for the last three sessions, with part-time apprenticeship and part-time eduction and vocational training. In that way these young men would be

Unemployment-Youth Training
serving their country. We may have a rude awakening to-morrow. A million young men under rearmament have been conscripted by the Chamberlain cabinet, to fight the battles of this empire alone against the dictators. It is all very well to say it should not be done. Would it not be far better if this government were to adopt a scheme of national service in Canada adapted to our circumstances, for our youth than to let those 268 men, who were turned out of the home last night, without food or shelter, go, without any provision for them? They might be in training schools part of the time. On Saturday mornings and at other times they might be engaged on some useful scheme such as that which has been developed by Mr. Brown, Minister of Labour in England. In Canada it could be a volunteer system, adapted to our local conditions on a volunteer basis and close to the larger industrial cities and bonused by the government with industry, or as a national scheme.
What has been the result after two years of trial of the present system in England? Many of these youths have been trained for industry. They can take jobs as mechanics or pilots in the air force, or in other key industries in Great Britain. In a year or two they will be full journeymen. They are doing something in the old land to get something done along this line and be ready for any national domestic service. Instead of doing anything in Canada we did practically nothing towards getting a good share of rearmament orders from Great Britain. I said last year something should be done to establish reserves of food, but nothing has been done.
Under another clause of this bill there is too much dealing with the provinces and too little direct contact with the municipalities and with their school boards and school systems in technical schools, vocational schools and that sort of thing.
Then, under this bill the suburban worker seems to have been entirely forgotten. He is the man who lives near the city, but he is altogether forgotten by the government. Instead of spending large sums of money on uneconomical roads in back townships, would it not have been far better to have spent part of that money in the largest cities of the dominion where a great number of the unemployed are located, and, instead of this bill, give bonuses and subsidies to industry and let industry take over this bill? It would be better to help industry engage in that way and run this system instead of the Department of Labour.
I may say I am very much disappointed in the scheme, because in my opinion it has been weighed in the balance and has been
71492-210$
found wanting. It is not training anything like the numbers it should train. I do not know what is going to become of the youth, unless the government develops a better system along the fines I have suggested, by which there will be very little interference on the part of the government. The government should supply some national policy for the country.
At the beginning of the session I asked if the government would secure immediately a national register of man power, industrial power, economic power and food power, so that we may be prepared in a time of emergency. Security is better than optimism. However, the government has done nothing. This is the seventy-fourth day of the session and we have done very little.
While I sympathize with the minister, and do not wish him to think our criticism is in any way personal, I must say that this problem has not been solved. In the United States many schemes have been tried, and they have been a failure. There have been experiments all over the world. There is no doubt the minister has had a hard time, as did his predecessors. It is a tiresome and thankless burden he has, and he can please nobody. But I must say I believe the minister would be far better employed if he were to apply a bonus system in industry whereby industry could look after that which is their function, namely a system like this of apprenticeships. I say that because so many of these industrialists are keenly interested in education in the universities and high schools of the country, and could better handle this program.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to criticize the bill, because, although it may be inadequate in many respects, undoubtedly it is a beginning. The latter part of the explanatory note to the bill should commend itself to hon. members.
It notes that the bill makes it possible for the government to carry out the purpose of the bill over a period of years, instead of only for one year, as was the case when assistance was given through the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act. In this way the present measure is a great improvement, because it will enable the department to plan in advance.
In the explanatory note it is also stated that the general object of the bill is to promote and assist in the training of unemployed young people to fit them for gainful employment in Canada, and to supply the necessary administration and funds to that end. That is indeed a worthy object; but the difficulty which confronts not only the men who will be

Unemployment-Youth Training
inadequately trained under this measure, but men and women who leave training institutions efficiently and adequately trained, is that at the present time they cannot find work in gainful occupations.
I was impressed with the remarks of the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean) when he said that our aim should be to get the people to rely on themselves rather than expect governments to do everything for them. I think the hon. member for Melfort must realize in his more thoughtful moments that we have passed through the stage where individual effort, without having regard to social requirements and social needs, is of great importance.
When my people came to this country some hundred years ago my grandfather took his axe, went out to the woods and cleared a place where he built a log house; and then he began to clear the land. He lived a very hard life. His children and his grandchildren went without necessaries of life, because the necessaries were not there. But that has all changed. The land has been cleared; the log house has given place to the frame house; the oxcart has been replaced by the automobile and the aeroplane; and, as I said the other day, production has been socialized so that it requires the cooperation of almost everybody. No one can begin to-day to make his own living without regard to his social surroundings. The hon. member for Melfort can no more do it than can I or the unemployed.
If we examine in the light of present developments the apprenticeship system, of which so much has been said, we realize that it has gone, perhaps never to return. In a large measure the machine has replaced the skilled worker. A certain amount of skill is required, it is true, but it is not the skill of the tradesman. In earlier days a man went into a shoe factory to learn about the making of shoes. He learned to carry out every operation from selecting the leather to making the finished shoe. To-day a man, or a woman for that matter, goes in to a shoe factory to tend a machine. If he becomes skilled, he may always remain at that one machine until he leaves the plant because of old age. A man entering a shoe factory to-day under such conditions knows no more about making shoes than a man who has never been in a shoe factory at all. What is true of the shoe industry is true of almost every other industry that can be mentioned. The skill that comes from long years of apprenticeship is gone, and because of precision machinery the need for that skill is gone. We might as well forget about that part of the program.
	'	; iSSBB
We must begin not only to train people to do things, but to train people in social and cooperative effort so that they may learn to work together as they must work together to-day. There is no provision for this in the bill so far as I can see. When I left eastern Canada thirty-one years ago I went west on a harvest excursion to Manitoba along with thirty-five thousand other people from various parts of eastern Canada. To-day the west has all the help it needs, the days of the harvest excursions are gone. What has happened in the agricultural industry has happened to an even greater extent in other industries. I give these illustrations to show the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) and others just what is happening. Until we realize these things we are not going to make even a start in dealing with this problem of unemployed youth, unemployed adults and unemployed aged people.
My particular reason for rising to speak to-night is the statement which was made in the house yesterday by the minister in reply to a question by myself in connection with a certain number of unemployed young people in the city of Ottawa. I asked the minister if he had been informed that 110 men had been turned away the previous night from the Ottawa city mission, had had to spend the night in a building without beds, and were at that moment sitting on the sidewalk in front of the city hall. The minister's answer is reported on page 3232 of Hansard, where he said in part:
It has also been brought to the attention of the house that a considerable number of men have been placed in jobs through the employment office in Ottawa-100, in fact, in the week during which this group have been conducting demonstrations in the city of Ottawa.
Then, in answer to a further question by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), who wanted to know if the men had been advised where they might receive work or relief, the minister said:
I should hardly think it necessary to advise my hon. friend that there is one place where people can go if they are seeking work in the city of Ottawa-the employment service of Canada. In the week during which these men were conducting demonstrations in Ottawa, 100 men were placed through that employment service, some on farm work and some on the work being done by the Department of National Defence at Petawawa.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Is not the headquarters of this organization of single unemployed men actually just across the street from the employment service of Canada?


Angus MacInnis: That may be so.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Is it so?

Unemployment-Youth Training


Angus MacInnis: I do not know.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Does my hon. friend tell me that he does not know where the headquarters of this association is on Queen street.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, I do know.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Is it or is it not across the street from the employment service of Canada?


Angus MacInnis: I may know where one place is and not know the location of the other.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do you?


Angus MacInnis: I know where the unemployed men's hall is, but I do not know where the employment service of Canada is located in Ottawa. It has nothing to do with me. I do not have to go there to seek employment, and consequently it has not been necessary for me to find out where it is located.


Norman McLeod Rogers: For the information of my hon. friend I may saj^ that the employment service of Canada is just across the street from the headquarters of this organization.


Angus MacInnis: It has not the slightest bearing on what I have to say. I thank the minister for the information. It is just as valuable to me as it is to the single unemployed. What I wanted to point out was that the Minister of Labour had implied that there would be employment for these men if they went to the employment service.


Norman McLeod Rogers: One hundred men got jobs that way.


Angus MacInnis: The jobs that 100 men got were of no value to these 110 men who did not get jobs.


Norman McLeod Rogers: How many of that group made any attempt?


Angus MacInnis: I went down to the unemployed men's hall after I asked my question of the minister, and I asked them if they had registered at the employment service of Canada. Of the 110 men who were -there, they had all registered with the exception of twenty.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Has the leader of this organization, Mr. Mason, registered as yet with the employment service of Canada?


Angus MacInnis: I do not know whether the leader is registered.


Norman McLeod Rogers: How many members of the delegation that saw Mayor Lewis have registered at the employment service of Canada?


Angus MacInnis: I do not know.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The answer is "no" in each case.


Angus MacInnis: Of the 110 men who were there, all but twenty had registered. If the minister wants any further information I may tell him that I advised the other twenty to register as quickly as possible. But to register there is not very helpful to these men.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It was to a hundred men.


Angus MacInnis: In a report in the Ottawa Journal of to-day I find this:
Flat refusal by provincial and municipal authorities to provide relief for the men, followed a sit-down demonstration by 100 members of the single unemployed men's association in front of the civic offices, Transportation building, Wednesday afternoon.
Later in Toronto, E. A. Horton, deputy minister of public welfare, said that the province would take no action whatever in the matter. "It is a matter for the Ottawa municipal authorities," he said.
In the course of the interview with the delegation, Mayor Lewis asked the three men if they had registered at the offices of the employment service of Canada.
This gives the minister the information he wanted.
When they told him they had not, he suggested that they do so as soon as possible.
An official of the Ottawa employment service said during the last week 70 men from here-
Not 100.
-and 30 from Pembroke had obtained work which would last about a month at Petawawa


Norman McLeod Rogers: That does not include those placed in farm employment.


Angus MacInnis: The article continues:
They will be engaged largely in clearing up the site for the military camp.
"There is no standing order to-day for single men in this office," he said. "We Send men from time to time to casual jobs in different parts of the city. But I have at present no specific jobs for a single man."
Whether or not 100 men were sent out last week does not help the 110 men who are unemployed. It does not help them to be registered when there are no jobs to go to. When these men cannot find employment they must have a claim upon some governmental authority. This government in 1935 claimed that unemployment was a national problem, and all we are asking is that the government now recognize it as such and do something for these people who are still without work even though they are registered at the employment office. Being registered at the employment office will not give them something to eat or find them a bed to sleep in or clothes to wear. It is all very well for the minister to ask questions about this person
%

Unemployment-Youth Training
or that, to try to have it appear that it is because of some fault on the part of the individual that he is unemployed. But that is not the reason for the plight of these men. The reason is the break-down of the economic system under which we live. This government is responsible for carrying out and administering that system, and I am asking the minister to do something now for these men who are again to-night without a place to lay their heads.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I commend the minister (Mr. Rogers) upon his energy and vision in grappling with an impossible task. I do not hesitate for one minute to say that the task he is attempting is an utter impossibility; just as long as he and the government persist in trying to carry on under this system they will find it a complete impossibility, and the break-down will be all the more pathetic because of a change in the system being delayed.
The bill is designed to provide people with gainful employment in Canada. Two of the previous speakers have already asked, where is that gainful employment in Canada? I have three sons and three daughters who are ready for gainful employment; I have been scouring this country from one end to the other to find a place where there is gainful employment. If someone will tell me where it is, I will very soon prepare these children for it and put them into it, but I cannot find where it is.


Angus MacInnis: Register them at the
employment office.


John Horne Blackmore: Merely registering
them will not do a bit of good. These are the things I want to know as a practical parent facing the realities of life in Canada to-day. I want to know in how many activities is there actually need for trained people today. If the minister could prepare a list of such activities and print them in as fine a little booklet as the one in which he told of training Canada's young unemployed, and would distribute it throughout the country and let me have a copy, I would prize it highly because it would be a valuable guide to me.
I want to know also how many people are required in each of these activities at the present time, and how many people are at present preparing themselves to fill positions which may be opened within the next year in each one of these activities.
Next I want to know what is the income which they can expect to derive in these activities when they are prepared, and what

is the likely security which they will have. For example, is the job going to last one year or ten, or is it likely to last fifteen? If a son of mine undertakes to marry and establish a home on a job for which he is being prepared, has he any hope of getting through the first fifteen years? These are matters which everyone who is realistic is asking himself. It is all very well to laugh about these things, but as sure as we live we were looking for the answers to such questions when we were boys and our parents could give us a better assurance than we can give our children to-day.


Norman McLeod Rogers: May I ask the hon. member a question? How long is his present job going to last? Can he tell me that?


John Horne Blackmore: The job I prepared for and spent twenty-one years at would have lasted me thirty years, but there is not one of my sons to-day who has one-half the possibility I had of getting a job with exactly the same training I had thirty years ago. That is the exact situation to-day. I do not speak as one out of contact with realities because as the principal of a school I have seen my pupils go up to normal and come back and wait two or three years in town before getting a job, and then a job with no prospect such as we had. My experience with all these things has made me realistic. You cannot fool me with doll's play. We have to face realities.


Norman McLeod Rogers: You have never had absolute security as to jobs in this country.


John Horne Blackmore: But you had at least the possibility of security, and to-day you cannot even get started.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Oh, yes, you can; of course you can.


John Horne Blackmore: If you have good luck and you have the breaks.


Angus MacInnis: And the pull.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my hon. friend will
permit an observation I would frankly consider it a calamity if early in life I had the assurance of the same job as far ahead as I could see.


Mr. COLDWELL:: But not the opportunity of being able to make a living.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That was not the point. My hon. friend was speaking of complete assurance.


John Horne Blackmore: If a young man were the son of wealthy parents he might be able to say what the minister has just said.

House of Commons Staff


Norman McLeod Rogers: Would it not be a misfortune to be in that position?


John Horne Blackmore: It would be an absolute calamity not to be in that position. Would you go through the labour of training yourself to be an expert carpenter if you knew that all the carpentry work you would get would be one year's work?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is a different matter entirely.


John Horne Blackmore: It is the same kind of thing exactly.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. Eleven o'clock.


John Horne Blackmore: I should like to be allowed to finish what I was saying. I have spoken exactly five minutes and I shall take only half a minute more.
We want to know, what security is there; how much training is required; where it may be obtained; at what cost can the training be obtained; and is the proposed training adapted to equip one for any specific occupation? For example, is this youth training adapted to equip a person to accept a responsible position in industry and fill it satisfactorily? If the minister will tell the youth of Canada where the work is, and will show them that the work will support them and give them a chance of being able to support themselves and their families, and that the work will last at least ten years, and if he will help them to get to the training and help to support them while they are taking it, they will do the rest.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put,, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, April 28, 1939