[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Before the orders of the day are called I should like to bring to the notice of the house a matter which to me is of great importance.

Royal Seals
There appeared on the front page of an Ottawa newspaper yesterday the photograph of a young man, a servant of this house. No young man has his picture in the paper unless he has done something very good or something very bad. This young man on Sunday afternoon, all dressed in his Sunday clothes, with a companion, risked his life to save a little girl from drowning. The companion is Gordon Robillard, and the young man to whom I refer is Romeo Latreille. I would ask him to stand so that hon. members can look at him.
Romeo is a bashful boy, but he had initiative. He is a better baseball player than the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey), and he may have saved a great star. I am sure that Romeo will keep an eye on her and encourage her, and no doubt, at some distant date, Romeo will take his little Juliet by the hand and remind her of April 18, 1939-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Mr. McIVOR:: -and place in her hand a gold medal-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I have a suggestion to make. It is that we treat this young man with the respect worthy of one who has risked his life to save another. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the house for the courtesy you have shown me in my tribute to this young hero.



TRADE AGREEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). Can he inform the house whether the cattle quota under the trade agreement for the second quarter has been filled and what percentage in number Canada has supplied? Has Mexico shared in it, and to what extent?


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Perhaps I may answer the
question as far as I can, although it is addressed to my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture. The quota has not been filled, but I have not the information at hand as to what percentage has been reached. I can obtain it.



ROYAL SEALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: I wish to make a short statement,
which is not controversial, and on that to base several questions to the government, of which I gave notice yesterday.
The house will remember that Bill No. 76, dealing with the sealing of royal instruments, passed the house very rapidly on Tuesday afternoon last, the first day after the Easter recess. In accordance with the demands of the press that the progress of business be facilitated it passed without discussion, although I was absent and desired to put to the government certain questions regarding that bill upon its second reading or in committee- questions in which a considerable number of people in Canada who are interested in constitutional questions have shown deep concern.
The Regency Act, chapter 16 of the statutes of the United Kingdom for 1937, provides for a regency in the event of a sovereign acceding to the throne when under eighteen years of age, and that the royal functions shall in such case be performed in the name and on behalf of the sovereign by a regent. Provision is also made in the act for the appointment of a regent if, by reason of infirmity of mind or body, the sovereign is incapable for the time being of performing the royal functions, or is for some definite cause not available for the performance of those functions. The same act also provides that in the event of illness not amounting to such infirmity of mind or body, or of absence or of intended absence from the United Kingdom, the sovereign may, in order to prevent delay or difficulty in the dispatch of public business, by letters patent under the great seal, delegate to councillors of state, for the period of that illness or intended absence, such of the royal functions as may be specified in the letters patent.
It would appear that the Regency Act of 1937 probably binds Australia and New Zealand, as the parliament of neither of those dominions has yet adopted sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the statute of Westminster, 1931. although admittedly that statute does apply to Canada.
The Regency Act, 1937, as enacted at Westminster, does not recite that Canada has requested and consented to its enactment as provided in section 4 of the statute of Westminster, which enacts that-
4. No act of parliament of the United Kingdom, passed after the commencement of this
Royal Seals

act, shall extend, or be deemed to extend to a dominion as part of the law of that dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that act that the dominion has requested, and consented to the enactment thereof.
It is therefore possible that the Regency-Act, 1937, may not automatically extend to Canada as a part of the law of this dominion.
Several questions therefore arise for consideration :
1.	Will a regent, appointed under the Regency Act, ipso facto assume the performance of all royal functions relating to Canada, hitherto performed by his majesty in person?
2.	If not, why was not the necessary request made and consent given by Canada so that by its terms the Regency Act would apply to Canada?
3.	Is it assumed by the government that,
by the terms of the British North America Act, or otherwise, Canada now has the legislative authority to provide for the appointment of a regent in case the necessity should arise?	_
4.	What is now Canada's constitutional position in relation to the appointment of councillors of state under the terms of the Regency Act?
I am not requesting an immediate answer to these questions, but I respectfully suggest that at an early day and at a convenient time the government should clearly state the position which it officially takes with regard to these important matters.


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: With regard to the remarks of my hon. friend as to his not being present when the bill concerning the sealing of royal instruments was discussed in the house, I may say that I did not know he intended to speak on that bill. However the matter is still before parliament in another place, and if my hon. friend has any objections I am sure he could see that they are registered before the bill becomes law. But I do not see the connection between that bill and the questions he has just asked. My hon. friend says he intended on the second reading of the bill to make the remarks he has made about the Regency Act and ask the questions which he has just put on Hansard. The two matters are independent of each other. However, I shall see to it that my hon. friend gets an answer to the questions he has just asked, except perhaps that as my hon. friend well knows, it is not the business or under the rules it is not the task of the government or the Minister of Justice to give what would purport to be legal advice. But there are questions of fact which are embodied in his query, and I shall try to meet his wishes as far as possible as soon as I can look into the matter.


Mr. CHURCH:: Just some more unnecessary separatism.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I thank the right hon. gentleman. I will not enter upon an argument as to the relationship between the sealing of royal instruments bill and the questions which I have asked; but perhaps at some later time, if an opportunity is offered, I may be able to argue the question out with the right hon. gentleman. Under the rules of the house I am denied that privilege to-day.



TARIFF BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. LANDERYOU (Calgary East):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) when we may expect a report from the tariff board on the inquiry they have been conducting into radio matters.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): I expect to be able to table all the reports of the tariff board with the budget.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: I
understand that the Ontario legislature is to close next Friday. In view of the announcement made yesterday by the premier of Ontario about unemployment insurance, that he is prepared to act this week on provincial measures complementary to Ottawa legislation, I should like to ask the government, in the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) if they will take notice of this question to-day and let the house know if they are prepared either to act jointly with the provinces or to allow the provinces to go ahead separately with this insurance. I think the statement at the opening of the session was that we should have to await the report of the Rowell commission, but in view of the policy of the Ontario government I should like to know if the government will give a reply this week.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): It was stated at the opening of this session that the government were prepared to introduce legislation providing for a national scheme of unemployment insurance when it was possible to proceed with the constitutional amendment. Three provinces have declined as yet to give that consent to proceed with the constitutional amendment. When that

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
consent has been obtained and we can proceed with the constitutional amendment, the legislation will be introduced.


Thomas Langton Church: In view of the crop insurance measure under section 91 (1) of the British North America Act; why not have unemployment insurance at once? We have the power under "public debt and property , why wait for the report of the royal commission? The provinces are ready; why not do it now?


Ernest Lapointe: Order. Mr. SPEAKER: I think that is a matter of argument.



SABOTAGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). Within the last day or two items have appeared in the press with regard to thefts of dynamite and the fear of the legislature of Ontario of sabotage within this province. I should like to ask if this matter has been drawn to the attention of the minister and if his department is acting in association with the provincial authorities in regard to it.


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of National Defence):: This information came to my notice about an hour ago. We are taking active steps to look into the whole situation.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. LENNARD (Wentworth):: A press dispatch dated April 17 states that the Post Office Department is considering granting rural mail carriers four holidays a year in addition to Christmas and New Year's, namely May 24, Dominion day, Labour day and Thanksgiving day. May I ask the Postmaster General (Mr. McLarty) whether the department is considering extending this privilege to city letter carriers?


Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Postmaster General):: While I did not see the press report referred to, the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard) was kind enough to give me notice of his question. Representations have been made to the department by the executive of the Rural Mail Carriers' Association that the public service will not be interfered with if
these four holidays are granted. The matter is receiving consideration, but no decision has been arrived at. In reply to the second part of the question, I think I can say that it stands in much the same position.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, April 17, consideration in committee of the following proposed resolution-Mr. Rogers-Mr. Sanderson in the chair:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide assistance in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress and tor such purpose to authorize the execution of undertakings in the general interest of Canada and requisite for the purposes of the act, out of moneys appropriated by parliament, and also to provide financial assistance to the provinces by way of loan, advance or guarantee, out j unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund, and for the appointment ot necessary officers, clerks and employees.
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: I should like to direct the minister's attention to a statement he made the other day, appearing at page 2757 of Hansard. The minister was perturbed by statements made by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey), which statements he termed irresponsible. The minister had this to say:
Mr. Rogers:	I certainly do challenge the
figures, and I remind the hon. member that during the winter months there is not a province or municipality in which provision is not made for unemployed men.
Mr. Massey: For what time?
Mr. Rogers: From October until April.
Mr. Massey: For what class of men?
Mr. Rogers: Single unemployed men.
Would the minister care to elaborate on that statement? Surely he did not mean it exactly as it sounds?


Mr. ROGERS:: I believe the statement as made represents fairly the situation that exists in all the provinces at this time. In British Columbia, to begin at the western extremity, provision is made for single unemployed men through forest conservation camps, and they are also granted relief during those winter months. In the western provinces provision is made under the farm employment plan, and in the eastern provinces from Ontario to Nova Scotia there has never been any exclusion of single unemployed men, who are eligible for any form of relief that may be given in those provinces. That relief is given largely through public works in a number of the provinces, and single unemployed men are eligible for it.
2894	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Surely the minister knows that there are young men in eastern Canada at the present time who cannot qualify for any form of assistance that is given by the provincial and municipal governments. Surely he knows that in the city of Ottawa, as in other cities of eastern Canada, young men who were shipped east from the camps of British Columbia do not possess the necessary residential qualifications to obtain relief in these municipalities. The minister must know that in this very city of Ottawa there are young men who were shipped east from British Columbia. Representations have been made to the city, to the provincial authorities and to his own department in their behalf. Some of those young men are still in this city. Some were successful in getting into the mission, where they receive two meals a day and a bed. Some cannot get a bed at all, because the mission is full. The minister must know that there are young men in the city of Ottawa at the present time sleeping in the union station and begging on the streets. When the minister makes the statement that adequate provision is made in every province and every municipality, it may be technically correct but it is a fact that there are young men, transients, for whom no provision is made. It seems to me the statement is misleading.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend has referred particularly to a group of unemployed young men who came to Ottawa some weeks ago from British Columbia. These men were formerly attached to a forest conservation camp in British Columbia known as the Cultus Lake camp. As the result of a violation of the discipline established in that camp two of the men were discharged and the remainder went on strike. The provincial government in charge of the administration of the camp then decided that it was impossible to continue the provision previously made for the men in the Cultus Lake camp, and they were offered transportation to their alleged homes in eastern Canada. I say "alleged homes" because, as the hon. member for Vancouver North mentioned last night, some of these young men did not have permanent domiciles here. At all events they were given transportation and also cash vouchers covering two weeks after arrival at their destination. Not many of these men gave Ottawa as their domicile; I think I am correct in saying that only two of them did so, but the entire group that was discharged from the Cultus Lake camp came to Ottawa. This was done, I suggest, not directly for the purpose of gaining employment, but, as some of their leaders have

acknowledged, for the purpose of bringing their condition to the attention of the dominion government.
I suggest to my hon. friend that if these men had obeyed camp regulations they would not be in the position in which they find themselves to-day. As the situation now stands they are eligible, equally with other single unemployed men in this province, for farm employment which normally develops at this time of year and also for such public construction projects as are undertaken at this time of year.


Mr. MacNEIL:: When the minister makes statements such as this I wonder why he is surprised when vehement remarks are made from this side of the house. The minister is well aware that there is another side to the story. After all there were only 32 men involved in that incident at the Cultus Lake camp, but there are over two hundred of these men in the city of Ottawa to-day. There are men in eastern Canada who were shipped back from the Capilano Canyon camp, which was established in British Columbia for eastern transients. There are other men in eastern Canada who did technically observe all the regulations of the Cultus Lake camp but who were sent back east anyway. The minister says they were given provision for two weeks. All they actually received were two $4 cheques, and one of these had to be cashed on the way east because adequate provision was not made for food in all instances.
May I point out that the reason trouble developed in the Cultus Lake camp was that the men never got a break from the start. In the first instance they were kicked around the streets of Vancouver from the police station to Abbott House, back and forth, and an effort was made by the provincial and federal authorities to crush an organization which they had a legitimate right to form to bring their grievances to the attention of the government of the day.


Norman McLeod Rogers: What evidence has my hon. friend for that statement?


Charles Grant MacNeil: Evidence of actual contact, and experience with the situation in Vancouver. There has been almost daily contact with the men and daily negotiations by some of my colleagues with the authorities, seeking redress of the legitimate grievances of those men in Vancouver.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The hon. member has stated that the federal and provincial governments were out to break up the organization. What evidence has he?

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Charles Grant MacNeil: I said breaking up a legitimate organization which was formed to bring their grievances to the attention of t'he public.


Norman McLeod Rogers: What evidence has he the federal government has done anything in that direction?


Charles Grant MacNeil: I said the authorities.


Norman McLeod Rogers: You said the federal and provincial governments.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I said last night that the federal government never took any steps to aid 107 men who were sent to gaol and sentenced to four and six months at the time the agreements to establish the forestry camps were under consideration. Surely officials of the federal department knew that those agreements were in course of preparation. If they had advised the police authorities at Vancouver that these agreements were on the way, no man would have gone to gaol. Steps would have been taken to look after them in the interim. If that was not a fair indication of an attempt to crush their organization, I do not know what it was.
The transients who went to the camp were put on a forty-four hour week, with arduous manual labour, and were not allowed at the outset one cent of cash to put in their pockets. They were allowed goods to the amount of $1.25 per week, from the camp commissary. The camps were not in operation more than two or three weeks when the men were in trouble with regard to this grievance, and it became necessary, through cooperation with provincial authorities and others, to negotiate on behalf of the men. When the difficulties were brought to the attention of the provincial minister of labour they were quickly ironed out. But the minister of labour in British Columbia did agree that the men could establish within the camp their own organization, a cooperative committee which would have the right to approach camp authorities with regard to their legitimate grievances. The difficulty arose in Cultus Lake camp. It should be said in fairness to the men that there was a misunderstanding. The authorities could have exercised leniency. A great majority of the men did turn in an honest day's work, did try to abide by the rules, and did try to use legitimate legal channels in seeking an adjustment of their grievances. It is the denial to the men of the right to secure redress for legitimate grievances which has caused ninety per cent of the trouble to which the minister has referred.


Mr. WARREN:: It had not been my intention to enter into a discussion of this matter. But listening, as I have listened, to the
"observations of hon. members, and particularly hon. members belonging to the two groups directly opposite me, it has-


An hon. MEMBER:: Got to have some education of the members of the house.


Ralph Melville Warren: Perhaps I can give you some education. But above all, what gets under my skin is this, that there is a deliberate attempt, as I see it, on the part of certain members to encourage our young Canadian men to rely wholly on the government for their livelihood.


John Charles Landeryou: What else can thej do?


Ralph Melville Warren: What else can they do? What did you and I do? Did you or I ever ask the government to help us out? I never did, and I do not know of any young man in my own community who was brought up to believe or to think for a minute that the government should be responsible for providing him with a living. We were brought up to believe that it was our right to live, and that it was on our own initiative that we must make a living. It was up to ourselves to do it.
When hon. members talk about single homeless transients I always think of the single homeless transients in my own community and in any other rural community throughout Canada. They are the young men, homeless young men who have come from the old country. Even in the hardest of times I have never known any of those boys to drift back to those communities when the doors were not opened to them. Some farmer was always ready to give them a job. Perhaps they would have to work at small wages; certainly the wages would be small in bad times, but they always had a home, and wages enough to provide them with clothing. They had food to eat and a place in which they could find shelter.
My suspicions of last summer, on a very hurried trip to the west, have been confirmed by the observations of the hon. member who has just taken his seat. While travelling on the train I did suspect that a definite organization had been formed among the men who termed themselves the single homeless transients, that they had their officials travelling from east to west organizing and disciplining them. Well, evidently that is true. Just what class of men are leading the organization is something I should like to know. During my brief stay in Vancouver I took occasion to look around and to inspect particularly the post office where the men sat down last spring.

2896	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
On what I considered good authority I was informed that a large percentage of the men who sat in the post office last year had prison records. Here is something-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On what
authority does the hon. member base that statement?


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Never mind that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Another ir-
* responsible statement.


Ralph Melville Warren: Here is something else
which-


Mr. MacINNIS:: He should withdraw that.


Ralph Melville Warren: I had friends at Penticton. Naturally in travelling around one takes occasion to ask questions here and there about things in which he may be interested. Here is something I learned. In the summer months a body of 163 transients drifted into Penticton. What did they do? They went around to the authorities and asked where they were going to be billeted. The armouries, or some such building was turned over to them. They set up their own establishment and put out their own pickets. A policeman came around to look them over and was informed that he was not needed, that they were looking after themselves. They sent their publicity men around to the printing offices to have their literature printed, and that literature is sold here and there throughout the city. Naturally they pick up a lot of money in that way. Anyone would give them a dime or a quarter. That amount was in addition to what they were already getting. I have just forgotten the figure, but I believe they received S3.68 each for three days, or six days-something like that-to last them two weeks. However, here is the point I am making. I was talking to the man sent out to interview them and ask them to go out and fight forest fires-which were raging in British Columbia. Only 40 out of 163 would go, on government pay.


John Charles Landeryou: How much?


Ralph Melville Warren: Regular wages-I suppose it would be thirty-five cents an hour. However, the greater number would not go.


John Charles Landeryou: Based on gossip.


Ralph Melville Warren: It is not gossip. I was
talking to the very policeman who went to interview them. Then the hose were cut and sand was put in the gasoline, and that sort of thing.
When we listen to this talk we ought to remember we are not talking about ninety-five per cent of the splendid Canadian boys

who are finding their own way, and making their own living. We are talking about that five per cent who for some reason or another do not get work-and I am going to say this, that in my opinion some of them are transients by choice, and not because they have to be. Even if a boy did not know anything about farming, if he would go to many of the farmers in this country and show a willingness to work for what the farmer can afford to pay him for the time being, he would receive work, and in a year or two he would develop into a man who could go out and do any kind of hard work, and find a job. You do not go through any of our rural communities and find men looking for jobs. Jobs are waiting for them.


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


Ralph Melville Warren: You listen; we have listened to you, plenty. We have not taken up a great deal of time, but we have heard plenty from you.
Let me give you this illustration. Perhaps you would term this man a single homeless transient. He is an old country boy, and he has been working for us on and off for a few years.


John Charles Landeryou: What did you pay him?


Ralph Melville Warren: We paid him a dollar a day and his board and lodging. On a Saturday night in August he quit his job of his own free will.


John Charles Landeryou: I do not blame him.


Ralph Melville Warren: He was what you might term a single homeless transient. What did he do? On Monday he went up to a lumber camp to work, at a rate of $37 a month with his board and lodging. After seven months he came back and he was able to fit himself out with a new suit of clothes, an overcoat, shoes, and all the rest of it. In a couple of days he started to work for us again at a dollar a day, and was quite satisfied and happy to do so. This is just an example of what is happening all over the country. These boys out in the country are not begging the government to keep them. They are getting out and finding their own jobs. Some of these boys have worked for $10 a month, and perhaps even less, but they are real men. This man I am talking about can go into a lumber camp and do the hardest work; he can turn his hand to anything. When this man quit on a Saturday, we hired another man on Monday who stayed with us two months. He was paid a dollar a day, but then he quit and found his way into the

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
lumber camps. He worked for five months at $37 a month. This country is full of that type of men. I suppose ninety-five per cent of our young Canadians are of that type; yet we have to listen here day after day and week after week to speeches which would indicate that the remaining five per cent are the only young Canadians who amount to anything, or who are of importance in this house.


Mr. JAQUES:: If conditions in Canada are such that any young Canadian who is willing can get a job, how is it that there are more native bom Canadians living in the United States than there are in Canada?


Ralph Melville Warren: Our young Canadians are so capable that they can go to the United States and get jobs.


Mr. REID:: That statement is not correct. Give us the figures.


Norman Jaques: I have never heard that statement contradicted before.


Thomas Reid: I dispute it and I defy the hon. member to prove it. The hon. member is making the statement; why should I prove it for him?


Norman Jaques: It is a statement which I have never heard contradicted before. My own conclusion is that conditions here have been so mean in the past that more Canadians-
. Mr. McPHEE: Why did the hon. member come to Canada, then?


Norman Jaques: I was one of those who came here and stayed here, but there are more Canadians who have left this country to live in the United States than there are living in Canada.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I resent the innuendo of the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Warren) in connection with the Cultus Lake camp. May I explain that I was asked to go to this camp in order to make what contribution I could toward ironing out the difficulties which had arisen. It was thought that perhaps these men would listen to me. These men came from Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces. They had left the eastern part of the country in a search for work and had been caught in Vancouver because of their enterprise in searching for work. The majority of them did not want to go to the camp; they did not want relief. They said that all they wanted was some kind of work at decent wages. That was all they were looking for. But no such work was available in British Columbia at that 71492-183}
time. It certainly could not be found in the logging camps or on the farms of British Columbia, especially at that season of the year. There was no direction in which we could turn to find work for these men. On several occasions I queried the officials of the employment service as to whether there was work anywhere in British Columbia, as indicated by their reports from all points in the province, but they told me they could not do anything about it; that there was no work.
What were these men to do? Starve? The local welfare agencies did what they could. In recognition of the fact that there was no work, the federal and provincial governments reluctantly opened up the forestry camps. The majority of these men did splendid work in the camps. I daresay there were some misfits, but having regard to the conditions that have existed during the last five or six years, and the way these men have been kicked about, you could not help but have some misfits. Some of these men have lost all hope; they feel they would rather go to gaol than endure what they have had to endure. Look what happened here the other night. These men contend that nothing could be worse than the conditions which they have had to endure. May I say that I have been in touch with committees of business men who have made a most earnest endeavour to get work for these men. They were making endeavours at that particular time, but they could not secure any work. In every instance that I know of where work was made available, the men grasped the opportunity and most of them made good.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Will the hon. member
answer this question? As he well knows, the leader of this group which has been forming in Ottawa is named Mason. Has Mr. Mason registered at the employment service in Ottawa since he arrived here two months ago?


Charles Grant MacNeil: I do not know. I have no knowledge of that fact.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Then I can inform my hon. friend that he has not. He arrived here two months ago, as my hon. friend says, presumably to look for work, but he has not registered at the employment service, or had not up until Saturday of last week.


Charles Grant MacNeil: The minister knows very well that the officials of the employment service are not encouraging men to register, and the men know very well that there is no hope of work.


Norman McLeod Rogers: How can my hon. friend say that, when, as I informed him the other day, 1,300 men from the Ottawa office were placed
2898	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
on farms, last year, and they are now proceeding to farms at the rate of twenty-five per week?


Charles Grant MacNeil: I cannot answer as to
individual cases, but I do say that the great majority of these men have accepted work when it has been offered. They have been ready to take decent work at decent wages. Many of these men are without the proper clothes to permit them to work on a farm at this time of year, and they dare not accept such employment unless they are to be provided with clothes. Very few of them have proper shoes or warm clothing to permit them to work out of doors.
My hon. friend has suggested that the organization at the Cultus Lake camp was part of a dominion-wide organization, but when I visited there they had had no contact with any organization in any other part of the province. It was simply an organization formed to deal with their camp grievances, and to engage in mutually beneficial work among the transients across Canada. That Cultus Lake organization was not part of any organized scheme for subversive purposes, as was suggested by the hon. member.


Ralph Melville Warren: It looked as though there was some kind of organization when these men, after being turned out of the post office in Vancouver, went down the streets of that city and broke $30,000 worth of plate glass windows.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Since this matter has been brought up by a number of hon. members this afternoon, it is important that the record should be complete and not open to contradiction. The particular group to which my hon. friend has referred came to Ottawa from Cultus Lake.


Charles Grant MacNeil: How many?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The nucleus of the organized group in Ottawa, numbering some thirty-two, came from the Cultus Lake conservation camp in British Columbia.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Some thirty-two?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The nucleus of the group. As a matter of fact there was no organization of single unemployed men in Ottawa until these men arrived here.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is not so.


Norman McLeod Rogers: As I mentioned a few moments ago, these men were discharged from Cultus Lake camp because of a breach of the regulations. After their discharge an inquiry was addressed to the administrator of unemployment relief in Victoria by Mayor Telford of Vancouver, and the administrator of unem-

ployment relief, Mr. Griffith, replied in the following terms-I place this telegram on Hansard because it is a public document and sets out clearly what was done for these men in the forest conservation camps:
Mayor J. Lyle Telford,
City Hall,
Vancouver, B.C.
Your telegram eleventh to chief forester referred to me for answer. In dealing with transients from Ontario, Quebec and other eastern provinces who were not eligible for assistance in this province, it was decided that rather than ask them to make their own way home again we would provide them with work to enable each man to earn his railway fare home plus sufficient extra money to carry him for half month after arrival. Separate camps were established at Cultus lake and Capilano, but working conditions, food, shelter, recreation, et cetera, are exactly same as in all other camps. These men were provided with complete outfit of clothing and boots. They were allowed two fifty per week for personal commissary, half payable in cash, and provided with excellent food, recreation facilities, medical, dental and hospital care, and freedom to go where they pleased during non-working hours. Every man agreed to terms before entering camp, but from inception at least sixteen men have been determined to disorganize the camp and prevent others from working. In addition to malingering, destroying property and using obstructive tactics, they apparently alienated the sympathy of residents in the district, who appealed early in December to have them removed on the grounds they were a menace to the community and to property. Despite all this we have endeavoured in every way possible to persuade the men to obey camp regulations and do a reasonable day's work. On ninth instant two men failed to report for work and were dismissed, and on the tenth forty-seven men left their jobs and departed from camp. These men were not dismissed but could not be maintained in idleness in a work camp.
They went on strike, as I explained a moment ago.
No assistance will be afforded to them, but any individual applying for transportation will receive it immediately.
E. W. Griffith.
That is the statement made by Mr. Griffith to Mayor Telford of Vancouver.
I wish also to place on Hansard the official report of what took place at Cultus Lake which led to these men leaving that camp, returning to eastern Canada, and then concentrating in the city of Ottawa. This was the report:
About 2 p.m., Monday, January 9, a telephone call was received at the Victoria office from Mr. Carl Bloom, foreman in charge of project No. 19, Cultus Lake. Mr. Bloom informed us that three men had returned to camp at noon on that day to go to work. These men had not received and had not asked for permission to absent themselves from camp Monday morning; consequently immediately they returned they were discharged. The remainder of the men under the leadership of Harold W. Mason, a camp enrollee, intimated to the fore-

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
man they would go on strike if these three men were not reinstated. Upon further consideration, however, they decided to return to work and despatched Mason to phone the Victoria office to try and have Bloom's decision reversed.
Bloom was foreman of Cultus Lake camp
Mason phoned this office at approximately 3 p.m., Monday, January 9, and was told- after hearing his story which concurred entirely with Foreman Bloom's-that the foreman in charge of the camp had made a fair decision as far as this office was concerned and we would in no way reverse it. Mason's only reply was that he could not be responsible for the actions of the men in camp if the discharged trio were not reinstated.
At 10 a.m. Tuesday, January 10, a further telephone call was received from Foreman Bloom informing us that the majority of the camp were on strike and asked for further instructions. He was informed that the men would either have to go to work or leave camp immediately and was told to have the provincial police on hand in case of any demonstration. About 11 a.m. of the same day another phone call was received from Bloom informing us that 47 of the men in camp had packed their belongings and calmly walked out. This left 18 men in camp who refused to go on strike.
This insurrection culminated two months of concentrated efforts on the part of the camp enrollees to accomplish as little work as possible during working hours and to make life as miserable as possible for camp officials both during and after working hours. There is no doubt but that the main body of camp workers were dominated by a subversive element specially trained in the art of disorganization.
And yet my hon. friend accuses the federal and provincial governments of seeking to disorganize the camp. The real source of the disorganization is evident in the official report. It continues:
This subversive element consisted of the eighteen members, marked by asterisk, in the following list. Approximately thirty of the strikers left camp only through the influence of these 18 agitators. The thirty "lukewarm" strikers were possibly afraid of the consequences threatened by the agitators if they refused to take a strike action.
Personally I am glad the hon. member for Renfrew North has placed this problem before the house in its proper proportions.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Does the minister endorse his view?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Let me continue, if you please. From the very beginning I have expressed the view that the vast majority of the single unemployed men are ready and willing to work and deserve every reasonable assistance that can be given them. I submit, and I did say last year at the time of the Vancouver troubles, that the interest of the vast majority of these men has been prejudiced by the agitation of a limited few, whose interest is rather in the organization of the unemployed and their exploitation, and not,
I submit, in the welfare of that body at large. I suggest that it is wholly unreasonable to expect that any group of single unemployed men as a result of demonstration or organization, can be given preferred employment on public works-and I wonder sometimes if my hon. friends in that corner of the house still conceive of work in any other terms. They seem to assume that the only work available in this country is such as can be provided by governments. A certain amount of work is provided for these men eveiy summer by governments, through the expansion of normal services. We are this year expanding the normal services in forestry, which undoubtedly will have some effect in providing employment for this group of men. So far as the vast majority of them are concerned I have no doubt at all that they are ready to work. But the few who engage themselves in agitation, I submit, have very little claim on our sympathy.


John Charles Landeryou: Can the minister think of any industry in Canada that needs more men to-day? Can he think of one?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I can think of one, certainly. The basic industry of this country is agriculture.


Norman Jaques: We cannot sell what we raise. We have to give it away.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have already indicated that from this Ottawa office alone 1,300 men were placed on farms last year, and that is equally true of employment offices in other sections of this province. Farming operations begin at aibout this time of the year. If my hon. friends had their way, and if public employment were provided for all single unemployed men, I suggest that we would be doing a great disservice to the basic industry of this country.


John Charles Landeryou: The minister in reply to my question said that he could name one industry that needed men-agriculture. I know he cannot think of any other industry, because there is none where there is opportunity for further employment. How many single transients are there in Canada, and how many unemployed young people are there who are not transients but are living at home and being taken care of by their parents?


Norman McLeod Rogers: So far as single transients are concerned for whom no provision whatever is made, the number certainly would be well under the ten thousand mark. That was the computation which was made as a result of an inquiry sent to the provinces earlier this winter. In the majority of the provinces- I include only those men who are really on the rolls-some provision is available during
2900	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
the winter months, and in some of the provinces that provision is extended through the summer months as well. Other provinces believe from experience that it is possible for these single unemployed men to find seasonal employment in the summer months. For that reason the relief measures are withdrawn, sometimes in the middle of April and sometimes the first of May. In British Columbia the period of seasonal employment is usually extended from June until October. Certainly, if my hon. friend is aware, as I presume he is, of the demand for agricultural assistance and for other forms of seasonal employment in western Canada, he will know that there is occasionally a month when the increase in employment offered in this country has reached as high as 60,000 to 75,000. I doubt whether there are many countries in the world where there is as large an incidence of seasonal employment.


John Charles Landeryou: The minister said there were about 10,000 single transients roaming up and down across the country, but I asked him for the total number. According to the dominion commissioner of unemployment relief, in his report for 1935, the persons actually in relief camps on March 30, 1935, were 20,359, while the total number who had passed through the defence camps at February, 1935, was 112,949. It has been estimated that there are about 400,000 single unemployed throughout Canada. I want to know whether the minister has the actual figures to show the number of single unemployed persons, those who are transient and those who are living at home, unemployed. Can he give me a complete picture of the youth problem?


Norman McLeod Rogers: As regards the registration of those on relief, the figures are available, and I will secure them for the hon. member when the bill is before the committee. As regards the unemployed on relief, a census taken in 1936 in the western provinces gave some indication of the comparison between the young unemployed on relief and the unemployed not on relief. I had occasion to refer to these figures some time ago and I will look them up again and present them later.


John Charles Landeryou: Agriculture being the only industry that employs single unemployed men, I was naturally interested to find out what percentage of the unemployed could be employed in agriculture. It is seasonal employment. They pick fruit in eastern Canada and do some harvesting in the west in the fall and some work in the spring when the crops are going in, and they also do a little work in British Columbia. It is seasonal employment extending over four months of

the year altogether. In the fall and the spring together it is about four months. The committee that was discussing the youth problem with me stated that to-day there is no opportunity for employment in seasonal work in agriculture for more than between 35 and 40 per cent of all the available man power among the single unemployed. The minister should be able to give a complete picture of the youth problem. The hon. member for Renfrew North says that we are concerned only with five per cent; that is all we hear any talk about. Well, the minister cannot give us a complete picture of the situation. He is not in a position to give us the exact figures. Thousands of trained artisans, bricklayers, plasterers, plumbers, men in all walks of life, are unemployed, and they have no opportunity. I hope the minister will be able to give us all the figures setting out a complete picture of the youth problem in Canada. Are we to say that there is to be no opportunity of employment for these men in the years to come? Are we to say that all they can do is work on the farm for 85 a month, and for the rest of the year go from pillar to post, eating in slop kitchens or being put into relief camps, or being forced to draw attention to their plight by means of insurrection or the taking over of some government building, the government bombing them out with gas bombs, and chasing them back and forth? Is that to be the future of the youth of Canada? We want to know what opportunity there will be for them.
The government say, "We will put them in industry." But what opportunity is there for them in industry? Thousands of young men are coming out of schools and universities better prepared to make a contribution to the development of the country than was the hon. member for Renfrew North when he was their age, but no opportunity is afforded them. The future is closed to them so far as the development of this country is concerned
I should like the minister to review the whole situation and to hold out some hope for these young people who to-day are despondent. In my own constituency dozens of young fellows come to me and write letters telling of their condition. On my own street not five per cent of the young fellows between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five are employed. They cannot get jobs. Ask any man in any city and he will say he knows personally of ten or fifteen young fellows between the ages of eighteen and thirty who are unemployed. That is the position to-day, and every member knows it. It is true of my constituency and it is true of every other.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Mr. DONNELLY:: They are waiting for the S25.


John Charles Landeryou: What have you to
offer them? It is all very well to say that there are only five per cent that we have to worry about, but the problem is far more serious than that.


Mr. BLAIR:: It is unfortunate that a party should take up this cause in such an absurd way. We know there are some unemployed. There have always been and there will always be. The minister made the statement that seventy-five per cent of them are willing to work-


An hon. MEMBER:: Ninety-five per cent.


John Knox Blair: I have not found it so. I have farms lying idle and there are many farms in western Canada that are idle.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Why are they idle?


John Knox Blair: The trouble is, the young men to-day are lacking in spine.


John Charles Landeryou: That is a slander.


John Knox Blair: Yes, and you fellows are
encouraging them in a lot of nonsense. I have tried to get men time and again to work. I have one farm idle and I want someone to work it. I am offering to equip it and supply it with grain, and whoever works it can make half the profits, and I will give him part of the wages as he goes along.


An hon. MEMBER:: At sixty cents a bushel?


John Knox Blair: I have asked many men in the last two weeks to take the farm, but when I approach one capable looking fellow I find that there is beer on his breath. Then I try another fellow to see if his breath is free of beer. These fellows are out licking up beer and smoking cigarettes and I cannot have them around my barn smoking cigarettes. I try to pick out fellows who seem to have personality, but they will not work on my farm. I tried to get a brick house moved on one of my farms and I went to a bricklayer who was whining just as you fellows are, but he talks a lot of nonsense, because I found that he wanted 810 a day to lay 400 bricks.


John Charles Landeryou: What do you get?


John Knox Blair: I told him, "You had better go and lay bricks for yourself." I doubt if any of you have any hired men working for you. I doubt if any of you need a hired man, and I doubt if many of you are working yourselves. I go on the farm and I work with the men; I know and understand their troubles just as well as hon. members do.


John Charles Landeryou: I thought you said
you could not get any.


John Knox Blair: I have a large number of men working with me all the time, and I have sympathy with them. But when I go to your city bums from the street I cannot get a man in fifty. You might think you could, b.ut just you go and hire some of these yaps on the streets and you will see what you have got. In the country I can get men that have a spine but I cannot when I pick up these travelling transients. I give them rides up and down the road in my car-not as many of them as I did a few years ago; there are not so many-I question them: Do you want a job on the farm? They answer, no.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: What do you pay them?


John Knox Blair: I am trying to come to
terms with them. If I were out of a job I would work for my board and clothes rather than beg.


Mr. COLDWELL:: It is all right to say it now.


John Knox Blair: These spineless fellows rambling about and depending on you to keep on doing it expect to be carried in an economic sedan chair and to be spoonfed. It is a strange picture.


Charles Edward Johnston: Is that
the attitude of the Liberal party?


John Knox Blair: I am speaking of what I see myself, and I must say I do not like the attitude of the parties on that side. Do not encourage them to think that the government should carry them along; talk sense to these fellows, tell them to get a job for themselves, stand on their feet, be men.


Angus MacInnis: Why did you not say that in 1935?


John Knox Blair: I always said it.


John Charles Landeryou: Quote what your
leader said in 1935.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. I would ask hon. members in the far corner not to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor.


William Daum Euler: One in particular, interrupting all the time.


John Knox Blair: Our papers are full of war scare news, and it is destroying our industries. Those who are running our industries keep their money in the banks; there never was as much money in the banks as there is at the
2902	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
present day. The war scare is keeping our industries from going forward, and between the newspapers and the radio it has caused a lot of unemployment. What we need is to let this war scare die down. Our boys should be encouraged, and not told that we are going to carry them along and spoonfeed them. It destroys personality, destroys manhood. Tell them to get out and find work for themselves, not expect people to run to them with a job; if they cannot get one job, to get another. If we do this it will be better for all concerned.


Angus MacInnis: Nothing has come to my attention during this udiole debate that has shown the lack of understanding on this question as clearly as the statement made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) a few moments ago in reply to the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Landeryou). The minister was asked where employment could be found at the present time, and he replied, in agriculture. As if increasing the number of people engaged in agriculture were going to get the people of this country out of any of their present difficulties! If you could put all the unemployed in Canada into agriculture, what would happen is that you would have to pay in bonuses to farmers and in set prices for wheat and butter and cheese and other agricultural products what you are to-day paying to the unemployed in the form of relief.


Mr. EVANS:: Is not that your policy, to pay bonuses?


Angus MacInnis: It is not only our policy, it is your policy, but you do not admit it is your policy; you just carry it on because you do not know how to work out another policy. This lack of understanding is the more regrettable in a man of the intelligence of the Minister of Labour, who should have understanding. As I sat here and listened to his supporters in this debate I felt sure that he was caused more embarrassment by his supporters than by any criticism from this side of the house. We have hon. members standing in their places here, as happened the other day, and saying that we always had unemployment, that Christ said "Ye have the poor always with you," and another hon. member over here to-day saying that if we end unemployment we are going against what Christ said. What blasphemy! Although Christ did say "Ye have the poor always with you," it does not mean at all that there was unemployment in His time. All down through the ages there has been poverty, but that poverty is not the same as the poverty of to-day. The poverty of other days was poverty because of scarcity, because of the 
inability of people to produce from nature sufficient to feed themselves. But the poverty of to-day is caused by the ability of the people to produce too much. The poverty of the last eight years has been a poverty of abundance. Did not the Prime Minister state that very clearly on October 14, 1935 when he was elected? Let me read it again, so that hon. members can get it into their minds, get it so they will not forget it, and consequently so that they may have some clear idea of what is wrong in society to-day. He said:
We take up at once, as our supreme task, the endeavour-
Endeavour to do what?

to end poverty in the midst of plenty, starvation and unnecessary suffering in a land of abundance, discontent and distress in a country more blessed by Providence than any other on the face of the globe.
Those are the words of the Prime Minister, spoken when he was elected in 1935. That is what hon. gentlemen opposite blamed the former government for not doing, yet when the question comes before them to-day, what do they do? Man after man on that side of the house gets up and libels the young men of this country, the young men whom, if war were to break out to-morrow, they would call upon to defend the institutions of this country. What institutions are they to defend? Soup kitchens, camps, hostels, lousy dumps, all that sort of thing; that is all you have given them. Now, sir, that is not good enough. We want something better than that for the unemployed, and they are entitled to something better.
There is only one thing wrong with our economic life to-day: it is not properly organized. There is enough for everyone, but when I read in the press that a man died here a few days ago leaving a fortune of $6,000,000 I can understand mass poverty. I can understand mass poverty when we allow one individual to amass wealth to that extent. That sort of thing will have to be stopped before anything can be done with the problems confronting us to-day.
I have nothing but the most kindly feelings towards the Minister of Labour. I dislike immensely having to criticize him, because I know the difficulty of the task with which he is confronted, and I know also it must be distasteful to him to stand up and defend the policy that he has to defend. And I say again, it is distasteful to me to criticize him. But he says these men are interested only in organizing and agitating.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I said a few of them; I mentioned those who came from Cultus Lake.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Angus MacInnis: Let me tell my hon. friend-and he knows it as well as I do-that it is because of the agitation and organization of those few who were prepared to endure almost anything that the great mass have whatever they have to-day.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Oh, no.


Angus MacInnis: Let me remind the minister of the time he came to Vancouver and met the hon. member for Vancouver North and myself; I was asked in only by the courtesy of the hon. member for Vancouver North, because I was not associated with the work he was doing among the unemployed at the time. There was organization and agitation by the men at that time, and when they placed their case before the Minister of Labour he readily saw their position and made some concessions. Every time anything has been done, first of all there had to be a disturbance, a demonstration by the men to show that they were no longer prepared to put up with the conditions under which they were labouring. These are the things we must take into consideration.
I regret also that my hon. friend referred to Mason, who is the leader of the men who came here from British Columbia. I happen to know that Mason has been ill most of the time he has been here. A few of my friends gathered together enough money to engage a room for him, where he has been in bed for some little time. Then there is the further point, that the greater the number of unemployed the greater the uselessness of the labour exchanges. There is no use going to a labour exchange every day when you know there is nothing at that labour exchange for you.
I wish we could meet this situation fairly. I wish we could realize the plight of these men. I wish we could realize that they have hopes and aspirations and desires the same as we have. They see their hopes unrealized; they see their aspirations frustrated; they see their desires can never be fulfilled, and we must realize that when faced with difficulties of this kind men cannot be normal. They become anti-social. But they are what they are because society has made them so. We are responsible for what they have become; we are upholding a form of society that can no longer feed, clothe and shelter this great mass of people. I have stated time and again why that is so. Until we realize it and take steps to do the things we should do; until we realize that we are trustees for the people of this country and that we should get busy and arrange our economic and social organization so that we may take advantage of the
wealth of this nation, this condition will continue. I am not one of those who believe you can get something for nothing. I am quite satisfied that there is only one way of getting anything, and that is by working for it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, "hear, hear". But
what happens to-day? The abundance we produce is taken by somebody else, and when he passes away he leaves a fortune of 86,000,000, which he could not possibly obtain by means of his own labour, a fortune which he could accumulate only by appropriating the unpaid labour of others. And then the unpaid labourer walks the streets looking for something to do. I plead with the Minister of Labour to take a bold stand and refuse any longer to be a catspaw for a government that will not do anything, that will not fulfil the obligations it took upon itself in 1935. Hon. gentlemen opposite criticized the former government for not doing the very things we are asking them now to do; having had far better opportunities than the Conservative government ever had, they leave things in a worse condition than that in which they found them.


Mr. HANSELL:: Mr. Chairman, we have
listened with a great deal of interest to those who have spoken this afternoon. Perhaps some of us had no intention of speaking until we heard the remarks, the innuendoes and the accusations directed at this corner of the house. I listened to the hon. member for Renfrew North and the hon. member for Wellington North, who are not in the house now. Perhaps things were getting a little too hot for them, and we recall the old adage that he who fights and runs away will live to fight another day.
The accusations that have been made, at least those which impressed my mind, are these: that we who sit in this corner of the house desire to support a principle which would instil into the minds of the young men of this country the idea that the government owes them a living. That is as far from the truth as it possibly could be. We do not agree with that at all. If there is one group of men in parliament which has fought for the young people of this country and their right to live, it is the group in this corner. We have no desire that the younger generation should become a generation of bums. Those hon. members left the impression, and those who read Hansard to-morrow will get
2904	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
the impression, that the vast majority of young people in this country do not want *work.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. THORSON:: Not at all.


Ernest George Hansell: All right; read Hansard
to-morrow. I say the impression that will be gained from the remarks of the two speakers from the Liberal side of the house will be that the young people going around this country do not want work.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: They were speaking only for themselves.


Ernest George Hansell: All right; they were
speaking for themselves.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Endorsed by the Minister of Labour.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If I may reply to my hon. friend who interrupted, the Minister of Labour said he was satisfied that the vast majority of these men wanted work, and were ready to work. At the same time I said there were some agitators who by their actions were serving neither themselves nor the group they represented.


Ernest George Hansell: I had reference to the speeches made by the hon. member for Renfrew North and the hon. member for Wellington North.


Mr. KIRK:: He said ninety-five per cent of them wanted work and only five per cent did not.


Ernest George Hansell: Let me go on. I happen to have in my pocket a letter which I have been carrying with me for two months. I expected to see the young chap who wrote this letter and I wanted to have it on hand if that happened. Perhaps it is a good thing I have it with me now. The hon. member for Wellington North referred to a great many of these young people as spineless creatures and so forth. Here is the letter, and I should like to give you the history of the young man who wrote it. He graduated from high school a few years ago and secured a position. He desired to better himself and obtained leave of absence-which ultimately meant his resignation-in order to take two years of college work to fit himself for something he had in mind. By the time he had completed that work the depression had come and he found that he could not get employment. What did he do? He took a business course, .and after he had completed it and had received high marks, he tried to get a position. Nothing came along. Then he took another course, tthis time a secretarial course, but still was 
unable to get any work. For the last two years he has been taking the youth training which has been given under the authority of the government. Still he cannot find employment. This young man is not of the most robust type and cannot very well work on a farm. He is certainly not one of the spineless characters referred to, and I believe his is a typical case. This is what he writes:
I have told you before that I am discouraged, not having anything worth living for. And so when spring comes I am going to leave home.
This young man is not a transient. He is living with his parents, if you please. He continues:
I am going down east, and I am going to wander and wander around until I get a job. God knows where I am going to land; I don't. What is more, I don't care where it is. I waited the whole year of 1938 with the hope of getting a position. But now that that hope has blown away, I have made up my mind to leave this city, never to return to it. It is true I have not a trade. I do not hope to get anywhere in this world.
That is the discouraged position of this young man.


Mr. LANDER  YOU@: What is the use of having a trade? He could not get work.


Ernest George Hansell: The letter continues:
I am so downhearted I cannot sit down to study anything worth while. I am sick of the lonely life I am living. In fact I am so miserable I would rather be a tramp or a hobo than live this miserable existence, and the only thing that will keep me from such a life will be through getting a job with a future to it.
Of course I know what is in the minds of hon. members. They say that is only one case. I know that as a general rule you can prove anything by citing a case. But I am going to suggest to hon. members that that case is typical of many.


John Charles Landeryou: Thousands.


Ernest George Hansell: I had better be careful how I use the word "thousands". But this is the sort of thing that is impairing the health of the young people, and helping to make up the thousands about whom the hon. member for Greenwood was talking the other day.
Now, with regard to these young people being spineless, jelly fish, and so on-


John Horne Blackmore: And yaps.


Ernest George Hansell: I happen to be a family man, with three sons. Do not let any hon. member rise in the house and imply by innuendo or suggestion that those boys are yaps or are spineless. I know my boys; but I will be blessed if I know what they are going to do when they grow up. That is the trouble.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
The hon. member for Renfrew North referred to incidents which had occurred as he travelled across the country. He mentioned particularly a conversation with a policeman concerning those who were requested to go out to fight forest fires. Well, I happen to live near a district where forest fires were raging. I was called over to that district because the men were fighting to get out to fight those fires. Apparently only so many were taken. I do not know the reason for leaving some at home. Some were left out of the picture and were thereby deprived of the opportunity of earning a little money. In fact, only a few days later I heard a nasty complaint-whether or not it was true I do not know-namely that some of the men had gone to another part of the mountains and had started another fire.


Norman Jaques: I heard it dozens of times. It is a general complaint in British Columbia.


Ernest George Hansell: We can talk all we like, and leave the impression that the young people do not want to work. The fact is that they want to work, and should be given a chance to do it.
We have been accused of trying to infuse into the minds of these young people the thought that the government owes them a living. I am going to suggest it is the duty of this government to adjust the' legislation of the country so as to give the young men and women a chance to earn a living. It can be done.


John Horne Blackmore: What is a government for if it does not do that?


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, what is a government for, if it does not do that? On one or two occasions we have heard the very familiar passage from holy writ to the effect that "the poor ye always have with you". Let me suggest to hon. members that that statement was not made by the greatest teacher who ever came to this world to substantiate the arguments of a Liberal government to the effect that we should always expect the poor to be here. While that great teacher was the greatest prophet who ever lived, the Liberal party must be under the impression that in looking into the future He thought we would always have a Liberal government administering the affairs of this country. But may I suggest that the same holy writ in which that passage of scripture appears, and which is not in support of a system which keeps men poor-


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It is just a statement of fact.


Ernest George Hansell: But you are interpreting that statement to mean that we must expect always to have the poor with us, and that we must do nothing to help them. That is not the position. I am going to read another passage from holy writ. It is not often the bible is read in parliament, but I intend now to read from it, and refer particularly to a passage in the old testament wherein the greatest law giver of all was telling the people of a nation what would happen if its governmental authorities did not do the right thing. I turn back to the book of Deuteronomy, where it speaks of certain laws which must be put into practice. The fifteenth chapter commences with a description of the manner of the release of debt at the end of every period of seven years. And then the law giver goes on to say:
1.	At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release.
2.	And this is the manner of the release: Every creditor that lendeth ought unto his neighbour shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbour, or of his brother; because it is called the Lord's release.
3.	Of a foreigner thou mayest exact it again: but that which is thine with thy brother thine hand shall release;
And the next passage:
4.	To the end that there be no poor among you.
I am saying that that was told to the government of one of the greatest nations on earth. It was not a Liberal government that time.


John Horne Blackmore: Thank the Lord.


Charles Robert Evans: And it was not a Social Credit government either, was it?


Norman Jaques: It was not sound finance.


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend is always talking that way. Now he says it was not a Social Credit government. The other night he. brought Mr. Aberhart's name into the picture. Some time ago he called out "$25 a month."


John Horne Blackmore: Just the size of him.


Ernest George Hansell: It does not solve the problem to say to the other fellow, "What have you done?" A little while ago I said I was a family man. My hon. friend over here reminds me of my youngster. Sometimes I have to get after him and tell him that if he does a certain thing again, something may happen. He looks up at me and says, "Well, you did not say that to so and so the other day when he did it." I look down at my youngster, I give him a nickel, I wipe his nose and everything is all right. I guess my hon. friend wants me to wipe his nose.
2906	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


An hon. MEMBER:: He wants you to give him a nickel.


Ernest George Hansell: But I am not going to do that. He spoke of governments and holy writ. Let me inform him that the social credit principles are just about as close to divine law as you can possibly get. The sooner parliament recognizes that, the sooner we get back to some of these divine laws, the better will this country be. Surely one of our divine laws is that the blessings that come from the bountiful hand of the creator should be adequately distributed through the nation. I submit that the duty of this government is to bring about an adjustment of legislation to enable that to be done. I hope we shall hear no more innuendoes and insinuations along this line.
This group stands for a glorious Canada. Who will dare to say that we cannot have a glorious nation with all the resources and manpower that we have, with all the brains that we have available, such as those possessed by the Minister of Labour? I compliment the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) upon raising one of the most significant points raised during the present session-that this government has the brains and organization available, and yet it cannot accomplish a thing. Why? Because it is functioning under a system which has become obsolete. The hon. member for Peace River made it quite evident that no group of men, no collection of brains, no organization, could accomplish the solution of this problem under the present system. The system must be changed, and we are here to advocate a new system. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear.


Major James William Coldwell: Unfortunately the debate has developed into something of an attack on and a defence of a certain group of young men. This afternoon a number of undeserved and unfair statements have been made which might be interpreted as applying to a large group, when in fact if there were any element of truth in them, they would apply only to a small minority. I think before we recount gossip picked up on the train or from various'people across the country we should remember that we have available an authoritative report in connection with this important problem. I hold in my hand the final report of the national employment commission which was submitted to the government on January 26, 1938, on page 88 of which the transient problem is fairly and fully outlined. While it is contrary to my usual practice, I think in view 
of the debate which has occurred I shall quote substantially from this part of the report. It reads:
Families or individuals not able to establish legal residence as now defined in the centre in which aid is sought should not necessarily be classified as "transient" or "wandering." The cause may be that a move has been made in genuine search for work; employment may not have lasted long enough to establish residence; the change may have been an endeavour to get back home or into a familiar neighbourhood again; ill-luck, sickness, or shortage of funds may have halted men or family short of their destination. Or, of course, the case may be one in which the inability to establish residence is directly due to wanderlust, or to an endeavour, on the part of the family unit particularly, to locate in an area with "better relief," or with less rigorous climatic or living conditions.
This is the important part.
The problem of non-residence occurs more widely among self-dependent men "on their own." Development of Canada's resources demands a large supply of vigorous, mobile labour. A shifting labour reserve, without definite residence, while aggravated in recent years by lack of opportunity for gainful occupation, is not only a natural but almost an essential feature of production in this country. Our great primary activities, along with closely allied secondary industries, employ almost half of the gainfully occupied population, the overwhelming percentage of whom are unskilled or semi-skilled wage earners. As such they are dependent for gainful occupation upon circumstances quite outside their own control. In many eases their occupations are seasonal and carried on in the isolation of frontier or "new" country. These men must move with employment demands, or lack of the same, and thus have not a free choice as to their place of residence. It is practically impossible for a man in this category to establish residence anywhere. Although he may have five or ten years' history of almost continuous employment it may be spread over widely different occupations in varying localities, one place in summer, another in winter, and so when idle, he keeps "moving on" in search of work, always hoping that somewhere the job he finds will last long enough to let him get settled.
The hon. member for Renfrew North refers to these men as transients from choice. The hard economic circumstances prevailing in Canada has made their transient life a necessity. The report goes on:
Thousands of these men have a legal residence claim somewhere, and the object should be to have this recognized and ensure "nonresident" families and men care on some reciprocal basis, and also that residence will not be lost in one place before being established in another.
To see what this problem really is in extent and nature, registration and classification is essential.
This recommendation was made over a year and a half ago.
Preliminary examination has shown that the difficulty in establishing legal residence is a greater factor in this migrancy problem than

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
any urge on the part of the men themselves to move on. It would also appear that well over one-half of these men are not "transients" in the accepted sense.
A little later on in the report the commission says:
In the depth of recent winters, this whole volume seems to have fluctuated between 85,000 and 100,000, where it stood in January of this year, including those placed on farms.
The commission then made certain recommendations, and I am going to ask the minister how many of these have been carried out. The recommendations were as follows:
1.	Establishment of definitions of residence on a comparable basis all across Canada.
2.	Reciprocal basis of maintenance and reimbursement among different units of administration in respect to those aided in a unit other than their own.
3.	Equitable apportionment of maintenance costs, and agreement on conditions for establishment of local residence for provincial and interprovincial residents and for migrants.
4.	Establishment of central bureaux for the "clearing" of non-resident and migrant applications in certain large centres of known concentration.
Those are the recommendations. There is the extent of the problem. The minister tells us that in his opinion there are this winter in the neighbourhood of ten thousand of these transients. But in a recent report submitted by one of the departments in the city of Vancouver it has been shown that this winter there have been, of one sort or another, some ten thousand transients dealt with in that city.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Surely not different transients. There must have been a repetition.


Major James William Coldwell: There may have been some repetition; I could not say, because I did not see a breakdown of the figures. But in 1937, when conditions were admittedly better on the whole than they were in 1938, a commission set up by the government to inquire into this very problem states that including those on farms the volume seems to have fluctuated between 85,000 and 100,000 where it stood in January of that year.
To me the tragedy of this transient problem is not the momentary hardships. The tragedy lies in the ultimate effects of this situation upon the "future of the country in which we live. I was on a relief committee for a number of years. I was on it when the depression hit us in 1929. I served on it in 1931, 1932 and 1933, and I saw this happen: I saw men who in 1929 and 1930 would do anything and everything before they would apply for relief brought to the point where they had lost all hope and were permanently on the relief rolls.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford):: That does not apply to transients only.


Major James William Coldwell: No. I am saying I saw those men, and I have watched some of them for the last ten years. They were from forty to fifty when the depression struck, and ten years of enforced idleness has reduced them to such a condition that in my opinion they will never be fit to work again. Long years of relief have undermined them; long years of poverty have taken from them the ambition they once had. That is true of the group that is older than the group we are discussing. But we are doing the same thing to our young people. People who have now reached sixty have only another ten years before they reach the three score years and ten. Then they will pass beyond and no longer be a problem to us. But we have still these young men and these young women. I have seen them leave school-teaching was my profession before I came here-iboys whom I taught, went out into the world to look for something to do, and to-day they are moving across this country, hopelessly, almost aimlessly, seeking something that never turns up.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Would they not have homes?


Major James William Coldwell: No.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: They had homes when you were teaching them.


Major James William Coldwell: Some of them have no homes; some of them have, but the parents are on relief. I have had some of these boys come to me and ask if I could steer them to a job. They did not want to remain at home, a burden on their parents on relief, and so they struck out for themselves, for as the commission's report says, often it is not the spineless boy who becomes a transient, but rather the self-reliant man who strikes out on his own.
May I say something else to the minister, and as the hon. member for Vancouver East said, there is no member of this house for whom I have a higher respect than the Minister of Labour. The other night I heard the minister contradict the hon. member for Greenwood. Maybe the member for Greenwood was wrong in giving the figure he did. It might have been an exaggeration. But even if the figure was exaggerated, the fact remains that hundreds-I will put it that way-of the single transients are suffering. Last July, in a Canadian city in which I was addressing a meeting one afternoon, I met a lady whom I had met two years before. I inquired for her husband, and she told me that her husband
2908	[DOT]	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
was heartbroken because their other boy had been killed. Two boys in that family killed in railway accidents! The one of whom I speak was killed at Brockville at the end of June of last year. There are cases of that sort all across the country, and I know of no greater indictment of this government than the condition of these young people in Canada to-day. In 1935 I was in Regina when those young men trekked there and we had what was called the Regina riot. I think that situation was badly handled, but it was just before the federal election, and I remember how the Liberals tried to use that situation.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Was it just the Liberals?


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member asks me if it was just the Liberals. I would say, yes-


Robert James Manion: Hear, hear.


Major James William Coldwell: -because so far as we were concerned, the group to which I belong, we took exactly the same attitude in 1930 when the then leader of the opposition, subsequently the leader of the government, appealed to the electorate and said: "Return me to power and I will blast my way into the markets of the world and cure unemployment or perish in the attempt." He did try to blast his way into the markets of the world; he did try to put into effect the policies in which he believed. I had no confidence in those policies. He perished in the attempt, as I felt he would. In 1935 the members of the Liberal party who to-day constitute the government of Canada said: "Return us to power and we will reopen the channels of trade, and end, or at least greatly alleviate, unemployment." But we are in the fourth session of this parliament, and unemployment is rampant right across this country, with misery everywhere. I say this to my hon. friends, as I have said before, that we must recognize, as the hon. member for Vancouver East told the house this afternoon, that this problem goes deeper, too deep to be cured by any of the palliatives that have been suggested. I am no revolutionary. I do not believe in the overthrow of our institutions or in any sudden changes overnight. I am not built that way. But I do say that we have to see the goal to which we are going if we are to take intelligent steps toward that goal, and then as we pass along we must institute policies of unemployment insurance, public works programs, and the like in order to alleviate conditions on the way.
In my opinion, this house should not think of prorogation, this house should not think of adjournment, until we have something far

more definite laid down with respect to two problems which were pressing in 1935 and which are still urgent, unemployment and the problem of agriculture. There is nothing that warrants this house in rising at the present time, or within the next month or two; for so far in four years this government has done nothing to meet the pressing problems which confront the country. I say, nothing, though I know my hon. friends opposite will point to the trade agreements. Well, I voted for both the trade agreements but I say they have done nothing to end unemployment. Nor could they.
In the resolution before the house there are one or two good things. The act to assist in the training of youth or the extension of youth training is in my opinion worthy of support. But these things do not touch the fringe of the problem. Most of us in this house probably have sons and daughters and I feel as the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) does when he says, "What are they going to do in a few years time?"
I was not born in this country. I came here just as I had concluded my last college year. I was twenty-one. When I came to Canada I had the choice of 356 schools in the province of Alberta. To-day, even in that profession, a school has the choice of 356 teachers.


Charles Robert Evans: No. There is a shortage of
teachers in Ontario.


Major James William Coldwell: As regards the province from which I come I can tell the hon. gentleman that a school that advertised for one teacher two years ago received 500 applications.


Charles Robert Evans: But is that the fact to-day?


Major James William Coldwell: I said two years ago.


Charles Robert Evans: I am asking whether that is so to-day.


Major James William Coldwell: Many of the teachers
who took these jobs were willing to teach for nothing in order to have something to do, and they are on relief. The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean), early this session, interrupted me when I said something of this sort in the house. I have in my desk a clipping from his own constituency, a place called Peesane, where it was recorded that the teacher had received $7 since last August and had obtained in January a relief voucher in order to live.


James J. Donnelly: Whose fault was that?
The school trustees were taking the money and not giving it to the teachers.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Mr. COLD WELL:: I allowed the hon.
gentleman to interrupt me, but if what he says is true, then the government system of auditing and supervision in Saskatchewan is very faulty.


James J. Donnelly: The government gives
the money to the school trustees, and if they take it for other purposes and do not hand it to the teachers, then it is the teachers' fault, because they can compel the trustees to give them that money.


Major James William Coldwell: Very well, but let me
point out that I cited a case in regard to which no action has been taken by the government.


James J. Donnelly: It is the teacher's place to do that.


Major James William Coldwell: Out of that grant there have to come school supplies and coal.
Mr. DONNELLY; Not at all; there is a special grant for coal.


Major James William Coldwell: However, that is away
from the point.


James J. Donnelly: No, it is not away from the point.


William Daum Euler: Will the hon. member permit a question? He referred to the fact that 350 school teachers had applied for one position. I do not suppose he wishes to convey the idea that there was a surplus of 349 teachers. No doubt many of the 350 were applying at the same time for a great many other vacancies.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not wish to convey that idea for a moment, but I am illustrating that even in that profession there is a lack of opportunity.


William Daum Euler: That has been the case for
thirty years.


Major James William Coldwell: If hon. members wish
to discuss the matter I urge them to get the brief presented by the teachers of Saskatchewan to the recent government commission in that province or to the Rowell commission.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Is it
because there are too few schools or too many teachers? Is the profession overcrowded?


William Daum Euler: The profession is overcrowded.


Major James William Coldwell: Like every other avenue open to young people, the profession is overcrowded to-day.


William Daum Euler: And always was.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Does
the hon. member suggest building moreschools?


Major James William Coldwell: No, but I am suggesting that owing to the increase in productive capacity, owing to the advent of machinery, fewer and fewer people to-day are required to turn out more and more goods and that there are fewer jobs. That is true in agriculture and in every other walk of life, and we shall be faced with a serious problem until we meet these facts squarely and do several things which our group has suggested. We have suggested over and over again that men and women should be encouraged to retire from agriculture and industry before-the age of seventy; in other words, we have-suggested a lowering of the pensionable age and an increasing of the amount in order to encourage that retirement. We believe that in industry the hours of labour will have to be-controlled as well as the rates of wages. We must exercise some intelligence and not leave these things to chance. The day is coming when, if we do not do this, somebody will force us to do it. But there is a graver danger than that. I have met young men who-have said to me, "Well, democracy is all right, but what I want is a job." When you hear that point of view expressed, democracy is in danger. If they have a choice they will choose the job. I wish they would choose-democracy, but after all they must live.
I have risen this afternoon because I want to put on record, not what Tom Jones told the hon. member for Renfrew North on the-train going west, or what some other gossip told him in Vancouver, but what the national employment commission said regarding this transient problem. Let us, if we can, devise ways and means of meeting this condition without libelling a large group of young men and young women because of the failings perhaps of a minority in that group.


Robert James Manion: I wish to intervene for only a very few minutes in this debate, because this matter has been pretty well threshed out in the last three days. But because of the fact that this afternoon the discussion has taken place largely -between the groups to my left and the Liberal benches-indeed I think none of our party has intervened-it might be thought that there was no one in this party interested in the question. As a matter of fact the debate was started by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey), and was as I remember, participated in, so far as our group is concerned, by the hon. members for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), Danforth
2910	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
(Mr. Harris), Hamilton West (Mr. Marsh), Kootenay West (Mr. Esling), Broadview (Mr. Church) and Parkdale (Mr. Spence).
I must confess that I agree with much of what hon. members to my left have said this afternoon, except as to two points which they made, one to the effect that the system must be changed in order to correct the present defects, and the other the implication that they are the only ones interested in the question. To my mind every hon. member is interested in this matter; we are all concerned in working out something in. the way of a cure for the present condition. But I confess that as I sat here this afternoon, listening for example to the hon. member for Wellington North (Mr. Blair) insult a large proportion of the unemployed boys of this country by calling them yaps and spineless pap-fed creatures, and as I listened to the applause from the Liberal benches while such statements were being made, I was somewhat shocked.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I do not think the statement of the leader of the opposition is correct, that the applause came from the Liberal benches.


Robert James Manion: I repeat the statement: the applause came and came very fully and only from the Liberal benches. I am not accusing my hon. friend of having applauded, but the applause was pretty general. I was shocked that there should be applause for such a statement in a time of world chaos such as that through which we have been passing. I understand that hon. gentlemen such as the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Warren), who himself probably went through hard times when he was a boy and worked very hard, sometimes become what we describe on the street as a little hard-boiled towards young men who cannot get anything to do. But with all due respect to the hon. member-for whom I have a good deal of respect; for he speaks as one who has had a good deal of experience in the hard knocks of life-I think he is far too extreme in his views in regard to these matters.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Will my hon. friend permit me? The hon. member for Wellington North is not in his seat at the moment, but I am sure I am stating correctly the impression he wished to leave when I say he was speaking of his own experience in seeking men for farm employment-
Mr. MAIsION: I think the minister should keep his seat. He has a habit of jumping up whenever anyone is speaking and interjecting his little speeches. I object to his interjecting
[Mr. Manion.3
his little speeches when I am making mine; I am tired of his jumping up and making speeches whenever any other hon. member is speaking. He can answer me after I sit down. I listened to the hon. member for Wellington North when he spoke of yaps and spineless creatures and pap-fed-


An hon. MEMBER:: And bums.


Robert James Manion: Well, I heard those three expressions used about young men who are unable to get work. Anyone who stands up in this house and states that the young men in this country who are out of employment are pap-fed, spineless creatures and yaps; in other words who implies that they are no good and do not want work, either shows complete ignorance of conditions or a narrowness of vision which I cannot comprehend. I cannot understand anyone who in times like these, when the world has been going through terrible conditions for years, takes such an attitude. There is nothing new about this condition.


Norman McLeod Rogers: What about "the iron heel of ruthlessness"; did my friend object to that?


Robert James Manion: What is my hon. friend talking about now?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Does my hon. friend object to those expressions?


Robert James Manion: I have never used them. I do not know what the minister is referring to.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Oh, yes.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend wanders around picking up little things; I suppose he is referring to what someone said once. I have no idea to what he refers. To the speech made the other day by the hon. member for Greenwood-a speech which showed months of study, showed the utmost familiarity with the whole matter-the minister's whole reply was to pick out one sentence, that thousands had died from various conditions such as starvation and exposure; he has not attempted to deal with the speech in any way since.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Mr. Chairman-


Robert James Manion: The minister can take his seat. It is a habit that the minister has, but I have the floor.


Norman McLeod Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the leader of the opposition is not entitled to say that is the only reply I was prepared to make to the speech of the hon. member for Greenwood.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Robert James Manion: I did not say that. I said it was the only reply the minister made.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I opened this debate and spoke on the resolution. I had no right to reply; but I objected to that statement of the hon. member for Greenwood because it was a false statement.


Robert James Manion: That is the only thing the minister has dealt with in the speech of the hon. member for Greenwood, the statement that thousands have died from starvation, exposure, accidents on trains, and so forth. I admit that I did not see the minister applauding them, but I saw no sign of disapproval on his part when hon. members stood up behind him, close to him, within a seat or two of him, and made these violent attacks to-day on the young men of this country. I heard no protest from the minister in any shape or form. I say that type of statement regarding young men who honestly want work and are unable to get it is the type of thing which will lead to what hon. members to my left want and what I do not want, a complete upset of the system under which we are living.


John Horne Blackmore: I resent the remark just made by the leader of the opposition about people to his left wanting to upset the system; that is false.


Robert James Manion: Then I shall simply say they may not want to upset it but they want to turn it over. I am not particular as to the language; if the language hurts my hon. friend I will change it. But so far as I can see, they want-some of them-to take the bottom and put it on the top. I believe that the system under which we are living, the capitalistic system, the democratic system, is the best system, a system worthy of preservation, and I want to preserve it; but one of the surest ways to upset and destroy that system is to take the attitude that these boys wandering around in all sections of the country hungrily looking for work are nothing but bums, lazy men who do not want to find something to do. I am convinced that ninety per cent-I will not go higher than that-of the people out of employment today want work and nothing else.
Recently I was in my own city of Fort William. We have there a relief officer named Frank Blaine who has been in ch&ige of relief in that city for twenty-five or thirty years, one of the best relief officers I have ever known, a man who originally had the reputation of being a little difficult for the poor to deal with, but because of that I quote him all the more confidently; for it shows he
is not inclined to go to extremes in his viewpoint. Frank Blaine said in reply to a question of mine that ninety per cent of those on relief in the city of Fort William and elsewhere want work, and he has looked into the question very thoroughly. I was surprised, because frankly I had not thought that so large a percentage did want work. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) a few minutes ago quoted a letter he received from some young man. I suppose I have had hundreds of such letters; as a minister when we were in power I had many, and I have had hundreds recently of the same type. Recently I had a most pathetic letter from a mother; I think most hon. members receive such letters. I could name a man in this building at this moment, one who is working in a humble position and receiving about $100 a month, but he is living on it. One day I saw this man looking very much depressed and unhappy-this was when we were in power-and asked what was wrong, because he happened to be one of the civil servants with whom I came in contact quite frequently. He said he had a boy of twenty-three who could not get a job, who had never earned a dollar in his life. I asked where the boy was and he told me that he was in one of the labour camps, but that he wanted some work to do. He said, "I am afraid of his whole character being ruined because he cannot get any work to do." So in my office I gave instructions that the next time we were putting on a few labourers over here at the canal, as we did from time to time, this boy should be given a chance. That was done; he was given a pick and shovel job. Never in my 'life have I seen anyone more overjoyed than that father and that son when the boy came home after his first day of pick and shovel work.
Does that suggest that these boys do not want work? I quite agree with the hon. member for Macleod that you cannot argue a whole case from one instance; but you can argue a whole case from your knowledge of humanity; you can argue your case when you receive hundreds of letters from boys all over this country who ask for nothing but a job, who plead for the chance to earn a decent living. You can believe them in the great majority of cases; otherwise why would they bother to write letters? I also admit that many of them, because they cannot get jobs, are becoming demoralized; their whole character is becoming warped and twisted. That strikes me with particular force because I sat over on the government benches in 1932, 1933 and 1934. Many of my hon. friends opposite
2912	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
were here at that time. The Minister of Labour was not in the house then, but well do I remember the abuse that was heaped upon us by the then opposition, the present government, despite the fact that we were going through a terrific world depression, because we did not cure the condition. Well *do I remember rising in my place-I think it was during the budget debate-and pointing out to the present right hon. Prime Minister, who was then leader of the opposition, that he and his party did not seem to realize the fact that we were going through a world depression. Now, however, when conditions are not half so bad as they were in 1933, we hear the Minister of Labour appeal to hon. members to put up with the failure of the government to find a cure for this condition, on the ground that it is a world condition. That is the same cry we put up. It will be remembered that in 1933 there were some thirty million unemployed in the industrial countries throughout the world. In the neighbouring country to the south there were some twelve to thirteen million unemployed. I do not know that the situation there is very much better now, but here we have the Minister of Labour making the statement that this government has done so much for unemployment. I will admit that it has attempted a few things, yet we find that at the present time, according to the bureau of statistics, there are some 491,000 unemployed in Canada.
I mentioned this matter during my speech on the address in reply to the speech from the throne; I said the statistics put out by the Department of Labour were unfair and were not frank. I do not say they are untrue; I presume they are true as far as they go, but they present only half the truth. For example, in the last release dated April 8 the Minister of Labour says that the dominion total of unemployed but fully employable persons on aid in February of this year was
190,000.	I have before me the figures from the bureau of statistics, which show that in February there were 476,000 unemployed and in March, 491,000. That is their estimate, it is true; it is not an absolutely accurate figure, but these figures never can be absolutely accurate. I repeat what I said previously, however, that when the Minister of Labour gives out that figure of 190,000 on aid, probably that is the truth; I am not quarreling with it, but it does not present a true picture. According to the figures of the bureau of statistics there are another 300,000 who are not on aid but who are unemployed just the same. I admit that in the winter time in Canada there are always more unemployed.

When we were in power I sometimes tried to find out what would be the normal layoff during the winter season in this country, and I was told that it would be anywhere from 150,000 to 200,000. I imagine some such figure would be reasonably accurate, and the minister nods his head. If that is correct this figure of 491,000 is 300,000 or more in excess of what we might call normal.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: That
includes unemployables, I believe?


Robert James Manion: Perhaps it does; probably in the 491,000 there are many who are unemployable, but the point I made a few moments ago, and the point that has been made by other speakers, is that ninety per cent of the unemployed, including if you like the unemployables, want to work.
I do not want to be unfairly critical of my hon. friends to my left, but too often they assume a sort of super-righteous attitude. They seem to think they alone have the vision to see the needs of our country, that they alone know the needs of youth. I want to say to them, as the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) pointed out, that away back in 1930 our party made a promise to cure unemployment. We did not succeed; after that promise was made we went through the worst depression the world has ever seen, without exception. Ever since then our party has endeavoured to help clean up this mess, because it is a mess. At our party convention nearly a year ago I said one of the first things I would do if I were to become leader of a government would be to appoint a ministry of youth. That would rather indicate that we know something about this problem. I believe all the members of this house would like to see this problem solved, but the fact is that the government has utterly failed to bring about that end. It is not a question of the economic system, as hon. members to my left say. What is the economic system they would suggest? Is it turning out money by the printing presses, on the one hand-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Norman Jaques: No; neither is it the destruction of money, which is the cause of the trouble.


Robert James Manion: I do not know. I have listened a great deal to my hon. friends, and it is my impression-I am not trying to misrepresent the Social Credit group-that their idea is to print unlimited quantities of money.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


John Charles Landeryou: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we have never suggested *anything like that. I think the hon. gentleman knows better, and in all fairness I think he had better leave it to us to express our beliefs.


Robert James Manion: I will take it upon myself occasionally to comment upon the suggestions of the Social Credit group. They are generous in their comments on other parties in this house, so I think I can occasionally comment upon them.


John Charles Landeryou: Then stick to the point.


Robert James Manion: I will stick to the point as I see fit. The hon. gentleman who just interrupted me, who is one of the loudest speakers of all in regard to printing money, said in the house the other day that he would advocate the printing of about $600,000,000 more in bills. If that is not almost an unlimited amount of money then I do not know what it is. The hon. member nods his head in acceptance; I do not know why he interrupted me.	I rather enjoy the hon.
member's speeches; I do not know why he finds it so difficult to listen to mine. I may not be as artistic as he is, but I am doing my best.
The trouble is the failure of the government to recognize the condition and to take steps to correct it. I do not suggest for a moment that the government do not wish to end this problem, but certainly to my mind they have failed miserably to do so. In the first place they failed to carry out the suggestions that were made by the Purvis commission. I put them on record in my speech on the address, and I believe I have the twelve suggestions under my hand. These are the recommendations of the Purvis commission, made in its report to the government, about a year ago. I will read these recommendations, because they are brief. They recommended:
1.	A great national cooperative effort to end unemployment.
Nothing done about it that I know of.
2.	Employment services to be national.
The same remark applies there.
3.	Commission to be administrative, not just advisory.
Well, the commission has gone out of existence altogether.
4.	A proper registry of unemployed and their classification.
Nothing done.
5.	Local communities to help in the work through local committees.
Nothing done.
6.	Wiping out dole, which was to be replaced by rehabilitation measures.
I do not know of anything done there.
7.	Slum clearance.
Nothing done.
8.	The national body to be succeeded by a small administrative committee to be helped by an interdepartmental committee to prevent overlapping.
Nothing done.
9.	Financial provision for and administration of unemployment aid should be the responsibility of the dominion government.
That is not done.
Three I have left to the last, and they are partly done at any rate. They are apprenticeship and learnership, youth training, and housing plans. They are partly done. And recently, if I understood correctly from press reports, the Minister of Labour suggested that the government was going to spend a million dollars on forestry. That would be another project, although I do not know that it was recommended by the commission. It is not in my list, but I note it from a press report.
There is the list of twelve recommendations by the Purvis commission. Three of them are partly carried out. That was the condition, despite the fact that the Prime Minister after the last election-not before, but after the last election when he did not need to make promises, because he had already caught the street-car so to speak; he did not need to try to catch it because he had caught it and had caught it well, as far as that goes- made this promise, part of which I shall quote:
In the new era which dawns to-day-
And this is the evening after the election.
-the struggle for the rights of the people will, in the realm of economic liberty and security, be carried on as never before. Poverty and adversity, want and misery are the enemies which Liberalism will seek to banish from our land.
Then he went on further:
We take up at once, as our supreme task, the endeavour to end poverty in the midst of plenty; starvation and unnecessary suffering in a land of abundance; discontent and distress in a country more blessed by Providence than any other on the face of the globe, and to gain for individual lives, and for the nation as a whole, that "health and peace and sweet content" which is the rightful heritage of all.
He did not need to make all these promises. As I said, he had won the election. The election was over and the right hon. gentleman was elected. I have not any doubt he made the statement in all sincerity, but he has done nothing, or practically nothing, to carry it out. The attempts of his Minister of Labour have been almost wholly a failure. Therefore I repeat that the government is at
2914	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
least partly and, I think, a great deal, to blame for the fact that we have to-day among our young men demoralization which should and could be largely eliminated, if those young men were given a chance to earn their living, as most of them want to do. Many of them have lost ambition, and the situation is getting worse. The demoralization and the loss of ambition get worse as we go on. Their morale has gone.
On other occasions I have said in the house and also elsewhere that to my mind much of the crime of youth is to-day caused by the fact that the young men are hopeless, despairing, and they start out and get into trouble which otherwise they would escape. We know that they are desperate and want to get positions. In many instances they go to gaol because they cannot get something to do.
It is in my opinion a national calamity that
we have not done more than we have to cure this condition, a condition which certainly, unless we succeed in curing it, will wreck the whole economic system under which we live. On many different occasions, out on the hustings, I have taken that attitude. I have spoken at public meetings about fears along the same lines as I am now stating. I believe the bringing together of the best brains in this country, all classes-


John Charles Landeryou: We have it now.


William Daum Euler: He can't help it.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member must have been speaking for himself.


John Charles Landeryou: No; I am speaking for the Minister of Labour.


Robert James Manion: Speaking seriously, I believe we must have a pooling of the best brains in this country. I do not mind saying that on one occasion when we were in power I suggested to my then leader that we call in, to Ottawa, the outstanding men in business, in labour, the outstanding clergy, and the leading men in various other groups, and ask them to pool their ability in an endeavour to give us a solution of the problem. I do not think it is too late yet, especially because we do not seem to be getting anywhere in connection with this terrific problem, a problem which will ultimately bring about the collapse of our system, if we do not effect a cure.
I am as much convinced of this as I am of anything. I feel convinced that those men who take that reactionary attitude, which was taken this afternoon particularly by the hon. member for Wellington North, and one or two others, that nothing can be done-and

the rumour is passed around, incidentally, that the Prime Minister-and I do not wish to misquote him-said the other day to his followers that there was no cure for the problem. He is quite right to correct the statement if it is wrong.


Mr. DUNNING:: The rest of us can correct it. It is quite wrong. Those of us who were there-


Robert James Manion: It was stated in the press.


Charles Avery Dunning: On a point of order, the press report indicated a statement which had come from the party gathering. I was present at that party gathering, and I can say in the absence of the Prime Minister that he made no such statement.


Robert James Manion: I will accept the statement of the Minister of Finance. However, I thought it might have been worth correcting, before my having misquoted it in the house- since the Minister of Finance takes the attitude that I am misquoting it.
If we do not cure this condition we shall have the collapse of our system. I repeat what I was saying, that I do not agree with those people who take the attitude that nothing can be done, or that young men can just get out and earn their living, as they have done in the past, and that opportunities are just as good as they were in the past. Those people who take that attitude are endangering our system. They lack vision. It was the same type of people who in other days and in other countries assumed the attitude that nothing could be done, and they and their countries paid for it.
I want to preserve the present system. I do not want to see it completely upset. I believe in what we call the capitalist system, or what is sometimes called the profit or reward system. But I believe that under it we can work out a cure for this condition, and that \ye must work out that cure if we are going to continue to preserve the system in which we believe.
That is my feeling, and that is why I am to-day expressing what I have expressed many times before, namely that I consider the greatest problems in our country are, on the one hand unemployment, and on the other the lack of opportunity for youth. We must correct those conditions if we are going to bring about a proper stabilization of the system in which most of us do believe.


Norman Jaques: I have in my hand a copy of the report of the director of the international labour conference at Geneva in 1937.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
I am not particularly impressed with the director of the international labour conference, but he cannot be accused of being a social crediter. He says this:
If the depression has shown one thing more clearly than anything else it is that economic prosperity and social security depend more on monetary policy than on any other single factor.
If we are to believe many hon. members who have spoken this afternoon our troubles are on account of the fact that a large percentage of the Canadian people are too lazy to work. They were referring to the unemployed. Well, I have always noticed that those who delight to sneer at the poor are always the ones who are so willing to lick the boots of the rich. I should like to repeat something I said in this chamber before. When a rich man gets out of bed, he is considered to be a hard working citizen, but when a poor man gets into bed, he is considered to be a lazy bum.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) has said that we in this corner wish to destroy what is known as the capitalist system. That is the exact opposite to the truth. We want to preserve the capitalist system, but we do want to destroy what is known as finance capitalism because that is the evil which is wrecking our civilization. It is our system of finance that is wrong. That is the greatest racket the world has ever known, and unless it is destroyed, it will ruin the civilization we know to-day. We are proposing a very simple thing, that is, that the state should see to it that the capitalist system is supplied with enough purchasing power to the end that we may be able to consume what we produce. Whenever we suggest that, we are accused of wanting to print unlimited money, of wanting to turn on the printing presses, but that is not the idea.
The other night I suggested something that I have suggested on several occasions, that we should and could pension off all people over the age of sixty years. The last time this motion was before the house the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) told us what it would cost. I never can remember figures, but I know the cost was many millions of dollars. But that really does not convey any meaning to us. We appreciate the difference between money and wealth. Just what would it cost? Suppose this house were to decide that the age limit for old age pensions should be lowered from seventy to sixty years, that would cost
815,000,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: Far more than that.


Norman Jaques: Call it 820,000,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member will have to go further than that.


Norman Jaques: Just exactly what does that mean? It means that it will cost the people of Canada the work necessary to buy that
820,000,000. That is the way I look at it. Of course, before that was done this government would have to have the consent of the people of Canada, but if it were decided that the age limit should be reduced to sixty years the cost would be exactly the amount of work necessary to make that 820,000,000 of real wealth. If the Minister of Finance could say that everyone under the age of seventy years was working, that we had a certain standard of living, that the proposal to lower the age limit to sixty years would cost this country the wealth which is produced by everyone between the ages of sixty and seventy years, then that is what it would cost this country to lower the age limit for old age pensions. But that is not the position at all.
I believe there are over a million people on relief and half a million men with nothing to do. All that would happen would be that a certain number of older people would be relieved from work which they are too old to perform, and a chance would be given to a corresponding number of younger people who are looking for work. As a matter of fact, it would not cost the country a cent. That money would have to be bought or honoured, if you like, by the goods and services of the people of Canada. Is that not exactly what the people are clamouring to do? Are there not hundreds of thousands of men clamouring for work? Does not practically every hon. member of this committee say that what we have to do is to provide work? What is the objection to issuing money and then asking the people of Canada to honour it with their work?
I can remember when I started to farm years ago that we had no provincial government and therefore we had no local taxes. There was no trouble in raying our road taxes because we were allowed to work them out. All w-e had to do was to take our teams and work so many days on the road and our taxes were paid. There was no difficulty. But after a time the system of taxation became more complicated and there were more councillors who were making a living out of being councillors. They wanted more cash and so we had to pay more taxes in cash and less with work. The consequence was that our tax deficits mounted. In my riding are pioneer districts in which many men are only scratching out a living on small clearings which they have made in the bush, yet in some of the local improvement districts the taxes are behind to the extent of 8250,000. That is a ridiculous sum because it can never
2916	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
be paid in cash. Many of these farmers tell me that they do not handle more than five or six dollars in cash during the whole season. The roads in these municipalities had ceased to exist. The farmers could not find the cash with which to pay their taxes and they had not been allowed to work out their taxes. The Alberta government has introduced a system whereby these farmers can work out their back taxes. I understand they work, say three days; the work of two days is applied to the payment of back taxes, and they are given a tax remission slip to cover payment for the work of the third day, which slip can be exchanged for goods at the store. This offers an example of what a little cash can accomplish.
To say that our financial system liquidates itself is simply not the truth. If hon. members will read the report of the committee on banking and finance of the United States congress they will see that every member of that committee agrees with what we in this corner have said. While they may not agree with the exact method to be adopted, they do agree with us when we say that industry is unable to distribute sufficient purchasing power to permit the. consumption of what it makes. This statement is no longer generally doubted. Apparently this chamber is one of the few places where it is doubted. I do not want to prolong this debate, but I do want to suggest: instead of putting the blame on the unfortunate victims of this depression, why not for a change indulge in a little criticism of those who were responsible for it? There should be more criticism of the men who were responsible for the financial policies which brought about this depression-the victims of the depression are blameless.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 

AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF THE WORD &quot;BUTTER&quot; TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN PRODUCTS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. H. LECLERC (Shefford) moved the second reading of Bill No. 44, to amend the Dairy Industry Act.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, as this is the first
occasion on which I address the house in the English language, I crave the kind indulgence of my English-speaking colleagues. Because of the general interest attaching to-this bill to amend the Dairy Industry Act, the second reading of which I now have the honour to move, I desire to explain its object in a language which all will understand.
Most hon. members undoubtedly realize that among the numerous problems which our governments are called upon to solve, those relating to agriculture stand paramount. I do not delude myself to the point of believing that this bill will remove all the difficulties under which the dairy industry is labouring, but I think it will do much tp prevent the encroachments of the numerous substitutes sold under false representations contrary to the spirit of the Dairy Industry Act, which defines butter as being "the food product commonly known as butter which is manufactured exclusively from milk or cream or both, with or without the addition of colouring matter, common salt, or other harmless preservatives."
We have a law to protect maple sugar and maple syrup in their natural state; we have stringent enactments designed to protect the trade marks of many private brands of foodstuffs. I therefore submit that, when we take such action in matters of limited interest, we should in all justice take steps to remove the unfair competition to which butter, which is of general interest and needs still greater protection, is at present subjected from numerous substitutes such as peanut butter, cocoa butter, chocolate butter, caramel butter, orange butter, strawberry butter, honey butter, sugar butter and so on.
In order to prove to the house the number of substitutes sold under the name of butter I have brought into the chamber a few samples of these substitutes. I have a jar of peanut butter, and there are half a dozen brands of sugar butter, which is nothing but ordinary sugar melted, some water together with a certain quantity of flavouring matter having been added. I have here a 32-ounce package of soft sugar which sells for twenty-five cents, while the untreated sugar is sold at 5 cents a pound. I have here some chocolate butter which sells at a higher price than real butter. I have several samples of honey butter and chocolate butter.
Mr. HAYBURST:: Has the hon. member
any maple sugar?


Mr. LECLERC:: No, but I suggest that if the substitutes were made of maple sugar they would not be so bad. As a matter of fact they are made of white sugar, and we have in consequence a poor substitute or no substitute at all for butter.
Dairy Industry Act

The object of this measure is not only to preserve the reputation of the product but also to increase the consumption thereof. In fact I believe that we have reached the point where the displacing of Canadian butter by an infinity of substitutes, mostly of foreign origin, should not be tolerated. Canada's imports and consumption of these products in 1936 amounted to the impressive figure of some 15,000,000 pounds. While I do not claim that this great quantity of substitutes will be entirely replaced by butter, I think it is logical to believe that these products, sold under false pretences, do replace butter without having anything like its food value, no matter at what price they are sold. The object of my amendment is not to prevent the sale of these foreign products; it will still be permitted to offer them on the basis of their respective merits. I trust that all hon. members, having in mind the interests of agriculture, especially of dairy farming, will support this amendment, which will to a certain extent, I hope, prevent foreign products of questionable food value from displacing Canadian butter, which is the basic industry of the majority of Canadian farmers.
The present situation of the farmers of Canada is, I believe, well known to all hon. members representing rural constituencies. Having had the privilege of growing up on a farm and having been in the dairy business all my life, I may be better informed than many others respecting the true situation of this industry whose prosperity I ardently desire to promote, so that it may afford a decent living to those for whom it is the main source of income.
There is no need for me to point out again, Mr. Speaker, the difficulties with which the dairy farmers are faced. I set forth their legitimate grievances on June 22 last, and I do not think the situation has changed very much since that time. Allow me to repeat, however, that the dairy industry has never afforded more than a modest existence to the farmer, inasmuch as when there is a surplus of production, as at present, it has to be sold on the British market in competition with the products of countries better organized and far more favoured by nature to produce butter at a lower cost than that at which we can produce it. Since it is impossible for us to compete with such countries on an economic basis, we should seek to limit our production of butter to the actual needs of our population and to increase its consumption. Such is the object of this amendment, prompted entirely by my desire to render a service to the dairy industry, that most important branch of agriculture which fills such a great place in the economic life of Canada.


Mr. G. E. WOOD (Brant):: I appreciate highly the aim of the hon. member who introduced this bill. I quite agree with him that the dairy industry faces a rather serious situation, one which has been thrust upon us because science and invention have supplanted many of the things which we used in former days, and we have had to turn to dairying to provide a market in lieu of many commodities which once were grown at a profit on the farm. Before the advent of the automobile not only had we a market for the horses to which we fed our hay and oats, but when we sold the horses we were also able to sell feed to maintain them in the cities. Now it is necessary for us to take the products of our fields and turn them into revenue on the farms, and to do that we have increased our output of dairy products.
As the hon. member pointed out, one of the great difficulties we are facing to-day is the competition from various substitutes for butter. Barnum was not so far wrong when he said that people liked to be fooled. The same statement is still applicable, because to-day people do not always spend their money wisely in the purchase of foods. When they buy substitutes for a good wholesome product like butter they do not in fact obtain very much value for their money. After all, the quality of a food product has a great bearing upon its value and the results you get from your expenditure.
I am inclined to the view that it might be a good idea to insist upon analyses of various products which come into competition with our basic foodstuffs and have the results registered. Under present conditions, we do not treat human beings with as much consideration as we give to the live stock on our farms, because when we buy bran, oil cake and other foods for our cattle and horses, the law requires that such commodities shall contain certain percentages of proteins, fats and carbohydrates. Yet human beings can buy any product for their own consumption without regard to its food value. It seems to me that if the hon. member had included in his bill a provision of the kind I have mentioned he would have made an important contribution toward educating the public in getting proper value for their money. Many object to paying twenty-five cents for five or six pounds of oatmeal, yet people will pay about $6 for a bushel of corn in the form of com flakes. The amount of money expended and the food value received are not at all comparable. It might do something to solve the problem of unemployment if society were furnished with proper food at an economic price. Much is said about the fact that the

Dairy Industry Act
great necessities of humanity are food, clothing and shelter, yet when we are prepared to pay about $6 a bushel for com in the form of corn flakes it makes one wonder whether we are attacking this problem seriously, seeing we have within our own control methods of dealing with it. If these commercial products were required to bear a statement showing their actual food values, under penalty of being debarred from the market, it would go a long way toward reducing the competition which producers of good creamery butter now have to meet.
In this day and generation science seems to be doing everything possible to find substitutes for the real thing. Doctors recommend the use of vitamins, and much stress is laid on the importance of a balanced ration, but if we continue to develop these synthetic substances it may be wondered just what the human race will come to in a few years. I hold in my hand a report on the United States butter industry, and I note that research organizations in that country have developed a new product from whey, which as hon. members know is a by-product of the manufacture of cheese. The name of this product is Polymethylacrylate, and there is no doubt that it can be produced. It is a water white semi-transparent material, closely related to the glass used in highway reflectors. It is softer and more flexible than organic glass, but very tough and lasting. I mention that to show that many articles may be made out of dairy products; the resources of science and invention in this direction are not exhausted. By this means new uses may be found for some of our dairy products. I am led to believe that the casein of milk can be used in many articles produced as substitutes for rubber. The possibilities along this line are comparable with those of the soya bean. I am told that about a hundred different articles can be made from the soya bean. We would be within our rights if in view of the serious situation which we are now facing, we made an effort to increase the production of substitutes manufactured from dairy products.
I believe it would be money well spent if the Department of Agriculture would make some effort, by means of advertising over the radio and in the newspapers, to show the food value of butter as compared with that of other products. After all, if a nation is to be strong it is necessary that it should have good food. A good many products are put on the market simply to sell, with no food value in them at all. I often wonder at the taste we have developed for soft drinks and mineral waters of various kinds. There is absolutely no food value in these beverages, and I sometimes think if they were called drugs, which 71492-184
after all they are, and banned as beverages, we might substitute for them something that would have actual food value. I believe science has developed a process by which apple cider now can be kept without losing its sweetness, and it would be much better if those soft drink bottles were filled with good apple cider or even grape juice. Then the people would get some food value; I believe their health would be the better for it, and industry would be helped. I quite understand that people have a right to buy what they like, but I think we would be quite within our rights if we banned anything that might be detrimental to the physical well-being of our people. T remember that several years ago an embargo was placed upon the use of oleomargarine, just because it was not considered a good food for humanity. We as Canadian citizens felt that if we were to maintain a strong, virile and intelligent people it was necessary to have good food, and when oleomargarine was analyzed it was found that on the basis of food value it was much more expensive than butter.
I believe that is the angle from which we should approach this sort of legislation; that is, on the basis of actual food value. I believe it is possible that we would materially improve the health of our nation if we confined ourselves to those products which contain high food values, so I am glad to recommend the use of butter in place of some of these substitutes. I think on that ground there is a great deal of justification for a movement to eliminate substitutes, which endeavour to fool the people into believing they are getting more value than actually is the case.
Once more I am going to suggest to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that money invested in an endeavour, by means of radio and newspaper advertising, to increase the demand for good, wholesome farm products would be money well spent. It might be pointed out to the housewives that every cent spent on good wholesome food is a good investment. I have great confidence in the intelligence of the Canadian people, and I believe they would respond to an advertisement of this kind. At the present time there is quite a controversy in regard to the substitution of vegetable oils for dairy products, mainly for use in baking. In spite of the fact that vegetable shortening is less expensive than lard, I do not believe it is as good an investment. After all, it should be cheaper, because it has not the same food value. I sometimes think the Minister of Agriculture should insist that all these articles be labeled to show their food value; I think at this time we have a right to insist on that.

Dairy Industry Act

I have before me an example of what advertising has done in connection with fish, and I think we must give a great deal of credit to our friends from the maritimes and British Columbia for the way in which they have advertised their products. I have before me a nice advertisement which appeared in the National Home Monthly. Naturally, after coming across an advertisement like this in a magazine, at the first opportunity a good housewife would tell her husband to bring home some fish for supper, and I have no doubt that advertisements of this kind have had a tendency to stimulate the demand for fish. I believe our friends in Prince Edward Island are doing a very good job of advertising Prince Edward Island potatoes. I know that in the section of the country in which I live we buy many, many carloads of potatoes from that province. I do not know whether they are any better potatoes than we could grow ourselves, but they have us thinking they are better, and we keep buying them year after year. I have come to the conclusion that happiness is a state of mind; that it is not what people have in their pockets or what they have in their cellars that makes them happy, but the state of their minds.
Perhaps this has no bearing on the question, . but I believe that if you advertise a product as being good it is necessary that you make a good product. So far as butter is concerned,
I believe Manitoba has won more prizes than any other province. I have in my hand a smart bulletin issued by that province which states that Manitoba won 57-6 per cent of all prizes awarded for creamery butter at the ten largest fairs held in Canada during 1938. So I am inclined to take the view that I would gladly recommend to the Minister of Agriculture such an advertising campaign, which I believe would have a tendency to relieve the surplus that exists to-day. At the same time I would urge him to give consideration to some measure which would require these products to indicate their food value.
I have every reason to believe that the intelligent housewife will take cognizance of that, and that she will endeavour to secure the very best for her money.


Mr. J. A. BLANCHETTE (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to support the measure presented by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Leclerc) to amend the Dairy Industry Act, the purpose of the bill being to prevent the use, to the detriment of butter producers and consumers, of the word " butter," for the sale of products which are not butter, as defined in our Dairy Industry Act.

It would seem to me that such a measure would be conducive to salutary effects on the dairy industry at all times. But even more do we find good reasons for the introduction of the bill to-day, when the dairy industry is such that all possible means must be used to come to its assistance. Especially is this true of that branch of dairying connected with butter production.
On account of exceptionally good pasturing conditions last summer and, I might add, on account also of speculation in butter, this country finds itself with such a surplus of butter that the prospects for the coming year are none too reassuring to those engaged in that branch of dairying. If we do not want to see prices which will be almost suicidal to Canadian butter producers, some action must be taken.
As is well known to all hon. members well versed in the matter, 95 per cent of our butter production is consumed locally and, roughly speaking, 5 per cent is exported. But it is this excess of exportable production which, generally speaking, fixes the price on our home markets. It would appear to me that not only could this excess of 5 per cent of our consumption be taken care of, but the efforts of all concerned in the industry should be directed toward taking care of this 5 per cent over-production in such a way that it should not control the price of the other 95 per cent produced.
As much as possible this excess production should foe diverted to other channels. For example, it could be made into cheese. Then, again there could foe a greater consumption of natural milk, or other dairy products. Also, educational campaigns both in this country and abroad should enhance and make better known our dairy products, especially our cheese, which has no equal throughout the entire world.
Again, in our trade treaties with other countries the greatest anxiety should be shown in finding favourable outlets for our excess butter production. Incidentally, I might state that I do not view with great satisfaction the information contained in a recent bulletin showing imports of butter into the United Kingdom, where it was revealed that of a total import necessity of 1,000,000,000 pounds, empire countries, not including Canada, supplied about 535,000,000 pounds, foreign countries supplied a total of 527,000,000 pounds, while Canada supplied only three and one-third million pounds. It would seem to me that surely ways and means should be devised in order that it might be possible to have more

Dairy Industry Act
Canadian butter shipped to the United Kingdom market especially, to replace that coming into England from foreign countries.
The hon. member for Shefford has informed the house that last year alone some 15,000,000 pounds of butter preparations, labeled "butter" but not in fact being butter in the sense accepted by the Dairy Industry Act, were imported into Canada for consumption. Added to this amount must also be taken into consideration the number of pounds of these same preparations which were made in Canada and sold as substitutes for butter.
As I understand it, it is not the purpose of the bill to bring about a condition whereby none of these preparations will continue to be placed on the market for consumption. The bill would make provision whereby it would no longer be possible to place products labeled "butter" on the market. It is safe to assume, therefore, that should this restriction respecting the use of the word "butter" be applied to the products in question, less of those products would be sold to replace butter, and the dairy industry would surely benefit by selling more butter for local consumption than it has sold in the past. I believe the protection offered by the bill is a step in the right direction, and I am convinced that the dairy industry is ready to support the measure.
If all who are interested in the success of the dairy industiy are to strive to do their utmost to have the products of that industry obtain a wider market and secure more favourable prices, surely by corollary should we likewise exert all possible care in connection with any possible substitutes for dairy products. That is the object of the bill, and with it I am heartily in accord.


Mr. R. G. DAVIDSON (Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, I think this bill should have been designated, "The Eastern Townships Bill." Hon. members from the eastern townships have not spoken in the house very often, which may be taken as an evidence that they are perfectly satisfied and in accord with everything that has been done. I wish, however, to lend my support to the bill presented by my colleague, the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Leclerc), and I believe it should be passed. I do not think there is any member of the house who is not of the same mind.
Hon. members are aware of the condition in which the dairy industry of Canada finds itself to-day. We know about the surplus of butter on hand. In view of the array of exhibits placed before the house by the hon. member who introduced the measure, I think it will be readily realized that the butter producers are up against heavy competition. The 71492-184}
hon. member might have added two more to his list, namely maple butter and cocoa butter. It is only a short time ago when the domestic shortening producers were placing on their labels the words, "Just as good as butter."
So I say it is about time we were giving the butter industry a little protection. One point I would make is that any assistance extended to the dairy industry is assistance given to the small producer. As a result of the foresight of provincial governments in 1934, when dairy commissions were appointed, large producers of fluid milk for the fluid milk market were taken care of. The only producer to-day who is looking for assistance is the small producer who is compelled to go to the butter factory. When I refer to the large producer I am of course referring to the man who is maintaining a large herd of dairy cattle. Invariably that man is delivering his product to the fluid milk market, and in that respect he is fortunate.
I know of some hon. members who are enjoying that privilege. For instance, in the province of Quebec the price of three and a half per cent milk to-day varies from 82 to $2.25 per 100 pounds. All producers are supplying milk averaging over three and a half per cent. I may say that the milk delivered in Montreal to-day, the largest milk market in the dominion, where more than 850,000 pounds of milk are consumed daily, in addition to ice-cream and special milk drinks, averages 3-8 per cent butter fat. The producer enjoys also a bonus of three cents for every tenth of a point over the three and a half per cent. Contrast that condition with the condition which faces the dairy farmer who is compelled to sell his cream to the butter factory for eighty cents per 100 pounds and has only the skim-milk left. This government should not do what has been done in many instances, namely, help the man who does not need assistance; this government should be trying to help the small dairy farmer who really is in distress.


Ralph Melville Warren: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Leclerc) upon bringing this matter to the attention of the house. If there is any class in Canada to-day deserving of consideration, it is the dairy farmer. There is no class of farmer who suffers more to-day than the dairy farmer who is producing milk and sending it to the butter factory or manufacturing it into butter himself. There are a number of reasons for this condition, but I shall not deal with all of them to-night. The question before
Dairy Industry Act

the house at this time is a bill to amend the Dairy Industry Act. The one section of this bill reads:
Section 5 of the Dairy Industry Act, chapter forty-five of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, is amended by adding immediately after paragraph (e) thereof, the following paragraph :
" (f) use the word 'butter' to describe, label, advertise, sell or offer for sale, a product different from the product defined in paragraph (a) of section two of this act."
Section 5 of the act reads:
No person shall
(a)	manufacture, import into Canada, or offer, sell or have in his possession for sale, any oleomargarine, margarine, butterine, or other substitutes for butter, manufactured wholly or in part from any fat other than that of milk or cream;
(b)	mix or incorporate with butter, by any process of heating, soaking, reehurning, reworking, or otherwise, any cream, milk, skim milk, buttermilk or water to cause such butter when so treated to contain over sixteen percentum of water or less than eighty percentum of milk fat.
Paragraph (e) reads:
(e) have upon premises occupied by him where any dairy produce is treated, manipulated, manufactured, or reworked, any substance that might be used for the adulteration of any such product and the presence upon any such premises of any fat or oil capable of being used for such adulteration shall be prima facie proof of intent so to use it.
I have before me samples of seven different products each of which is labeled "butter." The first is called Golden Bar Chocolate- Honey Butter, and it sells for ten cents for four ounces. I have here another called Meadow Sweet Sugar Butter, which is composed of caramel, coconut and chocolate. This sells for thirteen cents a pound, but in its original state, apart from the flavouring, it would cost about four cents a pound. We are not complaining about a manufacturer selling such products, if he can sell them, or the consumer buying them, if he wants them; what we are complaining about is the fact that articles of this type are termed "butter." Surely the dairy cow should have a monopoly of the use of the word "butter."


Mr. BARBER:: What about butternuts?


Ralph Melville Warren: I have here another type of butter made of sugar, which sells at twenty-five cents for less than two pounds. The sugar from which it is made would cost about five cents a pound, yet the manufacturer is permitted to sell this under the name of butter. I submit again that the dairy cow should have complete monopoly of the use of the word "butter." If we go back as far as history, records we find that the people knew what

butter was. We are told about butter in the book of Proverbs. This is something that is contained in the book of Proverbs:
Surely the churning of milk bringeth forth butter.
Another objection to permitting these substitutes to be sold as butter is the fact that very often the manufacturers advertise them as being equal to butter in food value. At one time that was more or less generally believed, but it has since been proven that such is not the case. Butter is composed mainly of milk fat. A considerable amount of water is present and, in addition, a small amount of casein and usually some salt. The proportion of each ingredient present in any sample depends upon the process of manufacture. The fat varies as a rule between 79 and 82 per cent in factory-made butter, while the water ranges from 12 to nearly 16 per cent. Under the national laws, butter in the United States having a water content above 16 per cent must pay a tax of ten cents a pound as adulterated butter if it enters into interstate sommerce. The casein, or curd, furnishes about one per cent of the whole. The salt varies between 1-5 and 3-5 per cent, two per cent being a standard figure. There is a considerable demand in large cities for unsalted butter.
Butter has been prized as a food as far back as the beginning of written history. As a source of energy for the body, butter has about the same value as other fats, such, as coconut oil, lard and cottonseed oil. Those interested in the manufacture and sale of butter substitutes have made use of this fact by claiming that substitutes for butter made from animal and vegetable oils are equal to butter as human food. But scientific discoveries of recent years show that butter fat contains an exceedingly important substance known as a vitamin which is absent from or found in very minute quantities in vegetable oils and animal fats other than butter.
This is something of importance: Without this vitamin, which may likewise be obtained from milk, children and animals cannot grow. For this reason there is no real substitute for butter, and the farmer who sells his cream or butter and buys a substitute is risking the health and growth of his family, and especially the normal development of the children.
The house should seriously consider passing this measure. We are quite willing that the manufacturers of Golden Bar-Honey Butter, sugar butter, or peanut butter, should go on manufacturing their substitutes if they wish, but we contend that they ought not to be allowed to describe them by the name of 'butter."

Dairy Industry Act


Ernest George Hansell: What term would the hon. member suggest that they use?


Ralph Melville Warren: I suggest that manufacturers of substitutes might themselves find names for their products. If I go into a drug store and ask for Wampole's cod-liver oil I know that I am getting Wampole's cod-liver oil, because no one else in Canada would dare to make something and call it by that name.


Ernest George Hansell: But there are other kinds of cod-liver oil.


Ralph Melville Warren: Yes, but they cannot call them Wampole's.


William Hayhurst: There is creamery butter and dairy butter.


Ralph Melville Warren: But it is butter, made from butter fat, the product of a dairy cow, and I contend that the dairy cow was first in the field, and that her monopoly ought to be preserved, not be allowed to be infringed by people who would give us a mixture of white sugar and I do not know what, corn starch or anything they care to use, and call it butter. No animal in this or any other country deserves as much credit as the dairy cow. All over Canada farmers who farm on a small scale have been able to build up homes and provide a living for a family largely by means of a few good dairy cows; that has been the case all through the years. Now we have these manufacturers of substitutes-and the number is growing; we have, I think, eight-continually finding something new for which they try to take the name that ought to be kept exclusively for the product of the cow. As far back as history goes, "butter" meant the product of the cow, and the word ought to be restricted to that product. We do not need a patent if this law goes into effect.
An hon. member asked what these substitutes should be called. Lest the manufacturers should have trouble in finding a name for themselves, I suggest that they brand their products "substitute butter," so that when the housewife goes into a store for butter she will not be fooled into carrying away something else. I am inclined to think we have been backward in educating our people to the real value of dairy butter. I suppose there is no other product that contains as much food value in an equal space as a piece of good butter. With the regulations surrounding the manufacture of butter as we have them today it is a rare thing to find butter of poor quality in our restaurants or eating places. I should like to draw forcibly to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture this important anmedment to the Dairy Act, and I hope
that by this time next year our dairy men will be protected to the extent that the word "butter" may be reserved solely for the product of the dairy cow.


Thomas Langton Church: Hon. members opposite from the eastern townships support a policy of protection for butter and yet are opposed to any protection for manufactured goods. The hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Warren) is strong for protection on butter for his own district but will deny any protection on manufactured goods for the rest of Canada. The Conservative party believe in the real doctrine of protection; they were the authors and founders of protection in this country. I am for a policy of protection, all for each and each for all. I believe that the right application of the doctrine of protection, brought up to date to meet modern conditions, would solve all the economic ills in all the provinces. I was ridiculed when I proposed in 1923 a national fuel policy of bonuses, subventions and subsidies for the coal of the maritime provinces, Alberta and Wales, so as to use an all-British coal supply. Sir Henry Thornton said that it was a lunch-counter system of freight rates. But I said that was better than sending $56,000,000 in wages to his friends the Pennsylvania coal barons. I told him, we are far better off with a lunch-counter system of freight rates protecting our coal industry than supporting the Pennsylvania coal barons. Three million tons of coal a year are now moved to the head of the lakes from the maritimes. I support protection for all Canada in all the provinces.
On the prairies what happened? Hon. members opposite were for free trade. They were everything by fits and starts and nothing long. Even the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner)-


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. The
hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will revert to the business with which it was dealing at six o'clock.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of the following proposed resolution- Mr. Rogers-Mr. Sanderson in the chair:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide assistance in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress and for such purpose to authorize the execution of undertakings in the general interest of Canada and requisite for the purposes of the act, out of moneys appropriated by parliament, and also
2924	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
to provide financial assistance to the provinces by way of loan, advance or guarantee, out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund, and for the appointment of necessary officers, clerks and employees.
Douglas Gooderham Ross: At six o'clock when the committee rose I was reading a letter sent to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) from the young men of John Frank's house. In the earlier part of the letter they made a request. Then the letter continues:
Consequently in making this application for the privilege of doing useful, gainful work we wish to offer ourselves as a group to demonstrate how a small works camp would work out. Although there are a variety of works projects on which such a group as ours might be employed, the following suggestions may prove practical.
Remember, these young men wish to be employed as a group. They rehabilitated themselves with the help of public-spirited citizens of Toronto, and they have been doing admirable work with the aid of the Reverend. John Frank, a fine Christian gentleman. These are some of the projects:
(A)	Trans-Canada highwayconstruction work.
(B)	National parksdevelopment and clearing
roads
reforestation.
(C)	Flood control workon navigable waterways.
We have given much thought to this matter and believe that such an experimental camp would be better if planned as a straight works project. On this basis it would be necessary and logical that such personnel as engineer, government clerk, timekeeper, foreman, and powder man be appointed from outside our group. Such positions as straw bosses, blacksmith, carpenter, stable boss, and compressor man, however, could be filled capably from amongst our own numbers.
In our opinion, a fair wage scale for such an experimental camp would be 35 cents per hour minimum for labour, less nominal charges for housing, board and medical care.
We should like to emphasize that we consider this camp suggestion as a worthwhile experiment, a test case, and believe that the results obtained will provide much definite information of a kind which will aid in solving Canada's unemployment problem.
Our record as a group in John Frank's house is open to any inspection. We believe we have proven ourselves to be orderly, responsible citizens; but we do not wish to continue to live on charity. Our only request is for decent, honest work of value to our country and at wages on which we can live and find some hope for the future.
In making this application, may we respectfully ask your prompt consideration of it and an immediate reply? Our reason in asking this is that John Frank's house will close on April 1st.
Yours respectfully,
Single unemployed men of John Frank's House per S. Lyle,
House Committee.
These are the yaps, the spineless, pap-fed creatures, so called by the Liberal member for Wellington North (Mr. Blair), for which statement he was applauded by all hon. members on the Liberal benches. I wonder what the reply of the Minister of Labour was to these men. I do not know what it was, but the betting is that it was hedged round with constitutional difficulties and the kernel of that reply was, "Well, we won't help you."
The minister has lost one of the greatest opportunities any Minister of Labour ever had. Here is a group of young men, a crosssection of the country, who had rehabilitated themselves with the aid of public-spirited citizens. What an opportunity this was to see if that experiment could not continue to work, by giving these men a section of the trans-Canada highway to look after, or putting them on the reforestation of Canada's parks or some such program as that! I am sure this could have been done and had it cost the government anything, which is doubtful, the money would have been well spent.
What were these young men to do? Were they to go through the same old grind again, the same old wandering from pillar to post and finding themselves ultimately in the same old position that they occupied before? Were they the spineless creatures that they have been pictured to us? No. These boys are decent. Most of them left home, coming from all parts of Canada, because they could not bear to see the privation of those who were endeavouring to support them. I have met them, I have talked with them, and I know they are good Canadian citizens. I repeat, what were they going to do? They went farming. These so-called spineless boys got busy and enlisted the support of public-spirited citizens in Toronto; now they have a farm, and I see it reported in one of the daily newspapers that their funds now amount to $782. That is what these ninety men have done, and I say that the government has lost an opportunity to carry out an experiment that might have turned out to be very useful indeed.
There are between 50,000 and 100,000 of these men in Canada, and I am sure that if they were given the same treatment and had an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves they would be very soon taken off the relief payrolls. There are thousands of them between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five who have never had jobs.
One word about crime. All we have to do is to consult the police reports of hold-ups. One is astonished at the youth of those who are arrested as criminals, astonished at the age
(Mr. Deputy Speaker.]

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
at which they are sent to prison. This afternoon my leader (Mr. Manion) said that he thought this unemployment among these youths was responsible to a great extent for the crimes that are reported. I quote, as I quoted once before in this house, a dispatch from the Globe and Mail of January 20:
Mr. Neeland, deputy provincial secretary, in commenting on the jump in crime stated that, "the number of prison sentences in Ontario would reach a new high-higher than the previous record of 21,421 in 1930."
What a picture to have presented to us in Canada! Let us look at conditions in Toronto to-day. There are over 70,000 people on relief in that city. There are more people legitimately on relief in Toronto than ever before. If to-day we had the same policy of administration in Toronto with respect to relief as we had in 1934, there would be 130,000 or 140,000 people on relief-a terrible situation. There are 1,112,000 on relief in Canada,
491,000	workers unemployed and thousands of others on short time, and about one-third of the population of Canada are receiving less than 8450 a year.
When I go home every weekend, dozens of these people come to see me, people who cannot get work. Certainly they do not want relief, because when the average relief is $10 per capita per month, nobody wants to stay on relief. But they cannot get work. It gets a fellow down when he cannot do anything about the matter. The Liberal provincial member in my riding is just " run ragged " all the time. He so stated the other day in the provincial house. The situation is terrible. I receive dozens and dozens of letters from parents wanting to know why something cannot be done, why they cannot get jobs for their boys or their girls of seventeen, eighteen, nineteen, twenty, twenty-three, twenty-four years of age who have never had any work. That is the situation in Toronto. Why does the government not get busy and put into effect some of the suggestions made by the employment commission? The minister says that the only opportunity for these young men is in agriculture. I do not agree. With the statistics before us of the products we consume in this country, surely we could see to it that a larger proportion of those products is made in Canada.
I have mentioned before that last year we imported agricultural implements of the value of around $19,000,000, and mining machinery to the extent of seven and a half million dollars; is it not possible for Canadians ta make some of this machinery? It seems to me that, following a proper survey by this government, they could see to it- that more
opportunities were provided for employment in industry. After all, the fanners can hardly make a living; as a general rule they do not want any more help; so industry seems to be almost the only alternative, although there are opportunities in forestry as well. The government are always disclaiming liability for unemployed employables, but if it is not their Obligation I do not know whose it is. Certainly the provincial governments have nothing to do with the provision of work in private industry, although they can provide some employment on public works projects. However, provincial governments have spent so much money on relief works that surely this government could take upon itself a program of reforestation or adopt some other of the suggestions which, for example, have been presented by the John Frank's house.
I noticed to-day an editorial in the Globe and Mail alluding to a million dollar forestry plan to employ some 4,000 young men. Why only 4,000 men; why not 40,000 in forestry if that number need work? Forestry and afforestation are useful and profitable; they will grow into money as time goes on and take up the slack in the meantime. Something must foe done. I am going to quote from a letter from Mr. W. F. Kirk, principal of the Jesse Ketchum school. He says:
The youth leaving school with high ideals for the future, finding himself in an indifferent society, becomes hostile to that society. We, to whom this country afforded such rare opportunity in our youth, cannot blame him for the loss of morale.
With the wonderful natural resources and oportunities we have in Canada, surely something could be done. The debt we are creating is far greater than any money debt; it represents the terrible liability of degraded youth; and when one remembers what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said after his election and sees what has happened in the last three and a half years, one ceases to wonder that Red agitators have such an easy time with some of our young men.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This afternoon I asked the minister a question, with reference to his statement that there, was provision for the single unemployed, with a view to putting some further questions to him about this problem. I had not expected the debate to be precipitated which has been precipitated, or to hear made some of the unfortunate remarks which have been made. Some hon. members opposite have complained about the fact that we have agitators, subversive elements and perhaps an organized minority. I should like to say to those hon. gentlemen that in my opinion some of the
2926	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
statements which, were made this afternoon will do more harm across Canada than all the organizers who could be brought into this country. I doubt if anything would do more to undermine the morale of young men who are victims of an economic condition than to feel that those who sit in positions of responsibility in this house could use such libelous and scurrilous terms in referring to them.
I need hardly remind the committee that the attitude of some hon. gentlemen towards this class of people has changed from year to year. I have in mind the year 1935 when this same class of men

transients-were seeking to come to Ottawa to air their grievances. I remember that at that time. I followed Hansard very closely; I recall some of the crocodile tears which were shed by members of the then opposition, and that the hon. gentleman who is now Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) became eloquent 'and sentimental about these homeless lads These boys who had a just grievance in 1935 are dubbed in 1939 by the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Warren) as having-a majority of them-a prison record, although he gave no statistics to substantiate his statement.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That was not the statement at all. I think the hon. member was referring to some men who took part in the Vancouver riot last year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, the hon. member can correct his own statement. I am sure that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) does not have to take a brief for the entire group across the way. If my statement is not accurate the hon. member is quite capable of correcting it. Those who had a just grievance in 1935 are now referred to as sabotageurs, as cutting hoses and as being unwilling to work. As the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) said, those charges of cutting hoses were entirely disproved.
The unemployed man in Canada to-day is on the horns of a dilemma. If he stays at home, assuming his parents are on relief, he can get relief but his prospects of getting a job are very small. If he leaves home in search of work, in a very short time he forfeits his residence qualification and ceases to be eligible for relief if he comes back home. Yes, I was going to say he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, but I did not know whether that remark was parliamentary. Either he must stay at home and accept relief without any prospect of a job, or he must go out to hunt a job and lose the right of any sustenance he might get through relief, because

he cannot come home again and live on the meagre relief allowance his parents are getting. That is the position of these men.
I have some case records relating not only to men in Canada but to some in the United States, where they are faced with the same problem. Scores of young men who have homes will not go back to those homes because, if they do, it means that the rest of the family must share the relief allowance with them. That is why I asked the minister this afternoon for an explanation of what seemed to be an unfair and misleading statement when he said that during the winter months there is no province or municipality in which provision is not made for unemployed men; later this afternoon the minister himself said that there were somewhat under 10,000 such young men not provided for. If the minister will clear our public gallery any afternoon he can fill it with young men from the city of Ottawa who are receiving no relief; they may be getting tickets at the mission, but no one has accepted direct responsibility to see that they are either properly cared for or have employment.	'
Now, when we ask the minister, what about these people?-his reply, at any rate this afternoon, is that agriculture is open to them, and at the same time he states that last year the employment service in the city of Ottawa placed 1,300 young men. Surely the minister must be cognizant of the fact that this would not begin to fill the need in Ottawa. I have here the report of the unemployment survey conducted by the Ottawa youth federation. The minister knows, probably better than I do, what was done here. They divided the city of Ottawa into, I think, forty-five districts and formed contacts with a number of families in each district. In all they covered 9,365 individuals, and what did they find? They found that the unemployed among these people, between the ages of sixteen and thirty and over thirty, numbered 938, or approximately ten per cent. That is a rough estimate, but here in the city of Ottawa, there is somewhere in the neighbourhood of ten per cent of these residents unemployed and capable of filling more than the 1,300 vacancies that may exist in connection with agricultural work. I know that in the parts of western Canada with which 1 am familiar, during the last two or three falls in areas where there have been crops, transients have poured in- because they heard of the crops and thought they might get work in the fields. What happened? In most instances the labour created by the crops could not absorb our local unemployed in the villages, towns and cities of western Canada, let alone provide
.vPRIL 18, 1939
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
work for the transients. There may have been the odd transient who obtained work, but in the main they could not get it.
I resent men rising in this house and saying that these people do not want to work. As yet I have not later figures from the minister; during this discussion I will ask for them, but he did give me the figures in regard to 1937-38. When the farm placement scheme opened in Saskatchewan in the fall of 1937 they received a little over 25,000 applications in a little more than thirty days, as the minister knows. Then they closed the books. Of those who applied, some 5.000, or roughly 20 per cent, were rejected; the rest went out and worked for $5 a month plus an extra 82.50 a month if they stayed throughout the entire winter. When anyone says these young people do not want to work they have only to look at these figures. Most of these people were on relief or had been on relief; yet, as I say, during the course of a month 25,000 of them signified their willingness to go on farms; as a matter of fact more signified their willingness to go out under this scheme than the government were prepared to put out. The minister suggests that agriculture is the only employment open to these young men. I suggest that nowhere in Canada will agriculture absorb the local unemployed youth, let alone the transient unemployed.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is not true.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member is quite at liberty to make his speech after I am through, and he can show that it is not true.
I now turn to a statement made by the minister this afternoon. In a pettish way he suggested that all the members over here seemed to be able to think of was employment in terms of public work rather than private work. Of course that is not a fair statement. But the minister knows, just as every hon. member knows, that private employment has not been forthcoming; and when private employment is not forthcoming, the unemployed of this country have a right to think in terms of public employment. Of course I know the minister is definitely on record in that connection. I refer to his statement on February 17, 1936, appearing at page 243 of Hansard for that year, in which he said:
I wish this government could put every ablebodied man to work to-morrow, and I am quite sure that desire is shared by every member of the government. However I cannot advocate such a policy because I do not believe public employment through a vast scheme of public works is anything more than a palliative for our present economic ills. I believe that ultimately it would create far greater economic distress than that which now exists.
The minister himself is definitely on record,
I admit, as being opposed to public employment. But may I say to him that if the unemployed of this country are thinking in terms of public employment it is because they were led to expect such public employment by the government of which the minister is now a member. Let me quote from the speech made by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the House of Commons on February 27, 1933, at which time it will be remembered that he outlined the new Liberal platform. He said:
The Liberal party believes unemployment is Canada's most urgent national problem.
I submit that this statement is still true, although the right hon. gentleman has been in office for the last four years. Then he goes on to say how they would deal with this urgent national problem, and he divides it info two parts, how they would deal with the emergency condition and how they would deal with the long term problem:
It would deal with the present emergent conditions through a representative national commission which would cooperate with the provinces and municipalities in the administration of unemployment relief, and in an endeavour to provide work for the unemployed.
If I may stop just there, two things were suggested. The first was a national employment commission to administer relief along with the provinces and municipalities. Well, we got a national employment commission but it never administered relief; "it never had power to administer relief or to administer anything. It was an advisory commission that drew up a report at considerable cost to the Canadian taxpayer, and filed the report with the government, and then the members of the commission joined the ranks of the unemployed. The second feature was:
. . . and in an endeavour to provide work for the unemployed.
In 1935 from one end of Canada to the other we heard of a work and wages program. That was what the unemployed were led to expect. The minister need not stand up peevishly now and say all we can think of is employment in terms of public work. The people have been led to think in terms of public employment when private employment was not forthcoming.
Personally I cannot share the minister's great fear of public employment. I agree that it is only a palliative, but it is something; and when private employment is not forthcoming it seems to me the next best thing. Whenever I had opportunity during the last two or three summers I watched

2928	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
work being done in the United States under the works progress administration in the state of Illinois and out through the western states. I have seen them take schoolhouses very much like some we have on the prairies now, unfit for human habitation, tear them down and build new ones; put in new town halls; asphalt the streets of their small towns and villages; pull down old homes; take burned out areas of land in North Dakota and Montana, irrigate them, move farmers back on the land and build houses and barns for them. They have taken their unemployed and placed them on little five-acre units with a new house, twenty-five chickens and a cow. They have guaranteed those people ten days work a month, which gives them enough money to buy their groceries. With their five acres of irrigated land they have their potatoes and other vegetables, and feed for their cow and chickens. It is not an ultimate solution, but they are doing something, and they are rebuilding the morale of their people.
I have no doubt the minister has visited the CCC camps, which, again, are public employment, I grant. But here are young men working, young men who are healthy, young men who are under able supervision. These camps are not perfect; some things will have to be done and some changes are being made. You see these young men cutting stone, planting trees and working at irrigation systems. They are working and receiving wages. Part of the time they get training. Above all, they are getting what the minister mentioned the other day, namely a balanced diet and proper supervision. They have a placement scheme to help these young men when they come out of the camps, and they are not allowed to stay on the labour market.
The complaint may be made that a great deal of money is being spent and that they are going into debt. But I do say that the United States is building up national assets, not only in terms of great dams, not only in terms of state assets, but in terms of a revitalized youth, people who are getting back their self-respect and their spirit of independence.


An hon. MEMBER:: They have more unemployed than we have.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon.
member will find that he cannot substantiate that statement, if he goes thoroughly into the figures. Many hon. members in the group to wdiich I belong have said-and I need not repeat it-how much most of us admire the minister. In 1936 when I came to the house

I had occasion to write a number of newspaper articles, in which I gave it as my opinion that the Minister of Labour was the white hope of the treasury benches of the Liberal party. I have always admired him- both his ability and his attitude towards the great social problem.


An hon. MEMBER:: We do yet.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The thing I object to is not lack of ability; it is that constantly the minister and the government seek to look upon any criticism, and any anxiety to look the problem square in the face, as an act of sabotage. If the President of the United States could stand before congress of that great nation and say, after he had been years in office, "One-third of these people are ill fed, ill clad and ill housed, and it behooves us to do something about it," I would think more of the statesmen in this government if they were prepared to admit that the problem is a bad one, that they have been only scratching at it, that they have been dealing with it in a penny-ante way and that they are prepared to ask the cooperation of all parts of Canada to begin to apply the resources of this nation to solve it. Instead of that, we have before us a resolution preceding a bill, the same one which has been presented year after year. There has been no change. The same method is used. There is the same lackadaisical way of thinking that when we make a table and get the unemployed classified into employables and non-employables, and into this age group or that age group, we have solved the problem. As a matter of fact, all we have done is to gather material with the aid of which we may begin to make an onslaught on the greatest problem which now faces the people of Canada.


Mr. LANDER  YOU@: I should like to ask the minister a question. I directed this question to him two or three years ago, and I think he will recall it when I put it to him again. He has answered the question already, but not to my satisfaction, and I am sure not to the satisfaction of the minister himself.
The question I directed to him was this: Does the minister think that under the present economic system we shall ever be able to employ all the unemployed who are employable?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Mr. Chairman, I am bound to say the hon. member has put a difficult question. I say that frankly to him. I did believe three years ago there was a reasonable prospect, given a return to normal conditions of international trade, that this country could

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
absorb from year to year the annual accretion of potential wage-earners. Lacking normal conditions of trade, it has not been possible for this country to do that thing.
As one looks ahead one cannot but feel that our ability as a country to absorb our unemployed in industry depends in a very large measure, if not entirely, upon a resumption of normal conditions of international trade. If we do not secure that we may find it extremely difficult to counter the contrary . tendency towards building up a self-contained economy in this dominion. Under a self-contained economy I believe it would be possible to provide regimented employment to all of our inhabitants. But it could only be at a tremendous cost to the average standard of living of the Canadian people, and also at a very great cost to human liberty.


John Charles Landeryou: Following up that question, may I say I am pleased to note the minister has changed his opinion, and has changed the answer he gave before, when he quoted Thomas Carlyle and made reference to magic pills. He had no magic pill.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think that was in another connection.


John Charles Landeryou: It was in answer to that very question. Then, there is another question, and it is this:	Has he arrived at
any definite opinion, himself, as to the real causes of unemployment?


An hon. MEMBER:: He just answered it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall the resolution
carry?


John Charles Landeryou: If the minister does not intend to answer it-


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am anxious to have the resolution proceed. My hon. friend has put a question which I am bound to say has been before not only the parliaments of the world, but before economic experts during the past century, and even before that. I would not for a moment suggest that there is one single cause of unemployment. It is due undoubtedly to a variety of causes, many of which have been discussed in the house. I do not suggest they have been discussed only by members on the government side; they have been discussed rather by members from all sides of the house. I doubt very much if it would be profitable at this time to enter into what some of my hon. friends might term an academic discussion, and particularly if it came from me.
71492-185J


John Charles Landeryou: I gathered from the reply the minister gave to the first question that it was simply a matter of unemployment due to the collapse of world trade. I say that because he said that until we had arrived at a period of normalcy, by expansion of world trade, we would never be able to employ all those unemployed. So I gathered that he meant the decline in world trade has resulted in unemployment. However, I will not press the point further.
I intend to make a few remarks at this time in answer to some of the statements which have been made in this debate. One hon. member of the Liberal party, speaking for the Liberal party, I gathered, stated that the unemployed transients were yaps, street-comer bums-


Mr. MARTIN:: He is speaking for himself.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I should like to inform the hon. member he was not speaking for me.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Nor was he speaking for me.


Thomas Reid: He was not speaking for the party.


John Charles Landeryou: I have only heard
replies from two or three, and there are about one hundred and ten Liberals in the house.


Thomas Reid: Be fair.
Mr. O'NEILL: That is a very unfair remark. I do not think the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Landeryou) wishes to be unfair.


John Knox Blair: During my remarks I was
asked if I was speaking for the Liberal party, and I told the hon. member and the committee that I was speaking from observations of my own, and that I was not speaking for the Liberal party. I should like the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) also to get that idea into his head.


Robert James Manion: Would the hon. member mind telling me who did the applauding? Did he applaud himself, or was it half of the Liberal party?


Thomas Reid: I know I did not.


John Knox Blair: I am not saying I heard anybody applaud.


Robert James Manion: You can all get up, one at a time, and deny who applauded; but the vast majority applauded.


Thomas Reid: But no private member speaks for the party.
2930	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


John Knox Blair: I was not speaking for the party.


Mr. STEVENS:: This is the grand renunciation.


John Knox Blair: I was speaking as to my own opinion, and I should like to say something more-


John Charles Landeryou: Order. I heard considerable desk pounding when the hon. member made that remark. I do not think the Minister of Labour would support the hon. member in that statement. I do not believe he thinks the unemployed are yaps.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The hon. member for Wellington North (Mr. Blair) did not say that with regard to all the group of unemployed. He spoke of a particular experience of his own.


John Charles Landeryou: To which group of unemployed was he referring?


Norman McLeod Rogers: As I understand it, he was referring to certain men who were asked to work on his farm, and who refused to do so.


John Charles Landeryou: That is not the impression the committee got.


John Knox Blair: It was men largely from the city of Toronto, and I was-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Charles Landeryou: We will undoubtedly hear from hon. members-


John Knox Blair: I said that a great many of those men were bums because they were drinking beer at the public expense.


John Charles Landeryou: We will undoubtedly hear from 'hon. members for the province of Ontario. Reference has been made to the so-called fact that there are agitators and subversive elements working among the unemployed. I 'believe the minister made use of those terms. Unemployment is the result of a break-down in our economic system, and that break-down has been caused by the subversive elements, by Canada's public enemy No. 1, the financial institutions. Those are the subversive elements which have caused the collapse in our economic system which has resulted in unemployment.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) has said that he stands for capitalism. Let me say this to the hon. gentleman, that we also stand for capitalism. But we do not stand for the type of capitalism that the Liberals and Conservatives stand for, for the type of capitalism that creates unemployment, for the type of capitalism that has created so much bankruptcy, both private and public,

for the kind of capitalism that has created high taxation and unrepayable debts, for the kind of capitalism that has created low prices for the primary producers and low wages for our workers. We stand for the type of capitalism that will permit the greatest possible production and distribution of the goods and services of this country, a production and distribution to the limit of the ability of the people of Canada to produce and distribute.
I listened to the leader of the opposition speak on behalf of the unemployed. He pleaded with the Liberal government to do something. I should like to refer now to a statement made by the hon. gentleman, as reported by a Canadian press release from Toronto dated December 7. I quote:
Declares conservative party must reorganize. Hon. Doctor Manion says nobody knows what is the policy of the federal organization. Suggests moderate tariff revision, encouragement of youth and abolition of race and creed friction.
Hon. Doctor R. J. Manion, Conservative, former federal railways minister, addressing Conservative business men here to-day, declared "nobody knows what is the policy of the federal Conservative party." The party must be reorganized, he said.


Robert James Manion: Would the hon. member give the date of that?


John Charles Landeryou: Toronto, December 7.


Robert James Manion: What year?


John Charles Landeryou: This was Wednesday, December 8, 1937.


Robert James Manion: That is two years ago.


John Charles Landeryou: Yes.


Robert James Manion: There is a difference in the party since then.
Mr.LANDERYOU: The dispatch continues:
Doctor Manion suggested three main points for a party policy-revision of the tariff on a moderate scale, encouragement to youth to interest itself in state affairs and the abolition of race and creed friction.
Doctor Manion said the two-party system was the only practical one for a democracy. For Canada, preservation of the Liberal and Conservative parties was the best thing.
Here is the real gem:
Democracy had its disadvantages and one of these was the vote of the unemployed.
"I do not think that it is a good thing for the government of a country to be in the hands of those on relief," he said. The problem of distribution must be solved. Work and wages must be given to all willing to accept them.
"We have personal political liberty, but not personal economic security for our people," he said.
There is nothing that would create greater concern in this country than an attempt by any government to disfranchise any section of the Canadian people.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Robert James Manion: I wish to make it perfectly clear that the hon. gentleman has no right to read any such suggestion into my words. What I was suggesting-it is very clear from what he reads, although he implies otherwise-is that we should be able to take people off relief. That is what I was suggesting then, as I do to-day.


John Charles Landeryou: Surely, when you take people off relief you do not have to do away with their vote.


Robert James Manion: I did not suggest doing away with their vote.


John Charles Landeryou: I shall read the words again. They are:
Democracy had its disadvantages and one of these was the vote of the unemployed.


Robert James Manion: If you cure unemployment, you do not have the votes of the unemployed.


John Charles Landeryou: The hon. member has come to a great change in the last two years.


Robert James Manion: I have not changed at all.


John Charles Landeryou: He did not think you could get rid of the unemployed then.


Robert James Manion: I believe you can get rid of them with good government, and that does not mean a social credit government.


John Charles Landeryou: At least the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) does not agree with my hon. friend, because in answer to a question I directed to him he said he doubted very much whether the unemployed could be put back to work.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I did not say that.


John Charles Landeryou: I quote:
"Let us reform our system and continue to advance." He cautioned against encouraging people to look to the state for everything.
They would not have to look to the state if they were employed.


Robert James Manion: If my hon. friend would read more of my speeches he would know a lot more than he does now.


John Charles Landeryou: The report continues:
Doctor Manion advocated that federal work projects should be delayed in good times then they might relieve economic stress when times were not so good. Financial resources should be accumulated in prosperity to provide for depression.
The Conservative party if it is to survive must draw up a platform embodying the principles he set forth, said Doctor Manion. "We need a platform, not drawn up by one or two men but by some kind of a convention."
"Let the members of the Conservative party once again dedicate themselves to Canada by guarding our freedom, but continuing to advance by avoiding half-baked theories such as communism, fascism and social credit," he said. "Let us build a great nation and not a conglomeration of antagonistic groups."
The Conservative and Liberal parties have been in power since confederation. They have presented platform after platform to the people. Year after year, session after session, parliament after parliament, they have promised the people that they would get the best brains possible to deal with this problem. What is the result? Just look at the mess in which we find ourselves in Canada to-day. I do not see how the Conservative party can feel very proud of its past record. I do not think the Canadian people are going to be fooled by a new man although he claims to know a good deal more than the hon. member for Calgary East. My hon. friend from Macleod says that we should send Mr. Bennett a wire. I believe that would be a good idea. After hearing the speeches made toy members of the Conservative party, I believe they should send the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett a wire, saying, "Come home, all is forgiven." What is the cause of unemployment? What is the cause of the economic distress that we have in this country? Upon what are we going to blame these things? That is the question I ask of the Minister of Labour.
Our economic system is divided into two main parts, production and distribution. The real purpose of our economic system is to produce and distribute. When we analyse these factors, what do we find? We find that neither production nor distribution is working favourably to the welfare of this country. We cannot blame the collapse of our economic system upon the elements of nature. We cannot blame the lack of production or the lack of real wealth upon insufficiency of natural resources; we have an abundance of natural resources in this country. We have all the building material and all the labour required to build fine homes; we have, I repeat, abundance of natural resources; no nation on earth is blessed with more natural resources per capita than Canada, so we cannot blame our economic distress upon unfavourable elements of nature or lack of natural resources.
What then is another factor in production? We must have the knowledge of how to apply labour to the natural resources in order to produce the goods required. If you had a modem factory in the heart of Africa and all the gold in the world you could not produce anything by using slave labour. Your
2932	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
people must have a knowledge of the technique of production. In Canada we cannot blame our economic distress upon lack of knowledge of production. The men of this country are willing to work, but we have machines that have displaced men; we have solar energy which has done away with the need for human power, so we cannot blame unemployment upon want of energy, whether human energy or machine power, to apply to our natural resources in order to supply the requirements of our people.
Then what other factors do we need? Money is needed. But those who have money to-day are afraid to invest it in the production of new wealth, for they know that they could not sell the goods; so they say, "What is the use of investing money in new production when we cannot sell what is already produced?" There is one flaw in the economic system, the fear on the part of those who control money to invest it in production because they know that the world over there is an unsalable surplus of commodities; the great masses of the people the world over are unable to buy the products of industry. There is the flaw-the money system.
Dealing with distribution, can we blame the failure to distribute goods upon inability to communicate our desires from one section of the country to another or from one nation to another? We have developed lines of communication that are quick and ample to meet all the needs of the present economic system. We can communicate all our desires for goods or services; there are plenty of communication facilities. So we cannot blame our failure to distribute wealth upon lack of efficient communication. We have a system of transportation, so we cannot blame our inability to distribute the wealth of this country upon insufficient transportation facilities. Compare our present facilities with those in operation away back in the early days when the Phoenician traders were trading all round the Mediterranean, using camel caravans and communication by runners. We cannot blame our inability to distribute goods upon our transportation system.
What then are we to blame? Can we blame our system of weights and measures? No, we have an honest and efficient system of weights and measures. When a man goes to the store for a pound of butter, the storekeeper never says he has run out of pounds. When the housewife goes to buy a yard of goods, she is never told, "We have run out of yards."
But the people who want the goods continually run out of money. That is another essential factor in the distribution of goods,

we must have a medium of exchange. That is what has broken down; that is the flaw in the system of distribution-lack of a medium of exchange in sufficient quantity to transfer the goods and services produced in this country from one person to another. There is not sufficient purchasing power in the hands of the people to buy the goods and services that we are capable of producing. That is why I say that our present financial institutions are Canadas public enemy No. 1; they are the subversive elements that are destroying the economic life of this country, producing ruin and chaos, creating unemployment and all the rest of the inequalities from which the people are suffering.
Now we, the party I represent, are not the only ones who claim that the money system is responsible for all the suffering of mankind. Let me refer to the evidence that was given before the banking and commerce committee of the United States senate by Robert L. Owen, former chairman of the committee on banking and currency in the republic to the south. He is associated with a group of leading professors, economists, bankers and industrialists in the United States in an endeavour to reform the monetary system. This is what he says, as found on page 52 of the booklet entitled, National Economy and the Banking System of the United States:
The contraction of the money supply not only increases business failures and decreases individual and government income but results in throwing millions of people out of employment, compelling the government to resort to various measures of relief and the expenditure of public funds on a colossal scale in order to protect the people from actual starvation and physical deterioration.
The national industrial conference board of New York, representing the leading industrial organizations of the United States, has collected information with regard to unemployment. We insert their table showing the number of unemployed for the years 1929 to date. Unemployment figures,-annual average:
1929		
1930		
1931		
1932		
1933		
1934		
1935		
1936		
1937		
1938	(June)
..	469,000
..	3,849,000
..	8,148.000
..	12,516,000
..	12,773,000
..	10,523,000
..	9,843,000
..	8,159,000
..	7,028,000
..	10,981,000
(preliminary)
In estimating the need for an additional supply of money to prevent unemployment, these figures are of great significance, for they show that unemployment expands as the money supply contracts. The problem of unemployment is made worse by the fact that many who are listed as employed are employed on short hours in a limited number of days instead of working a maximum number of normal days and hours.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
These figures on unemployment should be compared with the price level, representing the volume of money employed in the wholesale markets. There should also be a comparison between the cheque money actually employed in these years. Students will observe that as cheque money went down and as the volume of money went down in the wholesale markets employment went down. A table showing this comparison is here inserted for the years 1929 to June, 1938.
This table is indeed enlightening. Might I have the permission, to put it on Hansard without reading it?


An hon. MEMBER:: Read it.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member will have to read it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed. Put it on.


John Charles Landeryou: The following is the
table:
Price Cheque Unem-
Year	level money ployment
1929	
95-2	$1,300,000,000	469,0001930	
86-8	900,000,000	3,849,0001931	
72-1	660,000,000	8,148,0001932	
63-9	450,000,000	12,516,0001933	
65-0	430,000,000	12,773,0001934	
74-6	470,000,000	10,523,0001935	
79-8	530,000,000	9,843,0001936	
80-6	611,000,000	8,159,0001937	
81-7	637,000,000	7,028,0001938	(June).. 88-0	530,000,000	10,981,000
(estimated)
It is thus perfectly obvious that these figures demonstrate that as the money supply is contracted employment is contracted, and as the money supply is increased employment increases.
The remedy, therefore, for unemployment is frankly to recognize the shortage -of the money supply and to expand the money supply through the federal reserve banks by authority of the government, without penalizing those who ignorantly or innocently contract our money supply.
Robert L. Owen, former chairman, committee on banking and currency, United States senate, recognizes that unemployment is due to the money system, flaws in our money system.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Is that the only reason he gives?


John Charles Landeryou: That is the reason he gives. The hon. member can read it in Hansard.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Is that the only reason he gives?


John Charles Landeryou: That is the only reason that is given in the booklet.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Does the hon. member agree with him that that is the only reason?


John Charles Landeryou: That is the major reason. There might be other contributing
factors, but all linked up with the money system; just as St. Paul said, "The love of money is the root of all evil."


Norman McLeod Rogers: I suppose the drought in western Canada might have had some effect.


John Charles Landeryou: Reference has been made to a statement contained in the Scriptures about the poor being with us always. I find here certain opinions expressed by Mrs. Harriet Boyd Hawes, a lady who has had a distinguished career as an archaeologist. I should like to put this on Hansard for the benefit of hon. members who have been quoting from the Scriptures.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: What is the hon. member quoting from?


John Charles Landeryou: I am quoting from evidence given before the committee on banking and currency of the house of representatives of the United States:
Of valid economics predating the power age there remains not a vestige. Of valid economies predating the intensive and intensive and extensive use of electricity there will soon exist only rags and tatters. We still have to thank Adam Smith for insisting "Consumption is the sole end and purpose of production"; but the old form of the law of demand and supply is outmoded, since supply has become practically inexhaustible. We have tapped the universe for electricity and for fertilizing nitrates; we shall be able to produce substitutes for any substance whose supply fails. We are already in the age of plenty, when not a single human being need want, but we do not admit it; we are using an utterly outgrown system of economics, and we are suffering frightfully from it.
The puzzling parable of the labourer who had waited from early morning for a job and being hired at the eleventh hour, received the same pay as the one who had toiled all day, meets to-day's problem of unemployment. You remember the mysterious reference to a sin against the Holy Ghost, which was pronounced unforgivable? I am beginning to think our apathy in letting poverty continue in the midst of potential plenty is the unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit, which is striving to-day for the good of all through science and invention.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: On a point of order, might it not be possible for an hon. member to refer to a book without quoting it all? I object to a member taking up the time of the committee reading to us a book that is available to all hon. members.


John Charles Landeryou: Is that a point of order, Mr. Chairman?


Frederick George Sanderson: It is a point of order, but it is not well taken.


John Charles Landeryou: I agree. The book is not available to everyone in the country, and I am reading it not for the benefit of the
2934	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
hon. member but for the benefit of those who will read it and really try to understand what it conveys.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Is it available only to members of the Social Credit group?


John Charles Landeryou: To continue:
There need be no have-nots, whether there are jobs enough to go round or not. We are hearing to-day from the national citizens' committee at Johnstown of "The right to work"; Representative Ditter of Pennsylvania, on July 5 said on the floor of the house, "Every American citizen has the right to work," but what they mean is a right to work when a job is given a man, and it is to the interest of the employer that he should continue at it! Other confusing phrases are in frequent use, for example, "Favourable balance of trade" when what is meant is a continuous tilt of trade in our favour. To an archaeologist this looks plainly impossible; in the long run imports must equal exports or we go smash.
Other great statesmen in the United States have referred to unemployment, and I will place some of their views on Hansard so that he who runs may read.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Why
does the hon. member say "other great statesmen?"


John Charles Landeryou: Because they have a Complete appreciation of economic matters and have had years of experience in administration, and they are better qualified than either the hon. member who has just spoken or myself to express opinions on matters of this kind. Let me quote Senator Wagner in discussing relief-and this sounds a good deal different from the statements of hon. members on the Liberal side:
On June 17 Senator Wagner said to Senator Bailey in discussing relief-
I have listened to the claims of the senator from North Carolina that there is no serious unemployment problem to-day. Does he not know that the very lowest current estimate of unemployment, that of the conservative national industrial conference board, is 7,533,000, and that the average of all responsible estimates is about 9,000,000?
What, in the senator's judgment, has become of the "technologically" unemployed? He must, indeed, be familiar with the tobacco industry. Nineteen hundred and thirty-six was a banner year for that industry.
He goes on to prove that technological unemployment is here to stay and industry is displacing more and more men by the use of solar energy in place of man power. And Senator Bone said:
The advance of technology in agriculture has tended to widen the gap in general wellbeing between farmers who are able to embrace it and those who are unable to utilize the fruits of science and invention. This gap is

certain to widen .	.	. the man with the
hoe and the man with the tractor are not competitive equals where they are engaged in the same type of farming.
In Canada we hear from the Liberal party, "Put men back on the farm." Well, here we have unemployed men who are willing and anxious to work in our large factories manufacturing farm implements, factories that are working only twenty-five per cent of total productive capacity. That is the situation. We can mechanize our Canadian agriculture and then we do not need the farmer; when that happens we do away with a field of employment which the minister mentioned this afternoon. I asked him what fields were open to single transient unemployed, what industry offered them opportunity, and he said, "agriculture." If we could put to use the labour and materials available for employment in our factories we could mechanize the farms of Canada, and then that industry would be closed to those seeking employment. But the Minister of Labour believes that the only way in which a man can make a living is to work, and if a man does not work he will starve. We have robbed men of the right to work by substituting the machine, and now we rob men of the right to live by taking away their wages.
The leader of t'he opposition said that we had only a half-baked theory. If I could get one half-ibaked idea from the Conservative party I would be tickled to death. He referred to the Social Credit party as being out to print unlimited quantities of money. May I refer to a gentleman iwho has made a greater contribution to the world than the hon. member will ever make, a man who is recognized as one of the greatest inventors the world has ever known-Thomas Edison. What does he say? What are his views on matters of this kind? The leader of the opposition did not give me an answer to the question I asked as to what was the value of money. Let me read to him what Edison said:
The only dynamite that works in this country is the dynamite of a sound idea. I think we are getting a sound idea on the money question. The people have an instinct which tells them that something is wrong and that the wrong somehow centres in money.
Don't allow them to confuse you with the cry of "paper money." The danger of paper money is precisely the danger of gold-if you get too much it is no good. There is just one rule for money and that is to have enough to carry all the legitimate trade that is waiting to move. Too little and too much are both bad. But enough to move trade, enough to prevent stagnation on the one hand, not enough to permit speculation on the other hand, is the proper ratio.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
If our nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 per cent interest, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who contribute directly in some useful way.
It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30,000,000 in bonds and not $30,000,000 in currency. Both are promises to pay; but one promise fattens the usurer and the other helps the people.
It is the people who constitute the basis of government credit. Why then cannot the people have the benefit of their own gilt-edge credit by receiving non-interest-bearing currency, instead of bankers receiving the benefit of the people's credit in interest-bearing bonds? If the United States government will adopt this policy of increasing its national wealth without contributing to the interest collector-for the whole national debt is made up of interest charges-then you will see an era of progress and prosperity in this country such as could never have come otherwise.
The only function of money is to move goods. We hear Liberal members and Conservative members referring to " printing-press money " and to ourselves as " scrip teasers," when all money is just printed-paper money or figures in a book created by bankers out of nothing. Billions of dollars have been created by the banking system in Canada and the United States out of nothing-just fountain-pen money; bonds have been sold to the banking system, putting us in perpetual debt. When this matter is under discussion at a later date I intend to deal more fully with it, because there are a number of hon. members who still believe what bankers across this country are telling the people, that what they loan are the people's deposits; many people believe there is gold behind the currency, and currency behind the bank deposits. People have all kinds of buncombe told them by the banking system of Canada. If I am in order I will refer to a statement made by Mr. F. W. Pethick-Lawrence, who in 1929-1931 was financial secretary of the British treasury. He said:
I am convinced .	.	. that unemployment
as it exists to-day is not an economic but a monetary phenomenon


John Horne Blackmore: How do hon. members like that?


John Charles Landeryou: -a stabilized price level with neither inflation or deflation is the only workable solution.
But the Minister of Labour wants to get back the world's markets. The markets of the world will not be regained for years to come. Must we in the meanwhile destroy the youth of this country; must we break down the moral fabric of the nation by
fastening upon our people the poverty which is the result of unemployment? The Liberal government is afraid that somebody is going to get something for nothing. Why, the bondholders and the usurers of this country have drawn billions in usury; they receive each year millions for which they have given nothing. Talk about "something for nothing"! The Liberal members are getting something for nothing. They promised the people that they would solve the problem of unemployment and get rid of poverty.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about the twenty-five dollars?


John Charles Landeryou: Never mind about
twenty-five dollars while you are sitting there and getting $4,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about your
twenty-five dollars?


John Charles Landeryou: What about our
twenty-five dollars? Who was it that stopped the giving of twenty-five dollars to the people of Alberta? We would do it if we had control of our own credit. There is nothing easier in the world than to create credit-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not what the hon. member said.


John Charles Landeryou: But the argument of the orthodox economist is this, what is there to redeem the money? Well, it is redeemed every time somebody is willing to give their labour for it. Currency is redeemed every time anybody in this country gives a service for it. The cost of the depression has been declared to be the difference between our actual production and the capacity of our industries to produce. That is the consequence to us of operating under the present financial system. The production of this country has been sabotaged. Our factories are working part-time. If we put our idle labour, our unused material, our brains and our factories into employment we could increase our national income by billions of dollars.


An hon. MEMBER:: What would you do with the surplus goods?


John Horne Blackmore: Distribute them.


John Charles Landeryou: The surplus goods can be distributed to the people when we have an economic system which will put the purchasing power into their hands. We have suggested that you finance consumption; when you finance consumption you have placed a demand against industry for more production; and you know that when you increase production you increase employment.


Norman McLeod Rogers: What will you do with wheat, without foreign markets?
2936	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


John Charles Landeryou: There are in this country many commodities of which we have a surplus. Consider the situation the world over. How about coffee in Brazil? How about corn and pigs in the United States? How about dried fruits and hides and wool in New Zealand? There are surpluses of commodities all over the world. The world conference of agricultural economists, in 1936 stated in their conclusions that you must increase the real purchasing power of the masses, you must decrease costs and enlarge the social services. Certainly there are surplus commodities in the world; yet in face of that fact the people are unable to secure them. There are people in Canada who want coal. We can produce all the coal that we require. There are people in this country who would like to eat fish. We have a surplus of fish which the people are unable to get. There are many who want radios but cannot get them. There are many who need medical and dental services and hospitalization but cannot afford them; these services are available in abundance, but people have not the money to pay for them. All we have to dio is to increase the purchasing power of the people and let them get more goods, and we shall not have to worry about our surpluses. I will quote a piece of poetry which I think will answer that objection:
Have you ever been to Crazy Town And walked down Looney Pike?
There are the queerest people there,
You never saw the like.
They make so much of automobiles,
Of foodstuffs, wheat and such That thousands of them do without, Because they have too much.
That is the situation. Surpluses should not bother us. I do not care how large your surpluses are so long as you are able to see to it that the people of this country have sufficient food, clothing and shelter.
I will not go further into this question at the present time. I will only plead with the government to. recognize that the cause of unemployment can be found in our obsolete money system, and if we are going to effect a solution of our problems we shall have to finance consumption. If the minister wishes to finance consumption through public works, in order to make people work for what they get, and not through a national dividend because he is afraid they won't work if they get the dividend, very well. We are in favour of the national dividend. But you as a government will not do anything. You will neither provide public works on a sufficient scale to solve the problem, nor will you finance consumption.


Mrs. BLACK (Yukon):: I have heard some very clever men say that a woman's tongue is hung in the middle and loose at both ends, but it seems to me that this has been refuted in the last few days. I have listened very carefully, very attentively, and in vain for a solution of this unemployment question. No one in this house is more vitally interested than I am in helping the youth of this country. I know what it is to bring up sons. I know what it is to see boys and girls helpless and idle. In this session, from my own small means I have given over one hundred dollars to men who have asked me for a little help. I have given eleven directed envelopes with the word "free" in the upper right-hand corner to men to whom I have given help, and have asked those men to whom I have given those envelopes and small amounts of money, if when they got to their destination, they would kindly let me know; in the envelope was enclosed a sheet of paper, and I asked each man if he had a pencil, and each man answered me, yes. I have not received in reply a single envelope or a single letter.
It is my opinion, from my experience during the last nine years, since the depression first struck this country, that there are a number of men-and I do not exclude the women- who under no circumstances would work if they could get along without working. But I do not believe these form the large majority. I think we are safe in saying that if they had an opportunity of being properly fed and properly looked after in order to be fit to undertake hard work, ninety per cent of our unemployed would go to work. I am hopeful of the young people of this country. For the last forty-one years I have been associated with perhaps twenty men to one woman, so I feel that I understand the male mentality about as well as anyone can. We have heard quotations from the Bible. I do not believe that when our Lord said, "The poor ye have always with you," he meant only poverty of goods, of money. I believe He included as well poverty of body, of soul, of mentality, of morale. We shall always have men and women unfit, by reason of their physical disabilities, to cope with the hardships of life. Unfortunately we shall always have men and women unable, by reason of their mental disabilities, to cope with the hardships of life. It is not always poverty of money that makes a man undersirable or that makes a woman incapable of fighting; it is poverty of many attributes.
I was afforded an opportunity of visiting unemployment camps in the states of Washington, Oregon and California. I have said in

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
this house previously that I believe in a semi-military training. I believe in disciplining children. My boys were just as disobedient, just as boyish, just as devilish as probably each of you men was in your youth, but I insisted that they show respect to their elders and that they obey. With that end in view I gave them a semi-military training, and I believe our youth should have that training to-day.
If we do not come to grips with this question, Mr. Chairman, we are sure to reap the whirlwind; there is no doubt about it.
I am afraid of a dictator; I am afraid of the brand of socialism, bolshevism, nazism, fascism, or whatever you may call it, that is preached in different camps, in different industrial plants, and taught from one end of this fair country to the other by men who want to make trouble. I shall be berated by many for saying this, but personally it is a matter of absolute indifference to me which party is in power. I want good government first, last and all the time. But whichever party you belong to, work day and night, honestly and conscientiously; try to do your best. I ask hon. members to my left, many of whom I admire, as well as others who, I think, become lost in the fury of their language, to consider the present and not to go back to 1930 or 1931 or 1936 or 1937. Instead of berating the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), who to many of us may be too academic or too dreamy, try to help that man do what you believe to be his duty, in the best interests of this country. That is what we are here for. I do not believe that by tearing words to tatters we are going to help the unemployed who are on our streets today; I cannot see it. Surely, as grown men, you are able to sit round the conference table and do what is best for this glorious dominion. I hear hon. members talk of our natural resources. The greatest national resource of any government in the world is the human resource; it is what each of us can do to help our fellow men. If anyone can tell me what I can do to help these boys who are walking our streets-some of them hopelessly gone, without a doubt, and others just waiting-I will crawl on my hands and knees to help them, because every time I see one of these boys I think, "There but for the grace of God goes one of mine."
Of course a woman of my age and with the experience I have had feels very deeply.- I am going to ask hon. members to discuss these questions as we would discuss such matters in the family. When your son comes to you in trouble you do not rant at him; jou do not pick up a book and say, "Here
is what so-and-so, a great statesman, had to say." You sit down and talk it over and say, "Son, be patient. I have gone through the same thing. Now see if you can't just wait, though it is hard to do." We must do something for the unemployed. The money will be found. With the state of the world at the present time, how can Canada, with only 11,000,000 people, buck the whole world? She cannot do it.
We talk about what the United States has done. Has any hon. member been to New York lately? In that city there are hundreds and thousands of men and women living in poverty, distress and filth. Yet think of the billions the United States has spent! Have any hon. members been in some of the other large United States cities? Well, the United States is an enormously rich country. She is our neighbour. I was born and brought up there myself. I love her. I love Canada. I love what Canada and the United States have both taught me. But I beg of you to forget, as much as you can, partisan politics, and to remember what this Canada of yours has come through, how well she has come through the tragedy of so many years, and to feel in your hearts that she is coming through even worse. You have it in your power. God knows that I hope we use that power to the best advantage.


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a good deal of interest to the observations of other hon. members who have spoken on this subject. I am of opinion a great many valuable suggestions are before the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) for consideration. Of those suggestions I believe some may be better than others. After speaking to a number of business managers, managers of both large and small factories in my constituency, I have come to the conclusion that a great deal of unemployment can be traced to the trade treaties of 1935 and 1939.
In discussing conditions with those managers I have been told it was necessary for them to lay off a number of their employees. When I called on them in 1936 they told me that they were laying off a certain number of men and were shortening the hours of employment of their older employees. I returned and chatted with them in 1938 and 1939 and found the same circumstances.
I contend, therefore, that there is a great deal in the assertion that the trade treaties have caused unemployment in Canada. May I point out that a business man does not
2938	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
accept excuses in connection with the running of his business. If he did that he would fail. Results, and only results, count.
Let us consider what results have been obtained from the legislation passed last year under the Department of Labour. It will be remembered that last year $80,000,000 was voted by parliament for municipal improvements and housing projects. Of that sum only $1,253,000 has been spent, or less than two per cent of the total amount. Can we call that a satisfactory result? Last year we voted $1,175,000 for youth training, and I believe that vote represented one of the best actions the government has taken. Of that amount, however, only $350,000 was spent, or approximately 25 per cent of the total amount. Is that a satisfactory result? Of
63,000	young people who received training of one kind or another last year, only 4,310 actually got jobs. Is that a satisfactory situation? Are we gaining anything? Are we going anywhere? How are we going to carry on? What is this government going to do if it cannot get better results from the suggestions made to it?
Its failure is not through any want of urging or through the lack of knowledge of statistics revealing the extent of the problem. Service clubs, business men, capital and youth have all sought to contribute plans and projects to help solve the problem. Yet, so far as the government is concerned, that problem remains with us.
I have a suggestion to make, and it is that the minister open up a campaign to purchase made-in-Canada goods. I believe if our people were asked to buy only made-in-Canada goods and not to buy goods the manufacture of other countries, many of our unemployed would receive work. I believe if it were not for the lopsided tariffs between Canada and the United States and the trade agreements which have been entered into, our factories would be able to operate almost on full-time, and thereby put to work large numbers of the unemployed.


Mr. WALSH:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss this question of unemployment quite dispassionately and, I hope, in a tone which will in some way compare with that adopted by the hon, member for Yukon (Mrs. Black). I appreciate her remarks and the sentiments she expressed. I only hope each and every member in the house will come to a recognition of the fact that this problem of unemployment is a real and national one which must be grappled with in an altogether different manner from that which we have been using up to date.

I think most of us are in agreement with the fact that unemployment is still our most pressing problem. No great improvement, certainly no permanent or fundamental improvement has been shown in the last three or four years. At a meeting of the federation of mayors of municipalities held in March, 1938, the question of unemployment was seriously discussed. That discussion took place among a group of men who were in close and intimate contact with unemployment and the facts connected therewith. Those men knew what they were talking about. They knew it from first-hand information, and not from any theoretical understanding of the situation, or from any long-range view. After a serious discussion they considered and passed a resolution. This has already been drawn to the attention of the minister, but I should like to read it into the record. It reads: Unemployment Relief
Whereas there has been no marked abatement in the crisis of unemployment, which remains a continuing national emergency and national responsibility;
And whereas the terms of existing governmental agreements providing for the sharing of the costs of unemployment relief are unsatisfactory;
And whereas the resulting strain on municipal finances, due to the restricted taxation base available to municipalities, threaten the solvency of many Canadian municipalities;
Now therefore be it resolved:
By this conference of mayors representing all parts of the Dominion of Canada,
That pending the dominion government taking over, assuming and discharging the full responsibility in the matter of unemployment relief, the said government on the expiration of the present agreements with the respective provinces, enter into a new agreement with the provincial governments, whereby the dominion government assumes fifty per cent of the cost of unemployment relief, including medical assistance and hospitalization, conditioned upon the provinces assuming at least forty per cent of the said cost.
There is another resolution on unemployment relief reading:
Resolved: That, in recognition of the fact that unemployment relief, in one form or another, will continue to be a problem of greater or lesser magnitude, this conference of mayors urge upon the dominion government the necessity for continuing legislation which would place the administration of unemployment relief on a more stabilized basis than at present exists.
That is what came from that group in March, 1938. A year has passed since then, during which time these resolutions have been before the present government for consideration, but unfortunately no definite action has been taken. We have practically the same resolution before us to-day as has been adopted by this house at almost every session I have attended, and I understand similar

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
resolutions were adopted prior to the session of 1935. We have made no definite strides toward settling the fundamentals of this problem. I feel that a resolution which has been passed by a body of men who know this subject so intimately should receive more consideration than apparently it has been given. There should be not only consideration, but action by the government based upon the arguments put forth in the report of which this resolution formed a part.
Like every hon. member, I have been receiving many communications, not only from my own constituency but from other parts of Canada. I have received many copies of a telegram which apparently was repeated and sent from different parts of this country. No doubt this telegram has been inspired by some source, but I think it sets forth what the people of Canada are thinking about this national problem of unemployment. This telegram reads as follows:
Consider adequate action to solve unemployment essential this session.
My reply to each one of these messages has been that I am in complete agreement with the sentiment expressed and that regardless of what government may 'be in power, I am willing to do everything I possibly can to bring about a solution of this problem which in my estimation is so pressing and unsatisfactory at the present time. I feel that we must come to real grips with this problem, otherwise it will get beyond our ability to deal with it.
I was sorry to miss hearing the speech which was delivered in this house iby the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey), but it was my privilege, while attempting to recuperate from a slight illness, to read it as it was quoted in the newspapers. I consider that was one of the finest efforts ever put forth in this house. I believe that speech contained one of the most valuable suggestions ever made for the solving of this unemployment problem. The hon. member presented fourteen points. They were not all new, in fact probably none of them was new. Some of them have been tried, at least in part, but I consider that those fourteen points should provide a good working basis for the solving of this serious and pressing problem. It is true the hon. member for Greenwood suggested that thousands had died as a result of this crisis, and while he did not give definite figures. I do not think any hon. member should expect him to do so. Death certificates are not made out in the terms used by the hon. member for Greenwood. Every hon. member knows, as I know, that there has been and that there will be a tremendous casualty
list in this and other countries as a direct result of the suffering which many people have had to undergo while this problem has remained unsolved.
I consider the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) has one of the most trying positions in the government of Canada. It is a position which I do not think many hon. members would care to occupy at this time. I have every sympathy with the minister, but I feel that if he had given the same attention to the fundamental issues of this problem as he gave to one of the statements made by the hon. member for Greenwood, he would have been able to come to this house with a promise of a solution which would have raised our hopes and the hopes of those who are in distress at the present time. The minister has admitted the great difficulty which he has experienced and is experiencing in obtaining one hundred per cent cooperation from all the provinces on any or all of the plans he has put forward. Some of us attach the blame for that to this government, while others attach the blame to various provincial governments. But no matter where the blame is to be attached, the fact is that the condition exists. I feel that each one of us should do our part in trying to remove that condition so that it will be possible to come properly to grips with this pressing problem.
Just the other day I was reading a few remarks by Mr. Purvis, who for a period of time was the head of the employment commission, the report of which we all refer to from time to time and consider to be of great value. Speaking about six weeks ago to a Montreal club, he used these words:
Too many units of government tackling the same problem along with all the overlapping, the unproductive bargaining, and the jockeying for places which inevitably results from such a position are reflected in what is rapidly becoming a stalemate.
That is a condition which actually exists; it is recognized iby the former head of the employment commission. It is apparently recognized by the Minister of Labour; it is a part of the problem to which we must give serious consideration, and it must be amended and rectified before the fundamentals of this problem can be effectively dealt with.
One of our most serious handicaps in solving this problem is political. It is unfortunate that the problem of unemployment, in which the suffering of human beings is involved, should become a political football or be dragged into the political arena for the gain of any party, provincial, dominion or municipal. I regret that it is in
2940	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
the political arena at the present time, and before I close my remarks I shall urge that an effort be made to remove it from the political arena and not allow it to enter dominion or provincial or municipal politics to be kicked around as a football between one party and another looking for advantage and trying to reach power on the misfortunes and suffering of their fellowmen. We see one government trying to get money advantage over another. We see provincial governments jealously guarding their so-called provincial rights. The job of solving the unemployment problem is in my estimation bigger than any right, provincial or dominion, and we should look at it from that point of view.	We should endeavour to
persuade those Who are interested in political affairs elsewhere than in the dominion that this problem will and must be entirely removed from the field of political operation as we understand the term political.
I have here some further remarks by Arthur B. Purvis speaking in the same address on the topic, "The Canadian Way." He said:
What is needed is the element of community service and self-sacrifice to add a mainspring to the efforts of the various communities.
Cooperation does not come automatically.
The national employment commission was a government instrument for securing nationwide cooperation, and when it was given a job to do it found no difficulty in obtaining a very wide community support across Canada.
The type of machinery needed now is one that should have the blessing of the dominion government. It should be voluntary and non-political in character, and it should be organized on a nation-wide basis with a common policy background. It should permit of the harnessing of local pride in local achievements.
In those sentiments Arthur B. Purvis recommended and urged that this problem be taken out of the political arena and placed in the hands of a commission that would be given the blessing of the dominion government. and they in cooperation with other citizens interested would goon see that the problem was removed from provincial and municipal politics so that it would be properly and effectively grappled with in a businesslike way without seeking political advantage for any group or organization.
Some of the plans put into effect within the last two years are good. But they are not sufficient and are not sufficiently pressed. We have had many plans put forward; this government has put forward certain plans and some of them have worked to advantage, more or less. But there has not been a sufficient number of these plans, and those that have been put into effect have not been sufficiently pressed so as to become as effective as they might have become if they had been
[Mt. Walsh.]
launched and inspired in a somewhat different atmosphere.
The question of public works naturally enters into the discussion. Is that a method to cope fundamentally with the problem of unemployment? In my opinion public works is not in any sense of the term a relief measure. It is a palliative, temporary, and quite frequently leading to results that are unexpected, and not in any way reaching the fundamentals of the problem. I am not in sympathy with a large program of public works, which creates temporary employment for a number of men, but when that program is completed they again find themselves on relief. If public works are undertaken at all they should, of course, give the maximum of manual labour and the minimum expenditure on materials. That view has already been put forward in this house, and I understand that the government, in laying their plans for public works, are keeping that in mind. But again I say a public works program is merely a temporary expedient, helping the immediate necessities of a certain number of people, but cannot be relied upon to touch the fundamentals of the problem. And it is the fundamentals that must be touched if we are properly to come to grips with a problem of such magnitude.
Youth training camps have been established by this government, and I would urge their further establishment, near large cities. Those who are in these training camps can be trained in certain lines of work for part of the time, and the rest of their time could be given to study, vocational guidance and other details of an educational program to fit them for further employment. If such camps were established near our large cities where so many of our young unemployed group themselves, they would be available-


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. It is eleven o'clock.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, April 19, 1939