Mr. R. S. WHITE (St. Antoine-West-mount):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. DUNNING:: A question of privilege!


Robert Smeaton White: -I am deeply appreciative of your courtesy in permitting me to say a few words of thanks to hon. gentlemen who have greeted me this afternoon, for their goodwill, and particularly to the members of the party to which I belong for this gift of beautiful roses.
To-day I end my eighty-third and begin my eighty-fourth year. It is an old age, at least the sixth of Shakespeare's seven ages. I am reminded of that fact when I recall that it was fifty-seven years ago that I attended my first session in this House of Commons. I was then, in the words of Disraeli, a gentleman of the press, and had no other escutcheon, sitting in the gallery of the fourth estate, commenting upon the proceedings of parliament. That work I carried on for seven consecutive sessions, until, in 1888, succeeding my father, I was elected to sit in this chamber. It is, if I may be forgiven for mentioning it, an example of that bonne entente which should prevail among all classes and all provinces that for seventeen consecutive years two persons resident in the city of Montreal in the good old province of Quebec have represented in the House of Commons a constituency in the heart of the province of Ontario, twenty to forty miles north of the city of Toronto.
Parliament in 1882 enabled me to see in the flesh and to become personally acquainted with many of the members of the parliament of 1878. It is an evidence of the brevity of life and the swift passing of time that, of the men who were in the House of Commons when I first entered it, one only in all Canada other than myself survives-I refer to that distinguished citizen known as the grand old man of Ontario, Sir William Mulock. It has so happened that, of the eleven prime ministers Canada has known since confederation, I have sat in parliament with ten-Sir John A. Macdonald, Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, Sir John Abbott, Sir John Thompson, Sir Mackenzie Bowell, Sir Charles Tupper, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, and the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie King) who at
Mr. R. S. White

present rides the whirlwind and directs the storm. If I could apply to myself the lines of Henley-
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.
-I would choose to sit in parliament under the twelfth prime minister, the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion).
I have received at the hands of hon. gentlemen many kindnesses and expressions of goodwill, which encourage me to hope that I may have something of "that which should accompany old age-honour, love, obedience, troops of friends;" aye, Mr. Speaker, troops of friends, the very salt and savour of life, without whom existence would be bleak and barren indeed.
So once more I give you all my thanks and the assurance of that abiding gratitude so finely expressed as "the memory of the heart."


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: May I say to the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. White) that it would be difficult to find words wherewith to give expression to the appreciation with which all hon. members of this house have listened to the remarks which he has just made. Nor would it be possible to express to him too sincerely the feelings we share towards him on this, his eighty-third birthday anniversary. I believe we are all proud that it has been our privilege to be present in this chamber this afternoon to listen to one who has played such an important part in the public life of the country speaking to members of this House of Commons as he has out of his wealth of an exceptional experience as well as years. We are grateful that his remarks have been taken down by Hansard that they may become for others as well as ourselves a permanent record of one of the most pleasing incidents ever witnessed in the House of Commons of Canada.
My hon. friend has said that if he were expressing what he would like most for himself, it would be that he might have honour, love, obedience and troops of friends. May I say to him that he has all four in abundance from those who sit with him in this house.
He has observed how rapidly time is fleeting. All of us in these days, I think, are impressed above all else by the rapidity with which many of those who have been most familiar figures in the public life of our country are passing away. There are very few links left in the dominion between the Canada of to-day and the Canada of confederation. My hon. friend is one of them- one of them of whom all Canada is proud,

because he has been an ornament to the profession of which he has been a member and an ornament to this parliament in which he has represented his constituency for so long a time.
I might say much more to my hon. friend; it would be mostly expressing what we all wish for him. I join in every wish that he has uttered except one-


Robert Smeaton White: I did not say when.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), has just remarked to me, even at that I wish him long life. I do wish him that most sincerely and with it the strength needed to support his years. I hope it may be my privilege year after year, from this side, for many years to come to renew the congratulations which I am extending to him to-day.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition) :: After the little masterpiece delivered by my very dear old friend, whom I delight to call Sir Robert White, I am afraid that any remarks of mine would be somewhat of an anti-climax, particularly following the very graceful tribute paid the hon. member by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). At the same time, I think I should be remiss in my duty if I did not say just a word to echo the sentiments of the Prime Minister in everything that he has said-except one. I join with the right hon. gentleman in expressing, for myself and on behalf of those with whom I am associated, the affection which we all feel for this "noblest Roman of them all," the old and distinguished member for St. Antoine-Westmount, who sits to my right-or rather who has honoured me by sitting to my right.
Perhaps I might take the liberty, something that is not often done, of associating with Mr. White his very charming lady, who sits looking down at him from the gallery, in this expression of our affection for him. I think I can assure him of the affection of the whole house both for himself and for her. I might say now something I said at a luncheon which our party gave to our distinguished friend from St. Antoine-Westmount an hour or two ago in the parliamentary restaurant-and I said it in the teeth of my whole party-that of all my followers there is none whose advice and counsel I value quite so highly as I do the advice and counsel of Mr. White.
I heartily echo the wishes of the Prime Minister for a long life of happiness for both Mr. and Mrs. White. I know that I am expressing the hope of all members of my party

Questions
and, I am sure, the hope of the Prime Minister and his followers, when I say that we should all like to have the honour, for many years to come, of associating in this chamber with the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount.


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, may I, on behalf of my fellow-members from the province of Quebec, associate myself with the tributes of regard and affection which have just been paid to the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. White), whom we consider as one of us and of whom we are proud. Mr. White is a living example of the characteristics which should distinguish the true Canadian-broadness of mind, tolerance, moderation, generosity in his relations with all his fellow-citizens. I wish him many more years of life. Again, on behalf of my Frenchspeaking fellow-members from the province of Quebec, I say to him that we are happy to salute him here as one of us.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: There is really nothing anyone can add to what has already been said, but we in this corner should like to join with the others in our meed of appreciation of the services of our friend Mr. White. At this particular time there are no opposition parties whatever, and I am sure that for once, at least, we are all in entire accord.


Mr. R. A. PELLETIER (Peace River):: I am sure no words from a member as humble as I am could possibly add anything to what has been said by those who have preceded me to-day; nevertheless I think I have a special privilege inasmuch as on various occasions I have been associated with the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount, he being the oldest member of the House of Commons and I the youngest. The only possible tribute I could pay to the hon. gentleman is to say that when later on I have occasion to look back over my past, I trust that my political record will be as happy and as honest a record as that of my hon. friend.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Hull) presented the first report of the special committee to inquire into the operation of the Civil Service Act, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. LEADER:: 1.	How many cream separators were imported into Canada from Sweden in 1938?
2.	What was the rate of duty imposed?
3.	Does the new trade treaty with the United States affect the duty on Swedish cream separators imported into Canada?
4.	If so, to what extent?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	13,371.
2.	Twenty-five per cent.
3.	Yes.
4.	Under the Canada-United States trade agreement, effective January 1, 1939, cream separators are dutiable at 12J per cent ad valorem. Sweden, being a most favoured nation, enjoys the benefits of this trade agreement.
^REGISTRATION OF EX-SERVICE MEN FOR NATIONAL SERVICE


Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	Has the government given approval to the proposal that ex-service men be registered for national service?
2.	Will the government accept the records compiled as a result of the survey to be made of ex-service men?
3.	If so, for what purposes will the information be utilized, and by what department?
4.	Are there conditions that warrant any partial registration for national service?
5.	Will further steps be taken to undertake registration of all citizens?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I should like to reply to this question orally.
1.	The proposal for the registration of exservice men was entirely a voluntary cooperative proposal emanating from the organized ex-service organizations.
2.	The approval of the government was not in any way required for this purpose, but the ex-service organizations courteously informed the government of their proposals and were informed that the information which would be made available would be welcome.
3.	The information should be of general benefit, but it has not been decided to use it for any specific purpose.
4.	That is entirely a matter of opinion.
5.	As far as voluntary efforts are concerned, the government has no information; and as far as government policy is concerned, the government has never considered taking any such action.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	Was one Samuel J. Maguire employed as millwright by the Montreal harbour in 1909 or 1910?
Questions

2.	If so, is this Samuel J. Maguire the same man who was subsequently in charge of important mechanical equipment in grain elevators and shed freight hoists and acted as master mechanic for the Montreal harbour commission from May 1, 1930, to April 5, 1938?
3.	Did the said Samuel J. Maguire invent different safety devices for the benefit of the harbour of Montreal, including an apparatus for guarding against overloading of garners, and dust seals to prevent grain dust from going into the air and causing explosions?
4.	Is this the same man whose position was abolished in interest of efficiency, as stated on page 681 unrevised Hansard of February 3, 1939?
5.	Is this man in receipt of a pension?
6.	If not, what are the reasons?


FEDERAL BUILDINGS IN TORONTO
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What buildings are owned by the government in the city of Toronto?
2.	What is the assessed value of each of such buildings ?
3.	What is the assessed value of the land on which each such building is located?
4.	What vacant sites, or parcels of land, are owned by the government in the city of Toronto ?
5.	What is the assessed value of each such site, or parcel of land?
6.	Will any subvention or bonus be given Toronto towards the cost of supplying government buildings, exempt from taxation by law as crown property, with such services as fire and police protection, water supply and other civic services?


BERWICK, N.S. GOVERNMENT BUILDING
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	Did the Department of Public Works recently complete the construction of a government building at Berwick, Kings county, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, is the department aware of alleged unsatisfactory condition of the building, and are the contractors being compelled to rectify the same?
3.	Wbat were: (a) the name of the building inspector; (b) his qualifications; (c) wages paid?
4.	What were: (a) the cost of land on which the building is constructed; (b) cost of building, exclusive of land?
5.	What were the names of any other party or parties employed by the department in connection with the construction or completion of the building, and what respective amounts were paid to each?


COLONEL GEORGE MCLEOD
Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	Was Colonel George McLeod, of Edmonton, Alberta, in the employ of the federal government in the year 1936?
2.	If so, what position, or positions, did he hold?
3.	Wben was he appointed?
4.	At what salary?
5.	Was he allowed an expense account, and, if so, how much?
6.	WTiat is the total amount he received for the above position, or positions: (a) in salary; (b) for expenses?


YOUTH TRAINING AND FARM TRAINING PLANS
Mr. WALSH:: 1.	Was the farm training plan devised with the intention of taking boys out of the cities and placing them on farms?
2.	How many boys have been placed through this plan in the various provinces?
3.	How many of these came from cities?
4.	How many farmers' sons and farm hands have been paid for under this plan in the various provinces?
5.	Are any steps now being taken to ensure that the youth training plan and the farm training plan shall take care of the unemployed youth in the cities?
6.	Has the government investigated and audited the statements concerning w'ork done under the youth training and the farm training plan?
7.	If so, with what results?


TWEED, ONT., PUBLIC BUILDING
Mr. WALSH:: 1.	Did the government acquire a site for a public building at Tweed, Ontario?
2.	If so, from whom was said site purchased?
3.	What sum was paid for the same?
4.	Was opposition to the location of said site expressed by the council and citizens of Tweed at a public meeting?
5.	Did the municipal council of Tweed offer to exchange the property with the government in order that the site for said public building might be centrally located?
6.	If so, was such exchange made?
7.	Was the site first acquired exchanged for another site?
8.	If so, what was the value of the site acquired by such exchange?
9.	What was the assessed value of each of the sites above referred to?
10.	From whom was the site taken in exchange acquired?
11.	Is the site lastly acquired centrally located ?
12.	Has the council of Tweed expressed objection to the location of the site lastly acquired?
13.	What buildings are located on each of
said sites?	,
14.	What amount has been voted by parliament for the purchase of a site and the construction of a public building at Tweed?
15.	Have tenders for the construction of said
building been received, and what is the amount of each tender? '	*	.
16.	Has a contract for the construction of public building at Tweed been awarded?
17.	If so, what is the name and address of such contractor, and the amount of such contract ?


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-ASSISTANCE TO UNEMPLOYABLES
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Does the dominion government give material aid assistance to unemployable persons on relief in cities and municipalities on a fifty-fifty basis with the province?
2.	Did the Department of Labour inform the provinces early in 1938 that it would not give material aid assistance to unemployable persons after a certain date, March 31, 1938, or some other date?

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
3.	Does the government give material aid assistance to unemployable persons in cities and municipalities in British Columbia on a fifty-fifty basis with the province?
4.	If so, is any class of unemployable persons in any municipality in the said province excluded from receiving such material aid assistance?
5.	If the dominion gives material aid assistance to unemployable persons, how many persons in each province received assistance under this head for the month of January, 1939, or the latest month for which information is available ?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. WALSH:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, recommendations, resolutions of municipal council, valuations, title deeds, abstracts of title, protests as to the location or other documents or writings in any way relating to the purchase and exchange of a site or sites for a public building at Tweed, Ontario.
Also a copy of all estimates, tenders, contracts or other documents in any way relating to the construction of a public building at Tweed.
.	NATIONAL DEFENCE



REPORTED REQUEST OF ADVISORY AIR COUNCIL FOR RESIGNATION OF MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: I desire to direct a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Has the Air Defence Council of Canada communicated with the Prime Minister requesting the resignation of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) because of unsatisfactory conditions with regard to air defence, as reported in the Winnipeg Free Press of March 10 in a news dispatch over the signature of Major Moore?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I submit that is not a question which should be asked on the orders of the day, nor do I think it is a question that requires an answer. I would however say to my hon. friend that I have had no communication of the kind mentioned, and if I had I would answer it pretty sharply.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide assistance in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress and for
such purpose to authorize the execution of undertakings in the general interest of Canada and requisite for the purposes of the act, out of moneys appropriated by parliament, and also to provide financial assistance to the provinces by way of loan, advance or guarantee, out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund, and for the appointment of necessary officers, clerks and employees.
He said: We listened a few moments ago to a speech by the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. White) which will be remembered and treasured by all who heard it. As one of the younger members of the House of Commons I should like to extend my own good wishes and to express the hope that the hon. member may enjoy long years of happiness and usefulness to this country. His presence here has been a benediction, and the example of his public life an inspiration to all of us.
In other years when a resolution similar to this has been before the house I have presented a brief survey of the relief situation resulting from unemployment and agricultural distress, and a more detailed statement of the results obtained under the various measures adopted by the government to deal with unemployment in its various aspects. I intend to follow the same course to-day. When the legislation which will follow the adoption of this resolution is presented a little later, there will be further opportunity to answer questions and provide additional information on questions of policy and administration.
The first part of my task is simplified by the fact that during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I dealt at some length with the statistics of relief and unemployment, and placed upon the record a number of tables based upon the national registration of relief recipients which was commenced under the national employment commission in September, 1936. Since that debate closed, figures have become available for later months, and I intend to place those figures before the house.
Before presenting a statistical survey of the relief situation, however, I want to take strong objection at this time to certain glaring distortions of the true position which have appeared from time to time in some of our newspapers and periodicals. I do so because I believe that responsibility and freedom go hand in hand; and freedom of the press becomes an empty phrase unless it is directed to the service of truth and the destruction of error. So far as relief and unemployment are concerned my position from the beginning has been that it was the part of wisdom to search out and present the truth, however
1914	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
unpleasant it might be. Only by doing so can we know as a government the full measure of the task before us.
With that object in view we provided for a national registration of those in receipt of relief; and from the commencement of that registration we have published a monthly press release giving a summary of the latest available figures, with a comparison with the figures in the preceding month and also the same month in the preceding year. Those figures have separated agricultural aid from unemployment aid, and have also separated employables from heads of families and individuals who were dependent and unemployable. With the regular publication of these figures obtained through the national registration it has been possible to follow the changing trends of the relief situation from month to month and year to year. But the fact that these figures have been available has not prevented certain newspapers and periodicals from grossly distorting the true picture. Repeated references to "over. a million persons on unemployment relief" were being given wide publicity in September last, when 553,111 persons across Canada were registered as receiving material aid; and that number included children and aged dependents, unemployable and partially employable persons as well as farmers and their families, whose needs certainly did not arise from any lack of work. Actually at that time the employable persons being assisted numbered 114,460; yet .we read of "hundreds of thousands of Canadian workers on relief."
Perhaps no subject related to unemployment has been exposed to more misrepresentation than that of the transients. In January of this year a Canadian periodical, Maclean's magazine, in a leading editorial stated:
This month, at least 80,000 Canadians will be wandering back and forth across the country, without homes, without work, without definite relief status.
And this, the editorial stated, was a conservative estimate. No information was furnished as to the source of the estimate. Not to be outdone, a few days later one of the daily papers came out in an editorial with the information that there are said to be anywhere from 100,000 to 185,000 transients in Canada. Here again no indication was given as to who said there were such numbers. As a matter of fact, from a survey conducted by the Department of Labour in January information was obtained from reliable sources, the provincial governments and the two railway companies, showing that outside of those being cared for by the joint federal and provincial plan the transients, as fMr Rogers.]
defined in Maclean's magazine, numbered less than ten thousand,
I want to refer to another figure, again grossly distorted, that has been given wide currency in this country. It has been said that the number of idle young people in the country has reached a total of over 400,000. So far as I have been able to discover, that figure originated in a census survey, so-called, conducted by the Canadian Youth Congress. I do not for a moment question the motives of those who conducted this survey. The Canadian Youth Congress believes that there is a serious youth problem in this country, and I do not question that there is such a problem. What I do question is the technique of research which was adopted by those who made this astonishing computation of over 400,000 idle young people in Canada. Let me indicate briefly to the house, if I may, just what follows the publication of a figure of this kind. When the Canadian Youth Congress issued this figure it was made quite clear, for example, that it included young women as well as young men. But I have seen many a headline, arising from that survey, suggesting that there were 400,000 idle young men in Canada. Surely no one would suggest for a moment that the publication of information of that kind, unless it is based upon most authoritative evidence, can do other than harm not only to this country but to the very group whom the Canadian Youth Congress desire to serve. I have in mind, for example, an article which appeared in the Philadelphia Enquirer, a newspaper published in the United States, which has a wide circulation. This is the headline, bearing out what I said a moment ago:
450,000	Idle Youths Pose Grave Problem for Canada.
Then it goes on to explain that this information was obtained from a census survey conducted by the Canadian Youth Congress. I think it may be worth while to spend just a moment or so to explain how this total was arrived at.
In the first place it was not a census survey in the strict sense of that term. It was not even a sample census survey, based upon the actual investigation of conditions in any one city or group of cities. It was merely a computation obtained by a series of arbitrary deductions from the total number of young Canadians between the ages of fifteen and thirty, as given in the census of 1931. And I am informed, I believe reliably, that after making the various deductions, the figure of 465,000 remained. Remember, it includes those from fifteen to thirty years of age; but it

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
also includes those within that age group who are living on farms in this country. The explanation given to me was that these young people are hot regarded as being gainfully employed. Well, Mr. Speaker, I did not have the good fortune to be brought up on a farm, but I have had some experience with farming operations; and to suggest that those included in this total who are living on farms in this country are not gainfully employed is surely a wide exaggeration of the truth.
Miss MACPHAIL:: They are employed,
but not gainfully; there is a distinction.


Ernest Lapointe: But
they are not idle.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: No. They are employed, but they are not paid.


Mrs. BLACK:: I would suggest to the minister that I know they get their living on the farms.


Mr. ROGERS:: Certainly. Surely there
cannot be any question with regard to the danger-and I use that word advisedly-of having gross exaggerations of the unemployment situation spread about this and other countries in such terms as I have just described. If newspaper editors wish to criticize those charged with responsibility for unemployment and relief, they are perfectly free to do so. I do not want it to be thought for one minute that in what I have said just now I take the slightest objection to criticism of policy. But I do take the ground very strongly that one cannot separate freedom from responsibility, and I suggest that those who write these editorials or who use these figures ought, before they are published, to take some reasonable care. If they do not use the official figures, then they might very well provide in the article itself the source of the information they have obtained.


Mr. HEAPS:: Have we any official source?


Norman McLeod Rogers: So far as criticism is concerned, may I say that I would think the millennium had come if newspaper editors refrained from criticism.


Mr. LANDERYOU:: Has the minister any figures to give us?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. I will proceed to that presently, if my hon. friend will just be patient.
Freedom of criticism does not imply the right to misrepresent and distort facts upon which complaints are based. To do so is not an attack on governments; in effect, it is an attack on the country. Its result cannot be otherwise than to undermine confidence
at home and abroad. I suggest further that it does damage to the country in much the same way as a gross exaggeration of casualties would do damage to the country, if it were engaged in war.
As I said a moment ago, I shall now turn to the latest available figures on unemployment and relief, from the national registration.
I shall place these figures before the house; and after having done so, I am going to make some comparisons between the totals of the various classifications this year and this month, and in previous years.
Preliminary figures showed that the grand total of all classes of persons on urban and agricultural aid in January was 978,000, an increase of almost eight per cent over the December figure, as revised to date, but 3-7 per cent less than in January, 1938. The dominion total of unemployed but fully employable persons on aid in January of this year was 180,000. representing an increase of eleven per cent from the December total of 162,000. The figure for January of this year represented an increase of nearly seven per cent over that for January a year ago. A total of 662,000 persons were receiving nonagricultural aid in January of this year, or 9J per cent more than in the previous month. This category includes all totally unemployable, partly employable and fully employable persons, together with all dependents and family heads. This aggregate shows a net increase of about five per cent from the figure for January, 1938.
Although unemployed persons receiving aid showed, as usual, a seasonal increase from December to January, and brought the January total above that of the same month in 1938, the grand total of persons of all classes in receipt of aid showed a decrease from the year before. The number of farmers and members of their families in receipt of agricultural aid continues to show a decline from the year before. Some 67,000 farmers who, together with their dependents, account for a farm population of 316,000, were reported as receiving agricultural aid for subsistence in January. Of these persons 270,500 were located in Saskatchewan alone. The dominion total on agricultural aid, while up 4-3 per cent in January over December's revised figure, was almost eighteen per cent less than in January, 1938. The January total of farmers and their families on aid in Saskatchewan, while continuing to hold the improvement over the total a year ago, increased by three per cent over the total for December, 1938, but was still more than nineteen per cent lower than in January a year ago.
1916	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
Briefly, one may say with respect to agricultural aid that in the past year there has been some improvement. With respect to urban aid, which may more properly be called unemployment aid, there has been an increase in the total number. That applies also to the total of those on aid, in so far as unemployment is concerned, including also their dependents.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is the minister in a position to give the house the number who at present are unemployed and not on relief?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well, Mr. Speaker, this matter has been discussed time and again in the house-


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is very important.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall be pleased indeed to take note of the question of my hon. friend, but all that we have with respect to the number of those unemployed is, as he well knows, an estimate which is prepared on an index basis by the bureau of statistics, and which is made available from month to month.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Like the youth congress


Norman McLeod Rogers: No, I would say it is based on an entirely different technique from that followed by the youth congress. By the way, since my hon. friend has raised that point, I shall return to the question of the 400,000 figure, which has been mentioned. Actually, according to our own figures, the number of those within the age group supposed to be covered by the youth congress estimate, and on relief, was 26,000. That was the number of those within that age group who were registered as being in receipt of relief.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Does that include all those who would be cared for by the various charitable agencies?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No; it includes those
receiving government assistance.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does it include those being cared for by their parents?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have no doubt that those cared for by their parents have never appeared on the list of those who are in receipt of aid. Why should they?


John Charles Landeryou: There are many between-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my hon. friends proceed they will discover that everyone in this country, including members of the House of Commons, is unemployed. Further, in the last

census of the western provinces I believe we have perhaps the best indication of the incidence of that particular problem. I have not suggested that there is not a problem. All I have objected to is the exaggeration of that problem. Let us try to face it as it is; but by all means do not let us exaggerate it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I ask the minister a question?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Will my hon. friend permit me to continue.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If I may?


Charles Avery Dunning: We shall be going into committee.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Has the minister any figures at all to give the house at this time in regard to the unemployment situation in the country? All the figures he gave were with regard to the unemployed on relief.


Ernest Lapointe: He is making his speech.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is a fair question.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I was going to point out that in the last census conducted in the western provinces, those who took the census took first a record of those between the ages mentioned who were actually on relief. Possibly at the same time they took a census of those within that age group who, while not on relief, were reported as being unemployed. The number of those classified as unemployed was about four times the number registered as unemployed and on relief. The inference to be drawn is that if you have a statement showing those within the age group who are on relief and multiply it by four you will have a pretty fair indication of the total number within that age group who are unemployed.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is before
the depression?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No; that was according to the last western census, which, as hon. members will recall, was taken in 1936, five years after 1931. I suggest that this is probably as close an approximation to the true figures as we are able to obtain at the present time.
I was going to place before the house a comparative statement of the relief situation, with respect to both agricultural and unemployment relief, for the past two years.
I believe this may serve to show that we have been making substantial progress over that entire period, despite the setback which occurred during recent months. These figures are:

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
Fully employable persons:
(a)	Total, January, 1939-180,000; although this was 6-8 per cent over January, 1938, it was 29-2 per cent less than January, 1937.
(b)	Average monthly number, January to December, 1938-148,189. This was less by 20-8 per cent than January to December average in 1937.
Total on urban aid:
(a)	Total, January, 1939-662,000; although this was 4-8 per cent over January, 1938, it was 22-9 per cent less than in January, 1937.
(b)	Average monthly number, January to December, 1938-557,525. This was less by 15-5 per cent than January to December average in 1937.
Total on agricultural aid:
(a)	Total, January, 1939-316,000, this was less by 17'5 per cent than January, 1938, and less by 1-2 per cent than January, 1937.
(b)	Average monthly number, January to December, 1938-314,578. This was more by 2-8 per cent than January to December average in 1937.
Total on urban and agricultural aid combined:
(a)	Total, January, 1939-978,000; this was less by 3-7 per cent than January, 1938, and less by 17-0 per cent than January, 1937.
(b)	Average monthly number, January to
December, 1938-872,103.	This was less by
9-7 per cent than January to December in 1937.
General comparison of trend:
Comparing figures for the months January to December, 1937 and 1938:
(a)	Grand total on aid is less in all months
in 1938 than in 1937 except months of July and August which are slightly higher in 1938 than in 1937.	_
(b)	Fully employables are less in each month in 1938 up to and including September; October, November and December, 1938, are slightly above 1937.
(c)	Total on urban aid is less in each month in 1938 up to and including September; October, November and December, 1938, are slightly above 1937.
(d)	Total on agricultural aid for each month in 1938 is substantially above 1937, up to and including August; September to December, 1938, are substantially less than in 1937.


Mr. QUELCH:: Do those figures include those who are taken care of under the farm placement scheme?


Norman McLeod Rogers: They are not included in these figures, but that information will be placed on the record in a few moments. With the consent of the house, and for the information of hon. members, I should like to place on Hansard a number of tables setting out the information which I have just conveyed in these comparisons.
Table No. 1 will give the comparative totals of persons on aid in September to January in the last three years.
Table No. 2 will give the percentage changes in dominion totals of persons on aid in September to January in the last three years.
Table No. 3 will give the comparative totals of fully employables on aid in September to January in the last three years, showing percentage changes.
Table No. 4 will show the percentage distribution by provinces of totals on aid in November, 1938.
Table No. 5 will show the percentage distribution of heads of families and individuals, by degree of employability, on aid in November, 1938.
Table No. 6 will show the comparative totals of persons on agricultural aid in the province of Saskatchewan in September to January in the last three years.
Table No. 7 will show the comparative totals on material aid, that is, urban and agricultural aid combined, in January for each year from 1933 to 1939.


Walter Edward Foster: The minister must have the unanimous consent of the house to place these tables upon Hansard.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The tables are as follows:
Table No. 1	From the National Registration
Comparative Statement of Dominion Totals of Persons on Aid in September to January
of each of the last 3 years
(Figures for December, 1938, and January, 1939, are unrevised)
Total persons Total persons Total persons
on	on	on urban and
1936- [DOT]	urban aid agricultural aid agricultural aid
September	
707,293	248,327	955,620October	
729,527	279,269	1,008,796November	
750,906	295,461	1,046,367December	
805,357	309.952	1,115,309January, 1937	
858,456	319,775	1,178,231September	
455,839	269,076	724,915October	
470,811	331,235	802,046November	
513,475	363,073	876.548December	
580,341	376.583	956.924January, 1938	
631,974	383,191	1,015,165September	
444,292	110,990	555,282October	
473,261	174,275	647,536November	
532,197	259.954	792,151December	
604,000	303,000	907,000January, 1939	
662,000	316.000	978,0001918	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
Table No. 2	From the National Registration
Percentage Changes in Dominion Totals of Persons on Aid in September to January of each of the last 3 years
(Figures for December, 1938, and January, 1939, are unrevised)
	Percentage	Percentage
	change	change
	1938-9	1938-9
Urban aid-	from 1936-7	from 1937-8September	
-37-2	- 2-5October	
-35-1	+ 0-5November	+ 3-6December	+ 4-1January	+ 4-8Agricultural aid-	September	-58-8October	-47-4November	-28-4December	- 19-5January	-17-5) Urban and agricultural aid-	September	-23-4October	- 19-3November	- 9-6December	- 5-2January	- 3-7
Table No. 3
From the National Registration
Comparative statement of dominion totals of fully employable persons on aid in September to
January of each of the last 3 years (Figures for December, 1938, and January, 1939, are unrevised)
September October.. November. December. January..
Percentage Percentage change	change
1938-9	1938-9
1936-7	1937-8	1938-9	from 1936-7 from 1937-	206,423	116,690	114,460	-44-6	-1-9214,271	121.622	123,837	-42-2	4-1-8221,165	136,286	142,537	-35-6	4-4-6237.694	153,918	162.000	-31-8	4-5-3254,189	168,488	180,000	-29-2	4-6-8Table No. 4	.
From the National Registration
All persons and their dependents in receipt of urban and agricultural aid month of November, 1938
Dominion and provincial summary-numbers and percentages
A.-All persons on urban or agricultural aid (Total of B and C below)
Dominion	
Prince Edward Island	
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia	
B.-All persons on urban aid
Dominion	 Prince Edward Island	 Nova Scotia	 New Brunswick	 Quebec	 Ontario	 Manitoba	 Saskatchewan		
Alberta	 British Columbia		
Numbers	Percentage
792,151	100-0
1.159	0-1
7.232	0-9
No registration	
126,329	15-9
221,600	28-0
46.126	5-8
287,235	36-3
43,454	5-5
59,016	7-5

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
Table No. 4-Continued
C.-All persons on agricultural aid
Dominion	
Prince Edward Island	
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia	
Numbers	Percentaj
259,954	100-0
148	0-1
No registration	
5,006	1-9
8,971	3-4
1,736	0-7
226.519	87-1
10.614	4-1
6,960	2-7
Table No. 5
From the National Registration
Heads of families and individual persons of both sexes in receipt of urban aid Month of November, 1938
Classified by degree of employability-Dominion distribution by percentages
Fully Partially Unem-employable employable	ployable	TotalHeads of families	
78-5	12-0	9-5	100-0Individual persons	
53-7	24-7	21-6	100-0Total cases	
71-6	15-6	12-8	100-0
(i.e., heads of families and individual persons.)
Table No. 6	From the National Registration
Comparative Statement of Persons on Agricultural Aid in September to January of each of the last 3 years
Province of Saskatchewan
(Figures are final except September, 1938, to January, 1939, which are subject to some revision)
Percentage Percentage change	change
1938-9	1938-9
from	from
1936-7	1937-8	1938-9	1936-7	1937-8September	
130,394	234,792	85,025	-34-8	-63-8October	
157,005	295,383	146,708	-	6-6	-50-3November	
169,420	323,022	226,519	+	33-7	-29-9December	
175,227	331,229	262,000	+	49-5	-20-9January	
178,595	334,862	270,500	+	51-5	- 19-2
The above figures for Saskatchewan for January, 1937, 1938 and 1939, represent the following percentages of the dominion total of persons on agricultural aid and of the dominion total of persons on urban and agricultural aid respectively:-
J anuary J anuary January 1937	1938	1939
Per cent of dominion agricultural aid	
Per cent of dominion urban and agricultural aid
55-9	87-4	85-615-2	33-0	27-7
Table No. 7.
Comparison of Grand Totals of Persons on Material Aid (i.e., urban and agricultural aid combined) in the Month of January, from 1933 to 1939
January, 1933	 1,363,742
January, 1934	 1,292,075
January, 1935	 1,245,125
January, 1936	 1,326,088
January, 1937	 1,178,231
January, 1938	  1,015,165
January, 1939	 978,000
January, 1933, showed the highest figure of any January since the dominion commenced participation in the cost of material aid. The net reduction from January, 1933, to January, 1939, was 385,742 or 28-3 per cent.
Mr. MacNEIL-L: Do those figures include men now in the camps in British Columbia?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The figures for those in the camps, along with those who are registered under the farm employment plan, are kept separately inasmuch as they are regarded as being in employment. So much for the relief situation as it presents itself to us at this time.
I shall turn now to the various measures which have been adopted by this government under previous relief legislation to deal with unemployment. The relief act of last year and the acts of previous years conferred power upon the governor in council to enter into

1920	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
agreements with the provinces for the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress. Somewhat more than a year ago a separation was made between agricultural aid as given in the drought areas and other forms of relief assistance. It was felt that agricultural aid in the drought areas should be combined closely with other forms of assistance being given in those areas by the Department of Agriculture, and that all forms of relief in those areas should be administered by that department. That has been done. Therefore, agreements with respect to relief in the drought areas are entered into by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) with the provinces concerned.
In so far as unemployment relief is concerned, the dominion government has entered into a number of agreements with the provinces designed to assist those provinces in the alleviation of distress, in the provision of work for the unemployed and in certain additional measures of rehabilitation. Let me deal first with the grants in aid to the provinces for the purposes of giving assistance by way of material aid. As is well known to members of the house, the system under which the dominion grants monthly sums of money to the provinces for this purpose was set in motion at the early stage of the depression. It was initiated as an emergency measure; it has been continued as an emergency measure, but as the years have passed, in the very nature of things, it has assumed more and more the aspect of a fixed policy.
There has always been a question whether this method of giving grants in aid to the provinces for the alleviation of distress was the best and most economical method by which the dominion could discharge its responsibilities in relation to this great problem. I am not going to discuss that question at great length this afternoon, nevertheless, I feel I should say this. It has been represented from time to time that the national employment commission had recommended specifically that the dominion government should take over the entire burden of unemployment relief. That is not the case. If one will examine the report of the national employment commission it will be found that this commission made two sets of recommendations with respect to the administration of relief. One set of recommendations had regard to what was described as the existing constitutional position; the other set of recommendations had regard to the situation which would arise if and when it was found possible for the dominion parliament to enact an unemployment insurance measure. I think 
it is well that this position should be clarified at this time. So far as the existing constitutional position is concerned, the national employment commission approved in general the policy whereby the initial responsibility was placed upon the municipalities and provinces, with financial aid given by the dominion under conditions which would provide for efficient and economical administration. I have no desire to detain the house by reading any long extract upon this point; but it will be useful, in order to remove any misconception in this regard, if I quote from page 14 of the final report of the national employment commission. The quotation is as follows:
The recommendation of the commission for handling the existing situation whereby aid is accorded by the dominion for the relief of distress by means of grants-in-aid to the provinces was dealt with at some length on pages 15, 16 and 17 of the interim report.
At that time it was pointed out that the commission strongly recommends that, so long as the present constitutional basis exists, the method introduced in 1934 of granting aid on a temporary basis, without definite or adequate control, should be abandoned by the dominion and the following basic principles accepted:
1.	That the primary responsibility for the relief of distress should remain with the municipal authority and/or the province;
2.	That the dominion should contribute thereto only when in its view it is shown that a practical necessity exists because of the unusual nature or extent of the distress;
3.	That the dominion should attach such conditions in the granting of such aid as it deems necessary and proper with due regard to (a) careful coordination of effort, and (b) supervision through the designation of a proper dominion authority.
That is the position which has been maintained up to this time. When I had occasion a year ago to refer to the recommendations of the national employment commission and state the position of the dominion government in relation thereto, I indicated that the government was prepared to give consideration to any such readjustment of responsibilities in relation to unemployment as might emerge from the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations. There may be some hon. members who will say that this is simply another evidence of the desire of the government to escape its responsibility in this matter. It may be urged that we are seeking shelter behind the constitution. On the contrary, instead of taking shelter behind the constitution in this matter, we are merely respecting that division of authority with respect to social welfare which has been laid down by the constitution; and I have little patience, if I may say so, with those who are continually saying to the government regarding these matters, "Do not

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
allow the constitution to stand in the way." If that attitude is persisted in by those who hold responsible positions in political parties in this country, the result cannot be other than to discredit the constitution, and I should like to remind particularly the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that it is by a gradual process of attrition of that kind that constitutions have been whittled away. By all means let us seek for amendments of the constitution, but let us do it by the open door and not by subterfuge and evasion.
Like my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) I have had in these last few years some experience with the administration of social services on a basis of dual responsibility. I shall not conceal from the house that when I studied this question in the abstract, before I entered parliament, I was impressed with the possibilities of cooperation in this field of dual responsibility. I have not entirely rejected the possibility of cooperation, but I have found by experience that this indefinite area which applies particularly to social services in this country is not only susceptible of cooperation but is perhaps even more susceptible of conflict and friction. Therefore when it has been urged upon me from time to time as Minister of Labour that in the absence of any constitutional changes, before serious consideration of any constitutional changes and without such information as may proceed from the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations, we should fake over the entire burden of relief, I have said that we should not assume financial responsibility without securing administrative control. I submit that this is the only position with regard to this matter that can be taken by those whose attitude toward it must be based upon a sense of official responsibility.
It may be that from the point of view of efficiency and economy it will be preferable in due course for the dominion government to assume a large.r degree of control over certain social services. The Minister of Finance has already indicated his own conviction that this is so with respect to old age pensions. It may be desirable to extend that field. But I suggest seriously to hon. members that, when we do it, let us know what we are doing. Let us try to define our responsibilities. Because I know of nothing that has done more to impair confidence in our federal system than the impression which is being created time and again that this or that government is seeking to escape its responsibility. And it becomes possible to make those
71492-121i
charges only to the extent that we maintain this indefinite area, this enlarging area of dual responsibility. I should like to see us ultimately come to a point where, with respect to the greater part of that area, it will be so divided as to leave no doubt in the mind of any man as to where the responsibility lies.
As the situation is now, under dual responsibility we may have provinces saying that the dominion is not taking its fair share of old age pensions-and is not taking its fair share of unemployment relief. We may have, on the eve of an election, a group of provinces emphasizing that unless the dominion takes a larger share of financial responsibility with respect to some of these services there will be such a protest as may be embarrassing to the government in power. I have not forgotten some of the undertakings that were given in the election campaign of 1930 with respect to old age pensions, when in certain provinces it was suggested that the dominion government might contribute as much as ninety-nine per cent of the cost of old age pensions and yet leave the administration with the provinces. Is it possible to imagine a greater violation of that principle of public finance which requires that those who spend public money should have the responsibility of imposing the taxation that produces the revenue?
I would suggest to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre, who I know is keenly interested in the amendment of the British North America Act, because he has taken the part of a pioneer of that movement in this parliament, that nothing has done more to postpone the adoption of a reasonably flexible amendment procedure than the repeated surrender of the dominion government to provinces who have declined to discharge their own obligations unless they were financed by the dominion government in doing so.


John Charles Landeryou: How else can they do it?


Norman McLeod Rogers: They could agree to an amendment to the constitution under which responsibility could be concentrated either in the one authority or in the other.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In the meantime, may I ask, what about the unemployed and others who are suffering?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Surely that is an irrelevant question. Does my hon. friend mean to suggest that in so far as the unemployed person is concerned there is any difference
1922	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
as between the existing method of administration and another method of administration that may be followed-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, I do.


Norman McLeod Rogers: -when that area is divided among several authorities?


James Shaver Woodsworth: We face a national emergency and in this national emergency there are a great many municipalities that are simply not able to provide the necessary help the unemployed require to-day.


Norman McLeod Rogers: On that point, may I say that this government has been aware of that situation from the time it came into office. The very first action we took with respect to unemployment was to increase grants in aid to the provinces by seventy-five per cent in order to assist the municipalities. Not only that, but in the order in council providing for that increase we provided that the increase should be passed over to the municipalities; and, by a series of measures which I shall detail later, we have given assistance in other forms to municipalities. More recently it has been announced that pending the final determination of this difficult problem we as a dominion government are ready to assume, along with the provinces, forty per cent of the total cost of material aid.
If that proposal is accepted by the provinces in the terms in which it was made, it will mean that the municipalities will not be required to pay more than twenty per cent of the cost of material aid, and I suggest to my hon. friend, on the basis of the figures which we have obtained and with which I think he is familiar, that this twenty per cent would not represent more than a proportion of the total problem which might be described as that of unemployables and indigent cases. Certainly, from the figures I have obtained from the provinces, that would appear to be a fair inference, that twenty per cent of the total cost of material aid would represent just about the cost of maintaining unemployables and indigents.
The municipalities that have had their difficulties in recent years have not experienced those difficulties simply because they have been called upon to pay a particular percentage of the current costs of material aid. The municipalities that have suffered most have done so because of the cumulative effect of funding relief costs over a period of years, and that I submit to my hon. friend is not a question which can be dealt with as a matter of policy by the dominion government. It is a question which can be submitted properly to any general review of dominion-provincial

relations, and I believe it has been so submitted to the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations on behalf of the Canadian municipalities.


Charles Avery Dunning: But it is solely within the power of the provinces.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is entirely within the power of the provinces to determine what share of relief costs the municipalities will bear, and it is also within the power of the provinces to give permission to the municipalities as to whether they can fund their relief costs or otherwise.
In the last few moments I have been trying to put to the house some of the cogent reasons which have led the government to follow this policy of giving grants in aid to the provinces for unemployment relief, maintaining that policy at least until such time as there can be a clear and intelligent redefinition of responsibility with respect to social welfare as between the dominion and the provinces; and I submit that on the basis of our experience in past years, the arguments to support that position are valid and are arguments which must have commended themselves to any government holding responsibility in this matter at this time.
So far as the past year is concerned, the agreements entered into with the provinces were framed in terms recommended by the national employment commission. We put into effect in those agreements most, if not all, of the specific recommendations made by that commission. I am bound to say that some of the recommendations did not prove to be as satisfactory in practice as they appeared to be in prospect. That fate, of course, befalls many recommendations, but for the most part we have been able to carry out those recommendations of the national employment commission which were designed to bring about a more economical and efficient administration of relief under this system of dual responsibility.
The total amount appropriated last year for grants-in-aid was $17,500,000. That was divided among the provinces upon as fair a basis as we could devise. In each province the maximum was controlled by a percentage. We have kept very close to that appropriation during the past year. We have also permitted the provinces that desired to do so to substitute works or training plans for direct relief. In a number of provinces that has been done. Here again that alternative was incorporated in the agreement with the full approval of the national employment commission. I regret to say that the provinces in general have not taken kindly to the

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
suggestion that training plans should be substituted for relief with respect to the older unemployed men and women. Some provinces have taken much more kindly to the view that the money assigned to the provinces for unemployment relief should be spent in providing work instead of relief, through a public works program. I may speak particularly of the province of Quebec in that respect. That province took the position very strongly that they were in favour of a broad public works program which would afford employment to all who were idle. We, as a dominion government, took the position that if a province wished to follow that method it might use our contribution to do so, but that we would not and could not pay more to a province to carry out that method of providing relief than we would to those provinces that were by preference administering a system of direct relief. In the nature of things one has to allow some latitude with respect to programs which are applied in the different provinces. We have not been arbitrary in our dealings with the several provinces. We have as far as it lay in our power done our utmost to cooperate with them in carrying out policies which were designed to relieve the unemployment situation within their boundaries.
I come now to other expenditures under the relief act of 1938-39. These expenditures are set out in the supplementary estimates of the present fiscal year. I am not going to comment at any length on the various items, but it might provide the house with some indication of the scope of the work done if I mention each of them in passing.
The first is to provide for commitments under relief settlement agreements with provincial governments. That plan was initiated under the preceding administration. It is a plan whereby families on relief are taken from our populous towns and cities and placed upon selected land with some financial assistance designed during the four year period to make them self-supporting. This plan has worked out reasonably well in some provinces; in others it has been abandoned. I shall be glad to give full details when the bill itself is in committee. I would say, however, that opinion in a number of provinces is turning definitely in the direction of broader schemes of agricultural reestablishment. When this is done, my view is that so far as the dominion government broader schemes of agricultural reestablish-should come from the Department of Agriculture and not from the Department of Labour. It seems to me that agricultural
matters ought to come within the purview of the department that assumes responsibility for agriculture throughout the country. The Department of Labour entered into these land settlement plans because they developed within what might be termed the structure of relief administration. They are being continued, and as I said, I shall be pleased to place before the house the details of the success attending them in the various provinces.


Robert James Manion: Has the minister at hand the total number of people reestablished on the land in the manner he mentions?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, I have that here. The total is not impressive in relation to the entire problem. Relief settlement agreements continue in force in the provinces of Quebec, Manitoba and Alberta.
In Quebec there are at the present time settled on the land 3,123 families with 15,578 dependents, a total of 18,701 individuals. During the present fiscal year 1,452 families have been settled with 6,777 dependents, or a total of 8,229 individuals.
In Manitoba there are at the present time settled on the land 1,057 families with 4,354 dependents, or a total of 5,411 individuals. During the present fiscal year 275 families have been settled with 1,206 dependents, or a total of 1,481 individuals.
In Alberta there are at the present time settled on the land 568 families with 2,170 dependents, or a total of 2,738 individuals. During the present fiscal year 136 families have been settled with 520 dependents, or a total of 656 individuals.
The number of abandonments during the current year is very small. Of those noted above as being settled during the fiscal year the following abandonments have been noted: Quebec, nil; Manitoba, thirteen; Alberta, six.


Robert James Manion: Has the minister the total of those figures he gave?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not, and I am not a lightning calculator, but I shall be glad to note that question and give the total later.


Victor Quelch: To what extent are these families self-supporting?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Many of them become selfsupporting at the conclusion of the four years of assistance. Of course much depends upon the quality of the land on which they are settled; even more depends upon the quality of the settler himself. I have visited some of the districts where these families have been settled, some in Ontario north of Cochrane, some in New Brunswick, some in Manitoba,
1924	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
and it is interesting to see how neighbouring farms present a striking contrast. The explanation nine times out of ten is not the quality of the land but the quality of the individual. One settler had some training in agriculture and was ready to work; another was apparently quite willing to take the subsistence allowance during the four years and then go on relief. I am not saying that in any way as an indictment of the policy in general, but my experience has been that a great deal depends upon the selection of individuals.


John Charles Landeryou: Will the minister have the figures when the bill is brought down?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, I shall try to have all figures the house may require.


Mr. McNIVEN:: Was that scheme made available to Saskatchewan?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It was made available to all provinces; it was adopted in a number of provinces which later abandoned it. I shall note that question also and have the information available.


Mr. COLDWELL:: In what year was the policy first adopted?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It was in the period of the late administration; I would not care to say the year offhand.


Major James William Coldwell: Was it 1931?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am inclined to think it was 1931 or 1932.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Is it not the case that in Saskatchewan there are many thousands, over eight thousand families, being settled on the land under a slightly different scheme but at the expense of the dominion government?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is correct, but that particular measure was designed to remove families from the drought areas to the northern part of Saskatchewan.


Malcolm McLean: And from the cities as well.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. Originally that project was under the Department of Labour, but two years ago it was transferred to the Department of Agriculture.


Mr. McINTOSH:: That is on a fifty-fifty basis, is it not?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. The next item is to provide for commitments and completion of works in connection with federal contributions to provincial and municipal relief projects.

That is a re-vote and requires no further comment at this time. I merely say that last year, instead of entering upon a broad program of joint works with the provinces through the Department of Labour, it was decided that those departments which had the more immediate responsibility with respect to certain projects should enter into the agreements for such projects. It followed, therefore, that the Department of Mines and Resources assumed responsibility last year for the appropriation for highway construction, and this was confined largely to tourist highways and sections of the Trans-Canada highway.
The next item is for the completion of the Winnipeg sewage disposal project. That, again, requires no further comment at this time.
The next is to provide for outstanding claims for direct relief under the Relief Act, 1935.
The next is to provide for federal contributions to farm employment and supplementary plans; a re-vote for commitments was also included in this. As to the farm employment plan it has been in operation now for the past three years. The results I think are known to many hon. members. In 1936-37 under this plan the total placed was 47,665, and in 1937-38 the total was 42,733. For 1938-39 the total as of March 13 was 30,465. Hon. members will recall that this plan was devised in order to provide shelter, food and some agricultural experience for young unemployed men who otherwise would be on relief or having temporary shelter in hostels established in the larger cities of western Canada.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Has the minister the number of applications in the same period?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not those figures here at the moment. But while my hon. friend is on his feet I want to take exception to a statement attributed to him when he was discussing this farm employment plan in Ottawa not long ago. I hope he has been incorrectly reported, but here is the statement of my hon. friend, which is presented here as an indictment not of the plan itself but of the youth training program; which, if I may say so, indicates a degree of ignorance with respect to government policy which is not easily excused in an hon. member of this house. This is what was said by my hon. friend, speaking to a group of unemployed in the city of Ottawa.
"Out west they give a fellow $5 a month to act as nursemaid to a herd of cows," he remarked.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
Above that there is this statement:
Youth training projects were criticized by T. C. Douglas, M.P., in an address before the Ottawa Single Unemployed Men's Organization on Tuesday afternoon.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It was not I who associated them; it was the writer of the article.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Does my hon. friend deny making that statement?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Not at all,
but it was not I who associated them.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am glad to have that correction; but even so I do suggest that my hon. friend is not doing justice to himself or to the group of which he is a member when he makes that sort of comment upon a scheme of this kind. We have reason to know that large numbers of those who have been placed upon farms under this plan were retained by the farmers concerned on a wage basis after the special bonus was withdrawn at the end of April. And even though he and I might wish that these men could be employed at prevailing wages, surely my hon. friend would admit that this plan is far more wholesome in its effects than the concentration of these single unemployed men either in hostels in our cities or in relief camps somewhere in the wilderness. If that is not the view of my hon. friend I should be glad to have him say so.


Mr. SLAGHT:: Or the $25 a month they do not get.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. The next item is to provide for the development of training projects for unemployed young people. I am not going to enter into any detail at this time with respect to the youth training program. There is another resolution on the order paper which will be dealt with when this matter is concluded, and that will provide perhaps a more convenient opportunity for a discussion of the details of the youth training program. Again, however, if I may be permitted to comment upon what has been said in another house. I want to take exception to what was said by the leader of the opposition in the other house a few days ago with respect to the youth training program.


Robert James Manion: I do not think the rules of the house permit the minister to do that. I am not defending the leader of the Conservative party in the other house, but I do not think we have any right to enter into a discussion with regard to what happened there.


Norman McLeod Rogers: At all events it has been stated by one who ought to know better, regardless of where he now is, that out of those
receiving training under the youth training program only twenty-five were actually placed in .employment. I want to make it clear that the reference as it appeared in the record was confined to the province of Quebec; but I hold in my hand an article appearing in the Vancouver Sun which makes no reference to this placement of twenty-five persons as having occurred within any single province. The suggestion is, and there must have been some warrant for it, that this was an indictment of the entire youth training program. As a matter of fact under that national program some 3,282 were placed in employment, which is a very different story from 25. It does seem to me, reverting to what I said in the beginning in regard to carelessness in the presentation of information of this kind, that those who hold positions of high authority as elder statesmen ought at least to take the trouble to ascertain the facts before they make statements of this kind.
I come next to an item for the rehabilitation of unemployed persons. That was a new vote last year, and followed the recommendations of the national employment commission. As soon as the vote was passed letters were sent to all the provinces asking for their cooperation in projects designed to retrain and physically recondition older unemployed men. Thus far three provinces have adopted plans of this kind-Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta. I may say to the house that it has been found much more difficult to secure cooperation in projects for the training of these older unemployed men than it was to secure cooperation in connection with youth training projects. Again I have no desire to detain the house with details at this time; there will be an opportunity to discuss this vote when the bill itself is in committee.
These various measures, Mr. Speaker, do not by any means represent the program adopted by this government to deal with unemployment. These joint arrangements with the provinces have provided much work in themselves. They are moving also towards the reestablishment of many of those who are unemployed. But it would be an entire mistake to assume that the policies of this *government in relation to unemployment are confined to these expenditures which have taken place under the relief act during the past year.
At this stage I want to refer, if I may, to what has been done in connection with housing. The national employment commission selected the building industry out of all others as the one which held the greatest promise of expanding employment under
1926	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
careful government stimulation. Every recommendation made by the national employment commission with respect to housing has been carried out, I suggest, in spirit if not in letter including the home improvement plan, which was inaugurated in 1936; and the plan for low rental housing, which was included in the National Housing Act of last year, and we went beyond the recommendations of the commission in affording a further stimulus to the construction industry through the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act. Under the home improvement plan there has been to date an expenditure of $25,340,000 across Canada.


Mr. MASSEY:: As of what date?


Norman McLeod Rogers: As of March 15. That has been expended on the basis of the assistance given by the federal treasury in the form of a guarantee. An analysis of the loan applications indicates that approximately forty-six per cent of the amounts spent went for masonry, carpentry and plastering; twenty-four per cent for plumbing and heating; sixteen per cent for painting; nine per cent for roofing, and the other five per cent for electric wiring, mechanical equipment and installation. A further analysis indicates that approximately 16,175,000 man hours of labour have been provided and approximately $10,977,000 has been distributed directly as wages and other earnings in the building trades. That is simply under one of the proposals made by the national employment commission, and carried into effect by this government.
In so far as housing generally is concerned, the Dominion Housing Act of 1935 has been completely renovated and is now producing effective results. I consider members of the House of Commons are under great obligation to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) for the manner in which that moribund legislation was eventually brought to life, because from the time it was adopted until this government assumed office no loans whatever had been made under it. I believe that is correct.


Charles Avery Dunning: No loans were made until after we came into office.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. It was revised last year, as part of the National Housing Act. Two other parts were added: Part II dealing with low-rental housing, and Part III providing for the remission of taxes on houses valued below $4,000 built upon land owned by the municipalities. May I say in passing that while the low-rental housing plan has not yet produced that degree of success we
[Mr. Roeers-l
would have wished, nevertheless it has received the complete approval of the national housing conference which met in Toronto just a short time ago. A resolution passed by that conference in 1939 is as follows:
Resolved that in the opinion of this conference, the legislation embodied in part II of the National Housing Act, 1938, is, in general soundly conceived, and that those provinces which have not already passed the necessary enabling legislation be urged to do so; and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the federal and provincial governments, and to the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities.
So I think we are entitled to say that, apart altogether from the delay as yet in the submission to and acceptance of low-rental housing projects by municipalities or limited dividend corporations, the legislation itself appears to have been skilfully drafted, and drafted in a manner which has received the full support of those who are able to speak with some authority on this type of legislation.
Judging from the results attained under other sections of the National Housing Act and under the Home Improvement Plan, I think we may expect with confidence that once these arrangements are fully understood and once reluctant provinces give their approval to the plan, it will provide a means whereby a great deal of additional employment will be afforded in most of the provinces of the dominion.


Mr. GREEN:: Which provinces have
passed the legislation necessary to enable the municipalities in those provinces to carry out low-rental housing?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not that information at hand. As my hon. friend is perhaps aware, the National Housing Act comes under the administration of the Minister of Finance. I refer to it only to illustrate part of the policy of the government with respect to employment.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall give that information later.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But my hon. friend is
perhaps aware that projects of limited dividend corporations require no guarantee at all.


Charles Avery Dunning: They require no provincial legislation, in any event, except in so far as the municipality is concerned.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Under the National Housing Act, apart from the figures I have given with respect to the home improvement plan, there has also been a marked increase in the loans granted, and therefore in the labour provided to those who are unemployed.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
In that connection may I say a word with respect to the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act. That act was also passed last session and was intended to give a further stimulus to the construction industry. It did require the approval of the provinces to place it in operation. Under that act the following expenditures have been made to date:
British Columbia	$1,570,635
Alberta	 754,133
Saskatchewan	 750,200
Manitoba	 179,031
New Brunswick	 405,000
Prince Edward Island	 7,000
Total	$3,665,999
The total available under the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act is $30,000,000. Perhaps I should have said before that the total available under the home improvement plant was $50,000,000. Under the Dominion Housing Act and the National Housing Act, low-rental section, the amount is $100,000,000. So by these acts this government has made available these vast sums of money for building or for self-liquidating municipal projects. I ask if my hon. friends in the far corner of the house could ask for any better illustration of how the national credit has been brought to the assistance of our provinces and municipalities in connection with this urgent problem of providing useful employment? Under the Dominion Housing Act the total expended thus far is just under $30,000,000.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I should be interested to learn how many applications have been refused.


Norman McLeod Rogers: There have been very few refused under the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act. There are pending applications covering the amount of $371,000. Therefore it is quite evident from the figures I have that there have not been many rejections.


Charles Avery Dunning: There have been some.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have no doubt there have been some.


Charles Avery Dunning: But not many. And those rejections have been only because the applications did not come within the four corners of the act.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Reference has been made to provincial enabling legislation. Are there some provinces which have not passed that legislation?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Oh, yes. I would say that applies particularly to Ontario and Quebec; those provinces have not approved, but the others have. As I said a moment ago, expenditures under the National Housing Act to date have been just under $30,000,000.


Denton Massey: Not under "The National Housing Act?"


Norman McLeod Rogers: Under the Dominion Housing Act and the National Housing Act.


Denton Massey: That was the "moribund legislation" to which the minister referred.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. Those expenditures have been widely distributed, and I doubt very much if any member of the house could argue that everything within reason had not been done to stimulate the housing industry of this country. As yet I have not mentioned the remission of the sales tax on building materials. That, too, was brought about at the last session.
There is every reason to believe that once fear is removed and confidence returns, and the people are willing to make advance commitments, the full effect of this legislation will become apparent. And it will be recognized that, far from having done nothing in relation to the problem of unemployment, this government has done as much as any government could do in order to stimulate the building industry of this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: More.


Norman McLeod Rogers: And, Mr. Speaker, that
is not all. The government has also taken effective measures to stimulate the mining industry. One of the first measures in the first budget of the present government was designed to provide for the remission of income tax of mining companies operating in improved areas during their early years of production. Also, in cooperation with the provinces we have expended some $5,000,000 in improving transportation facilities into mining areas. No one can doubt for a moment that these measures have had their due effect in expanding employment in that great industry which perhaps has done more than any other to provide us with confidence and with expanding employment through these years of depression.
I want to refer to some other expenditures which were made by the government, partly as a means of providing immediate employment but chiefly as a means of stimulating some of the basic industries of this country and in due course expanding our national income. Hon. members may recall that when the supplementary estimates were brought down last year, acting under instructions from the government I made a brief statement which covered some of the more outstanding of those expenditures. I should like to refer to some of these. As I go along I would point out that these expenditures could' not by any stretch of the imagination be

1928	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
regarded as wasteful or extravagant. They were intended rather to conserve and develop the great resources of this country.
A total of $1,310,000 was set aside for the improvement of road transportation into new mining areas. A total of $300,000 was provided for geological surveys. An amount of $3,500,000 was set aside for highway improvement, apart from mining roads. Of this amount, $1,000,000 was set aside for the removal of level crossings, which was in addition to $500,000 provided in the main estimates for the same purpose. Another item in this group of expenditures which was designed to assist the tourist industry was that of $450,000 for the restoration and development of historic sites. There are some who tell us from time to time that there have been no useful works accomplished as a result of these expenditures for relief. That is far from the truth. I would say that of the total expenditures from 1930 to the present time at least two-fifths are represented in works useful to the community. Only the remaining three-fifths may be said to have been expended for direct relief.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is over the whole eight years.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Exactly. Even that three-fifths I suggest was spent for the conservation of what after all is a vital resource of this country. To say that that money has been wasted is doing violence to our intelligence. It may have been possible to add much more to the money expended for direct relief and construct more works. That might have been done, but the question which after all must be faced by any government is as to how far it can go with public expenditures without destroying that degree of confidence which is essential to the expansion of private investment. There is a prudential limit within which the government must keep in its public expenditures.
There is every reason why, with respect to unemployment, expenditures on public works may be expanded in a period of depression. On the other hand, surely there is no logic in those who say in one breath that there must be retrenchment on the part of the government and, in the next breath, that the government is following the wrong policy in not putting all those who are idle and on relief at useful work. We have had some experience with respect to these matters. No one would doubt for one moment in general terms the advantage of having those who are unemployed at work, but the question we 
have to consider is whether by increasing public payrolls to a great extent you may not deny yourselves the opportunity of expanding private payrolls. I believe it is the considered experience of all countries, including those which have tried other policies, that there is no real solution for unemployment in any vast program of public works designed to take up the entire slack of unemployment.
As I have suggested, it is sound policy to expand certain types of public workfe which not only provide employment but develop resources and increase the national income. But apart from that it cannot be urged that there is any magic or virtue in that type of policy which finds a solution for unemployment in the construction of public works.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What is going to happen to the other half million unemployed?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am glad my hon. friend was the one who raised that question. He represents a labour constituency, and I wonder if he has seen a bulletin which was issued recently by the American Federation of Labour dealing with this very point. My hon. friend himself has said in times past that public works are a palliative and not a cure.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Let me place upon Hansard at this time the considered opinion of the American Federation of Labour. I think it is of great significance, particularly in view of the apparent change in the relief policy of the United States. This is the quotation:
The absorption of the unemployed and the creation of work opportunities for all who are able and willing to work, in private industry, have ever been a part of the economic philosophy of the American Federation of Labor. We have consistently sought to achieve these purposes.
During all the years intervening between 1929, when unemployment became a serious national problem, until the present moment the executive council has cooperated with the government, with industrial management and with all other groups in order that working men and women thrown out of work might find a new place and new positions in private industry. Both time and experience have clearly vindicated the position assumed and maintained by the American Federation of Labor upon economic, social and industrial problems.
We are firmly convinced that various forms of government spending, either in the distribution of relief or in the development and maintenance of work projects designed to supply relief wages to unemployed, can only serve as temporary measures and cannot and do not provide a permanent solution for unemployment.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
I suggest that such statement, coming as it does from the American Federation of Labour, has very special significance and importance at this time.
I have not touched upon all the special expenditures which were made in the past year in order to develop the basic resources of our country. Over $7,000,000 was expended on the expansion of harbours and rivers. There was also the money devoted to the Grand River conservation project, and $1,000,000 for canal improvements. The sum of $650,000 was spent on the encouragement of the fishing industry. There was the expansion of facilities for air transportation through assistance given not only to trans-Canada airways but also to municipal airports. There was the provision for rehabilitation and water storage in the prairie provinces, a second line of defence against the recurrence of drought. Some $3,500,000 was included in the estimates for that purpose.
I suggest that in the light of what has been done through direct assistance to the provinces and municipalities, what has been done under agreements with the provinces for work programs, what has been done through the stimulus given to the mining and housing industries, what has been done in order to expand municipal improvements in the form of self-liquidating projects, what has been done in a dozen different ways to conserve and develop the great resources of our country and expand our national income, no one can seriously urge that this government has not met the challenge of unemployment.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would say that.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am glad my hon. friend has said that, because I am prepared to discuss it at any time and at any place. We will doubtless have other opportunities when this legislation is before the committee. But let me ask my hon. friend, what ways could he suggest to cure unemployment? Does he believe that Germany has cured unemployment?


Abraham Albert Heaps: No.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Or Italy?


Abraham Albert Heaps: No.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about Russia?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Or Russia?


Abraham Albert Heaps: What about New Zealand?


An hon. MEMBER:: New Zealand has.


Norman McLeod Rogers: By no means.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, yes.
71492-122.J


Norman McLeod Rogers: In the United States, the great country across the boundary, according to figures issued by the Canadian Welfare Council there were recently 21,000,000 on relief, and the total unemployed is 12,000,000. That government, I suggest, has carried out in its policies all those spectacular notions which hon. members have in vain urged upon this government.


John Charles Landeryou: Included in the number of those on relief are those who are working on government projects.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes; but unfortunately, as my hon. friend is aware, government projects have a tendency to continue indefinitely; that is the great difficulty in connection with the works progress administration projects in the United States. In Great Britain within the last month the number of unemployed reached a total of 2,039,000, and that despite the vast rearmament program of that country.


Mr. LAWSON:: What country is that?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Great Britain. That is the number of unemployed, not of those on relief. As a matter of fact, the position in Canada, difficult though it is, and let us face it, is not as difficult as that in other countries. Why cannot we take encouragement from the fact that the situation in this country is relatively better than it is in others.


Denton Massey: That does not make it
good.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Why is it that far fields are always so green? There are those in other countries who look upon the position here with envy and respect, and I say that with some knowledge of the facts.


James Earl Lawson: Would my hon. friend permit me? I have no desire to be a carping critic, but surely one can hardly make a comparison when everybody who is unemployed in the United Kingdom is under an unemployment insurance scheme and has an income coming in, compared with the poor unfortunate devil in this country who is out of employment and not on relief.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is not so. My hon. friend surely must be aware that a person in Great Britain is in receipt of unemployment insurance for only a limited period, a certain number of weeks, and when that period has expired he has to receive relief on precisely the same basis as in this country.


James Earl Lawson: My hon. friend is not suggesting that there are 2,100.000 unemployed on relief in the United Kingdom. He was
X930	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
talking about their being unemployed; but a large number of them are under the unemployment insurance scheme.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think I can assure my hon. friend that for the most part they are not receiving a greater allowance than, under our relief system, heads of families are receiving in Canada.


John Charles Landeryou: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall be pleased if my hon. friend can retain his question; we can deal with it in committee. I take no satisfaction from suggesting that conditions here or there are worse than they are in Canada, except in so far as it does indicate that we in this country have no ground for despair at this time. I have no patience with those who continually look upon the worst side of the situation in this dominion. As a matter of fact, when it is considered that in the last two years we have had not only a world depression to contend with, which we have in common with other countries, but also prolonged drought, which has taken a large part of our agricultural area out of production-


John Charles Landeryou: We still have that.


Norman McLeod Rogers: -and when it is considered also that, despite the sharp recession in the United States in the latter part of 1937 and 1938, our figures of employment kept relatively constant, there is evidence here of the recuperative powers of this young country; and if only we had more faith in the recuperative powers of Canada, if only leaders of industry had more faith in the recuperative powers of Canada, it would be possible, I say-


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Give them a chance.


Norman McLeod Rogers: - for us to make a substantial reduction in the number of unemployed this year. My hon. friend objects to my referring at all to the leaders of industry.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I do not. I say, give them a chance.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I do not refer to leaders of industry in any other way than to point out to them, as I have done before and shall do again, that the challenge of unemployment is not a challenge directed only to governments. And those who speak for the leaders of industry, particularly through such newspapers as the Financial Post, that, as I have said, in one breath cry for government retrenchment and in the next condemn this government because it has not provided work for those on relief-


Mr. MacNICOL:: That is because of the tariff policy.


Norman McLeod Rogers: -are simply bedeviling
the entire situation. I say that advisedly and deliberately, and I will not hesitate to say it again.
What of the future?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Pretty sad-looking.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I think we can look forward with reasonable confidence to an extension of employment during the year 1939. A little more than a month ago there was in the British House of Commons a debate upon unemployment. In that debate the government of the United Kingdom was chastised, criticized and condemned for its failure to do the very things that we or any other group of men as a government would be condemned for having failed to do in recent years. I think it was the president of the board of trade, who pointed out that the basic cause of unemployment throughout the world to-day was an abnormal contraction in international trade, an abnormal contraction in private investment, and a persistence of fear through international tension which, if continued, would place an even greater burden upon governments. Surely we can understand that international tension, which has continued almost without any interval of peace in the last two years, has deterred many a business man from making forward commitments, from investing his money in industry. If tension continues, governments must accept their responsibility in meeting the situation. As a result of that, this government had to assume greater burdens than otherwise it would have assumed.
Fortunately there is some ground for believing that this fear which has haunted the world in the last two years may be receding, and with its recession there may be a return of that confidence which will permit business men once more to expand their activities on the basis of the expected consumption of their products. If, with that relief of international tension, there comes also a return to more sensible policies of trade in countries which have turned away from international trade to economic nationalism, then this great exporting country will have once more an opportunity to build up in western Canada that market, that store of purchasing power not based on paper certificates, but based on the sale of goods, which will provide a means for the development and expansion of the industries of central Canada.
As one charged with responsibility in connection with unemployment and relief, I have tried to see the picture as it really is.

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
In these days one lives continually in an atmosphere of distress; but never at any time has this government, or its Minister of Labour as a member of this government, adopted an attitude of defeat and despair. If this parliament in its discussions of unemployment and relief will try to face the facts as they are, there will be no criticism on my part in so far as exception is taken to any feature of our policies. But if we can see what is good in the situation as well as what is disturbing; and provided there is a change in international factors which from the beginning have been beyond our control, and a willingness also on the part of citizens as well as governments to accept their obligations in relation to this problem, it is not too great for this nation to solve.


Denton Massey: Mr. Speaker, again we have listened to a speech by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), purporting to review the condition of employment and unemployment in Canada for another year. I have listened with intense interest to what the minister has had to say, but I am forced to this one conclusion, that there has never been in this house a more frank and complete confession of failure than that to which we have just listened.
The minister commenced his speech admirably, as he always does, and he used a phrase which we should do well to remember. I took it down verbatim lest I forget: "The part of wisdom is to search out the truth and to present the truth." There is not an hon. member who will not subscribe to that. The minister sought out the truth, according to his own statement. Then, at the end of his speech, in his peroration, he gave the excuse which the government now employs for its failure to deal with this problem of unemployment and agricultural distress. That excuse was world conditions, and I could not help thinking, at the conclusion of his speech, of that celebrated night in his own city, during the course of the election campaign of 1935, when the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), as he is now, and others, spoke in a meeting maligning and vilifying the then administration, without a single reference to a world depression. From the point of view of what one says, what a difference it makes, apparently, where one sits in this house. Alibis and excuses! I say to you, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Denton Massey: Hon. members may laugh, but I am wondering what will happen in the next election when all they can present to the unemployed in their ridings is the bitter bread
that the minister fed them to-day, the bitter bread of failure-the admission of complete failure to deal with this problem. Perhaps the laughter was slightly premature.
Then we listened as the minister progressed in his speech to his complaint in regard to the use of figures by some apparently, as he described them, irresponsible journalists, who are ignorant, who should know better. He complained that the figure of one million was given as representing those who were dependent upon relief in this country. Well, here is his own release dated Ottawa, March 15.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Surely my hon. friend will permit me to ask him a question. I said that at the time when the number on relief, according to registration, was some 544,000, it was being stated in newspaper editorials that there were a million unemployed on relief. My hon. friend is aware that there is a fluctuation in relief figures from month to month.


Denton Massey: The insidious danger in the use of figures, as I shall demonstrate with reference to some figures which the minister himself has used, is that the point behind the figures is not made clear. Here is a figure that cannot be dodged-the minister used it himself this afternoon: 978,000 on relief, dependent upon relief, in the month of January, 1939, an increase of eight per cent over the same period last year. That is the figure. It will go out from this house this afternoon.
' Is it to be wondered sometimes that, in the midst of the distress which this country has experienced, such a figure as that is used perhaps incorrectly?
Then the minister went on to object to the use of the figures of 80,000 or 90,000 or 150,000 as the number of transients unemployed in this country. He said that the best estimate he could make, from sources which he regarded as reliable, was, I believe, less than 10,000.


Norman McLeod Rogers: According to the definition,
yes.


Denton Massey: Again we have the academic approach to the question-according to definition. Those housed in provincial and other institutions, hostels of one sort and another- what about them? As I stand in my place now, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, I know of scores upon scores of transients unemployed who are in receipt of charity, if you want to call it that, from private individuals. I know of hostels that are maintained by private capital, of which this government has no knowledge. I know of tens of thousands of transient unemployed receiving the benefit of private charity in this country, whom this government does not list at all and knows nothing about.
1932	[DOT]	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
Then the minister went on further to complain of the number which had been given as representing the unemployed youth in Canada, the number which had been suggested by the Canadian Youth Congress- 450,000, he said. He challenged that figure. [DOT]Well, I wonder what it means to be a youth unemployed. I wonder what the academic definition of a youth unemployed is, which will reduce that figure to act as a salve to the conscience of the government. What difference does it make whether it is 150,000 or 500,000? In either case it represents a ghastly state of affairs in this country. And what is being done in connection with it? I shall deal with that question later.
The minister admitted that the youth congress, in arriving at a figure of 465,000, had included those who were on farms. Has the minister any idea of the number of young farmers who left their farms, went into the city, got some sort of work, lost it, then went back to the farms and are now waiting for a better day, being in the meantime looked after by the father and mother who are struggling to keep the farm going as best they can, with the added difficulty of having to keep a son?


Mr. WOOD:: Could not that son-


Denton Massey: The hon. member will have plenty of time to speak.


Malcolm McLean: He doesn't want to answer.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is afraid of the question.


Denton Massey: Who said that? Let him get up and say it. I want to make my argument consecutive, and there will be plenty of opportunity for the hon. member opposite to speak.


Malcolm McLean: I said that the hon. member did not want to answer questions. He has asked plenty himself, I might add.


Denton Massey: Did I interrupt the minister in his speech?


George Ernest Wood: May I ask a question?


Denton Massey: Ask your question, certainly.


George Ernest Wood: If the son goes back to the farm will he not earn his own board on the farm?


Denton Massey: I do not mind a question, but I do not want a speech. The hon. member knows what I mean. He knows the point I have in mind. He knows that in his own constituency of Brant there are plenty of sons who went to Paris, Brantford and Toronto

and are now back on the farms, waiting for an opportunity to return to the city. It may be for the moment they are earning their own keep, but they are those who could and would be gainfully employed and at the moment they are unemployed. That is the point. It impressed me that the whole matter is one which the minister was endeavouring to deal with by figures-figures-figures. After all, what is the size of this question in Canada; what is the extent, in figures? Anyone in this house knows that the size of the problem, the breadth of the problem, is the breadth of Canada, and the depth of the problem is the heart of every man, woman and child in this dominion. That is the size of the problem. Why are we worrying about figures? After all, we know that the situation is ghastly. But the government is not dealing with it accordingly.
The minister went on to discuss the question of cooperation with the provinces, the necessity for a change in the legislative approach in regard to the provinces themselves. He referred to the fact that one should seek any amendment to the constitution that we desire by "the open door"- I believe that was his phrase. Why not cooperation? In 1867-and I do not wish to splash about in history-this dominion was bom, under an act known as the British North America Act. For years it progressed, progressed successfully under the spirit of that act. Then, somehow, we began to change our point of view in connection with it. To a new and widespread and ominous extent autonomous powers were assumed by the provinces, which insisted on one of two things, either an amendment to the act or reversion to our original interpretation of it, which meant in turn cooperation. But the minister referred to conflict and friction; conflict and friction, where cooperation might exist. Just as it was possible to gain cooperation, so there might be conflict and friction. Well, may I use a rather ancient platitude, which however seems to apply so well:	It takes
two to make a quarrel. If there is no cooperation due to conflict, both the federal government and the provinces are to blame. Then the minister referred further to efficiency and economy, and to responsibility without control, and he gave the house the benefit of his academic background in a most interesting pedantic discussion of the question of dual responsibility, of the right of the dominion, or the possibility of the dominion entering upon a realm now presided over by a province, and usurping authority. As far as the provinces are concerned, in so many

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
cases it is a question not only of ability to cooperate but of ability to provide. In the meantime, while these various difficult and moot points are being considered and discussed and debated in this house and outside of it, innocent victims to an unknown number are suffering.
I wonder if it would not occur to the minister that in his entire speech this afternoon he failed to bring to the attention of the house a single nation-wide constructive effort in the way of permanent employment.


Mr. MARTIN:: The hon. member did not get it.


Denton Massey: Well, I should like the hon. member to name one when he replies.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I certainly will.


Denton Massey: It will be interesting. Not a single nation-wide project of a permanent character.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Can the hon. member name one of a permanent character?


Denton Massey: Before I sit down I shall give to the government eleven constructive suggestions.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of a permanent character?


Denton Massey: Of a permanent character.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend has asked a question, so perhaps he will allow me to answer it. What would he say, for instance, of assistance to mining roads and the mining industry, of national housing, of the home improvement plan, of the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act-and I could detail others?


Denton Massey: I expect to deal with them all in detail. But in regard to the statement I have just made, the minister did not suggest any one nation-wide project of a permanent character. By "permanent" I mean the creation of some new-shall I say-economy in regard to a certain part or portion of this dominion which affects all of this dominion.


Mr. MUTCH:: How long is "permanent"?


Denton Massey: Not "much" longer -for
some.
I would say that it is very obvious, appallingly obvious, that on what the minister has suggested to-day as the path followed by the present administration, every step taken was a palliative and not a cure; that the problem has been temporized with rather than dealt with at its core. Let me illustrate what I mean. The National Housing Act, the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, the youth training projects and other such matters were
mentioned by the minister, along with the question of highways and such development as was carried forward in the mining areas, and so forth. I should like to deal briefly with one or two of these matters with which the minister himself has dealt. Let me take first the question of youth training. I fully realize that there is on the order paper a resolution in regard to youth training, on which such a discussion as this should properly be launched. On the other hand the minister himself brought the matter up this afternoon, accordingly I shall assume the right to answer the statement he made.
He objected strongly to a statement-his language was "It has been said by one who ought to know better in regard to twenty-five who were placed under the training plan." I have in my hand a pamphlet entitled, "Training Canada's Young Unemployed." I have read this pamphlet carefully. It is an official publication of the Department of Labour. Reading through the pamphlet, if one omits page 24, it reads like a real estate agent's description of a piece of property he has for sale. It is a most interesting booklet and well prepared, and lays out, may I say, many worthwhile and worthy projects. The plan was operated under a vote of the session before last of SI,000,000. The money was spent on various and sundry projects throughout the dominion. The statement that was made by the hon. gentleman "who ought to know better" was to the effect that of 13,542 young men who were given training in one province, twenty-five found jobs. The minister said 2,500, but in that case he had better re-edit his own pamphlet, because I am reading from it just as the hon. gentleman who made the statement.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Oh, no-


Denton Massey: I know what the minister
is going to say. He made his statement allembracing of the result of all the efforts put forth, and I read that same statement and I do now re-read it. There were 13,542 men given training in one province, and according to this pamphlet twenty-five found employment.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But what I pointed out
was that the statement as given was to the effect that this was the result for all of Canada. That was not the statement as it appeared in Hansard, but it was the statement that appeared in the press.


Denton Massey: One can hardly blame the hon. gentleman if his statement is misconstrued in the press. After all, the statement in Hansard which I also read is clear and
1934	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
distinct. We would hardly expect the minister to say the hon. gentleman should know better than make such a statement; the minister himself should know better than make the statement he made.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Certainly he should not
have given that as an indication of the success of the scheme in all Canada.


Denton Massey: He did not.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, he did.


Denton Massey: I shall be glad to deal with the success of the scheme, but I do not wish to do so just at the moment. The minister went on to discuss the effect of the act of this year. I have here, if I can put my hand on it, a statement in regard to the efficiency of the plan which shows very clearly the result of the efforts that have been put forward so far. I have in my hand a pamphlet which was put out by the minister himself shortly after the end of last session, entitled "What did parliament do?" The pamphlet states that "this is a difficult question to answer," and with that we entirely agree. It goes on to say:
The memorandum is confined to parliamentary action directed definitely toward rehabilitation. It does not, nor is it intended to, cover the complete list of accomplishments last session.
Then it proceeds, through some fourteen pages of typewritten material, to detail the accomplishments of parliament in 1938. I have taken it upon myself to summarize those alleged accomplishments. What did parliament do? The first item is the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, with an appropriation of $30,000,000. Loans to date total $3,102,668; advances by the government to date total S659,796, or 2-2 per cent of the total. Then under the National Housing Act, part 1, $20,000,000 was appropriated. Loans under this part total $7,931,575; the dominion's share amounts to $1,982,894 and advances by the government total $593,701, or 4 per cent of the total. Under part 2 of the National Housing Act the appropriation was $30,000,000. To date none of this money has been used. Under part 3, of course, there has been no appropriation at all.
There we have $80,000,000, as was blazoned across the front pages of the press of this country last session, introduced by the government to revive the construction industry; $80,000,000 that was going to make it possible for municipalities to undertake self-liquidating improvements; $80,000,000 that was going to provide houses for scores of thousands of our people. Eighty million dollars, and how we heard that in this chamber; what a great 	i j
triumph it was for the government! Yet to-day only $1,253,497 out of that total has come from the government treasury, or 1-7 per cent. I claim that such statements as were made in this chamber last session were eyewash.
Now we come to youth training, for which $1,750,000 was voted last session, which amount included a revote of $290,000 from the previous year. The youth of Canada were looking to this government-I do not know why they should, but in some sections they continue to do so-in the hope that something might yet be done, their patience all but exhausted but still hoping against hope; and $1,460,000 was our grant for 1938-39. What has been spent to-day? Only $351,000, or 24 per cent.


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my hon. friend will permit me to correct that, as a matter of administration the provinces frequently do not send in their accounts for work done until months after the actual expenditures have been incurred, so this figure does not represent work done at all.


Denton Massey: Mr. Speaker, I have here a letter dated Ottawa, March 4, 1939, over the signature "Norman McL. Rogers," as follows:
In response to a telephone request from your secretary to my deputy the enclosed statement has been prepared showing the disbursements under two of the votes in the supplementary estimates for the present fiscal year, namely, votes 520 and 521.
I trust that the information herein covers that which you desire.
Therein I find listed the figures I have just given.


Norman McLeod Rogers: That does not affect what I have just said. Those figures do not cover all the work done; they cover only the accounts that have come in.


Denton Massey: Well, would the minister care to make a statement, during his remarks on the next resolution standing in his name, as to the amount that has been spent under these agreements this year?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Certainly.


Denton Massey: It seems to me a serious thing that under date of March 4, which after all is less than a fortnight ago, a statement such as this should be put out, containing no mention whatever as to the period covered. I suppose the minister wjll say that statement is made by one who ought to know better, in other words the hon. member for Greenwood. I simply take what is given over his own signature. If I have misrepresented the facts I apologize to the minister;

but on the other hand it is obvious to me from the letter I have in my hand that only 24 per cent of the youth training appropriation has been expended to date. The results would give that impression, in any case.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The statement is correct.


Denton Massey: If the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) has anything worth saying I wish he would say it, and not mutter to himself.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. member let me say it?


Denton Massey: Certainly, if it is worth hearing.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the hon. member will permit me to say it-


Denton Massey: If the hon. member has a question to ask I shall be delighted to give him the opportunity to do so, but I object to his muttering to himself. There is always the suspicion, when someone mutters, that he does not want even himself to hear what he is saying.
Now I come to the question of farm employment. In the pamphlet to which I have alluded we were told that $1,870,000 was granted for farm employment. Subject,
I presume, to the same correction by the minister, to date $596,000 has been put to use, or 32 per cent. But Mr. Speaker, here are the facts of the case. The appropriations I have mentioned, totalling $83,330,000, represent 70 per cent of the grants listed in this extraordinary document " What did parliament do?" The other 30 per cent is essentially for public works of one kind or another, including grants in aid totalling $17,500,000. The amount of $20,000,000 for public works projects and the $17,500,000 have been essentially applied fully; but of the $83,330,000 only $2,200,497 or 2-6 per cent has been put to use. And then, Mr. Speaker, in the light of figures such as I have just used, the minister rose in his place this afternoon and said, in words which echoed through this chamber, "The government has taken every possible step to stimulate the building industry." Does the minister honestly believe that the government has taken every possible step to stimulate the building industry?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Within reason.


Denton Massey: Does he believe they had to pass through two sessions, two and a half years of administration, before they changed that "moribund legislation"? Does he believe that the Dominion Housing Act, that " iniquitous act " which had to be changed,
15, 1939	1935
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
should exist for two and a half years before it was changed? Why was it permitted to remain on the statute books, if it was moribund legislation?-because, Mr. Speaker, in its own [DOT] right it was doing a job.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, oh.


Denton Massey: Well, after all, I think the hon. gentleman who groans represents more fully than anything else the first syllable of the city from which he comes.


Mr. STEWART:: A Windsor groan.


Denton Massey: And that, after all, if he will look-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I missed that pearl of humour.


Denton Massey: If the hon. member will look at the record he will find that operations under the Dominion Housing Act, providing as it did for houses of an average value of $4,000, were successful to the degree of about $25,000,000. I have not .the exact figure in my hand. That was a fair fillip to the construction industry. But this "moribund legislation," even in the face of recommendations of the national employment commission, which came in a year and a half before, remained on the statute books for two and a half years 'before it was changed.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And not changed much.


Denton Massey: "The government has taken every step possible to stimulate the building industry." Shall I say " that statement is made by one who ought to know better "?- that was the minister's phrase. What about the years which have gone by? What about the lack of cooperation of the provinces? The old chestnut of provincial rights was not merely trotted out this afternoon by the minister; it was brought in with a blaze of glory. He referred to it very guardedly and carefully for the consumption of those in all the provinces, be the provincial government guilty of " conspiracy " or otherwise. Mr. Speaker, the admission this afternoon in the speech of the Minister of Labour was a most fatal admission; and if the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) were listening-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am listening; my hon. friend has no right to insinuate that I am not. I have no difficulty in hearing him.


Denton Massey: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was just judging by appearances. I did not think my right hon. friend was listening.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, he cannot help being bored.
1936	COMMONS
Unemployment and Agricultural Distress


Denton Massey: If the right hon. gentleman had been listening this afternoon, intently, he would have heard his minister say-as he did-that every possible step had been taken to stimulate the building industry. I wonder if he feels that that is an accurate statement. He realizes also that his minister was compelled to make the statement-not in so many words, no-to make the statement that it was lack of cooperation between the federal government and the provincial governments that was nailing down the lid of the Liberal coffin more than any other single factor, so far as the efficiency of the government was concerned-handicapped and hamstrung on every angle by the absence of cooperation.
"We have taken every step possible to stimulate the building industry."-whereas all hon. members know the difficulty or the handicap in the way of stimulation is the lack of federal cooperation with the provincial governments.
Then the minister, toward the end of his speech, said "the government has met the problem of unemployment." I repeat, "The government has met the problem of unemployment." I wonder if those hon. gentlemen coming from industrial areas are prepared to go back to those areas, to meet the man on the street who is still unemployed or the youth who has yet to find his first job, and say, "Cheer up, old boy; all is well. The government has met the problem of unemployment. The Minister of Labour told me so."


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Minister of Labour did not say that.


Denton Massey: He said it, word for word.
I wrote it down as he said it-"the government has met the problem of unemployment." Perhaps that would be a statement for a stump speech on the hustings; perhaps it has been thrown out in the House of Commons for some purpose or another. But what purpose does a statement like that serve for the man who is still unemployed? The government has not met the unemployment problem. If the minister thinks for a single, solitary minute that such figures as he put on Hansard this afternoon indicate in any way, shape or form that the government has met the problem of unemployment, then he is wrong. There are 978,000 dependent upon relief in this country; tens of thousands of the youth of this country wandering about, trying to find something here or there-eking out an existence. "The government has met the problem of unemployment!" I think there has been no more damnable statement made than that in this House of Commons.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. The hon. member should not use that word.


Denton Massey: If the word is objectionable, I would withdraw it-but the house knows what I mean.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles Avery Dunning: Has he withdrawn?


Denton Massey: "If the situation in Canada is relatively better, why should we not be pleased?" Those were more of the minister's honeyed words. If the situation in Canada is relatively better than it is in any other country of the world, why should we not be pleased? The fact that we may be better oS in Canada than people in some other countries does not make the condition here as it should, or could, and must be. We are better off than they are in Czechoslovakia. We are infinitely better off than the peoples living in some of the European countries at the present time. That we well know, and we thank God for it. But that does not provide the government with an excuse or alibi for the fact that conditions are no better in Canada than they are.
"We have no ground for despair in Canada." We have no ground for despair of our country, but we have of the government. Yes, we have of the government. After all, we must perforce realize that we are faced with a situation which may not be very palatable from the point of view of those who occupy the treasury benches. But the fact remains that we have not done all we can by any manner or means to stimulate construction, or any other industry. And just because things may be relatively better in Canada does not make conditions here right. Because things are relatively better in Canada does not preclude the right of some of us in this house rising in our places and calling the attention of the government to a situation which they themselves know exists, but which they seem either unwilling or powerless to deal with. Either the government does not understand the problem or else it is unwilling to deal with it-or both.


Mr. SPENCE:: They do not know how to deal with it.
Mr. MASSES?: The resolution before the house anticipates a measure to provide assistance in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress. It seems to me extraordinary that two months of the session should pass before the problem facing the man on the street or the man on the farm is given any consideration by the government. Here is one of the greatest- possibly the greatest-problems facing Canada

Public Accounts Committee Report
today. Those are problems which, as I have already said, either directly or indirectly affect the life of every man, woman and child in the dominion. I am going to make no apologies this afternoon for discussing the subject matter of this resolution at considerable length, and attempting to present to the house the unvarnished facts. I do not fear the undesirability of laying such facts before the country. It is highly to be desired, especially in view of the speech to which we have listened this afternoon, that such facts be presented.
I shall not, however, attempt to discuss the problem of agricultural distress, though I plan to speak upon this great question at a later date. I realize fully that this problem is irreducibly linked up to its twin problem of unemploymient and that a healthy condition of agriculture is tantamount to a prosperous Canada. Sufficient be it to say here that the government has treated the agricultural situation for the last three and a half years as a succession of emergencies. Under and by reason of this performance the problem of agricultural distress has in fact become a succession of emergencies. Surely the facing of these successive crises as isolated individual phenomena does not constitute an agricultural policy.
As I have just stated, the problem of unemployment and its resulting distress touches our national life at its most vital point. History tells that story. The urgency and need for swift and courageous government action is painfully obvious. I shall attempt to demonstrate before I sit down that it is the absence of such action that has caused and is causing the condition which we face in Canada at the present time. Not minimizing for a moment the value of efficient and equitable trade treaties-I certainly do not
include the last two trade treaties

and of
a large export trade, we -must realize that we in Canada consume about eighty per cent of the goods we produce and manufacture within our own borders. Further, even though we are the fifth exporting nation of the world, we may claim only about four per cent of the total world trade.
The challenge to the government is to put Canadians to work in Canada and to realize to the fullest possible degree the natural resources with which we have been blessed and to reestablish the principle that Canadian raw materials should be processed as far as possible by Canadian workmen. There is nothing wrong with our Canadian people. There is nothing wrong with our Canadian youth. The unemployed Canadian, the youth who has yet to find his first job, is
ready and willing to go to work, earnestly seeking the opportunity to give outlet to that virility and energy which has always characterized the individual Canadian. Thus I say, the government is challenged to clear the way for the creation of new jobs, not palliative methods of employment,- not casual employment, but new jobs of a permanent character, and to create opportunity for the development of Canada by Canadians. It is with the deepest regret that we are forced to the realization that the present government has failed so miserably to answer this challenge. As I wish, Mr. Speaker, to discuss this matter from several different angles, and as it is approaching six o'clock, I desire to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, March 16, 1939