Mr. MANION:

I will admit that if it will please the minister. This resolution was dated December 27, and reads as follows:

The council of the town of Kenora view with alarm the problem of unemployment prevailing at present due to conditions over which this body has no control, and for the relief of which it would be utterly impossible for local authorities to assume the whole responsibility on account of the financial aspect.

Therefore this body hereby instructs the mayor and clerk to petition the Dominion and provincial governments to send representatives to a conference to discuss the situation with a view to such governments assuming a portion of the cost of relief -work started by the town, and to undertake such provincial and Dominion government work or works already commenced and in prospect by the different departments as will seem justly possible to do.

Mid that copies of this motion be sent to Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister, Hon. Peter Heenan, Minister of Labour, Hon. G. Howard Ferguson, Premier of Ontario, Hon. Dr. Forbes Godfrey, Minister of Labour for the province of Ontario, Hon. AVilliam Finlay-son. Minister of Lands and Forests.

And that January 7 be suggested as the date of the said conference.

Unemployment was not a new thing to the Minister of Labour, or it should not have been if he had been paying any attention to his own home town; for I find another article published many weeks earlier, which I will read for the minister's edification. The minister himself quoted from the Kenora Miner and News, and I would like to read an article which appeared on November 4. It is as follows:

The Hon. Peter Heenan, Minister of Labour in the Dominion government, was in this riding during almost the whole of the provincial election campaign and had been here a great portion of the time since July travelling up and down in a splendidly equipped private car. We doubt if he was observant enough to notice that each night the station waiting room floors on the Canadian National Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway lines were almost covered with sleeping men, who were beating their way east during the day time on freight and passenger trains. Strong, fine looking men, unable to obtain work in the west, were risking their lives to reach the east. He had no message of hopefulness or cheer for these men, broke and buffeted about as they were.

The same Hon. Peter Heenan, Minister of Labour, voted against a proposal at the last

session of the Dominion house to make a grant of $10,000,000 to the provinces for the purpose of assisting in building the trans-Canada highway. This amount would have materially assisted in providing work for the army of men who have daily for many weeks been beating their way east on the railways at the risk of their lives.

The town of Kenora has been drawing this matter to the attention of the minister. The hon. minister has been boasting in the house of the fact that he helped the present provincial member for Kenora in a successful contest for that seat.

Mr. HEENAN:

The article the hon. member has just read was written by the defeated candidate just after the election.

Mr. MANION:

So was the article the minister read written by the defeated candidate. It was written by the same man in the same paper. It apparently all depends on which foot the boot is on. This is from the Ottawa Citizen and the action happened on February 20, the very day that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) put into the mouth of His Excellency the statement that the country was enjoying the utmost prosperity. The Labour member in the legislature at Toronto made the following speech:

The only Labour member in the house, in resuming the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, said that unemployment in Kenora was very serious, and he believed the government should render immediate aid, either through providing work on highways or by grants of money to the municipalities.

That was the very day the Prime Minister put into the mouth of His Excellency the statement that conditions in the Dominion of Canada were so prosperous. The minister had this matter drawn to his attention early in the year, and in fact late last year by various labour organizations in .this country, asking for a conference, and he gave out a statement which is published and which I hold in my hand. This is the heading in the Evening Citizen of the 17th December last:

Labour minister thinks no need for conference. Proposal to call meeting in respect to unemployment not favoured by Hon. Peter Heenan and government.

Then it goes on:

The federal government does not consider that any necessity exists for calling a conference with respect to unemployment, according to Hon. Peter Heenan, Minister of Labour, who issued a statement to this effect following a conference he had yesterday with the executive of the Employment Service Council of Canada. Among the considerations which impelled the

Unemployment-Mr. Manion

government not to convene such a conference were the fact that employment in Canada at the moment stands at the highest peak reached at this period of the year since 1920, and that further to this the great transportation companies and the government have embarked or are embarking on programs of work aggregating many millions of dollars.

Moreover, the minister does not think that a conference of the character that was recently held in the United States by President Hoover would accomplish any good in Canada.

That is the attitude of the Minister of Labour. In other words, he took the stand that there was no unemployment; that statistics showed that unemployment was practically at its normal position in this country. That was the attitude he took according to that statement which was published with that interpretation throughout the whole Dominion of Canada.

I well remember some years ago reading about the period of the French revolution. Louis XVI had a minister named Foulon- and possibly emphasis should be placed on the first section of the name-who, when he was asked on one occasion when conditions were bad in France, what the unemployed people were going to do, said: " Let them eat grass." This government does not even offer grass to the employed of this country; all it offers them is statistics of employment, statistics showing that they are employed. It tries to convince them by reiterating the statement by various ministers that the people are employed, have plenty of money in their pockets and plenty of food in their stomachs, in spite of the fact that they foolishly think they have not. While I was listening to the minister yesterday I was struck with the date on which the minister was making his speech. It was certainly an April Fool's speech so far as the workingmen of this country were concerned.

The President of the United States, in that vast and rich country thought it necessary, because he had it drawn to his attention that unemployment was rampant there, to call a conference, and a couple of Sundays ago I had the pleasure of listening to a speech over the radio given by Mr. Lawrence, speaking for the president. He said:

Speaking for Mr. Hoover, he said that while there was unemployment in the United States very great improvement had been shown in this since December first.

That was about the time of the conference.

He stated that in sixty days the whole condition should be relieved.

[Mr. Manion.J

He went on to say:

Only twelve states have unemployment trouble and no requests have come from them for help from the national government as their unemployment troubles are being looked after locally.

I took down these notes as I listened to the gentleman speaking, so the statements made from the other side that conditions are so severe in the United States are not correct.

The Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister have taken the stand that the government is not called upon to help this situation; that it is, first, a municipal and, second, a provincial problem, but a different attitude was taken by Mr. Brownlee, Premier of Alberta, and the Canadian Council of Agriculture whose resolution I have under my hand, who consider that this government is responsible ; and we took the same attitude under the order in council in 1921 that the Dominion was responsible along with the provinces, and the municipalities. I repeat what I said in Winnipeg, that when it becomes so serious in our country it is a joint matter, federal, provincial and municipal.

As regards these deputations that came from the great lakes to the Pacific ocean to see the Prime Minister and his government-and the Minister of Labour was present at the interview-the Toronto Globe says that the Prime Minister took this attitude, and this is the day after the deputation waited upon him. Quoting the Prime Minister, it says:

"I can't understand why you gentlemen are stirring up and exaggerating this unemployment situation"-

He was speaking to the delegation.

-said the Prime Minister, after listening to complaints for two hours. "If the situation is as deplorable as you try to picture, why is not eastern Canada represented? The answer is that, generally speaking, the employment situation in Canada is not abnormal. I have a telegram from the government of the province of Quebec that conditions there are quite satisfactory. You advertise that there is unemployment, and the relief is to be sought from the Dominion government, and immediately there is a rush to the cities.

"Why turn to Ottawa?" he asks, "and why is it that when municipal and provincial problems arise the local authorities always turn to the federal government for aid? You say your public works are costing more and you want us to bear a portion of the extra cost. Well, our public works are costing more, and are you willing to help us pay for the extra cost?"

That is the attitude the Prime Minister took according to the Toronto Globe of the day following the visit of the deputation. I have

Unemployment-Mr. Manion

also a clipping from the Collingwood Messenger to the following effect:

Young men, clean limbed and able workers, arrive each day, penniless and hungry at the Orillia jail, with a plea for a night out of the cold and a breakfast in the morning.

All the papers in Canada were taking a similar attitude. In regard to unemployment insurance there was quite a discussion yesterday between the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). The Prime Minister heatedly defended the attitude he had taken with regard to unemployment insurance. The headings in the Ottawa Citizen and the Ottawa Journal show that the Prime Minister's statements are sometimes misinterpreted. This is the heading in the Ottawa Citizen:

Canada to have insurance plan for unemployed.

Mr. King, replying to deputation seeking federal aid to municipalities and provinces, makes forecast of insurance.

Hopes to be able to work out plan soon.

All would be compelled to contribute during periods of employment.

The heading in the Ottawa Journal is very much the same.

Premier hopes relief scheme prepared soon. Tells deputation insurance plan only permanent solution.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Why does my hon. friend not read the article instead of the headings somebody else puts on them?

Mr. MANION:

I will read the articles. One can draw almost any conclusion from statements made by the Prime Minister. I do not wish to impute motives, but I think that is the purpose of the statements put out so that they will be misunderstood here and misunderstood there, and so that men will draw their own conclusions and perhaps vote for the government. The first paragraph sums up the situation and it is identical in the two papers. It is as follows:

Eventually Canada will have a system of unemployment insurance, Premier Mackenzie King predicted to-day in replying to a deputation seeking federal aid to municipalities and provinces on unemployment relief. This, he said, was the only constructive way to deal with the unemployment situation and he hoped it would soon be possible to work out an insurance plan.

People believed the Prime Minister meant what he said; they trusted him; they took his attitude as meaning that. Then the Prime Minister was asked a day or two later by the same gentleman, the hon. member for Winnipeg

North Centre, what he meant by that statement. I have'the question here, but have not the time to read it. I have also the statement of the

Prime Minister in which he says, in effect, that it is a matter for the provinces to deal with, that so far as the Dominion government is concerned, if the provinces want to talk about it, the government will deal with them, but the provinces have no hope of getting help from this government. I think that is a fair summing up of the attitude of the Prime Minister. He now states that as far as he is concerned, this is not a Dominion matter at all. A few weeks later the Minister of Labour goes to London and makes a speech, which is summed up in a newspaper heading, as follows:

Government prepared to assist fund for unemployed. Would aid provinces to establish insurance scheme on contributory basis, says Hon. Peter Heenan.

I will read the first paragraph of the despatch:

London, Ontario, March 14.-The Dominion government is ready to assist the provinces in establishing unemployment insurance for Canada on a contributory basis, announced the Hon. Peter Heenan, Minister of Labour, in an address here to-night. In making this announcement Mr. Heenan said:

"As far as I am concerned I will utilize my every effort and the Premier will back me up to see that the labouring man who is out of work for any period of the year will have a right to expect and to receive a share of the profits he helped make."

In other words, it is simply a matter of blowing hot and blowing cold on this question, with the hope that different sections of the country will draw any conclusions they wish, and probably go on supporting the government.

So far as the Prime Minister is concerned, and I think this applies particularly to him when making public pronouncements, he reminds me of the saying of the brilliant Frenchman, that language was given us to hide our thoughts. If I applied that to the Minister of Labour, I am afraid that I would have to say that language was given us to hide our lack of thoughts. I am afraid that the Minister of Labour forgets or never knew that there is supposed to be ministerial solidarity under constitutional government. Ministers are expected to take on matters of policy the same attitude. You cannot have one minister taking one attitude in one section of the country, and another minister taking a different attitude on the same question in another part of the country, because each minister speaks for the government. He cannot speak on his own behalf; he speaks for the government. I suppose the Minister of Labour forgot that. He was apparently not speaking in London in a ministerial sense at all, but in a Pickwickian sense. I submit to the Prime Minister that

Unemployment-Mr. Manion

the people of this country are anxious for frank and candid statements from the government at the present time on all matters of public policy. They are tired of political humbug; they are weary of political shell games, played with the idea of catching votes in various parts of the country. They want public pronouncements made in such a way that they cannot be read in any way the reader chooses to take. The Prime Minister gives out statements continually, both to this house and outside, that may be read in any sense; for instance, his statement on unemployment insurance. Let me give three instances which have happened recently. There was his statement with respect to unemployment insurance with which I have been dealing, and which everybody understood to mean that this government was going to bring into force unemployment insurance. Now the Prime Minister contradicts that. The Minister of Labour takes the other attitude, and no one knows just where the government stands on this question.

The Prime Minister not long ago gave out a statement in this house on the liquor export question, in which he said that the only question was that if we did- not straighten this difficulty out, it meant danger of war between the two countries. His statement was interpreted in that way by the papers of Canada and of the United States which referred to his speech. When the matter was brought to his attention, by my hon. leader a day or so afterwards, the Prime Minister took the attitude that he did not mean that at all. Well, Mr. Speaker, if his statement did not mean that, it did not mean anything. That is all I can say.

So far as the tariff is concerned, we have the Prime Minister taking various attitudes in various parts of the country. His ministers take contradictory attitudes in different parts of the country. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler), for instance, at Brantford came out flatly as an out-and-out protectionist. Ten days afterwards-I notice that an interval of a few days is always allowed to elapse between these ministerial utterances so that people can forget, I suppose, the statement just previously made in another section of the country by another minister-the Minister of Finance at Regina said that he was a low tariff man, and he emphasized that very strongly. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) takes the death-knell attitude on protection. The Minister of Labour and the Minister of National Health (Mr. King), well the Lord only knows what attitude they take. They are probably drifting around waiting for some life preserver to float within their reach that will be to the advantage of the

government. Undoubtedly, in the whole realm of politics in this country, in the United States, and in England, there is no question upon which political parties differ more fundamentally than upon the tariff, and yet, and to my mind this is the most severe criticism that anybody can make of this government, within three or four weeks of the budget being introduced, there is not a man or woman in this house or outside of it who has the slightest idea whether the government in its budget will raise or lower the tariff.

Mr. HOWARD:

Wait and see.

Mr. MANION:

That is the policy of the government on everything.

Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):

Is not that

always the case with the budget in every country?

Mr. MANION:

No, it is not true of any

other country where the government takes pride in pronouncing its attitude upon any public question. But this government takes the wait-and-see attitude, and nobody knows its attitude to-day on any question that is before us.

Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):

May I ask one

other question?

Mr. MANION:

I have only five minutes

left. I do not mean to be discourteous, but I am pressed for time.

Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):

Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great Britain tell beforehand what he is going to do in his budget?

Mr. MANION:

Yes, he does. Within the last two weeks he said that he was going to wipe out absolutely any vestige of protection that remained in the Safeguarding of Industries Act.

Mr. McINTOSH:

The Chancellor's statement was very general; there was nothing very definite about it.

Mr. MANION:

It is absolutely definite.

They are a free trade government, and they are taking the free trade attitude. We believe in protecting our industries at all times, and we take a protectionist attitude. But this government takes no attitude on anything.

I wish to point out to the Prime Minister this: He is going to be defeated at the next election because of two main reasons. One is because of this political humbug that this government is putting over on the people of this country at all times. The people have awakened to it; they are wise to the fact that this government cannot be depended on

Unemployment-Mr. Garland (Bow River)

in any statement it makes on any public question before the people of this country. P. T. Barnum said that you could not fool all the people all the time-I do not take time to quote his saying in full-but I want to say that this government has fooled the people so often that it cannot fool them any more.

There is a second reason why .this government is going to be defeated, and I might as well hand it to the Prime Minister now, and that is because of his continued subservience to the United States. Perhaps I should put it in his own words, and say his don't provoke Washington policy. I admit frankly that he has not provoked Washington, but he has provoked hundreds of thousands of red-blooded Canadian people who look on Canada as a proud young nation, and not as the hinterland of the United States. The people are awake to all this political humbug and this subservience to Washington, and are waiting for a chance to express themselves on these two matters.

My time is almost up. Let me say in closing what the government should have done in regard to unemployment. In the first place, they should have called the conference which was asked for by the labour unions of this country from one end to the other. Secondly, they should have cooperated with Ontario and the other provinces, and supported the members sitting to your left in this house who urged upon the government a policy of highway construction, which would have relieved unemployment to a large extent. Thirdly, they should have taken the attitude that was outlined by the Minister of Labour in 1921, and which they had before them, under which we gave help in various ways to the provinces to .relieve unemployment.. Fourthly, and this is the most important of all, for a permanent cure-not a complete cure for unemployment, but it would lead to a substantial reduction of it-they should bring in a policy-I know they will not, but we will shortly-they should bring in a policy to stop our importing hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of goods from the United States which we could produce at home, and large importations from other countries as well as the United States of fruits and vegetables, butter and eggs that we could produce here. They should bring in a policy to hold the home market for the Canadian people. They should remember our importations of iron and steel products amounted to $340,000,000 a year, products that we could manufacture in this country, and sixty to seventy-five per cent of the value of which would represent work and wages for the people of Canada. They should remember that every ton of iron ore used in the blast furnaces of the Dominion are imported from the United States. Premier Ferguson put legislation through the Ontario house this year granting a bounty to encourage the development of our own iron ore when he could not get cooperation from Ottawa. Let the government look at the conditions in France and Britain. In France, under a protectionist policy, there is no unemployment and she has been able to absorb tens of thousands of workmen from other countries. But in Great Britain, just across the channel, there are a million and a half unemployed at the present time. Sir, it is time we had a government with some policy, with some courage, with some leadership in this country, if we are to solve not only this problem but the other pressing problems that confront the Dominion.

Mr E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had the vocabulary and speed of the last speaker (Mr. Manion). I congratulate him on the tremendous amount of material that he got into a comparatively short space of time. I congratulate also the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan)-

On what?

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

On his extreme courtesy and patience throughout his entire speech. He showed a good deal of tolerance and forbearance. I am sorry I cannot congratulate him on the aggressive, constructive attitude that I had hoped for from him as representing the government. It is only fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has to some slight extent begun to meet the aspirations of labour. The introduction of the eight-hour day in the civil service, the regulations improving the fair wage clauses, are all to the good; but of course they do not touch the real problem of unemployment. It is that to which I wish to direct my remarks in the short time at my disposal. I think it was Thomas Carlyle who said that a man willing to work and unable to find work is perhaps the saddest sight that fortune's inequality exhibits under the sun. And yet Carlyle had not the opportunity in those days of seeing what we have seen in the west-magistrates and judges saying to the unfortunates who had been taken off the street by policemen, "There is no use my giving you thirty days, you will be back here again; there is no employment for you; the best I can do for you and the country is to put you in for three months." That state of affairs has existed during the past winter and throughout previous winters. That there is

1204 COMMONS

Unemployment-Mr. Garland (Bow River)

serious unemployment in Canada no one can deny unless he be mad or blind or shuts his eyes to the actual facts that confront him. That there is actual unemployment in every country of the world to-day, almost without exception, so far as I know, is also true. So it is no use for the last speaker (Mr. Manion) to offer protection as a solution or to blame free trade as the cause of the trouble. As a matter of fact the problem of unemployment is due neither to protection nor to free trade. Al though, if there could be a general application of the latter principle I think you would find possibly there would be less unemployment than we have to-day under protection. But even that remains to be proven. One fact does stand out, that protection as such does not either raise wages or increase employment. In that connection let me give the house one brief quotation in support of my statement. It is from an article by one of the greatest of the European economists, Henri Lambert of Belgium. He says:

It is untrue that protectionism, preventing importation and making for a self sustained people, is a source of higher wages and a factor of a higher standard of living; on the contrary protectionism tends to lower both and it is free exchange only which can have such favourable results.

He now gives his reason: .

AH imported things are paid for by equal values of exported things. Therefore to begin with importation does not and cannot reduce home production, demand of labour and wages.

I think hon. members who have studied the question at all realize that the old slogan used by protectionists, "protection protects the worker," is all tommyrot. Let me give Mr. Lambert's view in that connection, that protection protects the worker to the same degree and for the same reason that the farmer protects the cow. These are his words:

"I protect my cows," says the farmer, "I know why I do this, but the cows do not." So is it explainable that with the consent of the workmen and the gradual auto-suggestion of the farmers, protection has become for most peoples an economic credo-which indeed in the future will be considered as tlm most mischievous and widest spread superstition known in the history of men.

I question that latter statement myself. I think the widest spread superstition known in the history of men is the fetish of the gold standard. However, that in passing.

I wish to support my previous statement that unemployment is not confined to Canada or to the United States. It is a world-wide problem. The problem cannot be laid at the door either of the present administration or of my friends of the opposi-(Mr. E. J. Garland.]

tion. It would not matter which government was in power at the moment, we would still have unemployment and will continue to suffer from it unless it is tackled in some fundamental way. I quote from the Christian Science Monitor of May 10, 1927:

M alter R. Layton, the British economist, estimates the total number of persons whose breadwinners were unemployed in Europe at 10,000,000.

I quote also from Leland Olds of the Federated Press:

In the United States 4,000,000 unemployed.

This is for 1928, and conditions are even worse this year.

United. States 4,000,000

Germany 1,548,000

England 1,178,700

Russia 1,127,000

Italy 414,000

Austria 224,000

Holland 220,000

Poland 117,000

Denmark 86.000

Canada 75,000

A large increase this year must be admitted.

Czechoslovakia 50,000'

Portugal 50,000

Other European 97,287

9,186,987

Or a grand total of almost 10,000,000 in 1928. There is no doubt also that in addition to the normal unemployment-if it can be called normal-you have exaggerated unemployment in this country at the moment as a result of several causes. We had a small crop, with reduced purchasing power on the part of the farmers, resulting in a smaller volume of wheat moving one wray and goods the other, followed1 by a great decrease in. the employment of railway workers. Then you have a slowing up of orders, resulting in a slackening of the output of the factories of eastern Canada, and the laying off of men in almost every industry in the country. One of the main factors undoubtedly, is the smaller crop, about half the volume that western Canada produced in 1928. On top of that you had the stock market crash. Now, although the stock market collapse it is alleged, wiped out mostly paper profits, there is no doubt it did also wipe out a tremendous amount of savings of small investors, stenographers, clerks, managers of stores, heads of departments, and so on. They all put their savings in the stock market, and those savings were wiped out when the crash came. The result is there has been a considerable reduction in the purchasing power of the masses. One of the greatest truths discovered in the last four or five years on the

Unemployment-Mr. Garland (Bow River)

American continent is-and it is a wonder it was not discovered long ago-that one millionaire cannot consume ten thousand pairs of boots and shoes in a year, but give ten thousand people the purchasing power and they will consume them. That truth is just beginning to make itself apparent to industrialists, financiers and employers of labour. The root cause of unemployment as we have it to-day is just that lack of purchasing power. There is not a sufficient volume of money or buying capacity given back to the producers of the world to buy the goods that they produce or are capable of producing. I do not think anybody can challenge that statement. I will attempt to show you in a moment that the problem has increased enormously because of the tremendous productivity of men to-day as the result of labour saving devices. In Canada we have some exceptional conditions, some of which are permanent, and must lead to a greater proportion of unemployment in this country than in the older countries. One is embodied in the reference quoted by my hon. friend the Minister of Labour from the report of the Ontario commission, which pointed out that because the country was new and its development more rapid than that of older countries, periods of depression were likely to be more extreme, leading to longer periods of temporary unemployment. On top of that we have the climatic factor recently referred to in some newspaper despatches as the most formidable question which arises in regard to unemployment and which makes some such protection as insurance for the unemployed seem most desirable. We admit Canada is prosperous; we admit its prosperity and its productivity. We grant you at once that the revenue of the various provinces during the last year has been very great, that the resources and the man power are there, but we. deny definitely and conclusively that prosperity has descended to the common people of this country. The purchasing power of prosperity has not been spread out in a fair and equitable manner. A recent newspaper article goes so far as to say:

So prosperous a country as Canada could almost afford to disregard the whole subject of unemployment, were it not for her climate, but because of that one factor, if you excepted all the others, there are so many people out of work each winter that prosperous or not we must be prepared to treat unemployment as a permanent problem. We must do so for the reason that climate becomes the most conspicuous difficulty in the face of Canadian unemployment insurance.

Just in order to refresh the Prime Minister's mind on this point, I have some things I would like to say. He suggested recently that

all the provinces were particularly satisfied with the situation. I wish to refer him to the report of the meeting of the Calgary council appearing in the morning Albertan of November 26:

With every member of the council agreeing that the situation is one of the most serious which has faced the city in many years, discussion of unemployment featured proceedings at the city council meeting Monday night.

I have also in my hand many telegrams from various sections of Alberta. The one I intend to read will illustrate the situation and is illustrative of the general condition: Drumheller, January 9, 1930.

E. J. Garland, M.P.,

Rowley, Alberta.

Have sent the following wire to Walter Smitten, Hon. Peter Heenan, Ottawa, and Premier Brownlee, Edmonton. "Many returned men and families absolutely destitute Drumheller and Wayne valleys owing to unemployment. Situation desperate. We demand immediate steps be taken to relieve this situation.

C. G. Durham,

President and Executive Canadian Legion.

Let me jump from Alberta to Nova Scotia. Some hon. member referred to the very prosperous condition of affairs in Nova Scotia. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics has published some factory figures covering that province. While they relate particularly to it, they reflect the continent-wide trend of affairs. These figures show that in the year 1890 there were 34,944 men employed in the factories of Nova Scotia; by the year 1927 the number had shrunk to 17,840, which represents just half of the first number. During the same period, however, the output of the factories had increased from $30,000,000 a year to more than $74,000,000 a year. Briefly, that means that in twenty-seven years the output per worker had increased more than five times.

Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):

In dollars, but not in quantity.

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

I shall touch upon the question of dollars in a minute John Jacob Raskob, who is well known to this house by reputation at least, a leading financier and business man of the United States who can be quoted with some authority, now recognizes that industry can produce more than it can sell. He states frankly that it can produce more in five days than it can find an outlet for in seven. The only solution he can see for such a situation is to shut down two days a week instead of one as is the custom at present. That is not the way to approach such a problem, of course, for it would but make the position of the worker

worse.

1206 COMMONS

Unemployment-Mr. Garland (Bow River)

I was very sorry that the last speaker did not definitely place himself on record as favouring some action on the part of the government in regard to unemployment insurance. I recognize that the inauguration of unemployment insurance alone is not a solution for the problem; it would only be a temporary relief of it, but will alleviate extreme suffering. I wish to refer to a very respectable publication, popularly known as The Thunderer-the Times of London, England-on this subject. In discusing unemployment insurance, whilst approving its use, they admit that it would not solve the problem permanently, but would tend to remove utter destitution. We in this section of the house, and doubtless other hon. members of the house must seek to remove the misery, suffering and loss to the community caused by utter destitution of our working people as the result of unemployment.

I now come to that phase in my discussion touching the effect of labour saving devices on the productivity of man. James L. Davis, Secretary of Labour for the United States of America, says that the United States can make in seventeen days all the boots and shoes that are required by that country for a _ period of one year. Is that not an imposing illustration of the strides that have been made in labour saving devices in recent years? The United States coal mines can produce in six months all the coal that is required for the United States for one year. It is our distribution system that is at fault, not our system of production. We have almost entirely solved the problem of production, but have not even commenced to touch the problem of distribution. Governments are not even making an intelligent contribution to research in the solution of this problem. To my mind it represents one of the greatest problems facing us to-day, if it is not the greatest.

When we consider what we call our present economic system, I am reminded of the story of the homesteader who hired a sailor and gave him a team of oxen and a plough. I do not suppose the sailor had ever before seen a plough or a team of oxen, except in the picture papers. The sailor went out to work in the forenoon, and returned to the farmer with the following complaint: The starboard ox is on the larboard side, the larboard ox is on the starboard side; the rudder is bust, the steering gear bent and the whole doggone works has gone to the dickens. The present economic and financial system tends to introduce a condition of affairs quite like that. Everything is topsy-turvy; production runs on almost unguided, excepting b'' the profits

which are made. As yet the people have failed to realize that profits depend almost entirely upon consumption, and consumption depends upon purchasing power. If the people cannot buy the goods they produce we must inevitably come, some day or other, either to a crash as illustrating the experience of the sailor, or to a solution of the problem.

I referred to the boot and shoe industry. It is not many years ago since the man who made boots and shoes by hand turned them out at the rate of two pairs a week, or roughly 100 pairs a year. To-day, with improved machinery, one man can produce 1,800 pairs of shoes a year, or rather not in a whole year but in 260 days. Then take the Buick branch of the General Motors business. In the year 1923 that plant increased its production from 625 cars to 1,000 cars, with a reduction of 5,000 men during that year.