Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):

I wish to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) whether he is prepared to answer the question, appearing on page 1709 of Hansard of yesterday, asked by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley). I may say I have also received some inquiries in regard to this matter and am anxious to get the information.

Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): I think, Mr. Speaker, you ordered the hon. gentleman who asked the question yesterday to put it on the order paper in proper form. I must confess I did not pay any further attention to it. I know nothing about it personally.

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):

I wish to address a question to the government, based on an article in the Toronto Globe of to-day:

Federal relief cut burden to be borne by municipalities.

Ontario legislature will not reduce its grant and will try to persuade Ottawa to reverse decision ...

The larger municipalities have passed their budgets for the year, and at this time of year after a long winter many people on relief are sick and suffering, many in the hospitals. Before this is put through I would ask the government to reconsider it, or hear the municipalities and the provinces about this drastic cut, which is going to bear very heavily on the people on relief-

Order.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

My hon. friend has asked a rather long question; it will appear on Hansard and I shall endeavour to see that it is answered on Monday.

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):

I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) will not take it amiss, but I think when a member asks a question and it is not answered at the time, the question itself is taken as notice for answer on a succeeding day. I can quite understand the minister not having done so in the case in question, but for the sake of the preservation of the rights of members, I might point out that the practice has always been in accordance with what the Prime Minister has now stated, that a question such as the one asked by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. APRIL 3, 1936 1755

Employment Commission-Mr. Douglas

Church), to which answer is not given at the time, is treated as a notice, to be answered on a following day.

Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Just to clear up that point, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley)

said at page 1709:

If the hon. gentleman desires I will put it on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker: Questions such as this should be placed on the order paper.

In view of the involved nature of the question I am sure the hon. member asking it would be able to state it more succinctly and clearly in the form of a question on the order paper. I was really consulting his convenience; I had no desire to avoid answering the question.

Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weybum):

When

the house adjourned last night I was quoting from sessional paper 102A, pointing out that for a period of fifteen months the grand total of those receiving relief in Canada had not varied greatly except as accounted for by seasonal employment, and that in February last the grand total of those receiving relief, according to the minister himself, was 1,310,423 persons. It is hardly necessary to point out that this is a staggering figure. It means that out of every eight people in Canada one is receiving government assistance in order to live. One can easily visualize the effect of such a condition. The economic effect was depicted very graphically yesterday by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) who pointed out that up to the present the depression had cost something in the neighbourhood of $700,000,000. He went on to paint a picture that is very gloomy indeed. But it seemed to me tragic that he did not suggest any solution, did not say his party had any solution, and did not point out how in any respect this bill offered a solution. I submit that $700,000,000 does not begin to estimate the economic cost of unemployment. Millions upon millions of dollars have been expended by private charities and individuals. In addition to that, for between five and six years 400,000 men and women have been taken out of productive employ-12739-112

ment, which means that all the goods which might have been produced by those individuals have not been produced. When some hon. members opposite speak about scarcity they might bear in mind the fact that to-day in Canada 400,000 individuals capable of producing goods are inactive.

But the economic cost of unemployment, which has been terrific, is small as compared with the physical cost. One has only to examine statistics of the welfare bureau, to look at the diets submitted by dietitians, and to consult the relief scale, to know that vast numbers of Canadian citizens are living on a subsistence level insufficient to maintain decent health. Thousands of people in Canada are coming very close to malnutrition. Added to that is the fact that we have many people who are not receiving proper medical and dental care and whose health is therefore undermined.

A few days ago I had sent to me an interesting communication from a person in Amulet, Saskatchewan, who had noticed that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) had made the statement in the House of Commons that the government was putting human rights above property rights. This person went out and secured a number of certified statements from people in his community who at that time were bedridden and unable to get medical or hospital care. I shall not weary the house by enumerating the different types. There are cases of bedridden elderly women, and one of a young man in his twenties invalided through an accident. X-ray revealed the fact that he could be cured, but he was unable to get the necessary assistance. Circumstances like that are not uncommon. I am not attempting to ascribe it to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) or to anybody else, but shall content myself with pointing out that the physical cost of unemployment is almost beyond our powers of estimation.

The mental cost is well worth comment. One has only to consult the figures of our mental institutions to show what the cost has been. We would find how many people have come at last to mental hospitals as a result of worry, a sense of insecurity and inferiority brought about by want of employment. Add to that the huge numbers of people who are not getting proper mental exercises. For instance, there are the students coming out of the universities and high schools who are not given tasks which challenge their ability. A few days ago I came across an interesting article describing certain circumstances in Seattle, Washington. It states:

In 1929 American industrial chiefs picked Walter Huston of Seattle as "America's brightest boy," and promised him a brilliant

1756 COMMONS

Employment Commission-Mr. Douglas

and profitable career. At that time he was feted and dined by Young, of the General Electric, Henry Ford, and Thomas Edison, and so on, and sent to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with his next four years' expenses paid in advance. He graduated in 1933 with honours, was given front page publicity, and then started looking for a job. At present he is working as a labourer in Seattle, and when interviewed stated he was "glad to get that."

There is not very much mental exercise there for "America's brightest boy" who is now doing manual labour.

But even worse than the mental cost has been the moral cost. I am not suggesting that unemployment has affected the morals of our people, but I am suggesting it has affected the morale of our people. You cannot place thousands of people in a state of inactivity for four or five years without serious repercussions on their morale. Loss of initiative, which hon. members opposite love to talk about, loss of resourcefulness, and the spirit ' of independence, are inevitable effects if these conditions are allowed to continue. In this connection may I quote from the report of the so-called Rigg commission, which deals with the young men in relief camps. Paragraph (c) of article 1 states:

There is a group of young men whose ages range from eighteen to twenty-five years, many of whom have never had other than occasional, casual employment, and who, therefore, have not acquired the habit of working, or a sense of individual responsibility to society. These young fellows have suffered through thwarted ambitions and the lack of visible grounds of hope for the future, and have become an easy prey to the subversive influences of communistic or anarchistic philosophy, sedulously propagated by experienced agitators. Most of these young men are gifted with average intelligence and if they had grown up surrounded by the influences of a normal environment, which included useful work, they would no doubt have given a good account of themselves. Under the influences among which they have lived during the past few years, however, they constitute a real menace to the maintenance of our existing institutions. They are viciously rebellious against, and defiant to authority; they shirk work and are determined to continue to do so; they assert that society owes them a living and are oblivious of the obligations they owe to society; they are acquiring undesirable habits, especially by moving from camp to camp, often under assumed names, staying in each camp long enough to secure a complete issue of clothing and then leaving camp, selling the issued clothing and shoes, and donning ordinary cheap mufti clothing; they disturb and irritate more reasonable and stable-minded men, and are a constant source of trouble to camp authorities.

I submit these young men are not to be blamed. Let us rather blame existing conditions. It is not the young men who stand in judgment; it is the society which pro-

duced them. The judgment of the ages will not indict them, but will indict those of us who sit in this parliament and who do nothing to better their economic environment.

Mr. BLAIR:

What shall we do?

Mr. DOUGLAS:

I am not given to reading poetry, but after the reference by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) to Carlyle I imagine almost anything along that line would be permissible. I read this poem not because I think it is good poetry but because it expresses the views of thousands of good people. It is in blank verse:

We are the betrayed generation,

With a legacy of despair.

Life has given us a cup that the past has broken

And the new cup is still under the potter's wheel.

How then shall we drink the wine of

happiness;

How shall we use our hours?

We were born into the madness of war-hysteria

And the moaning of the bereaved was our lullaby.

Our childhoods were spent in the frenzy of gin and jazz

And we were told that Mammon was the lord our god.

But Mammon is a stupid god, insecure in his golden temple.

Now it is gone, gone, all gone,

We are left with a great questioning.

Strong are we and eager,

But the world doesn't want our strength. Passionately, with pounding hearts, we want to build and grow;

Corpses are not more useless.

We are the young made old before our time; We are the betrayed generation.

Factory wheels are idle, but we are not permitted to turn them.

Colleges are empty, for we are forbidden the longed-for years in their halls.

Books are unbought, paintings unadmired, concerts unattended; we are hungry for beauty.

We cannot earn; we cannot pay.

We are denied what we ask from the only life we shall live

Mr. A. A. HEAPS (Winnipeg North):

Mr. Speaker, may I say that I agree with a good deal of what the last speaker (Mr. Maybank) said. In opening his observations the hon. member stated that he wanted to discuss the bill in a non-partisan manner. I think there are many hon. members who have been in the house a number of years and have discussed this question year after year who, although on some occasions they received scant sympathy, have always tried to place the question far above party politics. But it did seem out of place that one who professed an intention to discuss the question from a non-partisan viewpoint should begin his observations by throwing arrows or darts at hon. members in this corner of the chamber. As one member of this group I have never claimed and do not now claim a monopoly of sympathy for men and women out of work.

I believe every other hon. member, irrespective of party, has as much sympathy for men and women out of work as I have or any other member of the group to which I belong. We claim no monopoly of sympathy. I think the hearts of hon. members are in the right place; it is a question of appealing not to their hearts but to their heads. It may be that the viewpoint of one hon. member is different from that of another, but we are here as a soft of open forum, representing different ideas and different constituencies. We are sent here because we represent those ideas and to express the point of view of those who sent us here.

The hon. member said that we should all get together and pull the cart along, even though fools may be pulling it. I would not care to make an observation of that kind.

I do not say that the men who are pulling the cart are of that description; far be it from me to make such an observation. In my view the men who are to-day charged with the task of government have a most difficult task ahead of them; many times have I expressed publicly my sympathy for them. And there is no minister or member of the government charged with a more responsible, arduous and difficult task than is the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). In the light of these observations it will be understood that if I offer any criticism it is intended to be constructive. I hope that the minister will realize that any statements in the matter which come from this corner of the house are made in good faith, and that he will accept them as such. We do not expect him to agree with us; probably if he did he would be over here sitting with us, and if we agreed with the minister we would be on the opposite side. It is because we disagree that we sit in different parts of the chamber.

I believe all hon. members are anxious for action in connection with the unemployment problem. The one feature about which the minister and we who represent for the most part large industrial centres do not agree is that the government is a little too dilatory or too slow in what it is attempting to do. All hon. members realize that there is an enormous unemployment condition to be faced, and one which through time has grown worse. It is true that what was done in the past five or six years did not have the effect that those who were responsible for the legislation hoped it would have. Therefore I am one who believes that the experience we have had in those years should be an excellent guide to the government now in office. In other words the remedies of the past five years have not been remedies at all. We might even look

Employment Commission-Mr. Heaps

also to the United States and witness what has been attempted there. They have spent not millions but billions of dollars in dealing with unemployment, and yet the expenditure of these large sums of money has not effected a remedy for the evils from which they and we in Canada alike are suffering.

The hon. member who has just taken his seat spoke about spending large sums of money for public works. I agree that we should spend money for public works, but I also realize that within the orbit of the existing economic or capitalistic structure such expenditures are hardly possible. During his observations the minister pointed out most ably that it would cost approximately $300,000,000 or $400,000,000 per annum to provide work for those who require it. I do not believe that the capitalist structure could stand a strain of that kind. If, as the minister pointed out, the government is bent upon maintaining the structure in its present form, then such an expenditure must be ruled out of the question.

I share the view of other hon. members that the minister made one of the ablest presentations of the unemployment situation which has been made at least since I have been a member of this chamber. His presentation of figures, facts and statistics was made in such beautiful English that it was a delight to listen to him. But when we1 take away the beautiful English and the statistics he seems to have left us in a cul-de-sac. In what direction is the government travelling? We are told that we should have the long range viewpoint. I am quite . prepared to have a long range viewpoint in dealing with unemployment, but I wish also to have an immediate policy to cope with the problem. That is where the minister and some hon. members sitting in this corner of the house differ. The minister dealt most of the time with effects, and placed on the record a wealth of statistics which those interested may read and pore over for many a long week. Most hon. members who have so far spoken in this debate have approved in a general way of the appointment of an employment commission. For some time past we in this group have also been in favour of the appointment of a commission to deal with the unemployment situation. However, I do not think it is necessary to appoint a commission whose sole function will be merely to gather statistics, and it appears to me, Mr. Speaker, if I read correctly the contents of the bill, that the main function of this commission, if and when appointed, will be to gather and correlate statistics at the request of the min-

ister and then submit them to him. As to any useful powers which this commission may exercise in relieving the unemployment situation, they are practically non-existent in the bill itself; at least, I cannot find them.

I go back to the time when the minister introduced the resolution preceding the bill. I was very happy indeed when the resolution was introduced, and I was one of those who gave it active support. I supported it because the resolution preceding Bill No. 14 dealt with the question of employment, not with the question of unemployment, and it is well that we should bear this in mind. The resolution -was as follows:

That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the establishment of a commission, to be known as the national employment commission, to supervise or administer the expenditure of funds voted by parliament for unemployment relief and for providing employment.

That was to be the main provision, to my mind at least, of the bill which we are now discussing, and yet I look through the bill in vain for anything giving the commission power to deal with the immediate question of providing employment. The resolution was adopted by the house after a very short discussion because we were anxious to see what the bill contained, and it might be as well to recall what the minister said on that occasion. I quote briefly from his remarks on March 19, 1936, at page 1267 of Hansard:

The resolution itself refers to the fact that the national employment commission shall have among its functions supervision or administration of the expenditure of funds voted by parliament for unemployment relief and for providing employment.

I may be mistaken in my interpretation of the bill, but I have looked through it to find any provision that the commission may have funds placed at its disposal for the creation of employment, and I see in it no such provision.

Then I look at the preamble of the bill, and what do I find? The preamble starts by saying:

Whereas unemployment has been for several years Canada's most urgent national problem, and until such time as the normal revival of trade and industry will absorb a large percentage of unemployed workers, it is essential that steps be taken to find ways and means of providing remunerative employment-

That is what I was in favour of, and am still in favour of that-the government, if they possibly can, provide remunerative employment for those who unfortunately now find themselves out of work. There are ways and means perhaps that could be devised. I know that within the existing economic structure

Employment Commission-Mr. Heaps

those ways and means are limited and confined, yet I believe ways and means could be found of providing useful work for those who are now unemployed. I am speaking of such things as self-liquidating projects. Public works for the sake of public works are not of very much value. Unless they have a real utility value they are in much the same position as a commission appointed merely for the sake of appointing a commission. A national commission is of little value unless it can perform some useful function in dealing effectively with the unemployment problem.

What are those useful projects which I believe from the references to-day are barred from the operation of this bill? I have in mind a national housing scheme such as was considered by a committee of this house a year ago. A national housing scheme would provide employment on a fairly large scale. I mention a housing scheme as an illustration of a self-liquidating project. A national housing scheme is essential to-day in this country, and it is admitted on all sides and by all authorities as being a very desirable thing to do. Such a scheme could be financed by the government and the cost repaid over a period of time; it would not be a financial liability so far as the federal government is concerned.

Then there are reforestation projects, and possibly reclamation. These could be undertaken on a national scale. Unfortunately, however, I do not see where there is provision in this bill for anything of that kind being done. Earlier in the session when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) discussed the question of housing he gave the house the impression that so far as he was concerned the government intended to give the housing act a proper opportunity to function. May I just mention in passing that up to the time of the latest returns the housing act has resulted in about two-thirds of a million dollars being provided by the federal government for housing purposes. That does not begin to solve the problem of housing; it does not even begin to touch the housing problem which is becoming more acute as the years go by.

Coming to the bill itself, I do not know that it was necessary for the government to introduce this measure at all, because when the government came into power late in October last there was on the statute book an act which gives them practically all the powers asked for in the present bill. I will go over the clauses which describe the functions and the purposes of the proposed commission. They are found in section 6 of the bill. Paragraph (a) says:

The commission shall carry out as soon as possible a national registration and classification of persons on relief in cooperation with the provinces, municipalities and private and public bodies.

Such a registration, sir, is long overdue; It should have been carried out years ago, but I do not think legislation is required to do it. A national registration could be undertaken by the present government departments even more effectively and far more efficiently than could be done by any commission the government might appoint. Our bureau of statistics, in cooperation with the various employment and other agencies maintained throughout the country, could have undertaken a registration of this kind. I believe that the Minister of Labour would have had the wholehearted support and cooperation of this house if he had undertaken a national registration immediately upon assuming office. There was no need to wait until a commission was appointed to have a national registration of those who happen to find themselves out of work. Then I come to paragraph (b), which reads:

(b) recommend to the minister conditions to be complied with by any province obtaining grants for relief purposes from the government of Canada;

I do not think we require a commission for that purpose; the conditions are complied with already. Then section (c) reads:

(c) recommend to the minister effective means of mobilizing the agencies for relief both state and voluntary, and so coordinating their work as to avoid overlapping and abuses, and to secure a proper provision and auditing of expenditures of all moneys;

All this is contained in the Economic Council of Canada Act which was repealed by this house a few short weeks ago. Upon reading the provisions of the present bill and comparing them with the provisions of the act repealed a few weeks ago I find a remarkable similarity. It would seem that whoever was responsible for the drafting of this bill took the Economic Council of Canada Act as his guide. The phraseology is quite similar and even the sections seem to be numbered the same. I could go on and quote clause after clause of section 6 to show that all this commission can do is to recommend to the minister or investigate and report. The commission is not being given power to deal with large constructive works to provide immediate and useful employment to relieve the situation which prevails at the present time.

There are many statements made by the minister with which I agree, but there are some with which I do not agree. I am in hearty accord with his statement that the

1766 COMMONS

Employment Commission-Mr. Heaps

acceptance by this house of existing conditions almost means an admission of bankruptcy. The unemployment situation in Canada has been a standing challenge to parliament for the past number of years. While it was accepted a few years ago it was not adequately met and the fact that in 1935 we found ourselves in the same condition as that which we were in a few years ago was responsible to a large extent for the present government being placed in power. The government now in power was in office in 1930 and the unemployment situation which existed at that time was the cause of the Conservative party being then swept into power. The unemployment problem is the greatest challenge to parliament. The question is, how are we going to meet it and the problem of insecurity that accompanies it?

The minister said that we should cooperate with private agencies, with industrial concerns, with social agencies and probably with financial institutions. My experience during the past few years has been that these private corporations have made very little headway in finding a way out of the difficulty. In fact, the very institutions to which it is proposed we should go seeking assistance have themselves come to parliament to seek assistance. We cannot expect our railways to find a way out of this unemployment situation. During the past few days I have received letters from railway men and railway organizations deploring the fact that men are now being laid off in the railway shops.

The minister seemed to be pleased with the employment figures he submitted at the time he introduced this bill. He said that the statistics showed a steady improvement in the unemployment situation, while the problem of relief seemed to be holding the same position it had held for a number of years. I think the minister was quite right when he said that employment had shown a slight improvement over a period of years, but may I point out to him and to the house that during the last few years large capital expenditures were made by the former government in an effort to provide employment in the railway shops, by large construction projects and other relief works, by the payment of subsidies to our steel^ works and in other ways. When these subsidies cease, when public works construction ceases, when the government aided work in the railway shops ceases, we will again have a jump in our unemployment figures. Where are these people going to turn for a ray of hope? Where can they be assured that something will be done for them?

As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. May-bank) and the Minister of Labour (Mr.

Rogers), unemployment relief has a most demoralizing effect upon the unemployed. That is why I am and always have been so anxious to see something more useful substituted for the dole. I know how difficult it is for the average man to go down and ask for relief for the first time. I know of many men with nerves of steel who feared that ordeal of asking for relief for the first time. On the first occasion they went trembling and with tears in their eyes. The second time was not so difficult, the thing was a little easier. The third time it was easier, and by the fourth or fifth time they became what you might call habitual recipients of public relief. The effect is so demoralizing that in time the unemployed person becomes practically unemployable. We want to avoid that; we want to reestablish these people and make them useful citizens. Every man and every woman should have the opportunity of doing something useful in life.

In support of the establishment of this commission the minister pointed out that he had received resolutions from a large number of organizations such as chambers of commerce and so on. He said he could get one from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. He pointed out also that he had received a statement of approbation from the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. I have not the slightest doubt that a few months ago the minister could have got a thousand resolutions in favour of a commission to deal with unemployment, but I doubt very much if he could get a single one to-day in favour of the bill as it is.

Mr. ROGERS:

If I might correct my hon. friend, the resolutions from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and from the Canadian Welfare Council were passed after an examination of the bill now before the house.

Mr. BENNETT:

They must have had it before we had it.