April 14, 1925


3 e H 04 o Manufactures 1914 1915 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 No. Liabilities No. Liabilities No. Liabilities No. Liabilities No. Liabilities No. Liabilities No. Liabilities $ $ $ $ $ s Iron and foundries 10 213,302 8 90,005 3 115,011 11 1,264,578 17 873,211 11 866,492 9 303,600 Machinery and tools 37 612,190 51 730,998 20 4,046,847 28 7,138,818 60 10,830,493 72 5,068,100 45 1,710,883 Woollens, carpets, etc 1 70,000 5 45,300 7 124,104 4 23,648 7 608,992 12 1,463,900 Wool.Cotton, hosiery, etc 1 235,000 2 6,100 3 926.743 7 Lumber and carpenters 98 3,934,340 175 4,115,701 26 1,034,253 85 2,041,646 134 4,860,837 107 3,804,630 97 7,994,176 Lumber.Clothing and millinery.... 102 923,359 2 1,180,201 53 3,096,484 127 6,429,289 148 3,614,203 132 3,782,297 114 2,230,570 Hats, gloves and furs 18 150,490 12 541,202 10 170,834 21 705,049 26 1,592,206 21 816,536 18 493,036 Chemicals and drugs 8 201,921 21 354,498 2 19,000 9 166,409 7 48,155 11 179,124 17 117,680 Paints and oils 1 70,000 2 38,204 2 54,522 3 8,500 2 29,000 Paints.Printing and engraving.... 33 265,441 32 282,302 7 499,900 14 113,154 30 329,816 25 343,886 26 352,620 Printing.Milling and bakers 38 100,268 46 381,392 22 1,180,602 47 1,710,511 54 763,253 48 731,548 34 386,870 Leather, shoes, etc 23 380,222 14 410,503 9 287,116 17 811,232 30 6,586,389 37 687,468 20 1,353,773 Shoes,Liquors and tobacco 9 71,614 12 521,802 5 294,000 12 467,514 19 386,885 19 925,533 10 180,770 leather.Glass and earthware 24 635,244 25 1,611,701 2 9,658 4 93,800 7 319,302 8 1,322,158 11 433,634 Glass.All other 211 3,199,800 250 3,605,709 96 5,117,511 172 11,945,739 312 8,096,404 287 12,382,410 210 19,492,146 Other.Total manufacturing.. 614 11,063,191 655 13,877,414 255 15,871,216 559 33,976,790 857 39,080,791 792 31,791,332 625 36,542,658 Total trading* 2,164 18,677,935 1,888 21,696,890 771 7,704,505 1,739 29,886,569 2,717 33,040,203 2,319 31,339,763 1,720 21,324,089 Agents and brokers 120 5,303,968 118 5,588,017 52 2,918,580 153 9,435,752 121 5,983,965 136 2,679,287 129 6,664,228 Total commercial failures! 2,898 35,045,094 2,661 41,162,321 1,078 26,494,301 2,451 j 73,299,111 3,695 78,068,959 3,247 65,810,382 2,474 64,530,975 Wholesale and retail stores, hotels, restaurants. fManufacturing establishments, wholesale and retail stores, and agents and brokers. 2000 COMMONS The Budget-Mr. Murdock The Budget-Mr. Murdock It will be noted that with respect to woollens, carpets and so forth, there were no failures in 1920, because of the fact that that particular industry was at that time making enormous and exorbitant profits at the expense of the people of this country. The same applies to cotton hosiery, and so forth, in 1920; there were no failures in that year for the reason that I have just given.


CON

Leon Johnson Ladner

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LADNER:

Why does the minister take only the first two years of the war and leave the others out? Would it not have been sounder to take the years preceding the war and compare them with the years after the war?

Topic:   COMMERCIAL FAILURES IN CANADA BY BRANCHES OF BUSINESS
Permalink
LIB

James Murdock (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. MURDOCK:

We wanted to get at

least two full years of Tory rule, and in 1914, which, as is well known, was a panic year generally on this continent, there had at least been a measurable period of Tory government. I would not be unfair enough to indicate that the tail wagged the dog, or that the Tory government was responsible for the financial depression which prevailed on this continent in 1914. I would not do that; all I am trying to indicate is that here is a good, clear year, 1914, the larger part of it before the war-

Topic:   COMMERCIAL FAILURES IN CANADA BY BRANCHES OF BUSINESS
Permalink
CON

Leon Johnson Ladner

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LADNER:

Will the minister not agree that 1915, after the Germans had made their terrific onslaught, was a year of great depression generally, and that as respects the reasons for the losses in the period to which he refers it is hardly fair to take the first two years of the war as a basis of comparison? There was no relationship to the actual facts, the conditions were so abnormal.

Topic:   COMMERCIAL FAILURES IN CANADA BY BRANCHES OF BUSINESS
Permalink
LIB

James Murdock (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. MURDOCK:

I shall not take the

slightest objection if my hon. friend makes that argument when he is dealing with these figures later. I realize that he can take whatever view he cares to take on the matter.

In view of the figures I have read, Mr. Speaker, when anyone starts to talk about the number of failures, yes, and the liabilities having regard to the worth of the dollar, it is evident that the figures for 1914 and 1924 will bear a very fair comparison.

What reams of eloquence we heard, Mr. Speaker, from the opposition benches last year, and I think the year before, about the deplorable and awful conditions under which the

boot and shoe industry and the woollen and textile industries of this Canada of ours were suffering as a result of a Liberal government being in office. There had been so very much made of that, that it seemed to me advisable that we should place on Hansard some accurate figures for the various years to show whether there was anything really substantial to certain clamour that was made, or whether it was just simply a part of the Tory propaganda for protectionist friend purposes. If there is no objection, Mr. Speaker, I should like to place on Hansard a comparative statement showing the number of persons reported on the payrolls of thirty-seven mills engaged in the manufacture of woollen yarn and cloth and in wool pulling and carding, by months from 1920 to 1925, the figures and numbers of employees for three months of 1925 being included.

The statement is as follows:

Dominion Bureau of Statistics General Statistics Branch

Number of persons reported on payrolls of thirty-seven mills engaged in the manufacture of woollen yarn and cloth and in wool pulling and carding, by months 1920-1925

1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925January 1.. .. No 3,237 3.883 4,402 3,783 3,249February 1. . Records 3,489 4,146 4,734 4,661 3,685March 1

3,435 4,208 4,707 4,482 3,856April 1

3,166 4,383 4,583 3,945May 1

3,193 4,307 4,540 3,952June 1

3,278 4,295 4,510 3,802July 1

3,298 4.360 4,250 3,561August 1.. .. 3,425 4.383 4,449 3,824September 1. . 3,820 4,389 4,428 3,376October 1.. .. 3,960 4,397 4,502 3,932November 1. . 4,120 4,563 4,643 3,850December 1. . 4,141 4,685 4,544 3,437

42,562 51,999 54,292 46,605 10,790

Index number of employees in manufacturing group-thread, yam and cloth (includes silk and cotton): Jan. 1920, 100; Feb. 1921, 85.4; Feb. 1922, 97.8; Feb. 1923, 103.5; Feb. 1924, 94.6; Jan. 1925, 94.6; Feb. 1925, 99.3; March 1925, 101.3.

I should also like to place on Hansard another statement from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics showing the number of persons reported on the .payrolls of ninety-one manufacturers of boots and shoes by months during the period from 1920 to 1925; also giving the index number of employees in the manufacturing group-leather and its products for the period in question.

2

The Budget-Mr. Murdock

The statement is as follows:

Dominion Bureau of Statistics General Statistics Branch

Number of persons reported on payrolls of ninety-one manufacturers of boots and shoes, by months, 1920-1925

1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925Jan. 1. . . No 5,561 11,653 10,950 10,333 9,732Feb. 1. . , Records 8,127 11,615 11,661 11,164 10.436March 1. 8,920 11,399 11,568 11,031 10,552April 1. . 9,275 10,906 10,899 10,988 May 1.. . 9,283 10,788 10,316 10,815 June 1.. . 9,852 10,321 9,944 10,391 July 1.. . 10,331 10,872 10,322 10,067 August 1. 10,564 10,773 10,153 10,269 Sept. 1. . 10,486 10,810 10,115 10,042 Oct. 1. . 10,837 10,710 10,634 10,263 Nov. 1. . 10,903 11,403 10,871 10,337 Dec. 1. . 11,529 11,633 11,307 10,295 115,668 132,883 128,740 125,995 30,720

Index number of employees in manufacturing group-leather and its products: Jan. 1920, 100; Feb. 1921, 66.1; Feb. 1922, 85.6; Feb. 1923, 84.7; Feb. 1924, 80.5; Jan. 1925, 71.0; Feb. 1925, 74.8; March 1925, 75.8.

the previous government and of this government, details being given for the years 1910 1915, 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922 and 1923:

Number

of wage Value of earners Products 4,759 $ 7,072,360

4,039 10,214,059

7,450 $43,254,749

8,148 47,615,179

6,234 22,895,750

7,470 29,062,772

8,264 33,472,087

It will be noticed that in 1923, when we were hearing about the terrible disaster that had come to the woollen and textile industry, there were 141 establishments with a capitalization of $43,148,218 and 8,264 employees, or more than had been recorded in the previous years, whilst the value of the products had increased to $33,4172,087.

Number Amount

of estab- of

Year lishments capital1910 .. . .. 162 $ 8,692,7051915 .. . .. 60 10,651,4681919 .. . .. 122 331,863,4351920 .. . .. 130 38,052,9841921 .. . .. 170 34.639,9361922 .. . .. 137 37,102,3821923 .. . .. 141 43,148,218

I should also like to read, because it is rather illuminating, a statement giving figures with respect to the wool and textile industry in Canada for the period of 1910 to 1923. I have not been able to secure all of the essential figures for 1924. Again, these figures are for certain years of the adminstration of

I should explain that in the case of wool pulling establishments a number were not reported in 1915. In 1910 there were four of these.

Now let us take the establishments manufacturing boots and shoes in Canada, taking the period from 1910 to 1923:

Establishments manufacturing Boots and Shoes in Canada 1910-1923

1910 1915 1919 1920 1921 1922Number of establishments

180 146 161 173 177 181 189Capital

$23,630,649 $30,881,172 $38,680,581 $34,347,026 $31,644,855 $29,881,921 $30 533 591Wage earners

15,920 14,290 13,144 11,045 11,268 11,968 ' 12 439Number of pairs

18,891,860 17,693,966 15,046,985 17,194,206 18,123 894Value of Products.. .. $33,987,248 $34,064,696 $63,579,035 $66,817,174 $44,665,381 $45,503,858 $45 596 012

In 1920, in the first part of which boom times were said to be prevailing, we find the number of wage earners getting less and the number of pairs less. In 1922 we find an increase in the value of the products produced. In 1923 there was also an increase in the number of wage earners, in the number of pairs produced and in the value of products.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I undertook, because I realized that my hon. friends opposite might

want to know something about 1924, to get as nearly as possible a comparative statement for the years 1923 and 1924. I have here an explanatory statement as regards wool and textiles for the years 1923 and 1924, and a comparative statement with respect to boot and shoe establishments for 1923 and 1924. These statements I should like to have placed on Hansard.

The statement is as follows:

Woollen Textiles-1923

Establishments Employees Salaries Industry No. Capital No. and wages of ProductsWoollen cloth .. 47 $14,819,633 3,634 $3343,575 11,640,694Woollen varn 7.611,761 1.339 1,078,941 6.245,173Carpets, mats and rugs.. .. .. 13 3,327,805 889 889,906 3.283.964Woollen goods, n.e.s .. 25 6,608,677 998 1,001,902 5,103,977Total woollen textiles.. .. .. 99 $32,367,876 6,860 $6,314,324 $26,273,808

The Budget-Mr. Murdock

Woollen Textiles-1924

Establishments Employees Salaries ValueIndustry No. Capita! No. and wages of ProductsWoollen cloth .. 47 $15,648,594 3,163 $2,932,411 $10,466,032Woollen yarn . .. 14 8.375,413 1,409 934,749 4,281,325Carpets, mats and rugs.. .. .. 13 4,078,387 702 722,157 2,396.226Woollen goods, n.e.s .. 25 7,458,504 947 953,825 5,257,710Total woollen textiles.. . . .. 99 $35,560,898 6,221 $5,543,142 $22,401,293Boot and Shoe Industry lishments was burned down and another has resumed1923 ' 1924Number of establishments

121 121Capital $24,043,716 24,433.099Number of employees

10,903 10.863Salaries and wages

11,047,985 10 716,974Value of production

36,436.966 33.010,490

The number of pairs of boots and shoes made by the above establishments in 1923 was 13.722,689; in 1924 the number was 13,496,830.

One point I desire to touch upon is the statement that in 1924 twelve boot and shoe establishments went out of business. That looks serious; that no doubt is the text upon which our Tory friends are basing the statement that disaster and ruin'has overtaken the boot and shoe industry in various parts of the country. But that does not at all convey the real situation, because while twelve boot and shoe factories went out of business in 1924 there were sixteen new establishments which came into being. This would appear to indicate that the boot and shoe industry was not in such a serious situation as many hon. gentlemen would like to have us believe.

Topic:   COMMERCIAL FAILURES IN CANADA BY BRANCHES OF BUSINESS
Permalink
CON

Hugh Alexander Stewart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEWART (Leeds):

Can the minister give us the numbers of pairs and the value of boots and shoes imported in those years he is discussing?

Topic:   COMMERCIAL FAILURES IN CANADA BY BRANCHES OF BUSINESS
Permalink
LIB

James Murdock (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. MURDOCK:

If my hon. friend would look at the customs record he could probably get that information for himself, and as I have a considerable way to go yet I would ask to be excused.

When I state that twelve boot and shoe factories went out of business and sixteen came into being in 1924, some distinguished gentleman in the opposition is liable to ask, what is the comparative number of employees of those that went out of business and those that came into being in the boot and shoe industry? Anticipating that inquiry I asked the Dominion Statistician for that information and received the following reply:

In reply to your letter, the twelve boot and shoe establishments which went out of business had a total of 326 employees, or an average of 27.1 per establishment. I might add that one of these estabopprations within the last month or two.

With regard to the new establishments, we have received to date returns from only 10, for which the average number of employees is 26.7 or practicallv the same as that for the establishments which ceased operations. I would add that at least one of the new establishments is quite large, but, as you know, we are not permitted to give out particulars regarding an individual concern.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that deals with certain references to factories closing and the serious conditions of the boot and shoe and textile industries which hon. gentlemen opposite are so anxious and so willing at times to talk of.

There is a further matter for which the right hon. leader of the opposition gave me the text some time ago. I refer to his remarks concerning certain comparative unemployment conditions in Canada and in the United States. In order that I may not misinterpret what he said let me quote his exact language. The right hon. gentleman was referring to the serious unemployment conditions in Canada in comparison with the conditions which he said existed in the Unitad States, and on page 18 of Hansard we find the statement which he made, with the absolute degree of assurance which always characterizes the hon. gentleman's utterances. He said:

The index figure now is 83.9, showing that more than sixteen per cent less are employed now than on the 1st January, 1920.

He was referring to Canada. He continues:

I would like the corresponding figures to be produced from the United States and to ascertain if there has been sixteen per cent or even one per cent reduction in the same (period in that country.

And meeting the challenge of the right hon. gentleman, we produce evidence in the form of the United States Department of Labour Monthly Labour Review for March, 1925, and we analyze to find out whether there was the one per cent which the hon. gentleman inquired1 for. The Monthly Labour Review, published by the United States Department of Labour, March, 1925, at page 129,

The Budget-Mr. Murdock

gives the necessary figures for comparative purposes, and we are therefore able to arrive at the following comparison between Canadian and United States change in employment conditions as between January 1920 and January 1925, as follows:

Canadian Index Number

January 1920 100

January 1925 83,9

United States Index Number

January 1920 H61

January 1925 90

This shows that while there had been a change of 16.1 in Canada there had been a change of 26.1 in the United States and these figures are not from the Minister of Labour in Canada, but from the Secretary of Labour for the United States alt page 120 of his March Labour Review. I realize that my bon. friend, with his ever readiness to get around the point, may take the position that that comparison of figures is not altogether accurate, because the figures which I quoted were for the general index of employment in United States manufacturing industries January 1914 to January 1925, while the figure 83.9 for Canada, refers to all employment; so that we will have to concede that the hon. gentleman might make a point in that comparison, and therefore we will have to get right down to real concrete, comparative figures of manufacturing in the United States and in Canada. Returns from employers in Canada have not only been tabulated for all industries, producing the figure of 83.9, which I gave the House a little while ago, but they have been tabulated and index numbers worked out for each industry. One of the divisions of this tabulation is manufacturing which is the basis of the tabulation adopted in the United States. This comparison shows the following for the years 1924 and 1925:

Manufacturing Industries

Canada United States

1924 Januarv 95.5

February 96.6

March 96.4

April 94.5

May 90.8

June 87.9

July 84.8

August 85.0

September 86.7

October 87.9

November 87.8

December 89.4

1925 January 90.0

February

March

Still a little better in January than the United States, although hon. members will recall that the figure 90 for the United States means a reduction of 26.1, whereas the figure 75.5 as regards the manufacturing industries of Canada for the month of January means a reduction of 24.5.

, The figures for the United States are not available for the months of February and March.

Topic:   COMMERCIAL FAILURES IN CANADA BY BRANCHES OF BUSINESS
Permalink
CON

John Lawrence Stansell

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STANSELL:

Was the period when the figures for the United States were low as regards labour about the time of the presidential election?

Topic:   COMMERCIAL FAILURES IN CANADA BY BRANCHES OF BUSINESS
Permalink
LIB

James Murdock (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. MURDOCK:

My hon. friend will

note that in July and August last, the United States manufacturing figures were below those of Canada, although they started from a point

16.1 above those of Canada on January 1, 1920. The only thing I am at present endeavouring to do, hon. members will understand, is to reply to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), who desired to be shown *if there had been a change of one point in t'he manufacturing figures of the United States. These figures prove conclusively that there has been a greater change in unemployment figures in the United States than in Canada.

On the same date that the right hon. gentleman asked for this information, he also produced what was supposed to be certain figures from Montreal indicating the condition of unemployment there. I am ^lad to read to the House an editorial from La Patrie of Montreal, dated January 15, 1925. I do not suppose that it will be charged that La Patrie is too distinctly favourable to this government. I think possibly it can be assumed that this is simply a reasonably accurate conception of existing conditions in Montreal ,as of January 15. The editorial, by the way, intimates that I said something which I do not recall ever having said, but that does not matter particularly. It reads:

Unemployment

We are at the present time, from the employment viewpoint, going through the worst period of the winter. All the work which the rough season interrupts is now suspended, and as the snowfall has been so far comparatively small, we are deprived of the best palliative against unemployment.

And yet, as La Patrie predicted in the early fall, we do not see the shortage of employment take in Montreal the character of a crisis, as was to happen according to the provisions of Hon. Mr. Murdock, Federal Minister of Labour. There are evidently

The Budget-Mr. Murdock

a number of workers who at the present time do not find any employment, as is always the case every season in a city as important as Montreal; but those who are without any employment are not without resources or are efficiently helped by our ordinary organization for public assistance, and we do not, as we did a few years ago, see bands of famished unemployed using force to have meals served to them in public eating houses.

We had stated, last fall, that the employment situation in Montreal was normal or even a little better than in 1923. We based that statement upon information received from the St. Vincent de Paul Society, which, in our judgment, always knows better than anybody else what position the popular class finds itself in when facing the subsistence problem.

This information, which we presented as trustworthy, is now confirmed by the Dominion Bureau of statistics. An official report just published tells us that employment in the province of Quebec was somewhat better in 1924 than in 1923. The statistician's index number, which was 95.2 in 1923, rose to 95.S for 1924. The improvement is not considerable, but it is important if one considers that the public powers predicted an increase in the scarcity of employment.

Let us add that according to official statistics employment conditions, during 1924, were better in the province of Quebec than in any other province of the Dominion, with the only exception of British Columbia.

I do not subscribe personally to all that is stated in that editorial. I give it to the House as an indication of the view of a prominent publication in the city of Montreal and as an offset to some of the claims made by the leader of the opposition.

In the course of every opportunity that presents itself, we find hon. gentlemen referring to the very much better conditions existing in the United States and intimating that unemployment there is in no way comparable with that in the Dominion of Canada. Let us see and do not let it be the word of the Minister of Labour that determines the matter. Let us take the views of others. Let us take the facts, figures and analyses that come to us from sources official and otherwise. I hold in my hand a clipping from the New York Times of March 8, 1925, which states:

United States ranks third in unemployment. Great Britain has largest total, Austria second, France and Finland lowest.

This is so good I think that it should be placed on Hansard. It is not very long:

The latest figures on unemployment in various countries reveal the fact that the United States, where it is quite commonly said there is full employment of population, is third on the list of countries having the largest number of persons idle, with Great Britain first and Austria second.

Figures obtained from the Foreign Department of Moody's Investors' Service support the fact that the unemployed in the United States number about twenty out of each 1,000 of population, while the number in Great Britain is twenty-six out of

each 1,000 and Austria about the same as the United States. In Austria the total number since the first of the year has increased to 187,000, or about 29 per

1.000, but owing to fluctuations of employment the figure twenty represents an early 1925 average.

The lowest rates are in France and Finland, which report practically no unemployment. Of the Central European countries, Hungary makes the best showing with only about three out of every 1,000 unemployec followed by Czechoslovakia and Poland, with abou five and six per 1,000 respectively. In Germany out o: every 1,000 inhabitants more than seven were out Oj work at the beginning of the year. Denmark leads the Scandinavian kingdoms with a rate of over eight per 1,000, while Sweden's unemployed number less than three per 1,000. The relatively low figures reported by Russia are of interest, although statisticians ar? inclined to Question their reliability. In the Western European countries, Belgium makes the best showing with a rate of 2.39 per cent, as compared with 9.26 per cent in the Netherlands. The rate in Switzerland is only 2.42 per 1,000, while that in Italy is 3.36 per

1.000.

The following table shows the number of unemployed in the principal countries at the beginning of 1925, together with the population:

Number Rate per

Estimated of unem- 1.000 ofPopulation ployed pop.Austria .. 6,500,000 130.000 20.00Australia .. 5,800,000 32,708 5.64Belgium .. 7,700,000 18,444 2.39Canada .. 8,800,000 10,540 1.20Czechoslovakia.. .. .. 13,600,000 73,006 5.37Denmark .. 3,300,000 27.518 8.34Finland ... 3,400,000 1.803 .53France .. 39,200,000 11,863 .30Germany ... 59,900,000 436,450 7.29Great Britain.. .. .. 44,700,000 1,158,000 25.91Hungary . .. 8,000,000 26,020 3.25Italy . .. 40.000.000 134,719 3.36Netherlands .. 7,100,000 65,740 9.26Norway .. 2.700,000 20,500 7.60Poland .. 27,200,000 155,245 5.71Russia 1,300.000 9.85Sweden .. 6,000,000 17,344 2.89Switzerland .. 3,900,000 9,451 2.42United States.. .. .. 110,000,000 2,100,000 19.09

I am sure my hon. friend from Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) will note that last item.

Topic:   COMMERCIAL FAILURES IN CANADA BY BRANCHES OF BUSINESS
Permalink
CON

Robert James Manion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MANION:

It is one-tenth of what the minister said before. I hope he is as close in all his other statements as he is in that one.

Topic:   COMMERCIAL FAILURES IN CANADA BY BRANCHES OF BUSINESS
Permalink
LIB

James Murdock (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. MURDOCK:

My hon. friend goes out of his way a little to be unfair. If he wall look up Hansard he will find that the quotations to which he is now referring were placed before him and the House only as newspaper reports for what they might be worth.

Topic:   COMMERCIAL FAILURES IN CANADA BY BRANCHES OF BUSINESS
Permalink
CON

Leon Johnson Ladner

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LADNER:

Did the minister say that the unemployment figure in Canada was 10.000 or 100.000?

Topic:   COMMERCIAL FAILURES IN CANADA BY BRANCHES OF BUSINESS
Permalink
LIB

James Murdock (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. MURDOCK:

I was just about to take up' that point. Newspaper reports are not always reliable; for example, I do not agree

The Budget-Mr. Murdock

with the estimate of the New York Times which places the unemployment in Canada during that particular period at only 10,540. This article, by the way, was dated March 8, 1925, and in my judgment it would be unfair, indeed untrue, to suggest that this was the total number of unemployed in Canada at that time.

Topic:   COMMERCIAL FAILURES IN CANADA BY BRANCHES OF BUSINESS
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Does the minister think that any quotation which suggested that the unemployed in Canada in that period was only 10,000 is worth taking up the time of the House to give?

Topic:   COMMERCIAL FAILURES IN CANADA BY BRANCHES OF BUSINESS
Permalink
LIB

James Murdock (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. MURDOCK:

I do not suppose that the right hon. gentleman would decline to concede to a humble member on this side of the House the right to take up the time of the House with such matters as he regards as sufficiently important. My right hon, friend is ever ready to jump in and take up all the time he wants, interrupting when he sees fit, and if he will kindly permit me to use my own judgment in this respect I think we shall all appreciate the courtesy.

Topic:   COMMERCIAL FAILURES IN CANADA BY BRANCHES OF BUSINESS
Permalink
CON

Leon Johnson Ladner

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LADNER:

For information, may 1 ask what is the extent of unemployment in Canada according to the records of the department? The minister would probably know what the figure was at that time.

Topic:   COMMERCIAL FAILURES IN CANADA BY BRANCHES OF BUSINESS
Permalink
LIB

James Murdock (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. MURDOCK:

As my hon. friend

knows, there are no accurate records collected in Canada which are absolutely reliable and by which we could say definitely just what the number of unemployed were.

Topic:   COMMERCIAL FAILURES IN CANADA BY BRANCHES OF BUSINESS
Permalink
CON

Leon Johnson Ladner

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LADNER:

But approximately.

Topic:   COMMERCIAL FAILURES IN CANADA BY BRANCHES OF BUSINESS
Permalink
LIB

James Murdock (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. MURDOCK:

Or reasonably approximately even. Now, I do not think it would be unfair or inconsistent to admit that there were in Canada during the past winter at one time or another probably from forty-five to fifty thousand people unemployed; I do not think that would be beyond the mark. But if we had any number comparable with the figures which the United States admits- and I shall prove in a few moments that the United States does admit it-we should have had 200,000 unemployed in Canada for our

8,780,000, that is to say, in proportion to the number of unemployed across the line.

Topic:   COMMERCIAL FAILURES IN CANADA BY BRANCHES OF BUSINESS
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Who in the United

States admits that there were 2,000,000 unemployed there? Is it the same newspaper?

Topic:   COMMERCIAL FAILURES IN CANADA BY BRANCHES OF BUSINESS
Permalink

April 14, 1925