April 4, 1930

SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT AMENDMENT OF MH. HEAPS TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE


The house resumed from Thursday, April 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for committee of suppfy, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Heaps.


CON

Finlay MacDonald

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. FINLAY MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):

I wish to correct a misapprehension which may have arisen from what I said yesterday with regard to the question of free trade. I intimated that I might be a free trader myself along certain lines, but that I wanted protection on coal and iron. The point I was trying to make was this, that if I were a free trader, I would likely be a free trader of the kind that we meet in this house, particularly on this side to my left, free traders who want free trade in the articles they buy, and protection on the produce that they have to sell.

I was trying to point out last night that the fiscal policy of this government is responsible to a certain degree, at least, for the unemployment now existing in this country. I was dealing with the question of coal. Since then I have read in the newspapers a statement made on the floor of the legislature of Nova Scotia to the effect that coal used in the heating of the public buildings at Halifax was imported from points outside of Canada, while miners within two hundred miles of Halifax are walking the streets idle. Surely there is a direct connection between the policy of this government and the unemployment that exists in the town of Glace Bay.

I also pointed out the effect which the introduction of Russian coal is going to have on the market that we want to get for Nova Scotia coal and possibly coal from the western provinces. Last year a large consignment of coal came from Russia into this country. It was refused admittance into the United States, but was admitted into Canada. The newspapers tell us that this year contracts have been let for the purchase of 250,000 tons of Russian coal. There is one thought that I want to leave with my friends from the west, the wheat farmers and free traders. The papers tell us that within the last year or so hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in the United States for agricultural implements for Russia. Who dare say that within four or five years from now the great agricultural lands of Russia will not be developed to such a degree that, if they can replace our coal now, they will not then be in a position to replace our Canadian wheat? What will be the position then of the wheat farmers in this country? Will they be free traders then?

Topic:   SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT AMENDMENT OF MH. HEAPS TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB
CON

Finlay MacDonald

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton):

The

hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) says

1270 COMMONS

Unemployment-Mr. MacDonald (C. Breton)

sure. He is a consistent free trader. He is, I believe, the father and mother of the consumers' league. He is the exponent of the free trade doctrine in this house. Yet he sat here the day before yesterday and listened to the most extreme protectionist doctrine that has ever been presented in this house. He heard the Minister of Labour (Mr. HeCnan) say that he had paid $2,000,000 for a ship in Canada when he could have bought the same ship in London for $1,000,000. Is the hon. member for Weyburn going to subscribe to any such doctrine as that? Where are all his free trade theories? Those free trade theories are, after all, theories only. When they come up against -the acid test of practical conditions, they vanish into thin air.

The newspapers to-day also bring us some surprising statements with regard to remarks made by certain provincial premiers in this country. I read that two or three of them have doubted that the Prime Minister made the statement in the house yesterday that he would not give five cents to a Tory government, but that he was prepared to go a certain length possibly in meeting one or two of the western provinces that have a Progressive premier at the head of their government. These three provincial premiers appeared to be surprised at such a statement by the Prime Minister. Why should they be surprised because the Prime Minister makes a frank and honest statement that we all know to be true? Certainly he would not give five cents to a Tory provincial government. Why? Because it is the policy of this government, and has been from the start, that every dollar of public money that is going to be spent is going to be spent for a political purpose. Give public money to a Tory government that will not expend it for Grit purposes? What nonsense. No, sir, this government is not going to do anything like that. There is where the vicious principle comes in, and I quite agree with the Prime Minister that is a vicious principle; but it is the outlook that has always characterized the Grit party in this country.

We have an illustration in my province, where the militia was called out to settle a strike. The cost amounted to $133,000. The militia was called out, my hon. friend says, by a Grit government. The federal government presented a bill to the province for that sum, and, what is more, made the province pay it, because they deducted it from the

IMr. F. MacDonald.l

subsidy. Just contrast that with what the Borden government did in an exactly similar case; they presented a bill to the provincial government for the cost of the militia, but subsequently withdrew it. The Borden government did not collect a dollar, although a Grit government was in power in Nova Scotia. I do not think we could find a better contrast between the respective attitudes of the two old parties. This government is running true to form. We have ministers making pledges in this house and out of it in an endeavour to catch votes, but when they are called upon to implement these pledges we find them blocked by the Prime Minister.

But out of this debate comes one clear declaration-this government is opposed to unemployment insurance. There is no beclouding that fact. That declaration is going out to the people of this country who are in need, and to whom unemployment insurance would be a blessing. Let me tell the government that there will come a time when our unemployed will have an opportunity to return to power representatives who will attend to their wants. To-day we see the government without any cabinet solidarity; ministers saying one thing, the Prime Minister saying another. On the other hand, the Conservative party is true to its principles, it is true to the national policy, a policy that has done more than anything else to build up this country. It is on that party, Mr. Speaker, and its policies, especially the policy of protection as developed by experience, protection not only for capital, but also for labour and for the consumer, that our people may rely to maintain the progress which Canada is destined to make in the coming years.

Topic:   SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT AMENDMENT OF MH. HEAPS TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

John Power Howden

Liberal

Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):

Mr. Speaker, I trust the hon. gentleman (Mr. MacDonald) who has just taken his seat will forgive me if I do not follow his remarks very closely, but I hope to refer to them briefly before resuming my seat. The ground has been so well covered by a number of strong and excellent speeches that I would hesitate to take up the time of the house but for the fact that St. Boniface, embracing as it does the town of Transcona and the Canadian National shops with its many hundreds of workers, as well as the labouring suburb of Elmwood, is essentially a labouring constituency, and I believe that if ever I should raise my voice in this house now is the time when

Unemployment-Mr. Howden

we are considering the subject of unemployment, which is so disastrous to the welfare of the labouring classes.

It has been repeatedly stated, and I think it is pretty generally accepted, that unemployment is not an emergent condition, that we always have unemployment. In that statement I heartily concur. Of course, since our rigorous winter climate ties up many Industries, unemployment is always increased at that season; but all through the summer, fall and winter while I am at home, not a day passes, cerainly not a week, but that I am asked to find jobs for men out of work. They seem to think that a letter from me is all that is necessary to secure them a job-unfortunately a much mistaken idea. There are always scores of men looking for work at the Transcona shops, men who go back day after day and week after week until finally they give up in disgust and despair and look elsewhere for work, with, I fear, no better success. There is no doubt that unemployment is a permanent and constant condition of our social structure, a malady or disease pertaining thereto, for which a cure must be sought and found if possible.

I do not think there is any doubt in the minds of many that seasonal unemployment is caused by our rigorous climate. Undoubtedly the collapse of the stock market and the fact that our wheat crop for 1929, as well as a large portion of that for 1928, is not yet sold, have had a very decided bearing on unemployment, for it has prevented considerable building programs being proceeded with. Some unemployment is caused by lack of training or fitness of the worker for his work. In this regard I might state that the migration of many thousands of people yearly from the British Isles and from Europe to this country has always been a large factor in unemployment. A few nights ago the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Adshead), pointed out that the major railway companies had for some years brought in immigrants from the old country, who had displaced men already in occupation at the various railway shops, and these in turn were later displaced by a fresh batch of immigrants. This complaint has been made to me in very bitter terms a number of times in connection with the Transcona shops. I have not verified the statement, but I have good reason to believe that it is true. If it is true, it is certainly a shame; it is a bad piece of business and it should be stopped

immediately. Here, at least, is one place where charity, if it may be so called, should begin at home. I fancy, however, the basic cause of unemployment goes much deeper than this. Canada produces roughly ten times the amount of wheat required for her consumption; she produces many times the amount of minerals and forest products that can be used in this country; she produces 300,000,000 pounds of fish each year; there are greater quantities of manufactured products and products of the dairy, such as meat and eggs than oan be consumed within the country. I fancy if the value of these products were estimated it would be found that Canada produces probably ten times the value of the amount required to provide comfort for her citizens. Still, the vast bulk of Canadians are not well off; there is no doubt about that. Unemployment is with us from year to year, and it is not infrequently that we find destitution amongst us. In these days, with our modern machinery and improved methods of production one man can do the work for which some years ago two or three men were required. That is to say that the employer or the head of a corporation buys for the wages of one man the work that was done in former years by several men.

For unto every one that hath, shall be given;

. . . . but from him that hath not, shall be taken away even that which he hath.

Fifty per cent less men can do more work than twice the number did a few years ago; in order to provide work for greater numbers the men are put on short time and small wages. The consequence is that they are frequently unable to procure the necessities of life, and an increasing number of men from year to year find themselves entirely out of work. This, to my mind, is the underlying cause of unemployment. Assuming that is correct, what is the cure? In medicine we say that the first principle in treatment is to eliminate the cause of the disease. Unfoi-tunately this is a disease in which we cannot so easily eliminate the cause. It is, however, within the power of this parliament to bring in measures which would include a more equitable distribution of the wealth of this land, and would go far to overcome this evil and to remedy the present state of unemployment.

What would be the cure for unemployment, as we have it to-day? We cannot change the climate of Canada, but we could see to it that workmen were paid a sufficient wage during the period of occupation to carry them

Unemployment-Mr. Howden

over a reasonable period of inactivity during the winter. Secondly, we could stop undesirable immigration, and allow in only such immigrants as are actually needed to carry on the industry of this land, and those immigrants who are able to look after themselves upon their arrival. The governments of Canada, both federal and provincial, have the power to tax the wealth of this country for the purpose of providing for the general welfare of the body politic and its greatest asset, namely, its citizens.

I would now turn for a few moments from the field of mere platitudes to the criticism which has been offered to the government by some hon. members opposite who have taken part in this debate. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) referred the other day to the policy of this government in connection with unemployment. Since the remarks of the hon. gentleman were made in the course of this debate, I presume I am at liberty to refer to them at this time. He stated that the policy of this government had annually driven out 100,000 men, for a number of years. I think that is a correct statement of his remarks. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) speaking in Regina this year is reported to have said these words:

It would surprise you to know that during the nine years the Liberals have been in power 859,000 Canadians have left this country to go to the United States. If in nine years the policy of the government has driven 859,000 Canadians to seek employment in the United States, twice as great a number as ever went in the same period before, what do you think of that policy?

As far as we can learn, these figures must have been taken from the United States immigration records. I might point out that this government took office in 1922, and can only he held responsible for the progress or otherwise of this country from the time it brought down its budget in March of that year. From that time until the period when these statistics were compiled was briefly seven years, rather than nine years. Those two years would cut a considerable number from the figure 859,000, and bring it down to about 740,000. So that with that treatment the figure is contracted. Further, 740,000 includes migration from Newfoundland, which is not a part of Canada, and would lower the figure by 2,000 men yearly. Taking this into consideration, the figure is now reduced to 726,000. That figure takes no account of people who have returned to Canada, or of Canadians who resided in the United States for only a short time and then returned to this side of the border. When these people are considered,

the figure is still further reduced by 153,000, which brings it down to 573,000.

So, Mr. Speaker, if we carry this inquiry a little further we find in the end that the actual number of men who left Canada during this seven year period, instead of being 859,000, is actually 352,000. I might put a few figures on Hansard. In 1925 there migrated to the United States from Canada 100,859 people, and 15,815 people came to Canada from the United States. Returning Canadians numbered 43,775, which made a net loss to Canada in that year of 41,302. I will not follow these figures down to the present except to give the result for each year. I have given the figures for 1925. In 1926 the net loss was 25,020; in 1927 it was 3,524; in 1928 it was 8,260, and in 1929 it dwindled to 82. So, in the five years from 1925 to 1929, the migration to the United States from Canada amounted to only 78,188, which is a considerable comedown from the figures quoted by my hon. friend. When the hon. member for Fort William stated that we were losing 100,000 men a year to the United States, he remarked that this was a good way to cure unemployment but that he preferred the disease to the cure.

The fiscal policy of this country has been pretty thoroughly attacked as a cause of unemployment in Canada. Obviously the contention is, sir, that if the government would build a tariff wall around Canada so high that no foreign products could enter and the industries of this country had the entire home market, they would be able to develop to such an extent that they would employ sufficient men to do away with unemployment. It has been pointed out by hon. members in the course of this debate that the cause of unemployment in this country is the fact that machinery largely has supplanted man power in industry. As we find it to-day, there is not enough work for the men who were formerly employed; if these men are kept at work at all they are working only part time. Then of what benefit would it be to them to increase materially the industries of this country? These men would continue to be supplanted by machinery and still would be working on short time, and there would be an ever-increasing number of men out of work. Not only would that be the case, but these men working on short time would have to pay higher prices for the necessities of life owing to the increased cost of production which would be brought about by such a tariff wall.

There is another reason, I think, which applies here. Canada is an exporting country; she exports hundreds of millions of bushels of

Unemployment-Mr. Ilowden

wheat; she exports millions of dollars' worth of pulp, and many kinds of manufactured products. We send out millions of dollars' worth of minerals, lumber and other things, and if we build a high tariff wall around Canada in order to keep out foreign products, just how are we going to export our own products? We cannot expect to sell our products, be they what they may, to other countries without buying from those countries, and if Canada adopts a closed door policy what then are we to do with Canadian industry? I am not much of an economist, Mr. Speaker, but to me the very idea of this argument seems absurd and entirely out of the question.

An hon. member opposite pointed to the lack of a national coal policy as causing a great deal of unemployment in this country. A few years ago I had the good fortune to be on a committee of the house which investigated this matter. My memory is not very accurate, but I do remember that at that time the matter was thoroughly gone into. During the war, when the United States was threatened with a shortage of coal, it became necessary for Canada to develop rapidly her coal resources, and so probably for the first time that portion1 of eastern Canada east of western Ontario became acquainted with western coal. That coal made a very good impression; the people of central Canada signified that if this coal could reach the centre of the Dominion at a price which made it possible for them to use it, they would be very glad to do so. Unfortunately, in the long run this was found to be impossible. I believe that coal is worth $4 a ton on cars at the mine door, while the actual cost of moving it to central Canada is $9 a ton. This is a bituminous coal, and the people of central Canada can buy first class bituminous coal from the United States for less than $9 a ton.

Just here I might refer to something which may surprise some hon. members of the house. Pocahontas coal, which is very popular in Ontario, finds its way as far west as Winnipeg, where it is equally popular and where it is largely bought in preference to coal from Alberta. If United States coal can penetrate this country as far as Winnipeg; if the Canadian Pacific Railway Company sees fit to use United States coal on its lines from Montreal to Moose Jaw, there is not very much likelihood of the people in central Canada being able economically to use coal from Alberta.

Topic:   SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT AMENDMENT OF MH. HEAPS TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
LAB

Herbert Bealey Adshead

Labour

Mr. ADSHEAD:

If the government has

given a cost rate to Ontario, is it not fitting that the people of Manitoba and Saskatchewan should receive the same rate?

Topic:   SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT AMENDMENT OF MH. HEAPS TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

John Power Howden

Liberal

Mr. HOWDEN:

It seems reasonable that

they should be entitled to a cost rate, and I have heard that argument before. However, Manitoba is not clamouring for western coal, although if a favoured rate were granted, probably it would have the effect of displacing some American coal, and I would like to see that displacement take place.

I think it has been found that coal from the maritimes cannot be economically moved farther west than Montreal, or possibly Ottawa, even with a subvention of 50 cents per ton, benefits of the tariff, and a favourable boat haul. It has been tried out, but I do not think there is any use in our hoping to put coal from the maritime provinces or from Alberta upon the central markets of Canada. That is to be regretted because it is those markets which create the greatest demand. The last speaker, the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. MacDonald) pointed out that foreign coal was being burned in a public building in Halifax. I do not know much about the maritime provinces but I assume that he had reference to the parliament buildings. Halifax is considerably closer to the coal mines than is central Canada, and if the people of the maritimes cannot see to it that their own coal is burned in their own capital and their own parliament buildings, how can we hope to burn coal from the maritimes in the central portion of Canada?

Topic:   SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT AMENDMENT OF MH. HEAPS TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
CON

Finlay MacDonald

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MacDONALD(South Cape Breton):

Will the hon. member permit me to correct him? The public buildings to which I referred were buildings of this government in Halifax, not of the local government.

Topic:   SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT AMENDMENT OF MH. HEAPS TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Edward James Young

Liberal

Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):

What do they

burn in the buildings owned by the local government?

Topic:   SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT AMENDMENT OF MH. HEAPS TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
?

Mr QUINN:

Nova Scotia coal.

Topic:   SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT AMENDMENT OF MH. HEAPS TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

John Power Howden

Liberal

Mr. HOWDEN:

That may make some

difference, but not a great deal. If coal cannot be produced in Nova Scotia at a price to compete with foreign coal, then it is a sorry state of affairs.

While I am referring to the remarks of the hon. member for South Cape Breton, I would like to mention the ship which was built in this country at a cost of about $2,000,000. The hon. member criticized the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) and other hon. ministers for their inconsistency in not following up our free trade policy. The members on the other side of the house have been most energetic in their demand for relief for the unemployed labouring men of this country. It has been stated that this ship could have been constructed in the old country at a cost

Unemployment-Mr. Howden

of about $1,500,000. There may not be much difference between having this work constructed abroad and making a grant of $500,000 for relief purposes, but there are added advantages which accrue. The labouring men not only receive the benefit of that extra $500,000, but they receive also the benefit of the other $1,500,000. I do not consider that the hon. minister should be taken to task regarding that item.

The attack which has been made upon the hon. Minister of Labour has been a matter of extreme regret to me, but I must say that I feel sorrier for those who have carried on the attack than I do for the minister himself. I have grave reason to doubt if Canada has ever had a better minister of labour than the Hon. Peter Heenan. I have grave reason to doubt if Canada has ever had a minister of labour who has done more for the labouring classes or who has enjoyed the confidence of the labouring classes to a greater degree than has the Hon. Peter Heenan. I had occasion to discover that fact regarding some, fairly large contracts which were being carried on in Manitoba during the last year. Three contractors whom I know had engaged labour at rates entirely satisfactory to the men, who were delighted to obtain work at that period of the year. They were receiving from 75 cents to 80 cents per hour and were all satisfied with their lot, but the Minister of Labour, a member of this government, saw to it that those wages were increased from 75 cents to $1.10 per hour, and payments to the contractors were held up until that stipulation had been carried out.

Topic:   SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT AMENDMENT OF MH. HEAPS TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
LAB

Herbert Bealey Adshead

Labour

Mr. ADSHEAD:

What class of workers were they?

Topic:   SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT AMENDMENT OF MH. HEAPS TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

John Power Howden

Liberal

Mr. HOWDEN:

They were carpenters- other classes of labour were concerned, and the rates were increased at the instigation of the Hon. Mr. Heenan.

Topic:   SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT AMENDMENT OF MH. HEAPS TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Thorarinn Thorson

Liberal

Mr. THORSON:

That would be skilled labour?

Topic:   SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT AMENDMENT OF MH. HEAPS TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

John Power Howden

Liberal

Mr. HOWDEN:

Yes. I think it should be mentioned that it was largely due to the urging of the hon. Minister of Labour that the government has carried on public works so intensively during the last few months. Hon. members opposite have complained that although the minister stated that these works were being proceeded with, they were unable to obtain any information as to the amount of money expended. It might interest the hon. gentlemen to know that since last fall this government has spent on public works something like $20,000,000. This amount cannot be considered as a donation, but it was

a fairly substantial expenditure and no doubt has had an extremely beneficial effect in relieving unemployment during the winter months.

I think we all realize that unemployment is an ever-threatening evil to our state, and is something which will have to be faced and dealt with by this country. I agree with some hon. members who suggest that the initial step might come from this house. The condition will become progressively worse from time to time, and this is something which, if disregarded, may well be fraught with dire consequences. During the past period of stress, as I indicated before, the government of this country saw to it that its servants were not allowed to suffer, not only so, but the plan of the president of the Canadian National Railways not to reduce iris forces was endorsed by the government at no small loss of revenue. The government, as T stated a moment ago, also pursued the building policy to which I have referred and which undoubtedly has helped considerably to ameliorate matters. Considering these things, I certainly do not think this government merits a motion of want of confidence and I shall certainly vote against the motion, but I am ready to join hands with all hon. members who are seriously anxious for a solution of the unemployment problem, in the nope that we may make Canada a better place for its labouring class to live in.

Topic:   SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT AMENDMENT OF MH. HEAPS TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
UFA

Henry Elvins Spencer

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):

Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to congratulate the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden) upon the very able address which he has just made to the house. With most of it, I am glad to say, I heartily agree, particularly with the first part in which he outlined the reasons for unemployment and offered certain suggestions for alleviating it. There is, however, one point on which I differ from him, although it may be considered a small difference. One of the reasons he claimed for unemployment was that a good deal of the 1929 crop and some of the 1928 crop was not yet sold. I should like to point out that as regards this crop, the producers have received most of the money coming to them and no doubt have spent it. Therefore, when the grain is ultimately sold, it will not make a great deal of difference with regard to employment or unemployment.

Topic:   SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT AMENDMENT OF MH. HEAPS TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

John Power Howden

Liberal

Mr. HOWDEN:

It probably did make a

difference.

Topic:   SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT AMENDMENT OF MH. HEAPS TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
UFA

Henry Elvins Spencer

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. SPENCER:

I wish to congratulate the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) on having brought this all-important subject

Unemployment-Mr. Spencer

before the bouse. He has been criticised for bringing it in as an amendment to the motion for committee of supply, but I do not blame him, for the simple reason that he wished in the first place to bring this subject before the house by way of resolution, and as private members' day has been cancelled, he had no alternative to the procedure he adopted.

He has also been misunderstood so far as his intentions with regard to the resolution are concerned. It has been intimated from the government side of the house that the resolution calls for large government expenditures. In his resolution he does not ask for any government expenditures at all. If the recommendations are carried out, there might even be a saving in expenditure. For instance, as the hon. member who has just taken his seat has said, in trying to rectify the unemployment problem we might cut a large amount off the immigration estimates; we might save money in other ways, and in the long run it might not involve any extra expenditure on the part of the government. I am glad the hon. member brought this subject up, because it is of fundamental importance. It is a subject that will grow in importance from time to time, because unemployment will increase from year to year as long as we have our present system of production and exchange.

I am interested in this subject, not from the point of view of its provincial, federal or international significance; not because action taken to ameliorate the present conditions might benefit the labourer, the farmer or the professional worker, but because first and foremost it is a human subject. It is a human subject because it deals with many thousands -and the number will certainly increase- who are at the present time suffering from lack of food, clothing and shelter. This is a phase of the subject we cannot ignore; and it has not been touched upon by more than four or five of the hon. members who have spoken in this debate.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan), speaking in this debate on April 1, referred to the action of the Dominion-provincial conference held in 1926, and stated that none of the provinces except Manitoba refused to take full responsibility for the expense in connection with unemployment. I challenged that statement at the time and reminded him that I knew the province of Alberta had refused to acknowledge full responsibility for the expense. He was at the moment reading from a bluebook which was supposed to be a record of what had taken place at that conference. It must have been only a synopsis and not a full one of what had taken place.

I reminded the minister that he had in his possession a statement made by the premier of Alberta at the conference named, and for the benefit of the house I am going to read the statement to which I referred. Speaking on unemployment relief, Premier Brownlee said:

For some years in the past the Dominion has been assuming a certain percentage of the cost of unemployment relief, and we think, in all fairness it should be continued. I am not sure we did receive our proportion last year; my memory is we did not, the reason for that being, in the province of Alberta we arranged with the municipalities a scheme of relief by which the province took care of unemployment among single men, the municipalities the married men.

The department at Ottawa seem to feel that this was not in accordance with their ideas and did not make us a contribution as in previous years. Now, unemployment, as far as western Canada is concerned, is caused to some extent by the immigration policy, and we feel the Dominion government should assume some proportion as in the past, and should not insist on any one definite scheme between the municipalities and the provinces.

I sent this statement to the minister on February 28, and I received a reply in acknowledgment on March 3. Therefore I think the statement he made the other night in regard to the matter was, to say the least, unfair. Moreover, in regard to unemployment in Alberta this last winter, they estimate it will cost the province not less than .$393,000. This is a sum larger than any that the province has previously been called upon to pay for that purpose by no less than $200,000 in round figures. I understand that the number of the unemployed in Canada to-day is in round figures, 100,000. I think therefore that according to these figures the prairie provinces with their small population are carrying quite a fair share of this burden.

I wish to congratulate the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) for the very excellent speech he made last night. I differ from him, however, when he referred to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar) and said that the people of eastern Canada would not expect much consideration from the men on the prairies because they were so taken up with the growing of grain that they had no interest in the industrial centres. I want to remind the hon. member that there are no bigger hearted men anywhere than the men on the prairies, and if there is distress, whether it is on the prairies, in central Canada or in the maritime provinces, he will find that those people are willing to do their bit and pay their share in relieving that distress.

Topic:   SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT AMENDMENT OF MH. HEAPS TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink
CON

Hugh Guthrie

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GUTHRIE:

I said the minister, not

the men on the prairies.

Unemployment-Mr. Spencer

Topic:   SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT AMENDMENT OF MH. HEAPS TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE
Permalink

April 4, 1930