March 3, 1937

?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

No.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

A year and a half.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Charles Avery Dunning (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. DUNNING:

Sixteen months.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

The present government has been in office for sixteen months; we are now in the second session, and nothing has been done to cope effectively with the problem of unemployment. The Prime Minister is reported in Hansard on February 12, 1935, as follows:

In the House of Commons on April 29, 1931, at page 1113 of Hansard I am reported as follows:

"As unemployment is incidental to industry as it is carried on to-day, I believe some system of insurance against unemployment is absolutely necessary and should be provided."

That was in 1931. Then on the next page:

"*-having regard to the problem of unemployment before us at the moment, a problem that we know is going to recur from time to time, the government should immediately consider how a system of unemployment insurance can be made applicable to meet such a situation."

That was not sixteen months ago; it was in 1935, and the right hon. gentleman was referring to the attitude of the Liberal party in 1931. Proceeding to discuss certain constitutional difficulties, he said:

There is an opportunity for an immediate step to be taken by the federal government to provide a measure of unemployment insurance. No question of constitutionality can be raised with respect to it.

If there is an immediate step that can be taken without incurring any constitutional objections, I wonder why the Prime Minister has not taken it, or has not indicated in any way that his government proposes to take it. Thus we see, Mr. Speaker, that when the Liberals were in power before, we had to join with the Conservatives in urging that something be done about the then increasing problem of unemployment. The Conservatives were put in power pledged to deal with this very problem, and then we in this corner found ourselves allied with the Liberals and gladly supporting any motion they brought forward urging action with regard to it. Again the government has changed, and to-day we find ourselves backing a Conservative motion.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that throughout all these years the situation has not changed

The Budget

Mr. Woodsworth

fundamentally. Only a few months ago the Canadian Welfare Council issued a statement on the relief outlook in Canada. I suppose most hon,. members were supplied with this pamphlet, and I. wish to read a few significant paragraphs. It is a document which was prepared by a non-partisan organization and one that cannot, I think, be said to be in opposition to government policies. After reviewing the situation province by province, this statement is made in connection with the drought situation in the west:

The western tragedy has affected relief loads in all the western cities sending them high again, though Winnipeg, because of the transfer of heads of families from direct relief to relief works, has not moved sharply upward as might otherwise have been anticipated.

I would ask the house to note this statement :

As it is. quite apart from drought relief, the loads look as if they would stand (as at the first of December) at a figure representing 6 per cent to 8 per cent increase over comparable 1935 totals. As dependency grows in the western drought areas an even heavier increase may be expected. In fact, were all those now aided through special works projects, farm placement, etc., included, the number of persons receiving assistance, directly or indirectly, may even rise to a figure as high as 12 per cent above last year's totals at this time.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Norman McLeod Rogers (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. ROGERS:

Unofficially estimated.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

An unofficial estimate; quite so.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Norman McLeod Rogers (Minister of Labour)

Liberal

Mr. ROGERS:

And incorrect.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Then it is very strange, if this estimate is so incorrect, that one who I believe was very largely responsible for making the statement should be borrowed by the government to help carry on the work of the unemployment commission. Here is another statement made by the one guilty of such great inaccuracy:

Though relief scales in numerous municipalities in Canada bear no relationship to minimum subsistence needs, others, especially in the larger centres, while admittedly conforming with minimum standards only, exceed, for the man with more than three or four children, full time or average earnings when employed at prevailing rates in unskilled and semiskilled pursuits.

That is just a little sidelight on the low wages and low standard of living prevailing in Canada. Apparently official bodies fear to give a decent dole, fear to give adequate relief, because the relief granted, small as it is, might approximate the wages that are paid semi-skilled and unskilled workers in their ordinary vocations.

One more passage, in which reference is made to special problems:

The homeless man who is not absorbed in farm placement or in heavy manual work projects because of unsuitability, age or handicap; the aimless, restless youth who has never known employment or sees no hope in temporary occupation or "made" work; the increasing number of displaced, older single women; the growing problem of the non-resident individual or family shoved from municipal pillar to provincial post and back to emergency relief or private charity; and the mounting percentage of burned out war veterans seeking something to eke out the veterans allowance.

I quote one more paragraph:

Relief costs not only are not decreasing but increasing as persons long without income, whether on relief or idle, face complete depletion of their resources and seek the meeting of their needs from social assistance. Also, as economic dislocation continues, families of younger workers and therefore smaller in numbers come on the relief lists, and this smaller average number in each household tends to raise both the average and per capita costs. An upward movement in the costs of some foods is directly affecting relief costs, while the need for medical and health care for thousands on relief is forcing municipality after municipality to some experiment in providing such services at public cost. State medicine looms on the horizon as a problem that is no longer academic.

These extracts-and they come from an impartial source and one that has been quite close to the problem across the country- give some indication that fundamentally the problem as we face it to-day does not differ from the problem as it has presented itself in past months and past years.

Take my own city of Winnipeg, in which of course I have a very special interest. A series of articles on the relief situation appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press in the latter part of November. The articles were based on interviews with those in charge of the giving of relief. I quote:

According to Alderman Paul Bardal, chairman of the civic unemployment relief committee, there have been exactly 24,511 families in receipt of relief from the city since the dawn of the depression.

Again:

Forty per cent of the people of Winnipeg have been on relief at one time or another during the past seven years.

Still further:

The largest body are the common labourers, of which there are 1,636 on family relief. There are 883 office and mercantile workers, 865 skilled construction workers, 711 formerly engaged in transportation and communications, 523 from manufacturing industries, 221 domestic and related services, 74 professional men, 57 from farms and dairies, 25 from mining, logging and fishing, 8 policemen, 2 firemen, and 89 who have never worked at any regular job.

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth

Such a great variety of occupations are represented by those on relief as to suggest the diversity as well as the extent of the problem. I would suggest that the schemes which have been outlined to us this year or which were undertaken last year by the government simply do not touch the major number of the classes to which I have just referred.

In these family cases a very serious situation is developing. I can remember the time in my own city when it was considered almost necessary for each family to have a little house of its own, but to-day we find large numbers of houses of six or eight rooms converted into apartment houses to house from five to six or eight families. It has become almost the rule that families are placed in one or at most two rooms. I think any hon. member will recognize that we are thereby building up slums of a very serious kind. The relief departments say that they cannot help this, that they must keep down the rents and can afford only so much for the relief budget, but that does not prevent the development of a very bad state of things in houses which are so overcrowded as these. One has but to step into a police court, or, perhaps better, into juvenile court, to observe the results of the long continued unemployment which the country has experienced,-fathers discouraged, loafing around the streets; mothers dragged out, not knowing what next to do; boys and girls with no regular work, though they are out of school. Utter demoralization is coming to the homes of many of our people. It is a condition which we must face, and I think it is not taking advantage in any way of our position in the opposition to hold the government responsible for dealing with this problem.

I was disappointed in one statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) in one of his earlier speeches. Speaking on January 21, he said:

Moreover, sir. I still believe in the virtue of thrift, I still believe that a man in the full flush of his manhood has not merely the right but the duty to himself and to those who depend upon him to set aside in any manner which seems good to him a portion of the proceeds of his labour to-day in order that he and those dependent upon him may not later be dependent upon the state.

Of course we would all agree with a general sentiment of that kind, but the fact is that for years past tens of thousands of heads of families have not been able to provide even for the current expenditures which their families require, and when the depression came they found themselves, as we put it, right up against it. Thrift? It is fine to

talk about thrift when there are opportunities of exercising it, but the fact is that a great many to-day have no such opportunity; they are dependent upon others for jobs, and if the others are not providing jobs they are helpless. I would commend to the notice of the Minister of Finance some observations by Oscar Wilde:

Sometimes the poor are praised for being thrifty. But to recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less. For a town or country labourer to practice thrift would be absolutely immoral. Man should not be ready to show that he can live like a badly-fed animal. He should decline to live like that, and should either steal, or go on the rates, which is considered by many to be a form of stealing. As for begging, it is safer to beg than to take, but it is finer to take than to beg. No. a poor man who is ungrateful, unthrifty, discontented and rebellious is probably a real personality, and has much in him. He is at any rate a healthy protest.

I think we have to remember

*

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Charles Avery Dunning (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. DUNNING:

Surely my hon. friend will do me the justice to admit that on that occasion I was not speaking of the poor or of those on relief, but was advocating that those who had saved should not be deprived of their savings.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I do not know whether it is worth while to quote the preceding remarks of the hon. gentleman.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

I wonderl

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I shall do so if it is desired.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Samuel William Jacobs

Liberal

Mr. JACOBS:

In the interests of truth.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

This is the preceding paragraph:

I have little more to say, Mr. Speaker. All history teaches us the appeal which proposals of this kind have to the ears of men and w-omen who are experiencing great hardship. There never has been in any modern country a time of hardship which did not have as a part of its phenomena a development of so-called monetary reform which always received for a time in all countries very wide support. In some countries the effort was made, with results that are written large on the pages of history, results which drove the common people of those countries further into the mire than they were ever driven by any depression. In other countries, notably the great republic to the south, the agitation for monetary inflation lasted in various forms for a long period of years. It was never successful. 1 would not use the term "monetary reform" because I do not regard inflation as monetary reform. I regard uncontrolled inflation as the worst kind of monetary reaction. It is destructive.

Then came the paragraph to which I alluded.

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Charles Avery Dunning (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. DUNNING:

That is quite right.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

But that paragraph does show acceptance of things as they are. It suggests that those who have succeeded in making money should be able to hold on to it, quite regardless of the conditions round about, and it entirely ignores the fact that for the last seven years large numbers of people have not been able to lay up anything for the future, in fact have not been able to meet their present obligations. I have often thought of the words of Edwin Markham, " the long, long patience of the plundered poor." To-day those who are described and treated as near-criminals are essentially " the plundered poor." The various and arbitrary arrangements of society deprive a great many of them of the chance to earn a decent livelihood.

Last Christmas season the front pages of our newspapers were filled with stories of the destitution which prevailed in nearly all our cities. The Red Cross and relief agencies of all kinds were making appeals; there were stories of dire need. On the other hand, within a week or two afterwards the press was filled with stories of greatly improved business. The bankers' association and individual banks issued statements along these lines. Hidden profits of the textile industry were disclosed. Talk about stealing! The man who steals a loaf of bread, even the man who makes relief a racket in order to get a little more for his family which is inadequately clothed or fed, is in my judgment nothing like so great a thief as he who evades taxation and puts away profits out of which he should have contributed more largely to government revenues. The other day the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) deprecated the use of the slogan, "soak the rich." I do not know that it is a very good slogan, but I would point out that the present practice is to "soak the poor." It has been done very effectively over a long period of years. Surely the time has come when we should adopt a different attitude. I invite the attention of the house to the principles of a program that was placed a few weeks ago before congress by the President of the United States. They are contained in a front page editorial in the Halifax Herald, and it seems to me highly significant that a newspaper of that stamp should emphasize declarations of this kind:

1. We must find practical controls over blind economic forces and blindly selfish men.

2. As intricacies of human relationships increase, so power to govern them also must increase-power to stop evil; power to do good.

3. We have always known that heedless selfinterest was bad morals; we now know that it is bad economics.

(4) We are beginning to abandon our tolerance of the abuse of power by those who betray for profit the elementary decencies of life.

(5) The lowest standard of living can be raised far above the level of mere subsistence.

(6) The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much: it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.

That latter clause I should like especially to urge upon the house. The Prime Minister will probably rise and point to the constitutional difficulties, but surely we have gone far enough and long enough with the employment question to recognize that essentially it is a matter of national emergency. If we had a few thousand people left destitute by a great flood there is no doubt whatever that the spectacular character of the appeal would lead to millions being poured forth in order to succour those people. The trouble is that we have had this problem of unemployment with us so long that we have forgotten its seriousness.

How have these constitutional difficulties worked out? The dominion says that under the British North America Act this is primarily a provincial problem; and the provinces take the position that since they themselves are in a bad way financially the matter becomes primarily one for the municipalities. The municipalities in the west are almost bankrupt and therefore cannot cope with the problem. It has been recognized, in the announcement that a commission to study the financial relationship between the dominion and the provinces, that the present set-up is not satisfactory. It seems to me that the announcement of the appointment of that commission is in itself sufficient proof that the provinces are not financially in a position to deal with the situation. That being so, it does seem to me that while commissions are investigating and reporting-and until such time as we can get some modification of the British North America Act-the poor people of Canada, who after all are citizens of Canada, ought not to be allowed to suffer.

Surely I should not have to refer to the position of the Liberal party on this question of unemployment, but in order to refresh their memories I would call attention to a leaflet which was circulated before the last election in which the policies of the Liberal party of Canada in relation to some immediate outstanding problems were set forth. Speeches by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the House of Commons on February 27, 1935, were quoted as follows:

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth

Unemployment of First Concern

The Liberal party believes unemployment is Canada's most urgent national problem. It would deal with the present emergency conditions through a representative national commission, which would cooperate with the provinces and municipalities in the administration of unemployment relief and in an endeavour to provide work for the unemployed.

That is the first section. I ask: Can the Liberal party claim that the present commission is in any real sense a representative national commission? The personnel of that commission was indicated to the house yesterday by the leader of the opposition. Can we say that it is a thoroughgoing representative national commission? I think not. We find, therefore, that that commission is not a body which is devoting all its time to this matter; rather it is simply an advisory commission that reports to the minister. I doubt whether we shall have an opportunity to discuss in detail what that commission is doing. In fact, I do not know whether we shall even have an opportunity to hear a report as to what the commission really proposes. The commission is simply a departmental adjunct. Can this be said to be carrying out the announced policy of the Liberal party? Let me read again:

As permanent measures the Liberal party is pledged to introduce policies which will serve to provide employment by reviving industry and trade;-

They may say that they have done that, but let me quote further:

-and to introduce a national system of unemployment insurance.

"A national system of unemployment insurance." It may be that the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice will immediately take the ground that in view of the report of the judicial committee of the privy council the government have not the power to set up a national system of unemployment insurance. They might have known what the result might be of any appeal to the privy council in this regard, but the fact is that prior to making the appeal they decided upon this as one of the fundamental Liberal policies. I know that in the United States this question of state versus federal jurisdiction has been a problem, and we have always considered that residua 1 power was with the individual states. But notwithstanding that, they seem to have been able to put through a large measure of social security. That could be done in Canada; for as I have said again and again in this house, I believe the old saw is true, that where there is a will there is a way. But the present government has not only scrapped, or taken such action as led to the scrapping, of the unemployment insur-

ance measures which were introduced by the previous government, but in addition to that it has failed to indicate in any way whatever that it is about to introduce any system of unemployment insurance which might avoid the constitutional difficulties, or to provide any substitute.

It would not be so bad if we had an adequate system of relief, but such dloes not exist. We are faced with a very serious difficulty in having a Liberal government in power at the present time. In the first place the Prime Minister always resorts to the constitutional difficulties, and if they do not serve then he has recourse to the old laissez faire policy: we must not interfere with private industry, and so on. Between these two it is extremely difficult to get action- and action is what we need in Canada to-day, especially in dealing with unemployment. I want to give- one other clause from the Liberal party's statement of its position prior to the last election:

The Liberal party recognizes that the problem of distribution has become more important than that of production, and believes that personality is more sacred than property. It will devote itself to finding ways and means of effecting a fair and just distribution of wealth, with increasing regard to human need, to the furtherance of social justice, and to the promotion of the common good.

These are lofty sentiments, and it is no doubt the enunciation of these lofty sentiments, coupled with the failure of the previous government to solve the problem of unemployment and other outstanding problems that face our country, that led to the election of the present Liberal government. They may sit back in their seats happy in the thought that they will not be disturbed for several years yet, but I submit that they cannot be relieved of the responsibility of making some effort to carry out the definite pledges which they made to the electorate only two years ago.

In respect to a matter of this kind, since all hon. members individually are anxious to do something to relieve the distress of their fellow citizens, and finding ourselves continually bombarded with pleas for help from people living in the various communities from which we come, surely the time has arrived when we can sink our party differences and get together in a real effort to solve this grave problem. I have said before that from the standpoint of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation we do not think unemployment can be fully cured short of fundamental changes in our economic system. Hon. members opposite believe that it can. They say they have no mandate

The Budget-Mr. Thompson

to bring in socialism. Very well, but surely we can at least all unite in an effort to bring relief to those in distress. As long as many incomes are large, and profits increasing, and there are those in our midst able to live lives of luxury, we have no right to permit any government to claim that there is no money to provide the necessities of life for those in distress.

I cannot close without reminding the house that it is these considerations among others that made us protest the other day against increasing military expenditures. Since the Minister of Finance finds it possible to raise money for matters of that kind, he ought to find; it possible to raise enough to provide adequate food and clothing and shelter and some little hope in life for those who for the past four or five or six years have been suffering the hardships consequent upon unemployment and who do not know what to do next. I urge upon the government that even now it is not too late to make adequate provision for the needs of these people.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CON

Thomas Alfred Thompson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. T. A. THOMPSON (Lanark):

As

I listened to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) deliver his budget speech in this house I was pleased to know that this country has emerged so far out of the depression. But when he had finished I was thoroughly convinced that any improvement in our economic condition was not due to the policies of the present administration, but rather had taken place in spite of them.

It is greatly to be regretted that at a time, when the country is emerging from a depression, a budget should be presented which strikes such a serious blow at industry and does nothing at all for the agriculturist. The alterations that have been made in the trade agreement with the United Kingdom will to a great degree hurt the manufacturers of this country, and there is no provision in the budget to relieve the dairy farmers of the ever increasing importations of vegetable oils. In 1936, 158,000,000 pounds of these oils were imported into Canada irom countries such as Egypt, China and Manchuria, where labour is very cheap. These oil's cost about cents a pound in the country of origin. They are refined in Canada by a chemical process which costs very little, and tremendous profits are being made from their sale. From these imported oils 81,000,000 pounds of domestic shortening was made and sold last year, and the remainder of the oil was disposed of to the soap factories, thus coming into competition with our butter, lard, and other animal fats.

The Canadian market could quite easily absorb all the butter, lard and tallow produced in Canada. Last year we had an exportable surplus of 10.000,000 pounds of butter, and we exported 20,000,000 pounds of lard. But we made a market in our own country for 81,000,000 pounds of domestic shortening manufactured from cheap oils im-Dorted from foreign countries. This domestic shortening is a greater menace to the dairy farmer than was the sale of oleomargarine which the government saw fit to prohibit. The United States have placeda duty of 4J cents a pound on imported

vegetable oils, in order to protect their farmers, but the markets of Canada are left as a dumping ground by the present administration. The sale of domestic shortening is depressing the price of butter and lard and thus has a tendency to lower the value of hogs and cattle.

In discussing the budget and the proposed amendment it is well that we should review the results of tariff changes in the past in order that we may be better able to makewise provision for the future. In the final

analysis tariffs are nothing more or less than instruments in the hands of governments whereby they may regulate international trade, so that countries with different climatic conditions, higher standards of living and higher rates of wages may be able to compete successfully in their home markets with manufactured goods from countries where climatic conditions are better or where the scale of wages and standard of living are much lower.

Let us go back to 1913. In that year the United States permitted agricultural products from Canada to enter free of duty, thereby giving Canada a much better trade agreement than that contained in the reciprocity pact of 1911, which the people of Canada so definitely rejected at the general election of that year. From 1913 to 1921 Canadian agricultural products entered the United States free of duty. But between 1921 and 1930 the markets of the United States were closed to the Canadian exporter, and during those years a Liberal government was almost constantly in office in Canada. The result of the closing of those markets is readily seen from examination of the trade figures. In 1921 Canada exported to the United States $74,000,000 worth of agricultural products. In 1930 that export trade had fallen to $4,000,000. That was a result of nine years of Liberal administration and this was the condition that existed when the Conservative government came to office in

The Budget-Mr. Thompson

1930; the markets of the world were closed to the Canadian exporter and there was an adverse balance of $100,000,000. The government which came into power in 1930 immediately set to work to secure markets for the Canadian exporter. Treaties were signed with several countries; the empire trade agreement signed in Ottawa in 1932 gave Canada for the first time in her history a preference in the British market. Ever since confederation successive governments have endeavoured to secure a preference in the British market for the Canadian exporter, but they failed, despite the fact that for many years Canada had given the mother country a preference in this market for certain commodities. The trade agreement signed at Ottawa in 1932 will go down in history as one of the great achievements of the Canadian people; it will rank with confederation and the building of the Canadian Pacific railway.

Every major development in Canada has been engineered by the Conservative party. Whatever little assistance the Liberal party gave Sir John A. Macdonald at confederation, we know the bitterness with which they opposed the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway. We know that members of that party stated on the floor of the house that it would never pay for the grease on the wheels, yet it has developed into the greatest transportation system in the civilized world. Hon. members who were in the house in 1932 will recall how bitterly the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) opposed the empire trade agreements and he stated many times that if he were returned to power he would repeal them. True, to some extent he has weakened them, but he dare not repeal them.

Reduction of tariffs does not necessarily mean cheaper goods for the consumer, but it does mean lower wages to the worker and very often higher costs to the consumer. In 1897 a Liberal administration placed binder twine upon the free list with the result that about twenty small factories in Canada which were manufacturing binder twine were forced to close down. Up went the price of binder twine. Last year this administration drastically reduced the tariffs on farm implements and furniture. Up went the price of farm implements, and to-day furniture is selling in Canada at a price higher than it was a year ago. Higher prices are the logical result of curtailed volume of business; there must always be a greater profit on a smaller turnover. The former government made an agreement with the implement manufacturers *,hat prices were not to be raised to the

farmers, on the condition that the manufacturers were to be protected in their home market. To that agreement the manufacturers adhered.

When a man buys an article in a foreign country he is sending his money to pay foreign labourers and to build the foreign institutions. When he buys an article manufactured in Canada he spends his money to pay Canadian labour and to build up Canadian homes. I think hon. members will agree it is the duty of the head of every household to see that those dependent upon him are properly housed, fed and clothed. I believe this government is making an honest endeavour to better housing conditions in Canada. We are producing a surplus of every kind of food which can be grown profitably in Canada, but what about clothing ourselves? Half of our people are walking about to-day clothed in garments imported from foreign countries. If we had succeeded in clothing ourselves to the extent we have succeeded in feeding ourselves there would not be an idle man or woman in Canada. Moreover we could give employment to thousands of men and women who would be pleased to make Canada the land of their adoption.

Industry must take up the slack in employment, and in doing so it will be creating markets for agriculturists. It has frequently been argued that goods should be manufactured in countries which either possess or have easy access to the raw material, but I suggest that is not so. For instance, let us consider the silk and tin industries of the United States. Not a pound of raw silk or a pound of tin is produced in any state of the union, yet in the manufacture of these commodities they have built up some of the largest industries in the world. That has been done by placing heavy duties upon manufactured articles and permitting the raw material to enter free of duty.

To talk about lower tariffs and free trade at this time is just as foolish as to talk about disarmament when the whole world is an armed camp. Even Great Britain, which until a few years ago made the proud boast that her ports were open to the commerce of the world, was forced to protect her industries and throw to the winds the moth-eaten garment of free trade which could no longer protect her citizens.

I regret very much that the government has seen fit to reduce the tariffs on textiles. There are about five hundred textile mills in Canada distributed over 275 municipalities. These mills employ 63,000 workers, almost fifty per cent of whom are women. They have an annual pay-roll of $S4,000,000. The

The Budget-Mr. Thompson

factories which are manufacturing primary textiles are situated in our smaller towns and villages. In addition we have about 2,500 manufacturing establishments known as the secondary textile industry, or the industry engaged in needlecraft. That part of the textile industry employs 116,000 workers and has an annual pay-roll of $90,000,000. The textile industry does not pay as high wages as many of the heavier industries, but the work is steady and during the depression the towns fortunate enough to have textile mills suffered less from unemployment and paid less for relief than was paid in towns and cities where heavier industries were located. This is a cold country, and the woollen industry should be protected against importations from countries with more favourable climatic conditions, and where the standard of living and scale of wages is lower than it is in Canada. Until such time as the Canadian people learn to clothe themselves to the same degree as they have learned to feed themselves, conditions will not greatly improve.

I have before me figures showing average wages paid in textile factories of Great Britain and Canada. They are as follows:

Great Britain Canada

Girls .. 8-90 cents per hour 20 cents per hour

Women. 14-S3 " " 24-42 " "Bovs ..10-38 " " 20-23 " "Men ..28-23 " " 37 " "

The average wage in Great Britain, apart from wages paid to office and sales staffs, stood at 16-90 cents per hour and 30-19 cents per hour in Canada. In many European countries where textiles are manufactured the rates of wages are as far below those of Great Britain as those of Great Britain are below those of Canada. It is the duty of every government to encourage its people to feed and clothe themselves, not only in their own economic interests but also in order that in time of war they may not be cut off from their supplies.

In 1930 the tariff rate on textiles was materially increased, and in the years that followed there was a marked reduction in the price of textiles to the consumer. During the depression the textile industry proved to be the salvation of eastern Canada. At a time when many of the heavier industries were closing down or reducing their staffs, between 1930 and 1935, the textile industry increased the number of employees by twenty per cent. Had this industry not received the increased protection given in 1930, many of the mills could not have survived the depression and thousands of their employees would have been forced on relief.

The textile industry of Canada uses annually $8,000,000 worth of chemicals, dyes, oils and soaps, most of which are produced in Canada.

The industry spends $1,500,000 for the manufacture of packing boxes and $3,000,000 for the purchase of electric power and it is estimated that for every ton of manufactured goods shipped out of a textile mill, thirteen tons of coal, raw materials, supplies of one kind and another and machinery go into the mill. This means a double haul for our railroads. When we buy imported goods, the railroads haul only the finished product, which is just one ton in every thirteen.

Eighty-five per cent of the capital invested in the woollen and knit goods industry in Canada is Canadian, the other fifteen per cent being divided between Great Britain, France and the United States. The textile industry is one of the oldest in Canada and deserves well of the Canadian government because it has played an important part in the development of this country. The economic and social life in many of our towns and villages is dependent upon the local textile mill. Not only do these mills give employment to many heads of families, but they employ large numbers of girls from the time they leave school until they are married. If these girls were not employed they would be charges upon their respective families.

I am at a loss to understand the attitude of many of our western members toward the tariff protection afforded the industries of eastern Canada. The western provinces are constantly coming to the federal government asking for assistance, which assistance must be paid for largely by the industries they seek to destroy. I am sure every one sympathizes with the western provinces in their present distress, and it is only right and proper that the federal government should come to their aid. Their present state has been brought about by circumstances over which they have had no control, the successive failure of their crops. However more new wealth has been produced by these western provinces in the last fifty years than by any other part of Canada. If that wealth had been properly handled it would have been sufficient to tide them over any ordinary difficulty.

Ontario and Quebec, where the great majority of these protected industries are located, pay seventy-five per cent of the taxes collected in Canada. I ask this house: How long are Ontario and Quebec going to remain a pair of placid milch cows to be stripped dry to pay the bills of provincial governments over whose expenditure they have no control? I have always been opposed to one government taxing the people and then passing the money over to another government or to some other body to spend. The govern-

The Budget-Mr. Thompson

ment that taxes the people should be responsible to the people for the expenditure of the money. In all fairness I say it is high time that these western provinces were told quite frankly that they must put their own houses in order to balance their budgets and live within their means.

The farmer and the manufacturer should not be flying at each other's throats. They are partners in the development of this country. The prosperity of the farmer and the prosperity of the industrialist are inseparably bound together. The farmers best market is the men and women employed in industry. After all, the textile industry is a creation of the Canadian government. There would have been no textile industry in Canada had it not been for the encouragement and the protection given by successive governments. Surely this is an inopportune time to curtail the activities of this industry in any degree when all classes of our people should be earnestly united in an honest effort to cure our economic ills, of which unemployment is the chief.

Investigations into the textile industry have shown certain unethical practices on the part of the silk and cotton industries, but nothing has been laid to the charge of the woollen industry. We find in the budget that the silk and cotton industries have received the minimum reduction, while the woollen industry is practically crippled. Can this be because the silk and cotton industries have behind them the money barons of this country, while the woollen industry is mostly privately owned, the mills being scattered throughout the small towns and villages? Whatever may be the cause, the budget has not 'treated the woollen industry with common British justice.

Under the old tariff Great Britain had forty per cent of the textile market in Canada. The manufacturers in Great Britain are jubilant because they have prospects of dominating the Canadian market under the provisions of this new agreement. Many of our textile men are discouraged. A manager of a large textile mill told me this week that when protection was given in 1930 he thought that Canada wanted her textiles manufactured in Canada. He came over from England and made large investments. They employed a large number of Canadians and spent considerable money, but he told me that if they could get nearly the amount they had invested, they would go back to England. He seemed to think that Canada had decided that she wanted her textiles manufactured in Great Britain. That is the spirit dominating

our textile business to-day. It is a great pity, because it is one of the finest and oldest industries in Canada.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
SC

Walter Frederick Kuhl

Social Credit

Mr. W. F. KUHL (Jasper-Edson):

Mr. Speaker, I shall confine my remarks at this time to the subject matter of the amendment. This question of unemployment has been threshed out for years on the floor of this house and we are no closer to-day to a solution than we were seven or eight years ago. I believe the reason for that is that the problem has constantly been regarded as a temporary one. I am convinced that the problem of unemployment is a permanent one, and that unemployment will gradually increase as the years go by. If it had not been for the dictators of forced labour creating another war scare, unemployment in Canada to-day would be just as bad as, if not worse than, it ever was. I believe the reason why we are not making any progress in solving this problem of unemployment is chiefly because we cannot agree, to begin with, on fundamentals. We start off on false premises. The first thing we have to settle is this: What is the object of the economic system? Is it to provide goods and services, or is it to provide jobs? Judging by the remarks of those who support the orthodox point of view, the purpose of an economic system is to provide jobs. But speaking from the point of view of the new economics, I maintain that the purpose of an economic system is not to provide jobs but to provide a maximum amount of goods and services with a minimum amount of work and trouble. Because of the increasing use of solar energy on such a vast scale as we see to-day, human energy is almost unnecessary.

The remarks of a goodly number of the members of this house would lead one to believe that the machine has practically nothing to do with the unemployment situation. They would lead us to believe that unemployment is due to some maladjustment of trade or to tariffs and so forth. I should like to put on Hansard a few facts to show that the reason why our people have not jobs to-day is because the machine has taken their place. There have already been placed on Hansard a considerable number of statistics to illustrate this fact, but I think hon. members are inclined to forget them; therefore I want to place on the record a few figures to show that it is a physical impossibility to employ our people in industry to-day to such an extent that they will be able to earn enough income to buy the products of industry.

I quote from a pamphlet entitled " For All Things Are Yours," by Clive Kenrick. These are the statements he makes as to the

The Budget-Mr. Kuhl

extent to which machines have taken away the jobs of men and women, along with their pay envelopes:

In the Chevrolet foundry, Saginaw, United States of America, output advanced 290 percent in ten years, but they eliminated 13,872 men and increased the output 54 times per square foot of floor area.

The London Brick Company have an excavator controlled by one man electrically, excavating 30,000 tons of clay per week.

At Corby, Messrs. Stewarts and Lloyds are moving ten tons per minute with a super Hercules excavator 100 feet. . . .

The core-blowing machine using compressed air has made 200 cores an hour with unskilled labour instead of 80 per day by a skilled man. . . .

In the steel and iron trade we are now doing with one ton of coal what a few years ago took three tons.

President Roosevelt's N.I.R.A. committee on the automobile trades reports, among many other marvellous increases of efficiency, that in 1930, 250 men finished 100 motor blocks in unit time. Now in 1935, 19 men finish 250 blocks in the same time. Six years ago, 3 skilled machinists could do a job, requiring accuracy with -0005 of an inch; now one unskilled man does it.

Welding machines now enable three men to do what 18 did six years ago. . . .

The first automatic factory appeared in the United States of America in 1915, and since 1920 they became more common. At Baton Rouge an oil refinery plant was modernized, displacing 1,000 men, and the whole control brought into the office for a few men to control by push buttons.

Continuing, - he says:

To-day we have the totally automatic in traffic regulation; the telephone; gas manufacture; pumping controlled by the pressure in the mains; gas lighting; electric lighting by clockwork; thermostatic control of all heating, whether hot-water, gas or electric. The electric eye can be used for a thousand and one different objects and do practically anything that a man can do: keeping the feed water level in a boiler; start and stop machinery; sort articles at 90 a minute; automatically control the size of articles on a grinding machine; soften water to the correct degree; count the number of microbes in a culture; select colours; see through smoke; and with remote electric control, aeroplanes, submarines, etc., can be directed; and if we liked we could plough, cultivate and harvest our wheat by the same methods.

That applies not only to the industrial plants of nations, for the same thing is true of agriculture. With reference to agriculture the same writer says:

Now we have motor ploughs and combine harvesters. The ploughing and harvesting of wheat is carried on with only one man to more than a thousand acres. On a 907-acre farm in Norfolk, now it is fully mechanized, four men are employed instead of forty. In the Yale of Evesham in market gardening where ten men were employed on 20 acres, since the Rototiller was used only six are required.

Also he has something to say with respect to the poultry industry of to-day. Twenty-31111-92

five years ago hens laid seventy-two eggs a year; now they lay one hundred or over, a forty per cent increase, and the good poultryman expects two hundred eggs per bird. To-day there are cows, British Frie-sians, giving ten gallons of milk per day. A young bullock of eighteen months is now ready for market; it does not take three years. Rothansted's experimental station states that in 1852 sixty-five men were required to complete the harvesting of an eleven-acre field of wheat in one day; now only four men are required. In 1934 England had more acres cultivated than in 1933 and raised more produce, but employed 27,000 less men. Reports upon the mechanization of agriculture show to what extent the machine has displaced man, making it increasingly difficult for labour to find work on the farms. We know that about 225 bushels of maize can be and have been raised per acre. The highest yields obtained by the Indiana corn growers' association have risen between 1914 and 1933 from 100 bushels to 165 bushels per acre. This yield is increasing at the rate of 24 bushels a year. If all the progressive farmers in Indiana continue as at present until they get a yield of 200 bushels, the 180,000 farmers who in 1930 farmed four and a half million acres will shrink to 23,400 farmers farming just over half a million acres, or a deflation of 86 per cent.

A few more facts with regard to agriculture. In cane sugar production on the Kil-auea plantation in Hawaii the sugar crop was increased between 1922 and 1932 by 116 per cent with 12 per cent less labour. Now, after eighty years' striving, a cotton-picking machine has been perfected. This machine is simplicity itself and does in 74 hours the work that a labourer does in eleven weeks. It will liberate ninety-five per cent or more of the negro labourers. One last fact with regard to agriculture. From the evidence of what has already been done, we know that a balanced diet for the seven million inhabitants of New York city can be grown on 309 square miles, that is on an area equal to that of the city itself, and that this can be done by 6,500 labourers, or less than one man per one thousand inhabitants. It is easy to see, then, that we are on the verge of a revolution in agricultural technique. It depends upon how we behave whether we have in the agro-biological and the power machine age a pair of devils to curse or a pair of fairy godmothers to bless mankind.

In the face of these facts, I should like to ask hon. members how can any government, any commission or any individual ever hope

The Budget-Mr. Kuhl

to employ all the unemployed in industry? It is just hoping against hope; it is a physical and a mathematical impossibility. Not only is it physically impossible, but it is also undesirable. Last evening the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) suggested that there was reason to be alarmed over the fact that the vegetable kingdom would displace the animal kingdom in the near future. I should like to place on Hansard a little more information on that point, not to indicate that the fact referred to by the hon. member is anything to be alarmed about, but to show the immense strides that are being made in technological work in this country and the world at large. It will not be long before manual labour in the production of the articles necessary to keep the bodies and souls of our people together will be almost entirely unnecessary. I have here an article which describes the experiments which a California university professor has carried out in the attempt to farm without soil. The hon. member for Danforth suggested the possibility that farmers would not need to raise cows because of the substitution of vegetable fats for animal fats. According to this article, farmers will be able likewise in the future to farm without soil. It is only because I believe that this advance in the realm of agriculture is of such vital importance and will play a very important part in agriculture in the future that I put this article on Hansard. It reveals the enormous possibilities of the immediate future. It is an article which appeared in the Sunday Mirror magazine on September 20, 1936, and is entitled: "Farming without soil. Monster plants, huge harvests, no crop failures or pests. It's all the work of a California wizard who is showing farmers how to get along without farms and bringing city-folk a new era of abundance." The article reads as follows:

If you've never seen a tomato plant twenty-five feet high, loaded with great crimson tomatoes, and bearing a seasonal yield of fourteen pounds per square foot of ground-

Or a tobacco plant as large as a tree; a tobacco plant 22 feet high, with giant leaves which would make several cigars apiece-

Or corn so tall that you would need a step-ladder to get up to where the ears grow and almost need a derrick to lower those ears to the ground-

Or giant roses half a foot across, but each bloom fragile and perfect; dahlias as big as your head, if your head's that big; potatoes of perfect size and shape running 2,500 bushels per acre-

Why, if you haven't seen any of these things, and aren't inclined to believe in their existence, hop the next plane to California and inform yourself on the strangest thing in technological improvement that has ever been developed in the whole history of farming-namely, soilless agriculture.

IMr. Kuhl.]

Soil-less agriculture is the invention. And the revolution is here. What it will do, how far it will go, in its effect not only upon plant growing and farming, but upon human life and the whole economic set-up of tomorrow's world, it staggers the imagination to guess.

When first heard of a couple of years ago, soil-less agriculture was only an experimental stunt. This summer it has arrived. Nurserymen in California are using it to grow young plants for commercial sale, and already it has revolutionized the nursery branch of the farming and floral industries.

Far-sighted economists well may tremble at the prospect. Soil-less agriculture can end scarcity forever. It can turn the cities into farms. It can also compel almost every farm in the United States to be abandoned as an outdated, old-fashioned, inefficient thing.

Soil-less agriculture is the invention of a genial, retiring, rather elderly college professor at the University of California in Berkeley, California: Doctor W. F. Gericke of the Department of Agriculture. Doctor Gericke's amazing invention makes land unnecessary.

Doctor Gericke doesn't even like to talk about the terrific thing he lias worked out. He does say anybody can do it if its done right, and he issues a word of warning not to ask him questions about it at this time, by mail or otherwise, because his early experiments are in the final testing stage. When his formulae are fully complete and fool-proof, he intends to release them to the world for general use. If this scientist didn't feel humanitarian about it, he could probably become food king of the world!

But what he does tell you and show you is suprisingly simple. Soil, when you come to think of it, is good for only three things. It holds a plant erect and keeps it warm; and it supplies the needed chemicals to its roots. Those chemicals, as most people know are mainly forms of nitrogen, potash, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, and small amounts of iron, copper, aluminum, etc.

If a man thrives on scientific diet, why can't a plant? That was Doctor Gericke's starting point.

So he has a simple arrangement of trays which are shallow tanks. They are eight inches deep, thirty inches wide and around twenty feet long. They are mounted on hurdles so you don't have to stoop. They are either in greenhouses or outdoors; those in greenhouses, naturally, can be more fully controlled as to temperature, pests, pollenation and lighting.

Water is in those tanks, filling them, and in the water is a bottle containing a mixture of soil chemicals. The different mixes for different plants are, so far, the secret of Doctor Gericke and the nurserymen who are -working with him. The bottle is uncorked and the stuff dissolves gradually.

The tanks are covered with chicken wire, right at the surface of the water. On the chicken wire is piled several inches of packed straw, sawdust, shavings, excelsior. Moisture creeps up into it from below as into the wick of a lamp. Seeds are planted in that fibrous pack, germinate there, the roots reach down into the water and drink their fill. The plant grows-and how!-and the sawdust holds it upright and keeps the roots warm. The water, too, may be warmed by electric heaters, if necessary; and artificial sunlight may beat down day or night.

The Budget-Mr. Kuhl

In regular soil, a plant has to do a lot of work hunting for its nourishment and the whole process is chancy. This work and those chances being eliminated, along with such little items as the "damping off" fungus, drought, frost, insects, blights, summer and winter, and even night and day!

Doctor Gericke has raised potatoes, beets, carrots, lettuce, and all other ground crops. His potato yield ran 2,560 bushels per acre. A normal yield is 116 bushels.

His colossal tomato vines, three stories high, have yielded 352 pounds of ripe, superior fruit per 25 square feet of tank space. That is 236 tons to the acre; a normal yield is five tons!

Doctor Gericke's tobacco crop would make the South look sick; his corn crop is a joke on the Middle West. His Gladiolus plants grow nearly five feet high. And everything else is in proportion. One wonders-why conserve soil? And will rural America ultimately be of value only for bridle trails and golf courses?

I have placed these facts on Hansard to show that what we have to become reconciled to is that the technological advancement of our age has eliminated the necessity for manual labour. Manual labour is almost no longer necessary in industry to-day, and since men are unable to find jobs, since there are no opportunities for work because of the presence of the machine, there is only one way in which men can obtain the wherewithal to purchase the product of the machine and that is through the creation of purchasing power, claims upon wealth, by the government, issued to those who have been eliminated by the machine. I know of no other way in which the problem of unemployment can be solved.

As I have already said, the object of our industrial system is not to provide jobs; it is to provide goods and services. It is therefore the duty of this government to see that there is brought into existence a system of distribution which will equitably distribute the product of the machine amongst the people of the country. There is also a philosophical side to this question, and that, I believe, is what causes more difficulty than anything else in settling the question of unemployment. I cannot understand how hon. members can fail to see that so long as we use the machine it is absolutely impossible physically to find jobs for men in industry.

The problem narrows down philosophically to this question: Is a man who does not work entitled to eat? On first thought a great number would say, no doubt, certainly he is not. What I asked was not, is a man who does not wish to work entitled to eat, but, is the man who does not work entitled to eat? All are agreed, I think, that a man who refuses to work is not entitled to have protection and provision. But to-day our position is such that for many men it is no longer possible to obtain jobs, no matter how 31111-92J

anxious and desirous they may be to do so. Because the machine is the product of ideas which have come down to us through the ages, and all men have inherited these ideas alike, they are all entitled to the product of the machine. And because the machine has taken away their job and their pay envelope they are entitled to the product of the machine even though they do not work. Unless we become reconciled to that fact this house will never solve the problem of unemployment.

There is a great deal to be said about this subject of work and unemployment, and I do not wish to prolong the debate unduly, but it is such an all-important subject that it deserves to be discussed from every point of view. The problem we face in this country to-day is that of educating the people in how to use leisure. When we talk about work we must remember that there are two kinds of work, voluntary labour and involuntary labour. Because of the machine it is no longer necessary for men to be engaged in forced labour, as was the case before the advent of the machine and the power age. Forced labour is at a minimum to-day as far as the production of the necessities and luxuries of life is concerned. To-day the machine has become the slave of man. And because the machine has freed man from forced labour he has spare time on his hands. But the evil of spare time to-day is that it is time for which there is no pay. If the benefits of the machine were equitably distributed it would be possible for all people, poor as well as rich, to have a good proportion of leisure time each day. In fact it has been estimated that if we used the machine to the fullest possible extent and capacity there need be forced labour only for those between the ages of twenty-five and forty-five, and they would need to work only four hours a week. That time would be sufficient for them to produce all necessities as well as luxuries, not only for themselves but for everyone else.

That is the extent to which the machine has taken the place of manual labour to-day. Consequently if the benefits of the machine were equitably distributed everyone should be able to enjoy leisure and a good deal of it. Contrary to the opinion even of many members of parliament, an age of leisure is not a loafer's paradise. Leisure is not synonymous with idleness. Maurice Col'bome says that idleness is the opposite of overwork. Leisure is the opportunity of opportunities for voluntary work. Why do men apply themselves most diligently to their work in the earlier years of their careers? tSimoiv in

The Budget-Mr. Kuhl

order that they may be free from forced activity in their declining years and be able to indulge in voluntary activity such as travel, study, sport, et cetera. The lazy man has never been the problem in history; it has always been the extremely ambitious man, the man who having made his first million wants the next one, the man who wept because there were no more worlds to conquer; these are the men who have been dangerous to society, not the lazy men. Man is born with the creative urge, and is constantly desirious of expressing that instinct in various ways. The sand castle of the child, the boat whittled by the boy, are expressions of tihe desire to create. Men and women find happiness in making home, a garden, or in some other hobby. It is not only an economic law that our present financial system violates, 'but a law of human nature. Our present financial system deliberately destroys the creative urge in man, the God-given power that stamps man with the image of his creator. The incentive which causes men to work to-day is the lowest possible. It is based on money, not on achievement. Man with his high ideals should be ashamed of such an incentive. Why do the ancient civilizations of Babylon, Egypt, Crete, Greece and Rome stand out so prominently in the history of mankind? Simply because, having been freed from all menial tasks by slaves, men had the opportunity of giving full expression to their .creative instinct.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Frederick George Sanderson (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
SC

Walter Frederick Kuhl

Social Credit

Mr. KUHL:

If I may conclude in one sentence-*

Topic:   THE BUDGET
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink

March 3, 1937