Population Problems

PRESIDENT: Your Grace, Our Guests, Members of the Empire Club of Canada: A few years ago the Primate in addressing this Club said, "I bear my tribute to the courage and the steadfastness of the multitudes of our people, the great many of our people who in these times of great stress and hardship have exercised such patience." One of the reasons for this, he believed, was the work carried on by the various social welfares. His address, you will remember, was on "Leadership." Today, we have as our guest-speaker one of the leaders of a great social welfare organization. The work of the Salvation Army was once termed 'applied Christianity', as all social problems are attacked only after much study and in a very systematic manner. In fact, we are inclined to say, "Let the Salvation Army do it," when the problem is not to our liking.

Commissioner Lamb has been an Army Officer for over half a century. Some of the important posts he has filled include that of Private Secretary to General Bramwell Booth, Commissioner for South Africa and head of the Immigration and Settlement Department of the Salvation Army. He has travelled extensively in the countries of the British Commonwealth of Nations, the United States of America, Japan, China and Korea, studying at first hand the subject on which he will address us today, which is such a vital issue not only to Canada but to the whole world. I have much pleasure in calling on Commissioner Lamb, C.M.G., LL.D. The subject of his address is "Population Problems." Commissioner Lamb. (Applause.)

COMMISSIONER DAVID C. LAMS, C.M.G., LL.D.: Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen or--shall I say? Friends: I am rather embarrassed and I just want to say one or two things before I speak to you on the question. The gentlemen on my right, Mr. Dewan, was just saying to me, "talking will be easy to you." It isn't. You see, Sir, I divide the Salvation Army, like the world, into those that talk and those that work, and, if it please my friends, I belong to the workers and I don't find talking easy, as those on .the other side, but on occasions like these I have standing instructions from my children to this effect: "Now, Father, not too high, not too low, not too fast, not too slow, and for goodness' sake not too Scotch." If I suggest that some people like Scotch neat, they got impatient with me and pass on.

Then, I was greeted by one of my friends on the left, and he came to shake hands a second time because he learned I came from Aberdeen. I said, I will have to put that right. Now, my natural home is Angus. You have heard of Angus, a village about ten miles from Glamis, which I regard as the center of the Empire. Now, my natural home is Angus but my spiritual home, where I met the Salvation Army, is Aberdeen, so I am an Aberdeen Angus--a very good cross.

At a meeting of the British Association a few weeks ago we were waiting to go into the official service on Sunday morning. There was about a dozen of us there and we were wondering if the speaker would make himself heard. The President .filled up the time by telling a little story about a man lecturing somewhere and he got going when a voice came from the back of the hall, "Speak up. We can't hear a word you are saying." A voice from the front said, "Shut up and thank God." Well, if I am not making myself heard, just say, "Speak up."

Then, another thought, and you will see the application. I had two experiences with George Bernard Shaw. Now, I don't suggest for a moment that I can imitate him in anyway--I am Scotch and he is Irish, and that is the beginning and the end of that. He told me on one occasion that he had learned the art-I suppose we call it the art of public speaking, at the Salvation Army. He gathered around the Open Airs in his early days in Socialism, just to gather up what the Army left. I don't know what he did with it, but still the Army marched off and he was left. Then, he started coming early to see how we got on and he told me that the fellow who talked of himself and of his own experiences was the man who gripped the crowd.

Then, I went to a lecture of his once. I paid for it. I remember we had a synopsis of the lecture circulated and I can see him now. He got up. "Now, here you are. You have got the synopsis. If you have any brains you will fill it in without my saying anything more about it. You can put it away. I am going to talk to you about something else, so you have two lectures for the price of one."

Now, you have got brains. There is no television, but if I wave my hand or don't stop to finish a sentence-well, you have brains and I must push on. If I wave my hand, fill that in yourself and then you will get double for your money, don't you see, whereas if I stop to elaborate, as I might do if I were talking to the Cadets, then

Now, I am very much at home when it comes to abstract questions like this population problem. If I were talking about the Salvation Army or the actualities of every day life, I could ramble along and make it very interesting to you. But before I come close up to the question, and I will do the best I can, let me make one or two general observations.

This question is a world question and like water the question of population is irresistible. It is not yet an acute colour question but the black line is moving north on the North American Continent and it is moving south in Africa, and in the Far East we have the yellows moving-where?

And if it has been said that there is here and there a decline in the birth-rate, local, national or racial, one thing is certain, Sir-world pressure does not grow less-it increases. Incidentally, small families are not an economic issue. A study of wealth groups has shown conclusively, I think, that as wealth increases, the family decreases, so when I hear somebody say it is an economic question, they can't afford it, I can't reconcile it with the facts. Then, we hear something said about the alleged-I call it alleged -decline but there is a possibility of taking too short a view. Nature has a way of asserting itself. I had occasion quite recently to look at the United Kingdom birth rate figures. There I noticed that in the five years before 1914, in round figures, the average annual birth rate was roughly 800,000. In the war period of five years it held to 600,000. In the five years following it rose to 800,000. But in one of the years following the war it rose to 900,000. Well, you have got brains. You have only got to think and you will see in 1942 or '43, there may be a corresponding rise that answers to that 900,000. Anyway, I am going to wait for a year or two before I lose much sleep over that.

Now, let me examine with you quite briefly, four aspects of the question: Political, Economic, as it affects Canada, and as it affects the humanities.

Now, in relation to politics. I confess to a feeling of impatience with politicians and economists, alike. High tariff, protection and free trade, over-production and under-consumption--they make me hot and cold and give me the shivers which generally precede an attack of influenza, and leaves us still with poverty in the midst of plenty.

Of course, let me stop for a moment and say the Salvation Army doesn't know anything about politics. I was telling Mr. Dewan that one of the Federal Ministers gave me a word at the Windsor Hotel in Montreal-have you heard of Montreal, all of you here? I was in Montreal the other day and I mentioned Toronto and they looked as though they had never heard of the place. The Chairman said, "There is a place called Toronto." I was in Montreal when a Federal election was going on. They were very anxious to know what my politics was. I have no politics. Mr. Robb, the late Minister of Finance came along and he helped me out. "What are they badgering you about, Colonel?" I told him. He said, "I will tell you what the Colonel's politics are. He is a Ministerialist." And I am much obliged to Mr. Robb for that phrase.

With regard to economists, I will say something about them to you presently. If the people responsible would confess to a failure of brain power or organizing ability, I would understand it, but they go on and blame;the other fellows always. And I wish our politicians would make up their' mind on the question, as to whether a decent working man is to be regarded as a liability or an asset, and that is a political issue rather than an economic one.

Continuing the political side of it. The distribution of the Empire's population in regard to defence is surely capable of some adjustment. The vacant spaces of the Empire will constitute a danger unless we proceed with reasonable diligence to develop them. The danger may lie in the Empire or in Asia; it may first assail Canada or Australia. The Union of South Africa is not without some anxieties from within and without. I am very glad to notice in this connection that General Hertzog and General Smuts have got together and are no longer what I call opposing schools, but are standing together, 'I believe, firmly in the interests of a united Empire. Of course, there are some of the fellows from the backwoods, and so forth but there it is.

I can't stop to develop the colour question there. It is very interesting but, as I say, I can't stop to develop that.

In passing, look at Queensland in the matter of distribution of population. There is that beautiful state, semitropical, rich and comfortable, with less than a million people, and there you have 47,000 men in excess of the female population. You can't hope to develop under such conditions. Closely allied is the eugenic question. Do the fittest survive? After all, to get down to business, is it the fittest? We all know something of Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection-a theory, by the way, which Darwin told us never created anything but could only operate on what was created.

I am not a pessimist--far from it--but looking at the world today, I am compelled to answer the question, "Do the fittest survive?" with a qualified negative.

In our social and economic environment we appear to have lost our creative genius, and the evolutionary conception is in the ascendancy. In the last analysis, of course it follows the line of least resistance, not necessarily that of the greatest efficiency.

Why do I come to the tentative conclusion that the fittest do not survive? Because, amongst other reasons

1. War, which should be only a thing of history, still, in this much-vaunted civilization, destroys the best of the race.

2. Unemployment lowers the physical, spiritual, and moral standard of people maintained in idleness.

3. The unrestricted growth of our great cities inevitably creates living conditions in which people cannot be AI.

4. The appalling slaughter on the roads-the evidence of lack of control and disregard for courtesy.

5. The alarming increase in the number of the dependent part of the population--other than the unemployed--is a very sure sign that large numbers of the unfit, at any rate, survive.

Recently, I was the guest of the Eugenic Society at the Galton Anniversity Dinner in London, and I had to make a speech. When I was considering what I would say, I wondered what I, as a Salvation Army Officer had to do with eugenics, and in seeking for a point of contact, I seemed to find it in the dictum of the eminent anthropologist, Sir Arthur Keith, that "War was Nature's pruning hook." When Sir Arthur, in his Rectorial address to the students of Aberdeen, adumbrated this idea, he shocked many of his friends and caused a good deal of discussion. But Sir Arthur Keith was right. War is nature's pruning hook. I agree with him and because I agree with him I find myself in revolt against Nature. For my own part I cannot accept any system (and when I speak of a system I mean, of course, the people responsible for the maintenance of the system) which destroys the best eugenic types of .the human race, as a good and satisfactory system; nor can any thoughtful, honest and well-balanced mind, desirous of seeing the fittest survive, contemplate with equanimity the continuance of that system.

Mr. Chairman, as the world is constituted, and with human nature as it is, I submit the nations of the earth need a court of equity, to which gall may submit their disputes and an international police prepared, if and when necessary to enforce the decisions of the court. (Applause.) Without some such arrangement our western civilization is doomed to perish. And if Britain will lead the way in this matter she will be given some moral right to be placed among the fittest and confirm her right to survive.

I was at the Hague recently and I had the opportunity of looking in the wonderful records, in a quiet way, of that court that is there, the International Hague Tribunal, that settles questions of law, and I saw the number of disputes that had been settled there without animosity, and that goes on still and the League of Nations still goes on. I regard the League of Nations in this sense as a sort of Grand jury, but over and above all that, we want the Court of Equity with the international police force.

You see the indirect bearing all that has on population questions. You can't settle by law; it has got to be settled by equity. However, that is rather political and I hope you won't think it too remote from the subject, because the pressure of population, east and west and north and south, has got to be faced by you young men here. You have got to face that pretty soon.

Now, in relation to Economics. Economics is like Science unethical and immoral. No one understands them; at least no school of which I have yet heard commands general respect. I see this--the existing order for several years throws 25 'to 30 percent of the workers on the scrap-heap of industry. Now, it is morally wrong to keep people long periods in idleness and what is morally wrong cannot be economically right or politically sound. (Applause.)

Here are a few figures for consideration. In the Old Country we have spent £2,000,000,000--I won't try to put that in dollars, you must do that for yourselves-we have spent that on the endowment of idleness, and you, here in Canada, haven't had the wit to come to the Old Country anal say, "We will take these people, take them and make something out of them." I thought you were ahead of us in your thinking, more on your toes. I don't know where you Canadians have been. Surely you have been looking to the Americans.

And another thought. It requires the income derived from £2,000 in gilt edged securities to maintain a family in idleness. When they have been maintained for a year you go on, the £2,000 is still there, locked up. Round they go. We have been trying an experiment in the Old Country to get the settlers on the land through the District Areas and Land Settlement Commission. Now, it costs £800, £ 1,000 and £ 1,200 to settle a family on what I regard as a somewhat satisfactory economic basis, and the land available for settlement is limited.

I have suggested to the British Government that they might well consider saying to any overseas Government or any responsible corporation, that they will give £ 1,000 per family to any corporation that will undertake to settle people. It seems to me you would cut your losses in two that way.

"Oh," say the wiseacres of finance, "You don't understand. It is not so simple as that, Commissioner. You don't understand. That isn't all." Weld, it seems £ 1,000 is just half of £2,000, and after we go around and pay £2,000, we are no further forward, and if a man were producing he would be getting along so it would not be so much. Perhaps you will come and help.

I would like to have spoken of a report from the International Labour Office, about the density of population in relation to unemployment and access to raw materials, but the lesson is there. From an exhaustive report made, they point out that Japan with a density of population about equal to Belgium, parallel with Belgium, and with the south of England just as thick as they well can be, they have had a lower rate of unemployment than the States with their access to all the raw materials. They point out also that the Scandinavian countries, with no colonies, have had a comparatively low rate of unemployment, whereas Holland and England, with access to colonies have a fairly high rate. I don't know-it is very interesting and those of you who are interested should study that report.

Now, as they affect Canada. We have been out West. The West of course are much more--what shall I say?--optimistic than you are down here. I don't know whether it is the effect of Montreal or Quebec, or the States, or what it is. Let me say here, I was greatly touched by the feeling of appreciation expressed in Saskatchewan for the gifts that come from Ontario--out of all proportion, I think, to what they cost you is the good will that has followed the carloads of stuff that have gone from here--that you didn't know what to do with. Never mind, it is more blessed to give than to receive, and I tell you the Saskatchewan people appreciated that gesture-it was more than a gesture.

Now, political power. I came first to Canada in 1903. The people were pouring in, and I have been coming and going ever since. I have been over this Continent from end to end oftener than I like to think of. I am glad that at last you have air-conditioned carriages. They make a tremendous difference when you spend day after day and night after night as I have done on the train. You see, the people were pouring into the West and everybody, except Ontario and Quebec accepted the idea that political power was going to shift from the east and lie in the west. That dream hasn't been realized. The war came and stopped it and I think they are now looking to Ontario. The government of Canada is going to come from Ontario -let us say if you are wise and if you behave yourselves and get some vision.

I haven't yet finished. We are going down east. I understand there are some empty homesteads. I have seen them, I have been there before. You haven't had the sense to replenish the stock. If it were horses or cattle or pigs or sheep you would have taken steps to replenish the stock, but you have let the old homesteads there go, and as I say, you haven't had the sense to do it. Well, it is true. Isn't that right?

HON. P. M. DEWAN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER LAMB: The Canadian people are now confronted with a dual problem of considerable magnitude, of some complexity and of great importance. The solution is vital to her future well-being. In seeking for the solution there are two conflicting schools of thought:

First, there are those who would not have immigration until the existing unemployed in the Dominion are absorbed.

Secondly, there are those who see in an orderly and organized movement, not only a further development of the Dominion's resources but in that very movement a valuable contribution to the solution of the existing unemployment problem.

This group is divided into two: Those who advocate a restricted movement-infiltrationists they might be termed. The other, those who see the potential population of a rich country like Canada not limited by its natural resources, but by the statesmanship, or the lack of it, of its rulers and the craftsmanship of its workmen.

There are some factors in the situation common to both schools of thought. Let us examine them. None want immigrants dumped in the Dominion and none want unsuitable people sent. In this connection as one who having interests and experience in both immigration and emigration, let me say that I know of no organization that wants to dump people and perhaps equally important, I don't know of any people who want to be dumped. Sober and sincere people should cease to talk in such terms. No one wants to do anything which would aggravate the unemployment problem.

There seems to be a consensus of opinion that any new movement should be so regulated in respect of racial origins that there would be no danger of the Canadian standards of living being adversely affected and particularly her ethical standards should not be lowered.

During my recent investigations I have been forced to the conclusion that nothing can take the place of an old and well tried colonization principle, namely the bringing together of idle lands, idle capital and idle labour. And this leads me to at once offer the following observations in this connection

That we need to take the long view. After all, fifty or one hundred years is not much in the lifetime of a nation.

I think that true statesmanship might lie in the contemplation of large sums of money in Empire development and on a basis which might shock the financial purists and certain schools of economists. I cannot forget that during the past twenty year's the British Isles have spent £2,000,000,000 in the endowment of idleness and I cannot but feel that we might well consider the expenditure of £ 1,000,000,000 in some adventure that would offer better results than the spiritual demoralization which has followed the expenditure to which I have referred. I know it has been said it may be the lesser of two evils--I am not so sure--in any case it does not alter the fact.

I believe that the necessary capital could be found for any well considered scheme of development. In any such scheme as I visualize I consider that the individual settler must not be too heavily loaded with debt; and repayments should have relationship to the settler's ability to pay rather than to the cost of his transplantation. In regard to the transportation costs, I think that within the Empire they might be equated on the principle of the carriage of letters.

So far as immigration to Canada is concerned the question is one entirely for the Canadian people. If they have come to the conclusion that they have reached the stage in their development when they have no more room for immigrants, then I suppose no one will gainsay them, unless it be Hitler or Mussolini, or the militant forces of Japan, or it may be in the peaceful penetration of the kindly and peace loving Chinese.

As a Salvationist I am international. But even as a Scot I am ready to admit that there are other nations who have some right to the good things of the earth.

Now, in regard to the future, in regard to what I call the common sense humanities of the present world situation. I am not very much concerned with what the language is, whether it be English or Welsh or French or something that is neither Canadian or Scotch, but a mixture of both, if the civilization rests on righteousness and carries forward this spirit which has made us great and a belief in the freedom of the individual, there shall I say, rests the destiny of the Anglo-Saxon race? I don't know. I am not a revolutionary nor do I care to rest on natural selection. I would like to see us recapture some of the creative energy which has made us great. I am not called upon at this stage anyhow, to provide a solution for the problem I have referred to.

In conclusion, what can I say? I got a phrase in the west--Where do we go from here? It tickled me. We were discussing some things and "Where do we go from here?" said one man. Well, in approaching conclusions and determining your line of action, there is the moral and spiritual issue which transcends all others, and I would remind you that there is an ethical principle you cannot afford to ignore in any of your relationships, be they family, trade, municipal, national, Empire, or international. It simplifies all our problems. What is that ethical principle? In all reverence let me quote the words of our Master, "Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them, for that is the law and the prophets." (Applause.)

PRESIDENT: Commissioner Lamb, the Salvation Army has left us something today and we greatly appreciate your acceptance of out invitation and the address you have given us. You have aroused our interest in this subject of population problems and may we in Canada help in their solution. Please accept from me, on behalf of the Empire Club of Canada, our Guests, and the radio audience, our grateful thanks.

The meeting is adjourned. (Applause.)