1940-07-26

[Stage Direction]
i>ous:e of
Commons; ©efcates
[Stage Direction]
Friday, July 26, 1940


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Lilias Augusta Shepherd Harris.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Forest Wentworth Hughes.-Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Margaret Florence Stewart Corley.-Mr. Casselman (Grenville-Dundas).
PRIVILEGE-Mr. TURGEON
PRESS REPORT WITH RESPECT TO REGISTRATION OF FIREARMS	,
Mr. J. G. TURGEON (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I would not do this did I not feel that it should be done in justice to the members of the committee on the defence of Canada regulations. My question of privilege is with respect to an item which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of this morning, and which is to the same effect as one published in the morning Citizen. It says:
Plan to Register all Firearms
J. G. Turgeon (Liberal, Cariboo) said Thursday night the House of Commons militia study committee, of which he is secretary, had recommended to the government a national registration of all firearms by September 15.
That is completely and utterly untrue. No such statement was ever made by me. The Liberal party study club on militia matters never discussed at any time the defence of Canada regulations, and never discussed, even incidentally, the question of the registration of firearms. As every hon. member knows, the recommendation relating to the further registration of firearms was presented to the House of Commons yesterday by the chairman of the committee on the defence of Canada regulations, and anything done with respect to firearms was done by that committee.



INTERNED ALIENS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and' Resources (Mr. Crerar). I received by air mail yesterday a lengthy letter from an organization called the "Council of Austrians in Great Britain", among whose patrons are:	His
Grace the Archbishop of York, His Lordship the Bishop of Chichester, Viscountess Rhondda, the Right Hon. A. Duff Cooper, M.P., Mr. D. N. Pritt, K.C., M.P., and others, drawing attention to the fact that among the Austrians and Germans transported from England to Canada are a number of anti-nazi civil internees. The organization states:
We are most anxious to know about their fate and to ascertain that the welfare that has been carried out for them by refugee organizations in this country-
That is Great Britain.
-should be continued in Canada.
They implore me to press for discrimination as between the nazi prisoners and quite a different kind of refugee of Sudeten, Czech, Austrian and German anti-nazi sentiments.
Will the government give immediate attention to this matter?


Hon. P. F. CASGRAIN (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, among the people who came here from England recently there would appear to be some people in the category of which my hon. friend has spoken. These people are in separate camps. I am given to understand that some liaison officer of the British government will be coming soon to Canada and the matter will be submitted to him upon arrival by the department.

Unemployment Insurance



UNEMPLOYED MINERS


[Stage Direction]
Or the orders of the day:
Mr. CLARENCE GILLIS (Cape Breton South):: May I be permitted to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works and Transport (Mr. Cardin) arising out of a telegram I received yesterday from Mr. Silby Barrett, international board member of district No. 26, United Mine Workers of America, setting out that 450 miners in the River Herbert and Joggins district, Cumberland county, Nova Scotia, are working only two days a week, due to lack of orders for coal.
I understand that a copy of this telegram was sent to the minister. Orders for coal to that section come largely from the Canadian National Railways. Is the department familiar with the situation as described in the telegram, and if so, can any action be taken for the purpose of alleviating distress in that particular district?


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Public Works and Transport):: I have not seen the telegram to which the hon. member refers, but I shall see the officers of the department in about half an hour and I will look into the question.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 98, to establish an unemployment insurance commission to provide for insurance against unemployment, to establish an employment service, and for other purposes related thereto.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Chairman, there seems to be the most indecent haste in getting this measure through parliament. I have no doubt that all of us are anxious to close the session, either by prorogation or by adjournment. But this measure, one of the most important to come before the house this session, was introduced only in the very late stages of the session. It had some discussion here in the resolution stage and at succeeding stages; then it was referred to a special committee, as suggested, for study. When the

committee's report was presented yesterday afternoon the evidence had not been printed and was not available to hon. members, especially the evidence of certain independent witnesses, including Mr. Wolfenden, upon which I lay a good deal of stress. I received this evidence at three minutes to eleven this morning. I have had opportunity only to skim through, during the preliminary stages of this morning's session, some of the observations which Mr. Wolfenden made.
It cannot be said that this bill has had adequate study by the membership of this house, whatever may have been the time devoted to it in the committee, and I understand there was considerable discussion there ; the evidence which has finally reached us is indicative of that. But certainly there has not been time to study the evidence which was taken before the special committee.
The government is bound to put the measure through now, and I am not going to take the responsibility of holding it up. But I do say this, and I want it to reach the countiy, that this house is not given adequate time to discuss it, and members have not had opportunity to study the suggestions and the contribution which was made by Mr. Wolfenden, whom I regard as perhaps the outstanding authority in Canada in this field.
Let me, however, take the opportunity while I am speaking from this place to put on the record certain correspondence between the chief commissioner under the 1935 employment and social insurance commission and the Prime Minister.
It will be recalled that under the 1935 act Mr. Harrington was appointed chief commissioner, Mr. Tom Moore was appointed as representative of labour, and a gentleman from the province of Quebec was appointed as representing employers. The act was given royal assent, and the commission was set up. An election followed and the government of the day was defeated. The attitude of the Prime Minister and the gentlemen supporting him was that the act was unconstitutional. The decision of the courts has confirmed them in that view, and I am not going to review it or traverse the issue at all. But I do desire to lay before the house the correspondence to which I refer, which was directed after the election by the then chief commissioner to the Prime Minister; correspondence between one gentleman and another; correspondence which, I think, was treated with scant consideration by the Prime Minister. I shall leave the matter to the house to judge.
I may say that we asked for this correspondence through the ordinary channels, and I had hoped that it would be tabled before

Unemployment Insurance
this bill got its second reading and went to the special committee. I am not saying that it was delayed, but it is a strange coincidence that it reached me only after the second reading had been completed and the bill had been sent to the special committee. That coincidence was unfortunate.
This is the letter which was addressed by Mr. Harrington to the Prime Minister on the first day of November, 1935, within a fortnight or so after the election:
My dear Mr. Prime Minister:
The employment and social insurance commission has several duties confided to it, amongst them and of primary importance being the organization of an employment service throughout the dominion and the institution of a national system of unemployment insurance.
It has been estimated that the insurance scheme alone will embrace between 1,500,000 and 2,000,000 workers in the dominion located everywhere from the Atlantic to the Pacific. These workers and their employers contribute weekly to the insurance fund and particulars of them and the types of employment must be recorded currently.
It has been estimated that this joint fund towards which the government contributes 20 per cent will amount to over $40,000,000 a year, and approximately this total will be disbursed annually by this commission in small weekly benefits to an average of 150,000 to 200,000 unemployed.
This subject naturally divides itself into two phases, namely, one of organization and the other of administration.
It will easily be seen that the organization necessary to administer these provisions must be widespread and intricate. It must provide facilities for recording particulars of the workers covered by the act and allow them access to some office or agency to register their unemployment in order to obtain positions or to establish their claim to benefits. The Employment and Social Insurance Act requires the whole permanent staff under this commission, not merely the officers and clerks, but also all other employees to be selected in pursuance of the Civil Service Act. While the work of organization may be delicate, it is no more so than the administration of the scheme when once it commences to function.
Questions will continuously arise as to the validity of the claims made, anomalies affecting somewhat similar classes but in different employments and procedure for running the offices methodically and with the highest degree of precision. It is unnecessary to mention that 2,000,000 clients contributing towards the fund are potentially 2,000,000 critics of any inefficiency or shortcomings in the staff or administration.
Two of the commissioners to be appointed are selected as representing what may be termed special interests affected by the act, namely, workers and employers. The chief commissioner, on the other hand, represents no particular interest but is presumed to be able to hold an 95826-1251
even balance and give a fair and efficient administration. The act contemplates continuous and sympathetic access by the chief commissioner to the government. Regulations fixing classes to be included or excluded; regulations relative to procedure; regulations relative to the establishment of claims, in short all regulations require the approval of the government, and the necessity for them will arise very frequently. In addition, there are a number of other points that will arise from time to time which it is the duty of the commission to submit to the government for approval. These measures are endangered by many pitfalls that can be avoided only by the exercise of great care and painstaking administration.
For many years organized labour and many other bodies have considered unemployment insurance an advanced social measure as tending to relieve workers from the fear of want due to temporary lay-offs. On the other hand, it has, especially in its contributory form, what might be termed natural enemies, and its operation is at all times delicate.
This commission was appointed on July 20, held its first meeting on July 26, and at once proceeded, in collaboration with the organization branoh of the civil service commission, to design an organization necessary to carry into effect the provisions of the act. The plan or organization as finally agreed was approved by the governor in council in the month of August and it was decided to fill the eleven major posts in it. Ten of these were to be filled by advertisement and competition by the civil service commission. The eleventh was to be filled by a transfer of the director of employment service from the Department of Labour. The competitions for these positions closed on the 9th of September but no appointments have as yet been made. The chairman of the civil service commission, however, under date of October 30, now advises that his commission is in a position to make five of the appointments if it is the desire of the employment and social insurance commission and the policy of the government that they should do so. In his letter, a copy of which is enclosed, the chairman further states that his commission hesitates to make appointments which might conceivably be abruptly terminated either by government policy or by decision of the courts and that before taking action in the matter he desires to receive any advice or comments which I might deem proper under the circumstances. It has been no part of my duty as chief commissioner to participate in or interfere in any way with the selection of the staff nor have I done so. Such staff as we have at present has been furnished us temporarily through the kindness of the civil service commission.
Quarters have been engaged at the Jackson building and a floor there has undergone alterations to suit the requirements of the commission.
This commission reports to the President of the Privy Council and I trust this brief statement of our position may be of some value to you in the circumstances in which a new government is bound to find itself with many pressing problems from many different directions. At
Unemployment Insurance

the moment, however, I find that delay in making appointments to the staff has brought the work of the commission practically to a state of suspension and would therefore welcome a statement at your convenience as to the future of this commission which will enable me to reply to the questions su'bmited by the chairman of the civil service commission.
Yours faithfully,
G. S. Harrington.
Eight Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King,



C.M.G.,

[Stage Direction]
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
That was a decent letter from one gentleman to another, and it was never acknowledged so far as the file shows, and I assume that the file is correct. Apparently there must have been some oral communication between the Prime Minister or his secretary and the chief commissioner, but no acknowledgment of that letter was ever given, and especially the last part of it, which I think in all fairness and justice requires some answer.
The chief commissioner and the other two commissioners stayed on in Ottawa during the months of November, December and well into January. Nothing was heard from the Prime Minister with regard to the matter, except, as I suggest, by inference from the correspondence that there had been a verbal communication between the Prime Minister's secretary or himself and Mr. Harrington, with an indication that the matter would be taken up at a later date and discussed. Nothing was done.
On January 21,	1936, Mr. Harrington
addressed a further letter to the Prime Minister which I propose to put on the record.
He says:
You will remember my letter of last November which set out matters affecting the employment and social insurance commission to that date and inquiring as to the commission's future. It was your wish then that as you were leaving the city the affairs of this commission should stand until after your return when you would discuss them with me.
It is a fair inference from that statement that there was some verbal discussion with the Prime Minister and an understanding that as he was leaving the city he would take these matters up on his return.
It was my desire in my former letter to give you a summary of the situation and to make clear that not only would the creation of an organization necessary to carry out the provisions of the Employment and Social Insurance Act be an extensive and intricate piece of work but the administration of the scheme afterwards would be at all times exacting.
Since the government assumed office in October last no member of it lias communicated with this commission concerning the matters confided to us by the statute. The government's course of action and statements relative to this commission have been taken and made without any reference to or inquiry of us.
£Mr. R. B. Hanson.]
I hope the house will note that statement.
When departments of government were requested to draft estimates of expenditure for the coming fiscal year this commission was not notified to do so.
That seems to me to have been a matter of discourtesy.
The solicitors preparing the case for the validity of our act did so without consultation or contact with us.
That is a serious statement. Why was Mr. Harrington, himself an outstanding member of the Nova Scotia bar, never consulted as to the constitutionality of this act so that a fair statement of the position might be put up to the courts? I would ask the Prime Minister to answer that question.
In short, there has been a complete absence of intercourse between the government and this commission, while at the same time government statements given the press have intimated that some of the matters confided by statute to this commission are to be administered by a new commission yet to be set up.
I ask the house whether that was a courteous way of handling this matter. Here was a man who had been premier of his province, a man who had a gallant record overseas, a gentleman in every sense of the word. It is not like the Prime Minister to treat such a man in that way; it is not his usual practice, I want to say that. But I do think that by ignoring Colonel Harrington he treated him with scant courtesy.
A reference to determine the legal status of the present act must be subservient to the general questions of whether the government desires to institute national labour exchanges and a national system of unemployment insurance and, if so, whether it will administer these provisions by an independent commission or departmentally. The Minister of Justice is reported recently to have said in effect that the government desires either to be satisfied that the present act is valid or to ascertain the constitutional amendments necessary to constitute a valid system. If that is the government's attitude then much valuable time has passed unused. A reference to determine the validity of the levy of contributions will not be final until the judicial committee of the privy council has passed upon it. In any event it would be impossible to impose such levies for many months. If on the other hand it is intended ultimately to proceed with the scheme all these many months are required for preparatory work necessary before any system can be brought into effect with an expectation of working satisfactorily.
The enumeration of some of these preparatory matters will illustrate the point: The type and location throughout the dominion of regional, district, branch and sub offices, and arrangements for agencies; the procedure to be followed in these offices with the drafting of -the necessary forms and returns, details concerning the collection of contributions and the disbursements of benefits; the methods for the collection, maintenance and -transference of particulars of information concerning some two million individuals; drafting essential regulations governing

Unemployment Insurance
employers and employees; and the consideration of a myriad of similar details necessary to transact such an intricate business before it can be expected to function with any degree of satisfaction. All of this requires some staff and organization, and since this commission is dependent upon the civil service commission for the appointment of all our officers, clerks and employees, and has so far received none, our business has been practically at a standstill for some three months.
It has been possible for the two commissioners appointed on behalf of working people and employers respectively to occupy their time with matters of special concern to these two groups, but for the chief commissioner, not charged with the duty of representing any particular interest and therefore without any special business to administer, there has been a period of over two months of almost complete idleness.
With this background you will appreciate my feeling that the situation lacks evidence of that cordial cooperation between the government and the chief commissioner without which it would be difficult if not impossible for anyone successfully to administer such a delicate business. Appreciating the difficulties confronting a new government and realizing the importance of this measure to so many people in Canada it was my desire to pursue a course that would cause no embarrassment and would not jeopardize the future of the plan. Reluctantly it has been borne in upon me, however, that neither pressure of business nor accident explain the total failure of communication for a period of three months, and that my association with the commission may not be helpful to the cause of social improvement provided in this measure. I have decided therefore to terminate my connection with the Employment and Social Insurance Commission. To leave the field free for such action as the government may wish to take appears the course best suited to the circumstances -that have developed.
You may accept my assurance that I have no feeling in this matter but quite the reverse and shall be glad, if you desire me, to assist my successor as far as lies within my power.
Yours faithfully,
G. S. Harrington.
That letter is addressed to the Prime Minister.
I wonder what the committee think of this correspondence, and what the country will think of it, in the light of the fact that to neither one of those letters did the Prime Minister, entirely contrary I think to his custom, contrary I am sure to his own better judgment, to his own sense of courtesy, send any reply.
I shall not comment further on these letters. They speak for themselves. They were written by a public servant with a high sense of his responsibilities who felt not only -that he had been absolutely ignored but that the system of social legislation, of social improvement which he was earnestly desirous of serving, and which he was perhaps better able to serve than any other layman in Canada, was prejudiced. I made the statement advisedly the other day-
I have since had additional evidence to sustain it-that no man in Canada has given more serious consideration to social questions, questions of sociology, of social insurance, than had this gentleman who was selected for that position. Yet the Prime Minister, for some reason which has never been divulged-so far as I know this is the first time these letters have been made public-for some reason unknown to us, unknown to Colonel Harrington, has never yet answered or acknowledged them, and the public are left to judge, to take whatever inference they may from the Prime Minister's silence. I suggest to the Prime Minister-and I am speaking as one gentleman to another-that he as a gentleman and Colonel Harrington as a gentleman has a right to know from him why he treated him in this manner.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Chairman, first let me clear up any matter of discourtesy between my hon. friend the leader of the opposition and myself in relation to the correspondence which he has just read. It is true my hon. friend asked for a return of the correspondence. I was as much surprised as he was when I found that the correspondence had not been tabled on the afternoon on which he asked for it. I immediately sent over to my own office to ascertain why the correspondence had not been tabled when the return was asked for some days earlier. I was told that the correspondence had been sent from my office to the Department of the Secretary of State, which is the department which makes the returns of correspondence when it comes from two or more different departments. I found that the Department of the Secretary of State had been holding it to table it at what the department evidently believed to be the right time. The return may have called for correspondence from more than one department in which event it would be held till all departments concerned were heard from. I then sent word to my secretary to secure the correspondence so far as it related to the Prime Minister's office from the Department of the Secretary of State so that I could table it myself without further delay, and the correspondence came to me during the afternoon while my hon. friend was speaking. Before six o'clock I tabled it, explaining that it was the correspondence that had been asked for in the afternoon.
As a matter of fact, my own staff had not spoken to me of or shown me the communications that were on the files; I had no personal knowledge of the request. If I had had, I would certainly have tried to follow the matter up immediately. Those are the facts with respect to the delay. However, the delay has not in any way prejudiced the position of my hon.
Unemployment Insurance

friend, because he has this morning been able to place the contents of the letters on the record of the day's proceedings.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It would
have been very much better if I had been furnished with the letters for the purpose I had in mind originally. I acquit the Prime Minister personally of delaying the thing, but I do not acquit the Department of the Secretary of State.


Pierre-François Casgrain: What complaint does
my hon. friend make against my department?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am quite
sure the delay was wholly unintentional and not inspired by any wish to embarrass my hon. friend.
With regard to the matter of proceeding with this legislation, as my hon. friend says it is quite true that the evidence was not complete until late last night, and was not available in final printed form until this morning. But the essential parts of the evidence have all appeared in the press during the last couple of days, and I imagine my hon. friend has read the press reports, as I have read them, and I have no doubt he is already familiar with them. So I do not think he or others will be embarrassed if we proceed with the measure to-day. I believe it is the desire of all hon. members to see this bill pass this house as soon as may be possible, among other reasons that we are told it is likely to meet with a long delay in another chamber. That expectation was my sole reason for calling this order this morning ahead of some of the other bills that appear on the order paper. I did so in order that the unemployment insurance bill might get over to the other house and leave no excuse for saying that the bill had not arrived there until every other measure had been disposed of in this house.
Now let me come to the correspondence my hon. friend has just read. To understand that correspondence, one has to recall the circumstances concerning the appointment of Mr. Harrington and the commission. As hon. members will recall, when my hon. friend's predecessor, Mr. Bennett, introduced in this house the measure called the employment and social insurance bill, it was just prior to the general elections of 1935. The Liberal opposition of the day took the position very strongly that the legislation was unconstitutional, and that no one knew that better than t'he Prime Minister of the day himself who was introducing it. We pointed out that there was a special clause in the Supreme Court Act which gave the government the right to refer to the supreme court for an. opinion as to its intra or ultra vires any bill that might be
FMr. Mackenzie King.]
presented to parliament. This enactment was made for the very purpose of avoiding the embarrassment that might arise if a bill were enacted and later found to be unconstitutional. We asked the then Prime Minister to submit his bill to the supreme court. He had every reason to believe, as we pointed out, that an opinion could have been obtained within a day or two, so that a reference would not have unduly delayed the passage of the legislation before the end of that session had it been made and the bill declared to come within the competence of this parliament.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Prime Minister is optimistic when he says a day or two. I never heard of that being done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; that is quite true. At any rate Mr. Bennett would not agree to submit the bill for an opinion. He would not take any chance one way or the other, but persisted in having it passed. More than that, after parliament itself had been dissolved, he then undertook to set up the commission, of which he appointed Mr. Harrington the chairman, or chief commissioner, and this commission began to appoint a number of officials and to send out forms for one purpose and another.
The whole business to my mind, if I may be permitted to use the expression, was a pure election bluff, nothing more or less. It was an effort to have the people of Canada believe that the Conservative party of that day were determined to place a measure of unemployment insurance on the statute books; and that they were giving evidence of the good faith of their belief in its constitutionality by appointing the commission, appointing a staff, starting a lot of machinery to work at great cost to the country-and all this during the period of an election.
During that election campaign I took the position, which was also taken by the members of my party, that the enactment was ultra vires and the steps being taken to set up the commission a waste of public money; that in reality there was no authority to appoint the commission because there was every reason to believe that the act was unconstitutional. We stated that as soon as we were returned to power, if we were returned, we would ignore all that Mr. Bennett had done until the legislation was referred to the supreme court. We promised to take the first available opportunity to see that this legislation was so referred. We stated that if the supreme court decided that the measure was ultra vires, as we believed it would, we would then immediately seek to enter into correspondence with the several provinces of Canada to see if we could not- with their consent, instead of by the method

Unemployment Insurance
of coercion which the then Conservative leader was adopting-bring about an agreement between the provinces in regard to the enactment of an unemployment insurance measure, as we have since succeeded in doing.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did the right hon. gentleman ever say that to Colonel Harrington after the election?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just a moment, my hon. friend; I am coming to that. It must be remembered that Colonel Harrington is not inexperienced in public affairs. As my hon. friend has pointed out, he was premier of Nova Scotia, and he has had long experience in public life. Colonel Harrington does not need to take any political lessons from me, either in the matter of constitutional procedure or as to personal behaviour. I think he understands these matters quite as well as I do. For that matter neither do I feel that I have anything in particular to learn from him as to what is appropriate in such circumstances.
That was the position during the 1935 campaign. When the election was over, the question that ,to my mind was most important of all was the matter of getting an agreement between this country and the United States with respect to reciprocity in trade, and I took the very first opportunity to endeavour to bring about such an agreement. That was the first matter to which I and the government gave attention, and it involved, as the correspondence which my hon. friend has read bears out by inference, that I had to be absent from Ottawa part of the time in connection with those reciprocity negotiations. I must confess that I was a little surprised to receive the particular communication from Mr. Harrington which my hon. friend has read. I can perhaps best express the reason for my surprise by a reference to what Colonel Harrington said in his last communication. If I recollect aright, his words were something to this effect: "I am going to resign in order to leave the government free to take what action it thinks proper."
Why was that step taken by Colonel Harrington three months after the present administration came into office, rather than on the first day that the Liberal administration took office? That was the step Colonel Harrington knew was the correct one to take in view of the fact that the government which had been returned had said that the whole legislation was unconstitutionl and that it would pay no attention to the legislation until it had been referred to the courts and a decision had been rendered. Colonel Harrington's proper course was to have said at once, "I tender my resignation to the
government so that it may be perfectly free and not embarrased in dealing with this matter." Instead a letter was written to embarrass me. That was the reason for the letter, and that was why no answer was given to it. What Colonel Harrington was looking for was some word from the Prime Minister which would enable him to say that before the matter had been referred to the courts Mackenzie King had dismissed him as chairman of the commission. I was not going to be placed in that position, and I let Colonel Harrington know it. I did not do that by correspondence, as my hon. friend says, but I sent word to him. This whole matter was five years ago; I cannot remember the details, but I have a recollection that I telephoned Colonel Harrington myself and said to him that I had these important negotiations under way with the United States, and that I had other matters to deal with that were more important than the questions he had raised, so his matter would have to stand. At any rate that word was sent to him; whether by myself over the telephone or whether by someone in my office under my direction I cannot say at the moment. But Colonel Harrington understood, just as well as I understood, that the government had no intention of dealing with the legislation other than by referring it to the supreme court, and then taking action after the supreme court had given its decision.
I could elaborate on this matter further if it were desirable to do so, but I can assure my hon. friend that no discourtesy to Colonel Harrington was intended. As a matter of fact, if there was discourtesy at all, to my mind it was in the circumstance that Colonel Harrington, knowing the position in which I was placed as Prime Minister of a government that had been returned in opposition to the legislation that had put him in office, did not immediately tender his resignation to me instead of waiting for three months to take that step.
All of this stuff that was recorded-and I call it that, because it really was nothing more than stuff-was pure bluff. Colonel Harrington knew as well as any hon. member in this house knows, that to go ahead to proceed with the appointment of clerks, and the setting up of machinery, and all that sort of thing, when the matter was to be referred to the supreme court before further action was taken, was not the kind of procedure which he or anybody else would be justified in taking, at all.
And may I point this out, as well. The Department of Labour was the department which had to do with these matters though the commission was to report to the president
Unemployment Insurance

of the council. My late colleague, Mr. Rogers, was the minister at the time. At the moment I cannot say what passed by way of communications between Mr. Rogers and Colonel Harrington, but I know that Colonel Harrington was made fully aware of the reason that no communications were passing between the government and himself, which would give countenance to anything which might appear like assent on my part to his continuing on before the court itself had taken action. I think that is probably all I have to say on the matter.
I hope my hon. friend's good opinion of my politeness will not have suffered as a result of the explanation, which I am making quite frankly to him. All I have to say is that when any gentleman who has no right to be in office holds on to that office waiting for correspondence from me which may appear to justify his action, he may have to wait a long time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: One word. My right hon. friend has been very polite to me, and I have tried to be very polite to him. I hope so far as I am concerned that that relation will continue, because I must say I do not intend to live in the midst of a dog fight the rest of my life. I may have been so constituted at one time, but if so I have learned better. That is all I am going to say about that.
However, I do not think the other argument of the Prime Minister is conducive to the best conduct of public business, and so far as I am concerned I am not going to descend to it, unless I lose control of my better judgment.
I do not think the Prime Minister had any right to characterize this letter as a bluff. Nobody knows better than the Prime Minister about the use of bluffing, in political tactics. I believe he has attained his present high level in the course of the last twenty years more by bluffing than by anything else I know of.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If it is out of order, I will withdraw it; but I am using the Prime Minister's own term.


Thomas Vien: I do not believe that that language should be used.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just hold yourself.


Thomas Vien: Order.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just hold yourself a moment.
CM!. Mackenzie King.]


Thomas Vien: I am concerned exclusively with the application of the rules of the house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If I have violated the rules of the house, then I am sorry.


Thomas Vien: Thank you.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no internal evidence of bluffing in those letters; there is no internal evidence of anything of the sort. Those letters are a true statement of the facts-and I do not believe they were dictated by guile, or anything of the kind. They were dictated by a sense of futility-by the belief that people were not getting anywhere. The object which the person in question had at heart was not being furthered by the delay; in fact it was being retarded.
It seems to me the proper course for the Prime Minister to have pursued was to ask Mr. Harrington to see him, to talk the whole matter over with him as to what was happening, and what was going to happen, and to suggest to him that it would be better if he would resign. If the Prime Minister had done that he would have had that resignation on the same day, because I want to say right here that Colonel Harrington is a proud man. He is poor, but he is proud. He would not have stayed for one minute, under the circumstances.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that I agree with him that that is exactly what Colonel Harrington, to my mind, was angling for at the time. He wished me to send for him to tell him I wanted his resignation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But you did not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I did not. I did not do that, and Colonel Harrington sent in his own resignation without my asking for it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But you wanted him to resign.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It took him three months to do something which he ought to have done at once. Anyway I was not going to be left in the false position to which I have referred. I have had a good deal of experience of sending for gentlemen and talking pleasantly with them, and then later having differences arise as to what the conversation was, or what it amounted to.
I am quite content to leave the communications to speak for themselves. The people of Canada had spoken. They had spoken in the general election of 1935, and had made it perfectly clear to the government taking office

Unemployment Insurance
that they regarded the legislation in question as unconstitutional, and that it should not be on the statute book at all; and I was accepting the decision of the people of Canada.
When my hon. friend talks about bluffing, in connection with my record, I will just ask him to consider the view the people of Canada have taken with respect to my position concerning public matters, and he will see whether or not that position has been regarded by them as one of bluffing or of reality.


Thomas Vien: I would ask hon. members again to direct their attention to the rule I read last night, namely standing order 58, in reference to speeches in committee. Subsection 2 of that standing order is as follows:
Speeches in the committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
As I understand the situation, the correspondence to which reference has been made was tabled, and there was some understanding that reference might be made to it in committee. Last night in connection with another measure and again to-day the discussion has been absolutely out of order, because it has , been in flagrant violation of subsection 2 of rule 58. I take this opportunity of drawing the attention of hon. members to the necessity of avoiding tedious repetition of arguments by sticking to the section of the bill under consideration. In my opinion we ought to take each item of the bill and limit the discussion thereto.
In several of the debates of this session the habit has developed of making a general statement on the section covering the short title. May I point out that the calling of the short title does not open the way for such general discussion. While I am sincerely desirous of giving as much latitude as possible to hon. members in debate, I must point out that it is extremely difficult for the chairman to draw a line between what is reasonable latitude and what is an abuse of a privilege. Therefore I invite all hon. members to give me their cooperation by adhering more strictly to the rules and to the section under consideration.


Mr. McLARTY:: Mr. Chairman, in the
remarks I am about to make I shall endeavour not to transgress your ruling or to violate the provisions of standing order 58.
Undoubtedly it will be a matter of gratification to the committee that the report of the subcommittee was a unanimous one. The committee was of course agreed in principle. But not only was there unanimity in the form of the report but there was the same unanimity in the 95826-126
spirit with which the committee approached its work. We felt we were there to analyse the bill, to improve it, and not to change it in principle unless in fact some principle appeared which could not be justified. It was our endeavour so far as we were able to present to this committee and to the house as fair and effective a measure as it was possible to obtain.
In the course of our consideration of the bill we made twenty-two amendments. In the majority of cases those amendments were merely by way of clarification. Through them we attempted to clear up certain sections of the bill which might have been regarded as vague. However we did make certain additions, and I would ask permission of the committee to deal briefly with them.
The first amendment which might be regarded as important is to section 14 of the bill. A second subsection is being added at the request of the Railway Association of Canada. It was contended that an anomalous position was created by reason of certain transportation systems operating on both sides of the international boundary line. At present any employee of the railroad whose head office is in the United States, such as the New York Central, is covered, not by the United States social security act but by the railway unemployment act. This applies to employees who reside in Canada. I would point out that this amendment is only permissive in order to clothe the commission with power to deal with any anomalies that might arise in view of this situation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
in connection with international employment generally.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes, that is the purpose of this new subsection. The next amendment to which I might refer is to section 17 of the bill. This amendment was also made at the request of the Railway Association of Canada. Under the provisions of the bill it is assumed that wages are paid daily or weekly; in order to bring other payments within the purview of the bill it was necessary to give the commission some discretion. For example, under the Railway Act it is provided that payments to employees must be made not less than twice a month. It was pointed out that if we compelled the railways to make a weekly return and to pay their employees on a weekly basis the expense of changing their bookkeeping systems would be enormous. The result of this amendment will be that they will be able to make their payments as at present and the commission will have the power to direct the basis upon which payments shall be made into the fund.



IONISED EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Unemployment Insurance
[Stage Direction]
The next amendment is to section 43 (f). This paragraph provides that a person shall be disqualified for receiving benefits while he is in receipt of pension under the Old Age Pensions Act. The committee was impressed with the soundness of the argument advanced some time ago by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), that a man who had paid his contributions should receive his benefits under this legislation as a right and should not be precluded from exercising and enjoying that distinctive right because of some other benefit he might be receiving by what might be regarded more or less as an act of grace.
The next amendment is to paragraph (g) of the same section. This relates to those who come under what is known as the zero section of the schedule. Persons under sixteen, while they may accumulate rights, cannot draw benefits. However, they can draw benefits when they are employed for a number of weeks in a higher category. This amendment is merely to clarify that provision.
The next amendment which I believe is of sufficient importance to mention to the committee is to subsection 8 of section 83. This amendment provides that some measure of remuneration, the amount of which may be determined by the governor in council, may be paid to the members of the advisory committee. It was pointed out that certain representatives whose services might be valuable on that committee might not be able to afford to serve without remuneration. It was pointed out also to the committee the importance of this committee under the general scheme of the bill. Consequently it was thought advisable to leave it discretionary with the governor in council as to whether and in what amount payment should be made for such services.
The other amendments to which I might refer are somewhat detailed. In section 102 the word "fixed" has been changed to "prescribed." This is made necessary by the fact that section 93, subsection 1, requires that before the regulations of the commission oecome operative they shall have the approval of the governor in council.
An amendment has been made to the first schedule in order to add "wood processing plants" to those which come within the bill. This was done at the request of hon. members from British Columbia; and the committee felt that this amendment would more clearly define the situation.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Would
wood processing plants include saw mills and planing mills?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Saw mills and planing
mills are now included in any event.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Saw mills that operate three, four or five months in the year?


Norman Alexander McLarty: An amendment to which I was just going to refer leaves to the discretion of the commission the decision as to what would be continuous operation. Saw milling was under the legislation originally, and this amendment was suggested by certain British Columbia members because they felt that saw milling was not sufficient to cover all processing of lumber.


Mr. REID:: Sash and door factories, for instance.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Saw milling in New Brunswick is usually limited to a seasonal period. The standard saw mills do not operate more than six months in the year, while the so-called portables usually operate in the winter for about three months.


Norman Alexander McLarty: That situation is taken care of by leaving to the discretion of the commission the decision as to what will be reasonably continuous operation.
The only amendment to the third schedule which I think is worthy of mention at this time is to paragraph (iii) of section 1. The suggestion is to add the words "widow or widower" after the words "married person". The Department of Justice was of the opinion that this was essential in order that a widow or widower with a dependent might be covered by the schedule.
In the same paragraph the age of a dependent is increased from fifteen to sixteen years. I believe that these are the only important amendments which need to be referred to at this stage.
As the report indicates, during the sittings of the committee representations were made by numerous bodies but I believe that these representations can be boiled down ,to a few definite categories.
There were those who said that this bill should not be passed while we were at war. They paid no attention to the fact that we are now at the all-time high of employment. They paid no attention to the fact that after the war we shall have to make some provision to meet the situation which will almost inevitably arise, if not immediately after, at least a reasonable time after. They forgot also that it will take time to put the machinery of this bill into operation. It is not a matter simply of this house passing this bill to-day or to-morrow or some other day and then

Unemployment Insurance
having it immediately function. That cannot be done. The machinery to be set up is quite complicated and to put it in operation will take some time.
The second representation urged against the bill was that sufficient time had not been given for its consideration.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Hear, hear. That is right.


Norman Alexander McLarty: My hon. friend says
"hear, hear." I will endeavour to indicate to him the consideration which the bill has received.
As he knows, agitation for unemployment insurance has been a live issue for twenty-one years. As he knows, in 1935 a committee was appointed to consider a bill which, while it contained some differences, was generally the same in principle as this one, save principally for the graded rule. He knows too that in 1935. when our bill was passed, we did not have the advantage of the consolidated British bill which was passed after the act of 1935. We did not have the advantage of the United States security act and its operation in fifty-one states and federal districts of that country. But since then this matter has been studied. It is not as if, the resolution addressed to the imperial parliament, having passed on the 25th of June, next day the resolution was put on the order paper, and the bill was not produced in the meantime. It is the product of intensive study for the last five years.
In the first place, my predecessor in office asked to come from Geneva Mr. D. Christie Tait, recognized as one of the world's best informed experts both on the legislative and administrative aspects of unemployment insurance; and he spent considerable time revising it. In addition there has been continuously in the Department of Labour a committee which is studying it, comparing it, compiling data which is available from all possible sources, including many other countries. I venture to say that no bill which has ever been presented to the parliament of Canada has had more full and complete consideration than the bill which is now before this committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That may be true of the department, but certainly it is not true of this parliament. After all, we are making the law.


Norman Alexander McLarty: May I point out to my hon. friend that we are here to-day to study it in committee. We can give it all the consideration we wish, right here. That is what we are here for.
There was a third representation made, by those who felt that while the measure was a 95826-126J
good one, they had been so careful in looking after their employees that it was not necessary that they should be included under the bill. These were largely financial institutions. May I say that these institutions painted an impressive picture of the provision they have made to look after their employees when unemployed, and also in the matter of a retirement fund. It is possible that their employees may not benefit as much as employees of other industries under the proposed bill. But if you remove from this bill what may be called the sheltered employments, and cover only those in which the unemployment record and experience are weak, what becomes of your insurance principle? Surely the broader the basis of the act the better and more actuarially sound it must inevitably become. Undoubtedly some institutions treat their employees with preferred care, but I suggest that if institutions and industries which look after their employees properly, guaranteeing them against any loss of time or of money due to unemployment, were withdrawn from the act, you would destroy its actuarial basis.
In addition, the fundamental purpose of this bill as I see it is to promote the economic and social security of our people. If that be the case, is it asking too much of our financial institutions and good employers that they shall spend at least a fraction of their revenues in promoting that economic and social security of the country?
A fourth point was raised in committee, namely that some of those in the excepted employments should be brought under the terms of the act. Perhaps it will be suggested that certain employments of this class should properly be included in the benefits of the bill, but I would ask that in considering the matter the committee remember three or four principles upon which the bill is established.
In the first place it is only fair to remind hon. members that this is an unemployment insurance act. It is not a health insurance act. It pays no benefits for sickness.
In the second place it is not an unemployed aid or assistance act. In other words it does not pretend to cover by any means the field of unemployment. As hon. members are aware, both the national employment commission and the dominion-provincial relations commission have recommended that to supplement the national unemployment insurance bill there should be passed what was called by one a national assistance bill and by the other a national aid bill. But that is subject to certain definite negotiations and arrangements whereby the responsibilities and duties as between the provinces and the dominion are properly allocated; and it is deemed unwise to hold up this bill, which, if it is
Unemployment Insurance

actuarially sound, can do no harm in any event and will remove at least a certain number of our population from the necessity of receiving unemployment aid.
There is another reason why some of the industries may be excluded. After all, the whole fabric of this bill is built around the employment offices. It is necessary that reports be made to, and constant contact kept with, the employment offices.


Mr. MacNICOL:: May I ask the minister if that is along the same line as in Great Britain?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I cannot answer, because I am not sufficiently familiar with the practice there, but I believe it is practically identical.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Well then, it is all right.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I will withdraw that. At a later stage I can deal with the differences.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I just made the observation that if it is along the same line, it is all right.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think it is pretty close to it, but I used the word "identical", which I should like leave to withdraw.
Certain industries do not lend themselves to the application of the employment office system. Take for instance the case of school teachers. If a school teacher is seeking employment, naturally he or she would not go to an employment office but to the secretary of a board of education or some other employment agency of that board.
Again, certain classes are excepted by reason of difficulties in the matter of administration. For instance, if domestic servants were included, it would make the administrative *machinery in the matter of inspection so top-heavy and complicated that the cost would be altogether out of proportion to the good which would be accomplished.
Then, too, there was a suggestion to the committee that the amount of coverage should be increased through raising the limitation of $2,000 to $2,500. I believe the view of the committee was that if we did so at this time we might upset the whole structure of the act, and if that were the result, it might not become law for a long time. And as those who were pressing for this amendment were those most eager to have the bill acted upon immediately, the choice was between one consequence and the other. I have no doubt they will feel satisfied with the decision of the committee that we should proceed with the bill as it is.
Because the actuarial matter is a complicated one, and because in treating it one TMr. McLarty.]
must be extremely careful, I will ask the committee to allow me to make reference rather freely to my own notes.
Mr. H. H. Wolfenden, consulting actuary of Toronto, was called before the committee to give evidence. It is just possible that owing to the necessarily incomplete reference in the press to his remarks, a cumulative misunderstanding may get abroad. On considering Mr. Wolfenden's evidence and representations as a whole, the evidence shows that he is not now and never has been opposed to the principle of unemployment insurance.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Did he not support it in 1935?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I believe he did. Bie is not opposed to it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: My impression is that he supported the principle in 1935.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think the hon. member is right. He is not opposed to the present bill and he does not recommend delay in its passage. I have thought it proper that these aspects of Mr. Wolfenden's evidence should be on Tecord lest there should be some misunderstanding. Mr. Wolfenden recommended that specific steps be taken before the act is brought into operation to see to it that all concerned have an adequate understanding of its implications before it becomes effective. I should explain that it has been in mind all along that just as soon as the preliminary organization work of the commission to be set up under the act is completed it will be necessary to undertake extensive educational work among employed persons and employers, and for that matter the general public, concerning the main features as well as the details of the measure.
tPerhaps the main portion of Mr. Wolfenden's evidence and remarks was concerned with the financial foundations of the bill and his reasons for believing that, although he certified the financial .provisions of the bill of 1935 as being entirely safe, he regards the situation with reference to the 1940 bill as being actuarially indeterminate. It would appear that he takes this position mainly as a consequence of the present state of war, because the financial foundations of the 1935 act are in the main the same, with certain additional safeguards which should make for added financial strength.
The rates of contributions in the present bill have been recommended by the chief actuary of the Department of Insurance, and he has furnished a comprehensive report showing in detail how the rates of contribution are arrived at. From examination of Mr. Wolfenden's evidence and of Mr. Watson's

Unemployment Insurance
report on the bill, together with the statements which he made in the committee, it would appear that they may be using a somewhat different terminology or a slight shift in emphasis in saying substantially the same thing. In his evidence Mr. Wolfenden several times referred to his certifications of the 1935 bill as having been given with confidence as to the actuarial solvency of the rates of contribution in that bill, but he had in mind, in his own words, "the ever-present power and possibility of the advisory committee making such amendments as seem to be necessary"-and this with reference to a period of eight to ten or twelve years, over which he thought the scheme might continue aetuarially solid. In other words, it would seem that notwithstanding his certifying to the actuarial solvency of this scheme he bad in mind that the advisory committee would be continually and actually on the job to make sure that that state of solvency was not impaired. Mr. Wolfenden also put forward the view that the certification of the unemployment insurance fund must be according to the best judgment and experience of the actuary, and he must make his calculations with reasonable certainty but not with excessive margins of safety.
As already noted, Mr. Wolfenden's view with reference to the present bill is that it is to be regarded as aetuarially indeterminate. From statements made in the committee by the chief actuary of the Department of Finance, and also from a perusal of his report made on this bill and the bill of 1935, it would appear that his view is that the position of the unemployment insurance fund, in fact of any insurance fund, must always be actuarially indeterminate. He put forward the view that actuarial science is not an exact science in any practical insurance field. In illustration of this he referred to the position of life insurance, pointing out that the indeterminate factor in that business is the so-called dividend to policyholders. He represented that for t'he great bulk of life insurance a premium rather higher than believed to be necessary is charged and then at the end of the year the company balances its books, balances its assets and makes actuarial valuations of its insurance obligations and thence arrives at the surplus. It is out of the surplus that the "indeterminate" for the companies changes their dividends from time to time. Most of us are perhaps aware of the fact that the companies have made some reduction in dividend scales in recent years as a consequence of reduction of earnings.
It would be of course wholly impracticable to take unemployment insurance on the basis
of contributions substantially on the high side with annual or other revisions in any year for which the contributions might be proved to be in excess of the claim.
In Mr. Watson's view the only reasonable and practicable procedure in the circumstances is to make provision for a reasonable average standard of unemployment, having regard to experience over a period of say ten years with a reasonable margin, and in setting up rates of contribution it should always be kept in mind that they must in the nature of things be subject to review as and when it may appear necessary or advisable to make the review. It is one of the key provisions of this bill that the unemployment insurance advisory committee shall make a review at least once every year.
I should like to refer the committee specifically to one part of section 36 bearing on this matter. Subsection 1 of section 36 reads:
The committee shall, not later than the end of February in each year, make a report to the governor in council on the financial condition of the unemployment insurance fund as of the 31st day of December next preceding, and shall make a report to the governor in council on the financial condition of that fund whenever the committee considers that the fund is or is likely to become, and is likely to continue to he, insufficient to discharge its liabilities, and may make a report on the financial condition of the fund at such other times as the committee may think fit.
An examination of Mr. Watson's report shows that his report in 1935 and his report on the present bill were founded on the data of unemployment for the eleven years from 1921 to 1931, the average rate of unemployment over which period, as shown by data used in making the calculations, having been 12 per cent. A good deal was made in the committee of the fact that although the unemployment for that period might have been satisfactory for the basis of his 1935 report, it almost necessarily follows that it would not be found satisfactory as the basis of the present report. I find however in Mr. Watson's report that the average number of benefit days for insured persons, as computed on that basis of 12 per cent, was increased by 30 per cent, with a view in part to making provision for higher unemployment than that shown by the period of 1921 to 1931. In addition, a number of other adjustments were made with a view to computing rates which might reasonably be considered sufficient.
An element of substantial strength in the present bill, which was not in the act of 1935, is the ratio rule for the computation of benefit days. Under the 1935 act insured persons who might qualify for benefit by making the minimum number of contributions each year would be entitled to a minimum
Unemployment Insurance

of seventy-eight days benefit in the year. There was really not much incentive under that bill for insured persons to try to improve their benefit status by keeping in employment every possible day. It is true that additional days' benefit might be paid to those who had a good employment record over the preceding five years. In the present bill the benefit days of the insured person are definitely related to the emplo3rment record of the individual. Those with poor employment records receive benefits, but they get lesser benefits than those who have a better employment record. The practical workings of the ratio rule may be well illustrated with reference to persons who work uniformly any given number of weeks per year.
It is interesting to note the manner in which the ratio rule works out for insured persons who have regular employment. Some cases are given as illustrations.
Two important aspects of the ratio rule which it is believed will strengthen the financial structure of the bill are that for the majority of insured persons the benefit days increase gradually during the first three or four years, but during those years on the average will be substantially below the average number of benefit days on which the rates of contribution were based. The other point is that if the insured person's record of employment becomes bad he will not claim for seventy-eight days in every year in which he works for the minimum number of weeks, as under the 1935 act, but will on the average draw three days' benefit for every week he works. Thus an insured person working twenty weeks per year will be entitled to sixty days' benefit, whereas under the 1935 act he would be entitled to seventy-eight days, but he would not be entitled to more than seventy-eight days even if he should work considerably more than twenty weeks in the year.
In the committee Mr. Wolfenden made representations concerning the possibilities of cataclysmic rates of employment, as a consequence of the war. Mr. Watson did not think it necessary or justifiable to assume any such rates as were given. In support of this he states that following the last war the rate of unemployment as shown by trade union figures continued low until June 1, 1920, being in fact 2-1 per cent for the six months ended on that date. For the next eighteen months the rate averaged about 13-5 per cent. For the first six months of 1922 it fell to 5-6 per cent and continued fairly low until towards the end of 1924. Although Mr. Watson recognizes that trade union percentages of employment are lower than insurable claims as a whole, nevertheless he feels that they do not
(Mr. McLarty.]
justify the assumption of cataclysmic unemployment rates. Mr. Wolfenden represented in committee that under the unemployment scheme set up in 1935, which was a time of fairly high employment, by reason of that employment those then not employed would in fact show a low rate of employment.
On this point the data for 1921 and 1931 given on pages 10 to 14 inclusive of Mr. Watson's 1935 report show the contrary to be true. Obviously it can hardly be possible that an unemployment insurance fund could attain a position of prosperity if it were being set up in a period of heavy unemployment. Furthermore it is not likely that unemployment throughout the whole of Canada would ever at any time attain the cataclysmic proportions which might be stated to have occurred in any particular locality or any particular industry in this or any other country.
We had on this committee, Mr. Chairman, representatives of every section of this country. It is I believe a splendid commentary that in a country as wide and as varied in its resources and in its industries, such a committee representative of eveiy section could bring to this house a unanimous report.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Mr. Chairman, as discussion on the report of the committee has been considered necessary-


Thomas Vien: I would point out to the committee that I assumed the minister had the unanimous consent of the committee to give a general bird's-eye view of the bill as amended by the special committee so as to facilitate its study by this committee. But under the rules of the house I do not believe I could allow a general discussion to continue on clause 1 of the bill. We are now on clause 1, short title.	.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: By unanimous
consent.


Thomas Vien: Is there unanimous
consent?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes, I ask for unanimous consent.


Angus MacInnis: It is not my intention to go into the amendments to the bill as extensively as did the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty). Indeed my remarks will be brief. Before proceeding with what I have to say, and without engaging in platitudes, I should like to say a brief word about the committee itself. I have been on a number of committees since coming to this house about ten years ago, and all of these committees took their duties seriously, but I was never on a committee that took its work as seriously as this committee We were working under

Unemployment Insurance
great difficulties, but the cooperation and the temper of the members of the committee was of the very best throughout. The Minister of Labour, who was made chairman, succeeded in the difficult task of getting the bill through the committee in record time without having once, as far as I can recollect, asked a member to shorten his remarks or unduly hurrying the committee's work. This is something of an achievement.
I think also that a word should be said for the members of the Department of Labour who were present at the committee meetings to inform its members. I wish to refer particularly to Mr. Hodgson and Mr. Stangroom, who I believe should be on the floor here when we deal with the various sections of the bill. I am sure that their assistance will be as much appreciated by the members of this committee of the whole as it was by the special committee.
It is of course regrettable that the bill was not introduced earlier in the session, and it is possible that if it had been, more study could have been given to it and more amendments proposed. But although it is possible it seems to be doubtful that such would have been the case. In saying this I am not condoning the bringing down of the bill at this late time.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Better late than never.


Angus MacInnis: I think all the members of the committee will agree with me when I say that I believe the utmost care has been given to the drafting of the bill. As hon. members are aware, the bill with a few alterations is the same as the 1935 act. But in addition to following the 1935 Canadian act the draughting officials gave close attention to the form and administration of the unemployment insurance act of Great Britain, and the long experience in administering that act, since 1911, must be taken into consideration by members of this committee in dealing with the bill.
I think I am also correct in saying that the committee refrained from making amendments to the bill, amendments which I believe appeared reasonable to a majority of the committee, for three reasons: First, the committee w'as anxious not to do anything which might delay the passing of the bill. Second, the committee was aware that important additions to the employments included in the bill, or important deductions from the employments covered by the bill, would upset the actuarial calculations on which the contributions and benefits are computed. Undoubtedly this would lead to some delay and for that reason, and in my opinion very properly, the committee refrained from interfering with
the bill to any great extent. Third, the committee was impressed with a realization of the magnitude of the task of building up the organization necessary for the administration of the act. I doubt if anyone, except those who have been closely associated with the drafting of the bill, realizes the extent _ of that organization and the great care with which it will have to be created. As a consequence the committee felt that it should not impose too great a burden on the commission at a time when it would be engaged in very, very difficult work. I think that sums up the spirit in which the committee dealt with this measure. In any case, that was the way it appeared lto me.
A number of organizations appeared before the committee, organizations which can be classed largely in two categories; that is, employers' organizations and workers' organizations. The employers' organizations, the Canadian Manufacturers Association and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, asked for postponement of the bill to a more opportune time, and also for investigation or study of some other nebulous schemes they had in mind. Personally I was not impressed with their arguments. I agreed with the representative of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada when he said that he never knew of an opportune time to bring in social legislation, so far as these organizations were concerned.
We had the benefit of the independent opinion of Mr. Wolfenden, an actuary of some note. Again I must say that personally I was not impressed with Mr. Wolfenden's evidence. It seemed to me that his submissions were too extreme, and extreme statements are always suspect. I should like to quote very briefly from what he had to say, first from page 216 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence before the committee:
On this test, which I believe to be a fair and professionally acceptable appraisal of the problem, it is my conviction that the scheme set out in bill 98 is, at the present time, "actuarially indeterminate".
Then he goes on to give his reasons for that statement:
In this case-in the year 1940, in respect of any estimate of future unemployment-it is, it seems to me, wholly impossible to formulate methods of calculation "with reasonable cer-taintv, and with adequate margins of safety." It is quite impossible to assume with any reasonable certainty what the basic rate of unemployment, on which all the calculations must be based, is likely to be.
If at this time it is impossible to base our calculations on what the unemployment will be for a number of years following 1940 then the inference is that we should not go on
Unemployment Insurance

with the bill until a time when we can find a satisfactory basis. However, Mr. Wolfenden denied that this was his contention. He then went on to say what might be a fair assumption, as he stated it, as to the rate of unemployment, after pointing out that the actuarial soundness of the bill was based on a rate of, I think, 12 per cent. At page 217 he continued:
To give a second example, suppose that the fund experiences the following rates-say in 1941, 6 per cent; in 1942 as low as 4 per cent; in 1943, at the end of the war, with its dislocation, 25 per cent; and in 1944, a rate which has been shown in the United States at certain times, 35 per cent; and in 1945, 35 per cent. In that five year term, which again I would emphasize is not a full cycle as it is ordinarily understood, the rate of unemployment which the fund would have to bear would be basically 21 per cent; and again in that case the fund would become insolvent at the end of 1943 on the assumption of a 12 per cent rate-
Then at page 230, in answer to a question I asked, Mr. Wolfenden said:
By Mr. Maclnnis:
Q. Do you know of any country where insurable employment went up as high as 35 per cent?
A. No. I cannot quote these figures offhand, but a rate of that kind may have been shown in some of the European countries. It is entirely possible, but certainly not in any of the English speaking countries.
At the depth of the depression, if my memory serves me rightly, though I have not the figures before me, the employment reported by the employers of Canada to the Department of Labour was about 22 per cent. All that would not be insurable employment; and at the present time, since we are accepting the best risks, I am quite sure that the employment would not go to that extent, unless of course there was a terrific dislocation for which you cannot make provision in any case. That is my reason, and I think it is sound, for discounting the evidence given by Mr. Wolfenden.
Four different labour organizations appeared before the committee. In their ordinary affairs sometimes there are violent differences among these organizations, but in the matter of the unemployment insurance bill and in the desirability of putting it into effect at the earliest possible moment, there was the utmost unanimity. All these organizations- the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the All-Canadian Congress of Labour, the Congress of Industrial Organization and the Catholic Federation of Trade Unions-were agreed that, despite its limitations and many imperfections, the bill should be passed and made law at the very earliest possible moment.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: And the locomotive firemen.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, the locomotive firemen as well.
Just a word in conclusion: I am sure there will be no attempt in this chamber to delay the passage of the measure, and I hope there will be no attempt to delay or postpone it in another place. I say that because the working people in Canada have waited for a long, long time for this small measure of social justice. They will not take it kindly if the matter is further postponed. Even if we did postpone it there is no certainty that the information we may have next year or the year after, or even the year after that, would be a more reliable basis than the one we have to-day for the passage of a measure of unemployment insurance.
This bill will not end unemployment. No man or woman who understands anything about social conditions expects it to do that. But, as I pointed out the other day on the second reading of the bill, it will give a large number of individuals when unemployed the right to certain benefits without having busy-bodies prying into their private affairs. Surely that is something worth while.
I may have something to say when the various sections are under consideration, but I hope it will not be necessary to say very much. I repeat that I considered it a distinct privilege to have had the opportunity to serve on the committee which considered this measure. Going through life I have got my education in little bits, here and there; so in the eleven sittings of the special committee which examined this bill I added to my education.


Mr. GRAYDON:: Mr. Chairman, I have
no desire this morning to delay the deliberations of the committee in connection with a subject as important as that of concurrence in the report of the special committee which considered this unemployment insurance measure. However I do wish to say a few words respecting some matters which were discussed in the committee, of which I had the honour to be a member.
Unemployment insurance legislation during the last number of years in Canada has experienced a tortuous and difficult course. It has encountered legislative, political and constitutional difficulties which fortunately to-day have been largely overcome. As a result we have before the House of Commons a concrete measure which in my opinion will be of advantage to the working man of this dominion.
This is not the first time a bill of this kind has been before parliament. The enactment of a measure of this kind has always

Unemployment Insurance
been a policy of the Conservative party, and one of the factors in my entry into public life was that the late administration headed by Right Hon. R. B. Bennett had been sufficiently farsighted and sufficiently forwardlooking to evolve a broad scheme of social legislation for Canada. In that social legislation unemployment insurance formed a major part.
Under the guidance of the party in power in 1935 there was enacted in parliament the first unemployment insurance measure introduced into Canada. I would point out to the committee and more particularly to working men throughout the dominion that too many false hopes must not be raised respecting the actual benefits and advantages which may be derived from this measure. For many years I have had the pleasure of being in close contact with the working men and their families in that part of Ontario from which I come. I have been able, through close examination of his problems, to sympathize with him in the economic and social burdens he has had to bear. I know something of the thoughts in the mind of the working man, and am confident he believes that in the main unemployment insurance will be a measure which will provide a fairly complete solution for the problem arising from his possible unemployment in the future, and will give to him and to his family a measure of security of which hitherto he has only dreamed, and certainly has not experienced.
I think it only fair to point out to the working men of Canada that the provisions of the measure are somewhat limited and restricted. I am afraid that some false hopes may have arisen in their minds, hopes that may ultimately be, at least in part, unrealized when the limitations of the bill are fully known. I would hasten to point out also that that is no reason for anyone taking a defeatist attitude respecting the measure itself. I regard the proposed bill as a step in the right direction, and one which should be taken now, regardless of what opposition to that view may have been encountered in the committee or outside it.
In my opinion security for our workers, limited though it may be, must not be postponed any longer. On another occasion in the house I have discussed the length of time democracies seem to take to bring about much needed reforms, and to bring necessary legislation into operation. I regret that we in Canada have spent so much time talking about unemployment insurance, and that it has taken so long to implement the principle by legislation.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Chairman, when the committee took recess I was referring to the delay which had occurred in the years since the close of the last war in bringing in this very necessary legislation. On a previous occasion I dwelt at some length on that point and I have no desire to labour it at this time, except to make one observation. Despite the arguments which have been advanced by members of the government in justification of the introduction of this measure into the house in the closing days of the session, I still am not convinced that there is any real excuse for the delay. I have felt and I still feel that a good purpose would have been served had the address been passed by this house and sent to the British parliament at the beginning of the session so that we could have had this bill much earlier. Had this been done, some of the complaints which have been advanced with regard to the length of time available for the discussion of this matter would have been removed.
We might as well be frank about this question of unemployment insurance. While we had the benefit of the advice of two actuaries of note when the bill was considered in the committee. I think we all realized that the actuarial advice is governed to a large extent by the conditions which may prevail. While I am not one of those who believe it will happen, there is the possibility that after this war we shall be unfortunate enough to have another long period of extreme depression. In that event, it would seem to me that before the end of that period is reached the fund will be exhausted and the government will have to provide additional means of keeping the insurance plan in operation. It is quite possible that there will be men who have worked through the major part of the depression and will be laid off just when the fund has been depleted. Having contributed to the fund they will be entitled by law to the benefits. Looking at this matter from a business standpoint, I consider this to be one of the dangers which will have to be faced. We might as well be prepared to face realities and be ready, should another period of depression come to Canada, to make additional provision in this regard.


Mr. GOLDING:: Would not the government be called upon to provide for them anyway?


Gordon Graydon: I am not objecting to the bill on that ground because I realize that what the hon. member for Huron-Perth (Mr. Golding) has suggested is only too true. Through the years we have been called upon to provide for these people from the public
Unemployment Insurance

funds. But when we consider unemployment insurance from a business and actuarial standpoint we must keep in mind the probability I just mentioned.
Despite the fact that a large number of workers will come under the provisions of this bill, a considerable number of exempted persons will not benefit. I realize the difficulties with which the department is faced when deciding on these exemptions. I am encouraged by the fact that an advisory committee is to work with the commission and is to have the power to limit these exemptions. After careful scrutiny and investigation that committee will have the power to bring within the provisions of this act some of those now exempted. Whether that is a practical way of dealing with the matter I am not sure, but it does provide that encouragement which is so essential when dealing with those industries which are now exempted. I have in mind the horticultural industry, which I referred to in committee. This industry takes in several types of employment, and it is now exempted from the operations of the bill. I agreed to that particular section going through on the understanding that it would be subject to thorough review as quickly as possible, so that those in horticulture the nature of whose employment is such that would reasonably make them eligible to come under the provisions of the act, may be brought in.
Hon. members no doubt are familiar with the several sections of the bill which deal with entitlement to benefits. Section 28, paragraph (iii), states that any worker drawing benefits must satisfy the commission that he is capable of and available for work but unable to obtain suitable employment. I know beforehand the answer that will be made to my objection to this section. The objection I raised in the committee, and I raise it again now, is that this strikes in an inhumane way at workers who may draw benefits for a couple of weeks and then take ill. According to that section they would be no longer "available for work." I know the answer will be that no scheme of health insurance is envisaged by this bill, but I do not think that is a complete answer. I should like to direct the attention of the committee to some of the serious consequences which might arise should a man take ill and his insurance benefits stop just when he and his family need money the most. According to the section such a man would not be available for work. It seems to me that this test is one which will not be acceptable to the workers generally.
Hon. members are aware that there is a difference between the 1935 act and this bill. The main distinction between the two acts 
turns on the question whether the contributions are to be on a graded scale or on a flat rate. The United States, because of constitutional difficulties, have fifty-one different schemes of insurance. In Great Britain the flat rate is used, and because of the experience over there, this parliament, in 1935, with the unanimous consent of all parties, adopted provisions establishing a flat rate. Now, upon the information and advice of the departmental officials, the flat rate has been discarded and replaced by the graded scale.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not in Great Britain, although Sir William Beveridge favours the graded rate.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps my hon. friend did not hear what I said. I said that the flat rate was in effect in Great Britain.
As members of the committee will at once recognize, wide powers are given under the act in the matter of administration. The commission and the advisory committee are clothed with an extremely broad responsibility. This puts upon the government a heavy obligation to see to it that the proper men are appointed to these executive positions. There are sections of our population coming under this measure who will look with close scrutiny upon the type of men chosen to administer measures which will so closely affect them and their families. I have had the assurance-and I believe that an assurance from a minister, especially from the Minister of Labour, will be sufficient-that no politics will be practised in the selection of men to fill these various posts. I assume that he meant by that, party politics: at least that is what I meant. In this regard may I suggest that he carry out this laudable ambition and see to it that the commission is devoid of criticism on the score of partisanship in the appointments of its personnel.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but may I say that, while the government has the appointment of the chairman of the commission, the two other members are appointed, one on the nomination of labour and one on the nomination of industry.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That does not mean a thing if the government does not want to act on it.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I cannot agree with my hon. friend.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps I did not make myself sufficiently clear. In my early remarks with regard to the commission I had particularly in mind the chairman, because those who read the act will recognize that he has

Unemployment Insurance
exceptional powers. For that reason, I believe, he should be chosen, not merely from the ranks of the party but from among the best citizens of Canada, irrespective of politics, so that his qualifications shall not be open to criticism.
Another thing I would like to bring to the attention of the committee is the matter of appointments of those to be attached to the advisory committee and to the commission who are not technical and professional men. We were assured in the committee that these men will be chosen in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Act. I want to congratulate the minister and those who had charge of the arrangements in connection with the legislation for having made that decision.
In closing my remarks I shall make just a brief allusion to the developments which have taken place in our social, economic and political life. The country is moving steadily towards providing better conditions for many of our citizens. I should like to see further advances in this direction. After all, while unemploj^ment insurance was a major part of the social legislation of the Bennett government, it was only a part, and so far we have not heard at any time during the last few years that it is the intention of the present administration to reimplement any of the other social reform measures which were passed by the former government. However, steady even though slow progress is being made in bettering the conditions of the working men and their families and those who are in unfortunate economc circumstances.
I am proud to belong to a parliament which seems to be almost unanimous in supporting this reform. I was proud to belong to the special committee which showed such singleness of purpose in attempting to adopt a workable plan in the interests of the working men and their families. It seems to me that industry and business will cheerfully shoulder their part of the burden. I am not one of those demagogues who believe that business and industry are the enemy of every other class. We have no right to assume that merely because there may be found in their ranks, as among other sections of our people, men who do not always play the game. The future of Canada depends upon the close relationship, the cooperation, the marching and advancing together of industry and labour, working in that true British spirit of harmony which has brought Canada and the empire to the great position which it now holds. I am convinced that industry will willingly accept the obligations which are laid upon it by this
bill. I further believe that the bill, when it becomes law, will open a better era for many of the less fortunate but deserving citizens of our land.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I want to take this opportunity of commending the government upon its action, although it is somewhat late, especially late in this session.
It is high time that this legislation was carried through. It is indeed unfortunate that so many years have been allowed to elapse before legislation as this could be enacted. For a long time the hope of the people that an unemployment insurance scheme would be put into effect has been encouraged. Those who will benefit by it will greatly appreciate the fact that at last it is coming to realization.
One unfortunate circumstance relates not to the terms of the legislation but to the time at which it is being introduced. At this late stage of the session it is utterly impossible for hon. members, particularly those who were not members of the special committee, to study in detail the evidence which was produced before that committee. Here we have three or four large volumes of the committee's evidence, as well as proposed legislation with regard to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, and the terms of this most important bill. We have also the amendment to the wheat board act, another extremely important measure. All these are brought down in the last three or four days of the session, making it impossible for hon. members to give them the consideration warranted by their importance.
While the classes of people who are included in the scope of this unemployment insurance bill will be delighted that it is-at last- brought down, it is disappointing to find that so many groups of employees are not to share in the benefits of the measure. It was mentioned that school teachers would not be included. It will be said that there are other provisions that can be introduced whereby they may have a form of unemployment insurance. I submit however that this question should be considered now, because if we wait another four or five years the teachers will be so much the worse off. They belong to a profession that is doing a great deal of good work, and that work is being carried on under most difficult financial arrangements, so that they need this protection while they are employed. The longer we delay making provision for them the less benefit they will receive.
There is another branch of labour which will be greatly disappointed. I refer to domestic servants. They work under a
Unemployment Insurance

depressed wage scale, almost an insufficient allowance to allow them to maintain even a low standard of living.
Then there is that other great body of labour, the western farm labourers. They will not get any benefit under this scheme, and I do not know of any class that work under more difficult conditions than farm labourers. They have only limited employment in the fall and in the spring-in the spring possibly for a month or six weeks when seeding is carried on and, in the time of harvest, another four or six weeks, a maximum of twelve weeks' employment. And they get an exceedingly low wage. They will not be able to get any direct benefit from this unemployment insurance scheme, and it will be another four or five years before anything is done for them. I suggest that now, when the house has the ambition and the intention to put into force a form of unemployment insurance, the time is opportune to make provision at once for these other classes.
Then there is another type of unemployed- at least they are not unemployed just now -who will not come under this bill. I refer to the soldiers. I do not know of any type of labourer throughout the dominion who is contributing more to the welfare and safety of Canada than the soldier, and a great many of the boys who enlisted came from the ranks of the unemployed. Some of them have never had a day's work, week in and week out, month after month and year after year. Now they are fighting in defence of the country and most definitely they should have some assurance that they will be entitled to participate to some degree in the benefits of this insurance plan. It should be done at once and not left until after the war, or these fellows will be given the same treatment as was given those who took part in the last great war. When they come back from the front they will be disbanded and scattered throughout the dominion without a thing to do. Employment conditions will be terrible after the war, especially if these men have not the privilege of coming under this legislation. This is a serious matter which should be given some thought at this time.
In view of the fact that there are so many exemptions among the labouring classes, it seems to me that this bill is rather inappropriately named. It is not insurance against unemployment; it is employment insurance. Only those who are employed will be able to derive any benefit from it. I am not belittling the bill, because I can see the benefit which those who are employed will receive. But the name is entirely misleading. I very much fear that if the public at the time of 
the election had known that this was not an unemployment insurance scheme but merely, as was stated in this house some time ago, a means of distributing poverty, they would not have been quite so enthusiastic in voting for the Liberal party.
I am surprised at the representations made by the banks and their endeavour to get out from under the obligations which the act imposes. They are objecting to it. I do not know of any industry in the country that pays worse wages, considering the profits they make, than the banking industry. It is true that the young fellows in the banks have comparatively steady employment, but their wages are most miserable, and these young fellows spend their entire life in that work. I think the bankers association should be ashamed of themselves for trying to get out of their obligation under this bill. I hope the government will stand firm in their resolve to see that they come under the bill.
There is one unfortunate part of the bill that affects every individual in Canada. The bill will definitely raise the prices of consumable goods. There is no question about that. It is all very well to say that the worker contributes his share. He will do that because he is forced to do it, and m making his contribution he will be thereby reducing his own purchasing power and his standard of living, because his contribution is taken directly out of his wages, so that he has that much less to go on. True, it provides him with insurance against unemployment, but so far as the industries are concerned, they have never assumed that financial responsibility themselves. They have always included anything of the sort in their prices and there is nothing in this bill to make sure that they will not do it again.
In this connection I would refer to a question asked by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) on July 23, as reported at page 131 of the evidence. The witness was Mr. Norman J. Dawes, president of the National Breweries. It is surprising, as you go through the evidence, to find that all these industries are objecting to unemployment insurance They come out and give you a nice talk about how much interested they are in the unemployed and how glad they are to see that the government are taking steps to legislate for unemployment insurance, but that is all on the surface, because every one of them objects to it. They can give you no good and sufficient reason for their objection. At page 131 of the evidence the hon. member for Macleod asked this question:
Would your share of the contributions be inclined to increase prices to the consumer?

Unemployment Insurance
The answer was:
No. The cost of our product is so high now that we cannot increase it.
That may be true in this particular industry because, as all hon. members know, the increase resulting from the industrialist's contribution in this case would probably be a fraction of a cent per glass of beer. If beer is selling at ten cents a glass he cannot very easily make it 104 or 11 cents.
Then the hon. member asked:
Q. I mean generally speaking. In the manufacturing industry, for instance, would it be inclined to increase the price to the consumer?
A. The manufacturer cannot stand all these taxes; he has to do something with them. They reduce wages or else add it to the price.
That is clear and concise; there is no misunderstanding. The manufacturers, so far as their contribution is concerned, are going to add it to the price of the goods. It means an indirect sales tax. Every man who buys manufactured goods is going to pay the manufacturer's share of the contribution towards this fund. So that the term is misleading to the public. When the government say that the manufacturers are going to contribute so much, that is definitely not right, because the manufacturers have no intention of assuming this extra cost. Eventually it will come out of the taxpayer in the form of this indirect sales tax, and it will lower the standard of living of every citizen in Canada. The taxes put on this year are exceedingly high; all taxpayers, especially those in the lower income brackets, are going to feel this tax increase tremendously, and any additional taxation on the public will not be received with too great pleasure.
I am not against the bill at all. I hope the government will ignore the presentations made by the chamber of commerce-I do not know what industry they represent; I have never been able to find out-and the boards of trade and some of these industrialists who think now is not the proper time to give effect to this measure. They say, "You should not rush this bill through, because they have not had time to consider it." I doubt if they would consider it any further if it were left for another ten years. Their only concern, as I see it, is that business is now being stimulated a little and in some instances it might affect their profits. If the bill is to be enacted at all, now is the proper time, not when the employment situation is worse, not when industry begins to subside, not when the war is over and we know definitely that industry will close down extensive!}'. Now is the time. I hope the government will complete the legislation at this session and put it into force immediately.


Clarence Gillis: I have not very much to say with respect to the technicalities of the bill. I rise merely for the purpose of associating myself with those who have identified themselves with the general principles of the measure now before us. One observation came to my mind as I listened to the discussion when the resolution was first introduced. Having been associated with organized labour for a long period of years, and knowing something of the struggles of the people who desire the present legislation, I thought I was familiar with practically everyone who was actively interested in having measures of this kind enacted for the benefit of the people. I was surprised to hear the claims made from one side of the house and the other; therefore I made it my business to examine Hansard to find out exactly how much certain people who claim to have been advocating legislation of this kind had been interested in it from as far back as 1922. I do not want my remarks on this particular angle to be construed as partisan, or as seeking to take away any credit from those who claim that for years they have been actively associated with this class of legislation. What I say I say not because I am a member of this group. But I think the man who stands out head and shoulders over everyone in Canada in respect to this class of legislation and with particular reference to this bill is the man who heads this group, the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth).
In 1922 Mr. Woodsworth entered the house on March 8, and on March 14, in the first address he delivered, as reported on pages 84 to 92 of Hansard of that year, he painted a vivid picture of the evils of unemployment and urged unemployment insurance. Carrying the examination of Hansard through until the last session I find that repeatedly, session after session, the hon. gentleman, with the assistance and cooperation of members of his group, introduced the question of unemployment insurance, and while many others have given it lip service and would lead us to believe at this time that they were utilizing their power and authority for the purpose of bringing about this measure, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre demonstrated his interest, and to him I give the credit for the bill that is before the house at this session. He used his authority as a member of parliament to bring to the attention of those who had the responsibility and the prerogative the necessity for a measure of this kind. He celebrates his birthday on the twenty-ninth of this month. I consider the measure before the house at the present time a fitting gift from the government of Canada to the hon. member on the occasion of that anniversary.
Unemployment Insurance

I have no intention at this time of making a detailed examination of the clauses of the bill; it would be a waste of time. As the bill is considered clause by clause we shall have opportunity of registering our objections, expressing our opinions and getting answers to questions.
Two classes that I am sorry are not included in the measure are the seamen and the fishermen. I have some knowledge of their problems, and I believe there is no class of workers in Canada more in need of the protection of such a measure. This was forcibly brought to my attention only this morning by the receipt of a telegram from the Canadian Seamen's Union, which reads:
Canadian Seamen's Union on behalf of thousands of seamen and fishermen protest discrimination in proposed unemployment insurance bill in leaving us out from benefits of said bill. Seamen and fishermen are greatly affected by unemployment and we urge you give serious consideration to rectify this injustice.
I realize that to attempt at the present time to inject other classifications into the bill would upset the whole actuarial basis on which the bill is worked out. Perhaps it is not possible to have these classifications included. Nevertheless I put myself on record as deprecating the fact that these men, who have a serious unemployment problem year in and year out-with particular reference to the fishermen-are left out. As the leader of the opposition very well put it a few days ago, the fisherman appears to be the forgotten man as far as parliaments and legislative bodies throughout Canada are concerned. I know no other class of workers in Canada more afflicted by unemployment than that group. I presume that we shall have an opportunity to propose amendments later, looking to the inclusion of these groups.
There is another class of people who probably do not come to the minds of many members of parliament, but because of the fact that I have been associated with them over a long period of time I am very familiar with the conditions affecting them. I am referring now to men who are in positions of leadership in trades .unions, of whom there are thousands across Canada. They leave their regular occupations to accept office in the unions, but under this bill they are given no protection against unemployment. Every year or two they must take part in an election, with the chance of being defeated. Once they leave their position with the union, by reason of being voted out, they enter the ranks of the unemployed but though they have given of their services to the benefit of the people of Canada over a period of years, when through no fault of their own they become unemployed they do not come under

the benefits of this bill. This is particularly unfortunate, because for a long period of time these men have been fighting for the very measure now before the committee.
There is another aspect of the bill which I should like to stress, and about which those who are interested in having the terms of the bill implemented should be most concerned. I refer to the administration of the act after it is finally passed. I have had considerable experience with compensation boards and similar organizations set up by governments to administer acts. Once a commission is appointed it becomes a law unto itself. The act may read all right, as our compensation acts read all right; the bill may be made as perfect as possible, yet when that commission is appointed it has full jurisdiction over the administration of the act. In my experience it inevitably happens that a three or four man board interprets an act as it sees it and as it wants it to function, and in the final analysis perhaps seventy-five per cent of the material good that should accrue to the people for whom you are attempting to legislate is lost through these people placing their own interpretation upon the terms of the act. We have had many unhappy experiences of this kind with compensation boards, because the English language can be construed to mean almost anything. That is why I say this bill should be discussed section by section, so that the minister can give us his interpretation of the different provisions of the bill. Then, when the commission is set up, at least we shall have Hansard to show what was the intention of the government in connection with the bill.
I do not want to occupy any more of the time of the committee. I merely wanted to identify myself with the measure, and to say that as representing an industrial constituency-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Many of the sections are fully explained in the report of the committee, and this is something very unusual in committee proceedings.


Clarence Gillis: Would the report of the
committee be taken as an authority in regard to the interpretation of the act later on?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It would be a guide.


Clarence Gillis: I think the minister's
answers would contain the proper interpretation. As I started to say, I do not want to occupy any more of the time of this committee, though I may have a good many questions to ask as the different sections are dealt with. I merely want to put myself on record as being perfectly satisfied with the

Unemployment Insurance
measure, and I want to commend the government on the courage and initiative they have shown in bringing in and piloting through this bill at this time. I know that every agency that is opposed to the interests of the common people of Canada has utilized every available means to defeat this bill, and I pay tribute to those who had the courage to bring it in and have it enacted.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have a very few observations to make with respect to the bill, and I should prefer to make them now rather than later. I apologize to the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) if I intervened ahead of him.
What has been said here to-day with respect to the administration of the act lends a good deal of force to what I said a few days ago, and I particularly commend to the attention of the minister the remarks of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). But more important than that, or at least just as important as the administration of the act, is the question raised by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his- seat (Mr. Gillis), in regard to the interpretation of the act by the commission. I was amused at the question and answer that passed between -the hon. member and the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mackenzie). The hon. member for Cape Breton South is not a lawyer, but the Minister of Pensions and National Health is a lawyer, and I am sure he knows-if he does not he should-that nothing that may be said in a parliamentary committee or during a parliamentary debate will have the slightest influence on the interpretation of any statute by any court of law in this country. They repel even the suggestion that they are bound or even influenced by anything we may say here as to the interpretation of a particular section of a statute.


Mr. MARTIN:: It is inadmissible.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Even a reference to it is not permitted, as I know to my own cost. Once, when appearing before the Supreme Court of Canada here in Ottawa, I had the temerity to refer to what Mr. Fielding once said with regard to the effect of a section of a particular act. They were very gentle with me, since I was just a country lawyer, but I never forgot the lesson.


Thomas Reid: That must have been years ago.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That was quite a number of years ago. It is folly to say that the report of the committee, or anything we may say with respect to the interpretation of any section of this act, will be given effect to by the commission. I am sure the Minister of Labour, as a sound lawyer,
will agree with that. The situation was epitomized by a great jurist in the United States in a book he wrote on the constitution of that country. During the course of a discussion of Mr. Roosevelt's attempt to increase the membership of the supreme court this jurist said, "The constitution is what the judges say it is." That statement created a great furore in the United States, but it was true. The interpretation of the constitution was for the judges, not for the legislative branch or the executive branch of the government. And the interpretation of any law in Canada is for the courts. In this instance the high court of this commission will interpret the law without reference to anything you or I may say, Mr. Chairman. There is no doubt about that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But my hon. friend will admit that this parliament has the right from year to year to revise the statute; and there is a recommendation in the report of the committee that the report of the advisory committee be reviewed by a standing committee of this house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is so; that is the exercise of the legislative function, and it is fortunate that we have that power. If we did not have it we would be bound by the decisions of those who have the responsibility of interpreting these statutes but who have not any responsibility to the public such as we have. That is a fortunate feature of our constitutional set-up. It is the safeguard of democracy.
I was impressed by the tribute paid by the hon. member for Cape Breton South to his leader. It is true that in season and out of season the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has advocated the principle contained in this measure; and having regard to his physical condition I should like to reaffirm what the hon. gentleman said as to his devotion to a principle. Perhaps he was a good many years ahead of his time. So is every pioneer who advocates a great reform. In days gone by many of these men were referred to as advocates of lost causes. I have known some of them. Many of them have not lived to see the fulfilment of a cherished ambition in connection with reform. Let us hope that in his declining years, and in that period of ill health through which he is passing, the hon. gentleman will find much satisfaction in the thought that the principle for which in season and out of season he has fought is finally to triumph.
I had hoped the hon. member who has spoken would have given us the benefit of his further examination of champions for this cause. Had he done so I am certain that
Unemployment Insurance

with the honesty of purpose which has characterized all his utterances in the house he would have paid tribute to a former leader of the Conservative party. It is true that Mr. Bennett was not in the house in 1921. Perhaps it is unfortunate for the house that he was not here. But let me point out that Mr. Bennett was the first statesman in Canada to give concrete proof of his earnestness for reforms in this connection; and it did not take him twenty-one years, either, to give evidence of that proof.


Mr. ROWE:: Twenty-one years is a long time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is true that his efforts were frustrated; but the fact remains that he was the first champion who, in practical and legislative form, gave effect to the principles of unemployment insurance. I am confident that if the hon. member had pursued his research further he would have done justice to the memory of that man, who is not here to-day.
The hon. member then referred to the exclusion of certain employees from the operation of the bill, and referred particularly to seamen and fishermen. I appreciate that there is a difficulty in bringing within the ambit of this measure the general class of seamen and fishermen. But in certain respects that need not be true. Fishermen on the east coast who are employed in connection with the operations of steam trawlers, and who have steady employment for twelve months of the year, could be brought within the ambit of the measure. They do have steady employment- unless, of course, the Minister of Fisheries, (Mr. Michaud) refuses further licences to steam trawlers; and I must say I do not think he will ever have the courage to do that. I know that is a vexed question on the eastern coast. These men are entitled to be brought within the ambit of the bill.
I quite agree that it would be difficult to bring in the fishermen who fishes in his own boat. He is not an employee. But there are men along the shores of Nova Scotia and elsewhere who are employees, and I would hope that the advisory committee, or whatever group may have charge of the operation of the measure, will give at least some consideration to this matter. I say that because those men are wage earners, and if we are going to set up a form of social legislation for employees in Canada we cannot draw a distinction so fine as to exclude them from the provisions of the legislation. Certainly their position ought to be examined.
Then the position of seamen has been raised. It is true that the old-time sailor has disappeared in Canada. To-day everything is done

by steam or some other form of power. But there are men in employment who go down to the sea in ships, and consideration ought to be given to them. What about the men on the liners, under Canadian registry?


John Ritchie MacNicol: The British seamen are included.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I realize that most of the seamen now employed on the big liners are working in ships under British or foreign registry, and obviously we cannot take them in. But the British seaman is taken in under the British act.


Mr. NEILL:: Is he?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
subject to correction in that regard, but I am sure he is.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I know he is.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I commend that suggestion to the ministry. This may be a limited class, but I suggest they have just as much right to be under the provisions of this measure as have their brethren in England. There may be difficulties; I am sure there will be charges of discrimination, but that sort of thing must be expected. The operations of this act are strewn with difficulties. Yet, having decided to go on, those difficulties must be faced in a manly fashion.
Reference was made by an hon. member who spoke earlier to the incidence of the cost of contribution. I notice that the officer of the Department of Labour who appeared before the committee has revised his estimate of the quantum of contribution. A while ago we were told that the total cost of the bill in the first year of operation would be $73,000,000. I believe that was the estimate handed to me, in which was included cost of governmental administration. The minister shakes his head, but I have added up the figures, beginning with the $56,000,000 from employers and employees, and working from that point. That figure has been revised downward to the extent of $8,000,000. Is that any criterion of the correctness of the estimate the Department of Labour has made concerning this measure? In two weeks' time they have sliced off to the extent of $8,000,000 the quantum of the total contribution, and are still adhering to the number of beneficiaries and their dependents. That caused me to pause and to wonder-and I have wondered a good deal about the soundness of this measure. If I am correctly informed, the deputy minister, or some other gentleman from the Department of Labour giving evidence before the committee, has reduced the actual quantum by $8,000,000, or perhaps

Unemployment Insurance
more. It will be realized that I have not had the time to go through these long books of evidence to verify that statement.
The contributions are not going to be nearly as high as was estimated. No matter what the cost of contributions by industries may be, that cost is going to be passed on to the consuming public. Economically it cannot be otherwise. To suggest any other course of procedure would be pure folly, and contrary to every economic law ever heard of. Let us not get away from the fact that the cost is going to be carried by somebody. I am going to pay it and you are going to pay it, no matter how infinitesimal our shares may be.
In the last analysis, what is the result? In this life we never get something for nothing. On many occasions I have proved that to be so, and if the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) were in his seat I would remind him that I heard his father say that when he addressed us at the time of my graduation. It is a truism which I have never forgotten.
May I now refer briefly to Mr. Wolfenden's evidence. I regret exceedingly that I had not the benefit of at least an interview with him before I made my remarks on a previous occasion respecting this measure. I call the attention of hon. members to his evidence as it appears at page 215 in volume 3 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the special committee which considered this measure. He is there reported to have said the following:
If I may, sir, I should like to place on the record first of all my own interpretation of a phrase which has assumed a great deal of importance in these discussions. That is, the meaning of "actuarial soundness". I understand, and I am very glad to hear, that it is the intention of the government, so far as may be possible, to make sure that this bill is "actuarially sound".
Then he goes on to say that he would like to explain the meaning of that expression. If it was the intention of the government that this scheme should be actuarially sound, will the minister explain why there has been such a tremendous differential in the estimated cost of operating this scheme in only two weeks. Was the department's estimate correct two weeks ago? If so, then it is not correct now. If the department's estimate is right now, then it was unsound two weeks ago. If I read the evidence aright, they have changed their position. I do not know whether that was done to soften t'he blow to the employers, but there is the position. I am not attributing any motives at the moment, but there has been a change of base. I should like to have some explanation from the minister with regard to this important matter.
The whole bill is important and that is why I think the ministry could have been at least a week earlier in introducing it. I was intrigued at the suggestion made a little while ago by the minister that this bill had been under study practically continuously since 1935, that it was not the result of a hurried preparation since the address to the imperial parliament was passed. I assume that that is correct. That being so, they had ample time in the department to deal with this question of actuarial soundness. Is this scheme sound? If it is not, there is going to be trouble in store for somebody, and that somebody will be the taxpayer of Canada; make no mistake about that.
Why do I make that statement? The treasury of Canada is going to be considered the most convenient place to which to go to make up deficits. I am afraid that there will be great unemployment after the war. Should that unemployment be as high as 33^ per cent, which I certainly hope will not be the situation, how long will this scheme stand up under the burden of the financial strain caused by such unemployment? Properly speaking, additions to the fund should be made by those who are primarily interested, that is, the employers and employed. But will that happen? I know what will not. Whatever government is in power at the time will be pressed by both classes to help out the fund by contributions from the general taxation of Canada. Under our democratic form of government no administration will be able to resist that plea.
We have an illustration of this in the processing tax provided for in the wheat bill now before the house, about which I shall have something to say a little later. In theory this processing tax is an effort on the part of the government to load on the general taxpayers of the country a portion of the cost of carrying the Wheat crop. I cite this merely as an example of what we may expect under this measure if what I predict comes true and if this plan is not actuarially sound. What does Mr. Wolfenden say about that? I am informed that he is probably the best man in Canada to deal with a question of this kind. At page 216 of the evidence given before the committee he goes on to say:
I should like therefore to explain the meaning of that phrase "actuarially sound". To do so I may quote from the following explanation which I included in an address on the financial implications of compulsory health insurance in Vancouver in 1938. Actuarial soundness can be claimed for any plan only when all of the following conditions are fulfilled: (1) The benefits offered by the plan must be defined, and the conditions for their payment must be clear.
Unemployment Insurance

So far as I have been able to study this bill I think that condition No. 1 has been fairly well fulfilled. The benefits offered have been defined and the conditions of their payment are clear. I just want to make one passing observation with respect to the benefits. I hope the employed public in Canada have not raised their hopes too high with respect to the benefits to be obtained under this measure. If they have, the time is going to come when there will be a lot of mighty disappointed people in Canada. It has been said, and it is a trite saying, that this bill is no cure for relief. It is not a cure for unemployment; it is simply a palliative intended to soften the blow. I am sure the minister will agree with that statement.


Mr. POTTIER:: That is something.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes, that is something. I am not condemning the principle of the measure, and my hon. friend will not find that I have said anything at any time or anywhere against the principle of the bill. I think I made it clear in the statement I made the other day that having regard to its advantages and disadvantages, having regard to our duty as Canadians to raise the standard of living of our working people as high as possible, this measure commends itself to me. That is the position I take, and that is the position which I think must be taken by any man who has a realization of the responsibilities of his position-unless, of course, he is entirely hostile to the principle, in which event he should say so. I am prepared to stand or fall on the position I have taken, no matter what some of my friends may think. If they do not like it, it is just too bad, both for them and for me.


Mr. KUHL:: Will the hon. gentleman
explain just how this raises the standard of living?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I was
referring to the general principle of social legislation. Surely the eight hour day, which I helped put through this house in 1935, gives opportunities for recreation, for study and for education which are not available when a man must work nine, ten or twelve hours a day. That is an illustration of what I mean. All the social legislation of the so-called new deal of Mr. Bennett was designed to better the condition of the working people. What thanks did we get for it from the public? I ask that question not in any spirit of pique but rather in a spirit of disappointment. We got no reaction at all.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: How does this provide more purchasing power?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not want to get into a discussion of social credit, if that is the intention of my hon. friend. I would say most politely to him that I prefer not to be cross-examined until some other occasion. Then I will take him on, at any time.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: The hon. gentleman made a point.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I made the point that this and all other measures of social legislation are, I believe, in theory, and I hope will prove in practice to be, an effort to raise the standards of living of the Canadian working man. If there is nothing like that in the bill, if this is not going to benefit the working man, his family and his dependents, then we had better reexamine the whole position. I do not think I need argue that question any further. To me it does not require any demonstration. And I do not believe I can convince the hon. gentleman. I am going to leave it at that.
Mr. Wolfenden's second point in connection with actuarial soundness is this:
The corresponding contributions, or other financial arrangements, by which the costs of such prescribed benefits are to be met, must be determined by proper actuarial calculation.
That, I think, is fundamental. That was built up in the old act on what I believed at the time and still believe was a proper basis. I have never yet been told-it may be in this evidence which I have not been able to read-the basis upon which this principle of proper actuarial calculation is determined. I confess my inability to discuss the question with any degree of intelligence because I have not the necessary data to do so, but I believe that that is a correct statement of one of the principles upon which such a bill should be based.
Then he goes on to say:
(3) Any power to alter the basis, terms, or conditions of the scheme must be subject to an actuarial certificate that the cost of such alterations are within the financial capacity of the plan.
I understand that Mr. Watson of the insurance branch has given such a certificate. I have not been able to find it in the report, but I am told that it is there.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Appendix A, the last report.


Norman Alexander McLarty: On page 271, the second
paragraph,


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, I will not take time to read it. If Mr. Watson has given such a certificate, I am content to the extent of his authority, but I should

Unemployment Insurance
have preferred that it had been done by more than Mr. Watson. That is not a vote of want of confidence in Mr. Watson. I have heard nothing but good of him. But it does seem to me that we would be surer, Shall I say, of the position if a man who is not in the government service, who is absolutely independent and free from t)he trammels of his personal employment and in a position to criticize or suggest, had given such a certificate, or jointly with Mr. Watson. That was the plan which was adopted by the late government. We felt sure that by having the advice of two experts our position was strengthened. However, I am not in any position to controvert anything Mr. Watson may have said. This is a very technical subject. Only experts, really, are entitled to analyse or criticize it. I have to be content with this. I hope Mr. Watson is correct and that time will justify the confidence which has been placed in this certificate and will vindicate the soundness of the position he has taken.
Mr. Wolfenden goes on to say:
(4) Adequate machinery must exist for the certification, inspection, and control of claims for benefits, in order to make certain that they fall within the terms and conditions of the scheme, and for the impartial and judicial interpretation of the numerous and difficult administrative problems which inevitably arise.
Well, I can see trouble for every one of my hon. friends in the House of Commons, in relation to the subject matter of that observation. There is not one of us who lives in an industrial community but will have man after man out of work who has been denied the privileges of the unemployment insurance act, coming to him and saying, "I want more benefit under this law," and he won't believe you when you tell him that you can't get it for him. I recall some of my own experiences in times of pressure through unemployment. For five years I was, as a member of parliament, little better than a labour agent. That is why in a measure I welcomed my release in 1935. I could say with an honest air and an honest spirit and an honest heart that I was through and I could not do a thing for them. I could say, '"Go to Mr. Clark." That is what will happen to members of parliament.


William Earl Rowe: Probably that is why Mr. Clark is not here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let us
be realistic about the operation of this act. I pity my hon. friend from Essex East over there-whom I see following me with a degree of interest-in the community in which he lives. I hope that employment will increase in his community and that he will not be bothered.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My constituents are very reasonable.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I see men coming into his front door and filling up his waiting room.


William Earl Rowe: He might be "released" too. You can't tell.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
true. But I had not visualized that at the moment. If he continues, as he will for four years at least, let us all pray, he will know exactly what I am trying to get at in this little bit of by-play.
The evidence goes on:
If any plan of insurance cannot meet these tests, it cannot be certified as being "actuarially sound." It must then obviously be classed as being either "actuarially indeterminate," or "actuarially unsound."
I know what is meant by "actuarially unsound", but if I interpret correctly the expression "actuarially indeterminate", it means just this, that neither Mr. Wolfenden nor anybody else can say that the scheme is sound. He is an agnostic; he does not know. That exactly sums up Mr. Wolfenden's position: he does not know.
If the actuary cannot set out the benefits, conditions, contributions, powers of alteration, and methods of organization and control in such a distinct manner that he can, according to his best judgment and experience, formulate his methods of calculation with reasonable certainty and with adequate (though not, of course, excessive) margins of safety, then it is obvious that the basis of the plan must be "actuarially indeterminate"-
Then he employs a phrase which is well known to lawyers,-"void for uncertainty." How often we have used that expression in connection with a given position. I do not attach much importance to the finding of the committee on a point like this. Of necessity the members of the committee cannot know. They must be guided by what is told them. Is this scheme going to be "void for uncertainty"? It seems to me that is the verdict of one who I understand to be the best authority in Canada. That seems to me to be damning the scheme with faint praise. I hope the gentleman is wrong, because if he is not the act will be back here. It will be back anyway. I venture to suggest that next year and the year after that, if we are all alive and well and back here in our places, this measure will be back in the lap of the House of Commons. I do not think there is any question about it. After all, is it not the verdict of all of us who are considering the matter that, so far as Canada is concerned, this bill is an experiment? It is an
Unemployment Insurance

experiment to which we have given our adherence in principle. Let us hope that it may be made workable.
Mr. Wolfenden gives his reasons for saying that this scheme is actuarially indeterminate. He says that in this case, in the year 1940, in respect of any estimates of future employment, it is wholly impossible to formulate methods of calculation, "with reasonable certainty and with adequate margins of safety". I quote:
It is quite impossible to assume with any reasonable certainty what the basic rate of unemployment, on which all the calculations must be based, is likely to be.
And he draws a distinction between this year of grace 1940 and the year 1935. He says that at that time the world was at peace, and then obtrudes the ugly head of war:
At that time, with the world at peace, it was a perfectly reasonable assumption that a 12 per cent rate of unemployment, being the percentage of idle time to total time, as shown by the records of eleven years from 1921 to 1931, would represent adequately the unemployment rate to be anticipated over a cycle of years commencing in 1935 or 1936. In fact, in my opinion the assumption of that basic 12 per cent rate in^ 1935, and the rate of contribution for the specified benefits which were calculated bv Mr. Watson and myself on that rate, and in conformity with the terms of the 1935 act, were based on a wholly reasonable certainty, and did contain an adequate margin of safety.
For that reason he certified the bill. On page 217 he makes this statement, having regard to the fact that we are at war:
The conditions which we now face are utterly unpredictable.
And then he goes on to give examples. About the middle of the page he says, with respect to this very question:
. . . and again in that case the fund would become insolvent at the end of 1943 on the assumption of a 12 per cent rate-and the advisory committee would again have to effect a drastic readjustment.
Then he refers to another aspect of the question to which he believes insufficient attention has been paid. I will not go into the various ramifications of that.
I do not think I should take up the time of the house further. I voted for the bill. I suggested that it should go to a committee for study. I think we have had the benefit of evidence and opinions which we could not possibly get across the floor of the house, and that is why I made the suggestion. I am glad the Prime Minister accepted it. The bill comes back practically unaltered. I must conclude, I think, that either the bill was perfect when it went to the committee, or that there has been inadequate study of it while in the committee. I do not think it can be 
said that this bill is actuarially sound, having regard to the criticism that has been levelled against it by one who is considered to be the best authority in Canada.


Mr. ROEBUCK:: I rose a few moments ago on the conclusion of a speech by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) and my intention was to agree with him very strongly on his suggestion that we get down to the clauses of the bill. Let us make progress in connection with this bill and get it passed. It is a strange thing that talk makes talk and the more speeches there are the more there are to come until they are all wound up, and yet I will violate my own principle by making one or two observations.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South paid what I think is a deserving tribute to the leader of his group, and I wish to join with him and with the leader of the Conservative group in that respect. I am also prepared to give credit to the extent that credit is due to the former leader of his own Conservative group and to do it without carping criticisms of motives or that sort of thing. But I do think that after all it is results that, count, and the one man to whom this bill will stand as a monument is the leader of our group, the present Prime Minister. But there is credit enough, let me say, for all of us. The difference between some of those who have advocated the measure and who should be credited for having done so and the present Prime Minister of Canada is that by good judgment and action at the right time he has brought the matter actually to fruition, and here it is a success.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Don't forget it was here before.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Yes, but not successfully.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It passed the house.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: It would be better had the hon. gentleman not raised the point about its having been here before.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am proud of it.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Perhaps so, but it was here before when the hon. gentleman must have known that it could not have been a success at that time in the form in which it was brought forward, because it was unconstitutional and known to be unconstitutional at the time it was brought forward, on the eve of a general election. Let us not argue that but give credit to all who have played any part in bringing the measure to a success. There is plenty of credit to go round.
I want to make an observation with regard to a statement made by the leader of the opposition, that the cost of this measure will be passed on to the consuming public. He

Unemployment Insurance
stated it with great emphasis and very dogmatically, but with all deference and respect I beg leave to differ, not perhaps wholly but at least in part. A similar statement was made by one of the witnesses before our committee. The witness detailed the various social services for which he was responsible in his own organization, such for instance as protection against accidents, accident control, sickness benefits and that sort of thing. He said that the cost of these services had been passed on by him to the consumer. I challenged it at the time; I asked him if it was not a fact that these social services which he had given in the limited community to which he referred had paid for themselves. He immediately corrected his statement and said yes, that certainly the cost of his accident insurance, his sickness provision and the care of his staff and so on had not been passed on entirely, at all events, to the consumer; that it had paid for itself. It is true that the consumer is the last well out of which we must draw. But in computing the cost of this measure to the consumer, as you put down on one side the price that will be charged against the payrolls of the dominion, on the other side you must list the value in a better satisfied working community and all that goes with greater security to working people. Of course the figures are large in the gross, but in the individual case they are small, and when you contemplate the very small figures involved I very much doubt whether in the last analysis anything will be passed on to the consumer. But nobody knows.
It has been said that this concession to the working people will only result in further demands. Well, I suppose the working people are not likely to be easily satisfied; nobody else is. I presume we shall have further demands in consequence of this concession. But hon. members must remember that we have had workmen's compensation laws in effect. We have had further demands, but nobody has run to excess. We have old age pensions, we have mothers' allowances, and we have the present forms of relief. Surely if granting something in the way of a social service but adds to the demands upon parliament, we should already have been swamped by these demands. Why should we anticipate greater difficulty in resisting unreasonable demands upon this particular fund than we have in resisting unreasonable demands in the various categories I have mentioned? And more might be added. Of course we shall have demands; let us hope that we shall be able to satisfy some of those demands as time goes on and they appear to be reasonable.
I have in my hands a telegram addressed to me by the Seamen's Union. It is somewhat similar to that already read by the hon.
member for Cape Breton South. I should like to put myself on record, with him, as saying that I wish this group-and also the stevedores, and I might mention many more- had been included in the bill. The reason why these particular men were not included is that they are seasonal workers-very much so. It was felt by the department and those who have studied it that were they included the bill would be greatly complicated, much more than it is at present, and that it is wiser under the circumstances to take the steps that seem clear rather than enter upon doubtful steps which might vitiate the whole bill if we tried to go too far at once.
But we have provided in this bill a means whereby we may extend it as time goes on. The advisory committee and the commission may take the initiating steps which will in due season include these and others now exempted from the measure. Meantime it is, as someone said, a first class start on what we hope to accomplish from year to year. Of course as time goes on the measure will be bettered.
Another point which has not been mentioned in the discussion in the house is that this bill is an admission on the part of parliament that the disastrous conditions of unemployment that have prevailed in Canada in the past will continue in the future. I do not think it is. It is true that because of the stupidity of ourselves, this generation, we have not successfully wrestled with or solved that terrible problem of unemployment. We have not even discussed the fundamentals of the problem, we have weakly set it aside. The time is coming when the business people of this community, the great middle class, must tackle that problem courageously; no matter where the chips may fall, we must settle the question in due season.
I want it understood, by my constituents at all events, that in voting for this measure I do not give up the hope that has been with me as long as I can remember, that the time will come when the Canadian people will attack this problem effectively and abolish the anomaly of an industrious and progressive people, living in the midst of great resources, yet with large numbers of their population unable to support themselves by their labour. Stupidity, nothing else! Nature intended that we should all be busy and that we should make our living by applying our labour to the resources of nature. But in some way or other we have got into a jug-handled condition-stupid beyond measure-in which we waste practically half the productive power of our people. Perhaps we of this generation have not enough intelligence or brains to solve that problem; I hope our children will be wiser.
Unemployment Insurance

I am not admitting that passing of this bill means that we have accepted that undesirable condition, which has existed particularly during the last five or ten years; I take it we will go on trying to cure it. There will always be a certain amount of seasonal unemployment, and the changing of people from one employment to another. There will always be some out of work for a short time, so that a measure of this kind can always be useful, at least for many years to come. But to say that we accept as a permanent condition the mass employment contemplated in this bill does not conform to my notion of common sense, and I want that reserved so far as I am concerned.


Mr. McIVOR:: The first reason why I think this bill should pass now is that a former government, who thought they were just as intelligent as we are, wanted to pass a bill of this kind. I think they were reasonable and showed good sense, although they may not have been as alert as the present government.
There are objections to this bill; there will be objections to any measure introduced in parliament to help the men who are down at the bottom of the ladder. I Should like to pay my tribute to the Minister of Labour (Mr. MeLarty) and to those who in days gone by stood for the betterment of the men who toil. The :hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) paid tribute to great men in this house and in other places; I would pay my tribute to another man, formerly in this house, whom I admire very much, the late 'hon. member for Parkdale, Mr. Spence-first because he was an Irishman, the second because he was a good one. He was always willing to help the man who was at the bottom of the ladder.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) said that every member of this house will be in trouble if this bill passes. I would rather take the risk of being in trouble on account of the passing of this bill than in trouble for failing to do my duty. I think this legislation is long overdue. It is true that it was passed by the previous government, but perhaps because of lack of foresight, or for some other reason, the bill did not become law.
I Should like to state one reason why I think this bill Should pass, and I will give the highest possible authority for saying this bill is sound; that is, the teaching of the Master Workman. I think of the time when he worked in a carpenter shop. When young farmers would come to that rfiop looking for jobs he would say, "Well, I have not enough

work on hand." At any rate he could not employ everybody who came; and I see the look on the face of that young carpenter as youth after youth left his shop because he could not employ them. Later he put his teachings on record when he told the story of the man who was employed at the eleventh hour. That story teaches you and me that even though a man works only one hour a day, he needs to eat, as his wife and family need to eat. To me the principle of unemployment insurance is sound because of human need, and I do not think there can be any stronger argument in favour of a bill of this kind.
Undoubtedly there will be unemployment after the war is over, and for that reason I should like to have seen our soldiers brought under the provisions of this bill, just as I should like to have seen the seamen brought under it. I believe our soldiers should be given employment after the war. Surely if we can raise the money to keep them in the army now we should be able to raise money with which to keep them employed after the war is over. I am sure the government will do something to see that these men, who are risking so much now, are given employment when the time comes.
I realize that there are objections to this bill on the part of the manufacturers' association, and perhaps those objections are reasonable. I know, too, that there are objections on the part of some taxpayers, but I wonder how many of these men do without a meal occasionally, like the men who find themselves out of work. It has been stated that this bill is not a cure for unemployment, but we believe it will help some. As the Scot would say, many a mickle makes a muckle; if a good many small contributions are put together, it will help cure unemployment.
I congratulate the minister on the form in which this bill is presented. Undoubtedly it will be up for improvement some time later; it is not possible for the human mind to draft an absolutely perfect bill. But if old England can take time out to pass legislation of this kind, when they are almost taxed to death, surely Canada should step up and show England that we are looking after our unemployed. This is part of a gradual trend toward a better day; after all we cannot change our economic and governmental systems all at once. But to me it is a step in the right direction, because it will help the man who, out of work after having been employed for a long time, cannot find a job. I intend to lend my support to this bill, and I shall help out as best I can when it is passed.

Unemployment Insurance


Mr. MARSHALL:: It may be a little difficult for me to follow my fellow countryman in some of the statements he has made. The Irish are always noted for having differences of opinion, so I hope my hon. friend will forgive me if I do not agree entirely with what he has said this afternoon. I should like to commend the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) on some of his remarks. I do not find myself entirely in agreement with him, but certainly I agree with what he said in regard to unemployment. May I say to him that wishful thinking or flowery language at this time will never solve this problem. The hon. gentleman belongs to a party which has been in power for many years, yet to-day the problem still remains unsolved. I would suggest that he bring his influence to bear within his party in order that something may be done about the matter.
I agree that unemployment insurance is a good thing. I have already made that statement. I should like, however, to emphasize further two points I stressed in a previous speech:	first, that all workers should be
included under the scheme and, second, that we should find some means of financing this proposition without increasing prices or raising the debt of the country. When what I suggest is carried out, we shall have a very satisfactory scheme indeed.
I should like to touch on one part of this bill which does not appeal to me at all. During the committee proceedings the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) asked:
Q. When a man becomes sick he is unemployed; what effect would this have on such men?
A. He would still obtain sick benefits, but under unemployment insurance a man would not receive benefit if he were sick; he would not be available for or capable of work, which is one of the fundamental qualifications required under unemployment insurance. A man must be able to accept a job which is offered to him.
That is not the impression held by most people in Canada to-day in regard to this measure. I should like to read a short article appearing in a newspaper published in California. The article is headed, "The little cheque that wasn't there when it was needed."


Paul Joseph James Martin: Twenty-five dollars a month.


James Alexander Marshall: My hon. friend knows better than that. The article reads:
San Francisco:-Persons who thought that unemployment insurance was something they could fall back on in times when they needed the payments most, are having a rude awakening. Take the case of L. D. Holmes-who has been unemployed for some months. He was receiving his unemployment insurance payments regularly until recently when serious illness sent him to the hospital for two weeks. Unable to
appear in person at the state unemployment insurance offices-he had Mrs. Holmes call. She was told her husband was not entitled to any payments during his illness.
In vain Mrs. Holmes pleaded that she depended on this small sum to pay living costs for herself and child. The attendant announced that the law said "No!"
Payments were resumed when Holmes left the hospital and he was advised that he would receive the amount covering the period of his illness at the end of the time during which he is eligible for the jobless payments.
May I digress for a moment to say that bo far as I can learn from a study of the bill, to a large degree it is based on the social security plan of the United States.
Subsequently the following question was asked of M. E. Lewis, claim agent of the state unemployment insurance division:
"Why may not a person receive his social security payments when he most needs them?"
Lewis explained that the law does not consider the welfare factor but was designed primarily to stabilize employment. Its benefits are available only to those persons who are jobless through no fault of their own, and when they apply for the payments they must show they are physically able to hold a job, and available and willing to take one.
Those are exactly the same as the provisions of the measure we are now discussing.
"But what about people who voluntarily leave their employment in order to live off their unemployment benefits" he was asked.
He admitted there was a certain amount of chiseling of this sort, but that on the whole the law served its objective of stabilizing employment in that it enabled persons in sweatshop type of work to quit, forcing employers to raise standards.
Holmes and other jobless persons may read this information with interest but they are still left wondering whether something is not cockeyed with a law which withholds financial assistance when it is most needed.
But that's the law, Lewis says, and payments are not based on need.
May I point out, Mr. Chairman, that that is the law as embodied in this measure, and that the payments are not based on need. Therefore there is no help for those people who fall ill during the period of their employment.
I hope I may be pardoned for again going over some of the ground touched upon by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson). I feel, however, it is necessary for me to do so, because it was I who raised the point as to the soundness of this scheme. I have asked the minister whether or not in his judgment the scheme is actuarially sound. As reported at page 33 of the evidence taken before the committee, the hon. member for Macleod asked this question of the witness, Mr. Eric Stangroom:
In your opinion the scheme is then actuarily sound ?
Unemployment Insurance

And he received the answer:
The chief actuary of the insurance department has certified to its soundness, based on an eleven-year average from 1921 to 1931 inclusive, and from such material as is available since then.
In other words, according to the people who drew up the scheme, it is actuarially sound in all particulars. We have that upon the considered opinion of this one gentleman who is an actuary in the department of insurance.
Further along in the evidence Mr. Eric Stangroom quoted from a book entitled, Unemployment Funds, published by Mr. H. H. Wolfenden. Mr. Stangroom says that Mr. Wolfenden is "one of our outstanding Canadian actuaries." Then the hon. member for Macleod asked the following question and received the following answer:
Q. Who is Mr. Wolfenden?
A. Mr. Wolfenden is one of Canada's most prominent actuaries. He is at present in Toronto, I believe. He has written a number of books on employment insurance. He presented an actuarial report on the 1935 act. His most recent work on unemployment insurance is "The real meaning of social insurance." The work which I am quoting was prior in date to that.
Mr. Wolfenden was called to the witness stand
to give his evidence. At this time I must voice my objection to the haste with which this measure is being rushed through parliament. The bill was given its second reading on July 16, and was debated during that week. Then, in the following week-and that is the week in which we now are-the committee discussed the bill and held sittings on July 22, July 23 and July 24. This is now July 26, and thus far I have not been able to get a copy of Mr. Wolfenden's evidence. Fortunately, just a few minutes ago the hon. member for Macleod handed me a copy of it. Because we have not had sufficient opportunity to study what has been said in committee, I must object, to the haste with which the bill is being rushed through parliament. It does not give those of us who are interested in unemployment insurance but who found it impossible to attend the meetings of the committee, an opportunity to study the evidence given by the two actuaries whose names have been mentioned, namely, Mr. Watson of the insurance branch and Mr. Wolfenden, who is considered to be one of the leading actuaries in Canada.
It is essential that we should have a little time to study the evidence of those two gentlemen, so that we may be in a position now to say whether the measure is actuarially sound. At page 216 of the evidence, Mr. Wolfenden is reported to have said:
On this test, which I believe to be a fair and professionally acceptable appraisal of the

problem, it is my conviction that the scheme set out in bill 98 is, at the present time, "actuarially indeterminate".
In other words, it is not sound.


Thomas Reid: Not necessarily.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, not necessarily.


Thomas Reid: Because it is indeterminate, it does not necessarily follow that it is unsound.


James Alexander Marshall: Mr. Wolfenden's word is just as acceptable, or just as sound, as that of Mr. Watson.


Thomas Reid: But he did not say it was unsound; he said it was indeterminate.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He said it must be classed as either actuarially unsound or actuarially indeterminate; he makes a distinction between the two terms.


James Alexander Marshall: I am reading from his evidence; but as I say I have not had an opportunity to consider the niceties of the language. It seems to me, however, that Mr. Wolfenden has as much right to say a thing is actuarially indeterminate or actuarially unsound as Mr. Watson has to say that it is sound. Surely that cannot be contradicted in any way.
As reported at page 217 of the evidence, Mr. Wolfenden says:
If the fund it set up on a twelve per cent rate it would become insolvent early in 1944, unless there is a reconstruction through the advisory committee.
The point I make is simply this, that I really hope the scheme is actuarially sound, and that time will prove it to be so. But there is a grave doubt in my mind, after casually reading the reports of Mr. AVatson and Mr. Wolfenden with respect to this.
We are not opposed to unemployment insurance; but we want, first, to see it cover all classes of workers and, second, to know where the money is to come from which is to finance this scheme. I hope, before we go out of committee this afternoon, that the minister will give us an assurance that this scheme is actuarially sound and that it will not have to be bolstered up with further amounts from the treasury of Canada before 1944 is reached.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I wonder if the hon.
member heard my remarks this morning on the actuarial soundness of the scheme.


James Alexander Marshall: I was here all the
time.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not wish to have to repeat it.

Unemployment Insurance


James Alexander Marshall: I may not have heard what the minister said, and it will not do any harm if he repeats. We cannot hear very well in this section of the chamber. At times I find it rather difficult to hear some of the ministers. As I say, I hope the minister will tell us where the money to finance this scheme is to come from and give us an assurance that it will not mean an increase in taxation and prices.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Commission.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Why is
there a distinction between the term of office of the chief commissioner and that of the other commissioners?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The chief commissioner
is to be appointed for a period of ten years and each of the other commissioners is to be appointed for five years. When the bill was drafted it was thought that, since the other commissioners are to be appointed after nomination by industry and labour, .ten years might be a little too long. In that time they might lose their representative capacity. I would point out, however, that they are eligible for reappointment.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The statement that the other commissioners are to be appointed by the workers and the employers is not literally true; they are to be appointed by the government after consultation. The government may or may not accept the representations of labour. For instance, the representative nominated by labour might be a strong Conservative worker. Will the minister say that such a man would be appointed?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not think a hypothetical question like that should be answered. If labour nominated a certain man as being the best to represent them and he was a Conservative, I do not think we would necessarily hold that handicap against him.


Mr. STIRLING:: How does the government propose to ascertain the opinion of either the employers or labour?


Norman Alexander McLarty: That has not been determined.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister listen to representations by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, which has been referred to in such vigorous language by one of his supporters? They represent most of the industrialists of Canada. Then there is the Canadian Chamber of Commerce 95826-127
which is supposed to represent all the industrialists of Canada, but the fact is that it is a somewhat smaller body.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not anticipate as much trouble in the appointment of the representative of the employers as I do in the appointment of the representative of labour. The system will have to be worked out, and I cannot be any more definite than I have been.


Grote Stirling: How many recognized organizations of labour are there in this country from whom the minister would expect to receive representations?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Roughly speaking, I would say four or five.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would
the minister name them?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I would prefer not to do that until we get the plan worked out. I can assure my hon. friend that we shall do it in the fairest possible way, but until we work out the plan I would hesitate to say whom we shall consult. I have not given the matter sufficient consideration.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister consult the congress of industrial organizations?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I would not want to say just whom I shall consult until the whole plan is worked out.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The witness refuses to answer.


Angus MacInnis: Why should not the congress of industrial organizations be consulted? It is a legal organization which represents a considerable number of Canadian workers. It does not represent the organization to which I belong, nevertheless I think it perfectly reasonable that it should be consulted. Its representative appeared before the committee, and as far as consultation is concerned it should be considered as being on all fours with any other organization.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 to 8 agreed to.
On section 9-Salaries of commissioners.
Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the intention of the government with respect to these salaries? I am not asking this question in any facetious way.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I shall be quite frank and say that the government has not considered the question of what salaries will be paid to these commissioners, nor has it considered who the commissioners will be.

Unemployment Insurance


Richard Burpee Hanson: I accept the minister's statement without reserve. Stress has been laid upon the fact that this is an important executive position. The chairman and the other commissioners should be highly-qualified. The chairman should be a man of talent, a student and a proven administrator. He should be paid a decent salary. I understand Colonel Harrington was paid 110,000 a year, and if my memory serves me aright, the other commissioners received $8,000 a year. This position is on the plane of that of a deputy minister, some of whom receive as much as $15,000. I am not suggesting that that be paid, but I do say that these commissioners should receive decent salaries.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I agree without hesitation with everything the leader of the opposition has said.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Officers and other employees of commission.
Mr. SENN:: How many employees will be needed when the commission is fully organized?


Norman Alexander McLarty: We believe it will require a total of 3,200.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That would include all the employees in the labour offices?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On another occasion I referred to this section, which reads:
Such officers, clerks and other employees as are necessary for the proper conduct of the business of the commission shall be appointed or employed in the manner authorized by law.
I suggest that the phrase "in the manner authorized by law," is either ambiguous or open to more than one interpretation. I suggest that the section which was in the 1935 act is much to be preferred. That is section 8, subsection 1, and it reads:
The commission may, subject to the approval of the governor in council, employ such officers, clerks and employees for the purposes of this act as the commission may determine, and all appointments of officers, clerks and employees so employed by the commission shall be made in pursuance of the Civil Service Act.
I suggest to the minister that that is a sound enactment, and that the phrase, "in the manner authorized by law," be amended to read "in pursuance of the Civil Service Act." There is nothing to prevent the government and the commission from putting a different interpretation upon the phrase in the bill unless it is specifically stated that the appointments shall be made in the manner prescribed by the Civil Service Act. I submit that there 
is a loophole through which the government can crawl if they want to. Perhaps I should withdraw that word "crawl"; the minister, like myself, is too large to crawl through a hole. But the words, "in the manner authorized by law" should be given a definite meaning, and I suggest that the ministers adopt section 8, subsection 1, of the old act, which is clear, unambiguous and not open to any misinterpretation, and does not leave any loophole. I wish the ministers would say that they will give further consideration to that suggestion. I think it is important, and this is the one section in the bill to which I take exception.


Norman Alexander McLarty: In connection with the remarks of my hon. friend-I know that he mentioned this matter in a previous debate- at the time the War Services Act was being prepared the Department of Justice was consulted. It was their opinion at the time that this was the proper form, and it would necessarily follow that the appointments would be made by the civil service commission. The Minister of Pensions and National Health advises me that the civil service commission also was consulted.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the minister that opinion with him?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I have not, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course that is a distinct authority against me, but I have often known them to be wrong "over there"-they used to be in the east block; they are now in the new palace of justice. I am not saying they are wrong, but I assert that the provision in the old act was clear, distinct, unambiguous and not open to any mistake. Furthermore, it adheres to the principle to which all parties in the house have adhered notwithstanding the assaults which have been made upon it, namely, the maintenance of the provisions of the civil service law. It may be that the opinion is correct, but I submit that the other wording is preferable.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I can assure my hon. friend definitely that it is the intention that the civil service commission will make the appointments.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a definite statement.


Angus MacInnis: I wish to associate myself with the leader of the opposition in the point he has just raised. If my memory serves me aright I raised this question in committee, and I got the answer which was given this afternoon by the minister to the leader of the opposition. I agree, however, that the manner

Unemployment Insurance
in which the appointments are to be made should be placed beyond doubt. There is more than one way of appointing persons to the civil service of Canada. They can be appointed by the governor in council, which is what we call the patronage system, or they can be appointed under the provisions of the Civil Service Act. In this section the wording is used, "in the manner authorized by law." The wording of the act of 1935 was clearer; it stated that appointments would be "by the civil service commission." If that is the intention in connection with this bill, why not put the matter beyond doubt? I believe that the minister should unhesitatingly invite his colleague the Minister of Pensions and National Health to move an appropriate wording of the section for this purpose.


Grote Stirling: The use of this wording is an innovation, is it not?


Norman Alexander McLarty: No; it was used, for instance, in the statute creating the national welfare services.


Grote Stirling: Until a few years ago, according to my recollection


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but I wonder whether this section could stand, and I will try to have by eight o'clock an opinion from the Department of Justice. If there is any question about the matter, we can consider an amendment.


Grote Stirling: If it appears that this is a modern wording, may we have the reason why it is being used? It is strange to use wording which supersedes a phrase that mentioned the commission itself.


Mr. GREEN:: Will the minister explain how far it is intended to go under subsection 2, providing for temporary appointments to positions of a technical or professional nature?
Mr. McLARTY':	I could not possibly
answer that question. I imagine we shall have first to set up a commission. Until that is done, I could not give any estimate. I would not want to commit myself to anything in connection with the number of temporary appointments.


Howard Charles Green: But surely the government have some idea of the type and number of positions they have in mind.


Norman Alexander McLarty: For example, they may and no doubt will have to employ such experts as actuaries. It is pretty nearly impossible to forecast how many will be required.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I suppose they will have a number of lawyers.
95S26-1274


Norman Alexander McLarty: It is not intended to
appoint a large number of temporaries. It is just such temporary appointments as the commission deems necessary.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: For instance, if we require a specialist we can ask the government to approve an appointment.
Section stands.
On section 11-Costs of administration.


Mark Cecil Senn: Will the minister give an
estimate of the number of employees who will be needed?


Thomas Vien: The number has just
been given-thirty-two hundred.


Mark Cecil Senn: Has any estimate been given
of the cost of administration of the system when it comes into full operation?


Norman Alexander McLarty: An estimate which was
given before the committee-and my hon. friend will realize that it is only an estimate- is five and a quarter million dollars.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
On section 13-Insured persons, et cetera.
Grote Stirling: Would the minister
explain, with regard to the first reference, I think, to the phrase "excepted employments," how industries allied to excepted employments will be handled? Take a typical instance, the various handlings which take place of produce under agriculture. To simplify the matter further, I will refer to the fruit industry; to bring it down still further, I will refer to the handling of the apple. The apple is taken into a packing house, where six or eight different things are done to it, and they are operations allied to agriculture. It is a casual employment. Men and women are taken on and let out again; perhaps they return a second time in the same season.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The explanation may be
found in the combination of two sections, namely section 14 and section 50. I quote the latter:
50. In determining any question as to whether any occupation, in which a person is or has been engaged, is or was such as to make him an insured person within the meaning of this act, regard shall be had to the nature of the work on which he is or was engaged rather than to the business of the person by whom he is or was employed.
Then of course section 14, subsection 1, enables the scope of insurable employment to be defined.
unemployment Insurance


Grote Stirling: That is quite interesting and illuminating, but it does not tell me what I want to know. Is the employee in a packing house, wherever it may be, an insurable person or not?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes, he is an insurable person.


Grote Stirling: Does that apply to
canneries?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: This is the section which sets out the employees who are to be covered by the bill. It is the control section, controlling the schedule. Could not further consideration be given to employees engaged in logging, particularly in British Columbia? The committee have recommended a change in paragraph (c) of part II of the first schedule which in effect makes employees in wood processing plants eligible for unemployment insurance only if in the opinion of the commission there is reasonably continuous employment in their operations. As the minister knows, in the logging industry conditions in British Columbia and conditions in eastern Canada are entirely different. In the east the occupation is seasonal; men work in the logging camps in winter and on the farm in summer. On the Pacific coast the situation is entirely different. The government in this bill have seen fit to go so far as to enable employees in sawmills, planing mills, shingle mills and wood processing plants to come under the plan. I would most strongly urge upon the minister that he extend that a bit further by including logging camps. Lumbering, which word describes the whole industry, is the main industry in our province, and as this bill now stands, many thousands of men in the industry cannot be taken in under the plan. In fact, three of our main industries are not adequately covered-lumbering, fishing and agriculture. Representations have been made to the government by the minister of labour of British Columbia. I wonder if the minister would read the letter he received from Mr. Pearson.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is a telegram.


Howard Charles Green: It will show the representations which the provincial government have made. A press report appearing in the Vancouver Province of July 20 states:
The minister of labour said B.C. is mainly concerned with putting workers in the lumber industry under the bill. They are now specifically excluded largely on the grounds that variation^ in unemployment in the industry would disrupt the financial aspects of the scheme.

He went on to say that he was telegraphing the Minister of Labour here to the effect that variations in lumber employment were not serious enough to impair the scheme. Mr. Pearson went on to make this significant statement:
We have information, for instance, that the lumber industries of Washington and Oregon are included in the U.S. scheme.
And they are working under practically the same conditions as our lumbermen in British Columbia. If that industry can be included in the Pacific coast states, it should be included in the Canadian scheme. The minister said further:
They have a basis for calculating the variance in employment and also for suspending the scheme when there is an enforced shutdown. These principles might be applied in covering the British Columbia lumbering industry. They also open the way for the inclusion of several of our other seasonal occupations.
That is the statement of a man in British Columbia who probably knows more about conditions in the industries in that province than any one else, and this government should pay attention to what he says and not omit to cover that great industry simply because in eastern Canada conditions are so different. This is one of the type of things that annoy the people on the Pacific coast. Conditions are different in the east, and therefore it is extremely difficult to get action here to meet conditions on the coast. There is too much red tape. There is no reason why this bill could not be so worded as to give the commission power to cover logging camps.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They have that power.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Pensions
and National Health says they have that power?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They will have it.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest to him that with t'he amendment recommended by the committee it is doubtful whether they have that power, because the amendment to the schedule exempts employment in lumbering and logging exclusive of such sawmills, planing mills, shingle mills and wood processing plants as are, in the opinion of the commission, reasonably continuous in their operation. The very fact that the commission is given power in the case of sawmills and these other branches of the lumber industry mentioned, would, under the rules of interpretation, exclude the power of the commission to deal with logging camps. It would have been better to leave out the words "in the opinion of

Unemployment Insurance
the commission" if the minister intended to rely on the broad provisions of section 14. I can see no reason, apart from cumbersome administration here, why logging camps could not be added to paragraph (c) of part II.


Alan Webster Neill: I wish to compliment the
hon. member for Vancouver South on using almost the exact language I used a few days ago in connection with this subject.


Howard Charles Green: I assure the hon. member I did not copy his speech.


Alan Webster Neill: His remarks had a very close resemblance to it. I am not kicking about that because it is all to the good. There is no question about the statements being correct.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member ought to be flattered.


Alan Webster Neill: I am flattered. The 'hon.
member for Vancouver South put forward the argument I advanced a few days ago, that it is, possibly owing to a misconception or misunderstanding of, or indifference to, conditions in British Columbia, which differ from the conditions that prevail in the east, that things are as they are. Later on to-night I shall have an opportunity to illustrate the same thing in connection with fisheries.
We appear to_ live in two different countries east and west of the Rockies. We have a big lumbering industry, logging, where they work all the year round. They may stop a week or two in the hot weather, but it is only occasionally, and they may stop for a couple of weeks if the snow is very deep. But they may go on for years without stopping. That is not the condition here, and legislators in this part of the dominion do not appear to be able to understand conditions in British Columbia. This applies not only to one industry but to many things. The hon. member was right when he contradicted the Minister of Pensions and National Health. The minister said that they had the power now, but under this section lumbering is specifically excluded except for certain sawmills which are admittedly running more or less all the time. I hope the hon. member for Vancouver South will support me when I move the amendment that I intend to submit to the government. By the way, this discussion is out of order, but I suppose it was the hon. member's charming manner that allowed him to get away with it.


Howard Charles Green: On that point I was not out of order because section 13 expressly provides the classes that are exempt.


Alan Webster Neill: I was going to take the matter up on the schedule.


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is the proper place.


Alan Webster Neill: I intend to move this amendment; I can state it now and let it simmer in the eastern imagination:
That part II, paragraph (c) of the first schedule be amended to read
Employment in lumbering and logging which are not reasonably continuous in their operation.
Part II gives the list of occupations that do not come under the measure.
That gives the commission an opportunity not to take in little logging outfits running only a few months, but compels the entry of all the larger ones.


Thomas Vien: The hon. member is anticipating.


Alan Webster Neill: I was just notifying hon. members so that they may be here to-night.


Thomas Vien: I am glad the hon. gentleman agrees.


Grote Stirling: If the reason for excluding certain operations in lumbering is that they are not continuous, I do not follow the minister's logic in his statement that the handling of apples comes under the provisions of the bill. If ever there were a casual sort of employment, it is the work in the fruit-packing houses. Do not let me be misunderstood; I am not at the present moment arguing for inclusion or exclusion, but I want to know which it is. The packing house work, for instance, starts with cherries; it goes on down through the plums and peaches, et cetera, and may go on until December, but the person employed may work only a matter of a few weeks on end.


Norman Alexander McLarty: If hon. members will refer to section 16, subsection 1, in which provision is made in the matter of seasonal work, it provides for a person who is employed in an occupation which is seasonal and does not ordinarily extend over more than twenty weeks in any year, and who is not ordinarily employed in any other occupation which is insurable employment.


Grote Stirling: That seems to me to counter entirely the minister's statement just now that undoubtedly the packing house employee is in.


Norman Alexander McLarty: If employed over twenty weeks.


Howard Charles Green: Would the minister make a statement in regard to logging?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I have no objection, but I understand the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is going to move an amendment dealing with exactly the same matter. It seems to me it is specifically referred to in the schedule. The committee has already
Unemployment Insurance

brought in an amendment. Would it not be better to wait until we come to that amendment? The hon. member asked me to read a rather lengthy telegram received from the minister of labour of British Columbia. It is on the record on page 204 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the special committee, so I hope he will excuse me for not reading it.


Howard Charles Green: Well, I have it here; I will read it.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Does my hon. friend not think it would be better to wait until we come to the proper schedule?


Howard Charles Green: I am quite in order in raising this point under this section; I do not see why we should wait.


Thomas Vien: It is quite in order when, in a clause of a bill a schedule is referred to, to discuss matters relevant to the clause and the schedule, but it is not in order to suggest an amendment to a schedule before we reach the schedule.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. gentleman is only giving notice.


Alan Webster Neill: Tentatively.


Thomas Vien: No notice need be
given of an amendment. In the course of a discussion of a bill in which reference is made to a schedule, reference may be made to that schedule. But the schedule must be discussed separately from the various clauses and sections of the bill. In May's Parliamentary Practice, page 411, I read:
Schedules to a bill are considered, as a rule, after new clauses are disposed of, and they are treated in the same manner as clauses. When the schedules have been considered, new schedules are offered.
Therefore we must consider the schedules of the bill consecutively, as we consider the clauses of the bill.


Howard Charles Green: That is what I was trying
carefully to do; it was the hon. member for Comox-Alberni who raised the question of an amendment to the schedule.


Thomas Vien: I pointed out to the
hon. member for Comox-Alberni that his amendment was offered too soon.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Might I suggest, is it
fair that we should discuss this matter at this time and then have another discussion when the hon. member for Comox-Alberni deals with precisely the same matter? Could it not stand and could we not later deal with both at once?


Howard Charles Green: I started this, not the hon.
member for Comox-Alberni. Why should

I have to wait until his amendment comes up, perhaps not before next Wednesday, in order to have a discussion on this subject? I think, with all due deference, that both the committee and myself are entitled to have an explanation from the minister at this time.


Thomas Vien: But I would point out to the hon. member that although reference can be made to the schedule, we must not accept the idea that the schedule is under consideration by the committee. Standing order 58, subsection 2, is always applicable. Reference can be made to the schedule because it is related to the clause of the bill, but the schedule itself is not yet before the committee.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, this telegram which was sent by the minister of labour of British Columbia to the Minister of Labour here reads as follows:	I shall not quote the
whole of it, but that part which is vital states:
Newspaper reports indicate that the present measure provides insurance for less than one-half of the workers in British Columbia and excludes several of our major industries especially lumbering, fishing and agriculture. Our government believes that an effort should be made to cover a large number of workers and cannot see any good reason why the lumber industry should be excluded as returns made to our department by all branches of the lumbering industry including logging-
I stress those words.
-show that there is not an unreasonable variation in employment throughout the year certainly in our opinion not large enough to justify the exclusion of this industry. All branches of the lumbering industry are included in unemployment insurance measure in operation in states of Washington and Oregon and I find that they have employed a method of dealing with industry taking into consideration the variance in employment and also providing for exclusion under certain conditions and during certain periods which fully covers any objections that might be raised against the inclusion of the lumbering industry and which also makes it possible to include other seasonal industries which are not at present included in our act.
I would ask the minister now to give us the reason why logging on the Pacific coast cannot be included in the bill.


Thomas Vien: I do not think the question is at all in order, because the various classes of employees are dealt with in the schedule. The only point before the committee at this moment is whether section 13 as drafted is proper. I do not believe it is in order to discuss at the present time whether the schedule should be changed. The only subject matter of section 13 is that there should be a schedule of employments, and that the provisions of this bill should apply to the persons mentioned in these schedules.

Unemployment Insurance
With regard to the schedule itself, it will be considered in due course, like any other clause of the bill, under the provision I have read.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps I would be in order if I asked the Minister of Labour if it would not be possible to word this section in such a way that where industries are working under entirely different conditions in different parts of the country, there would be more elasticity in the bill; this section should be wide enough to cover conditions governing industry in the maritimes as well as conditions governing industry on the Pacific coast.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I wonder if this section might be allowed to stand in the meantime, and I will give consideration to the suggestion of my hon. friend. I think the commission would have power to do what he has mentioned, because it has the right to remove anomalies, but I should like to look into that point and see how far that power goes. As I understand it, the hon. member's thought is that there should be schemes which would apply in certain areas of the country but not throughout the country generally.


Howard Charles Green: I think the government are attempting an impossibility in that they are trying to make the scheme too rigid. We have in Canada what is called a lumber industry. In the maritime provinces lumber industry means one thing; in British Columbia it means something else, and perhaps in Ontario still something different. The government have presented the bill in such a form that there is just one big blanket covering the entire industry, and there is no provision to meet the different conditions which exist in different parts of the country. Canada is so far-flung and conditions vary so much in different sections that I think the bill should be more elastic.
Mr, McLARTY: I would suggest that this section stand.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before that is decided, may I respectfully suggest that the Chairman should reconsider his ruling. This is perhaps the most important section of this bill; and to say that that under this section we cannot discuss the several items appearing in the second schedule as excluded employments is a ruling which to me appears quite impossible. A schedule is not part of a section. A section is referable to a schedule, but a schedule to a statute is not part of the statute itself. This is the very section under which this discussion should take place.


Thomas Vien: Then I can suggest a remedy which may meet the views of the
*hon. gentleman. It is that, by unanimous consent, section 13 and the schedule be considered together.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
quite all right. That would be splendid.


Thomas Vien: By unanimous consent that may be done, if it is deemed advisable. I do not know if it is.


Norman Alexander McLarty: In that event I would
suggest that the section stand. I have no objection whatever to that course being followed.


Alan Webster Neill: Would that mean that the vote would be taken on the two together?
* The CHAIRMAN: No. They may be considered together and discussed together; and if amendments are suggested by members of the committee, those amendments may relate to either the section or the schedule. In the meantime the minister moves that this section stand.


Mr. ADAMSON:: I heard the remarks of the hon. member for Yale, who was discussing something the minister said with regard to packing houses. Do employees of packing houses come under this measure?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes, if they have employment for over twenty weeks in each year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Ordinarily in Canada a packing house means a meat packing plant, but of course that is a limited application of the term. We have apple packing houses in the maritime provinces. Do I understand that they will come under this scheme only if there is employment for at least twenty weeks?


Norman Alexander McLarty: They are not specifically mentioned in the exceptions, so they must be included; provided there is employment for twenty weeks.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If there is twenty weeks of steady employment?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not think it even has to be steady.


Howard Charles Green: In order to make that point clear, will the minister state whether or not horticulture would cover an apple packing plant?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I would say not.
Section stands.
On section 14-Power to enlarge or restrict excepted employments.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Copies of an amendment to this section were
Unemployment Insurance

distributed among hon. members. This amendment, which was explained by the minister this morning, is to add as subsection 2 the following:
(2) Where it appears to the commission that, by reason of any law of a foreign country, a duplication of unemployment insurance contributions by employers or employed persons or both and of unemployment insurance benefits will result, the commission may, from time to time, notwithstanding anything in this act, by regulation, conditionally or unconditionally, wholly or in part, provide for including any employed person or class or group of employed persons among the excepted employments in part II of the first schedule to this act.


Thomas Vien: I should like to point out to the committee that the bill, as it came to this committee, already includes this amendment, which was adopted by the special committee; but inasmuch as the bill has not been reprinted, a mimeographed leaflet has been distributed among all hon. members, containing all the amendments, for their convenience. The bill that I have before me, which has been laid on the table of the house and which we are now considering, contains all the amendments which were adopted by the special committee, and which are contained in this leaflet.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Hon. members have not these amendments before them unless they are read.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Just what is the basis of this new subsection?


Thomas Vien: If any hon. members have not copies of these amendments, they are available at the table. I had been led to believe that these copies were distributed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister just explain this amendment?


Norman Alexander McLarty: This is the amendment to which I referred this morning. It was requested by the Railway Association of Canada, to meet the situation arising from the duplication of the railway unemployment insurance act of the United States.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 15 agreed to.
On section 16-Exempted persons.
Howard Charles Green: I should like to ask the minister whether a savings plan in an industry, to which employers and employees contribute, now goes by the board?


Norman Alexander McLarty: It is not affected in any way by this bill; they can proceed with it. They are, however, voluntary plans, and they would not be affected in any way.


Howard Charles Green: But the firms which have voluntary plans cannot get exemption under the act, even though employer and employees wish to be exempted?


Norman Alexander McLarty: No, they cannot.


Howard Charles Green: And no type of firm scheme would entitle the firm to exemption from the provisions of this bill?


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is correct.


Mr. FURNISS:: I had a letter this morning from a firm in my riding. The first paragraph
reads:
Why should persons working for small salaries, day in and day out, fifty-two weeks a year, pay in any part of their salary to a fund from which they have only a remote chance of ever getting anything out?
This letter is from a coal dealer, I think, who keeps his men employed year in and year out. My inquiry is this: Is there any chance of firms like that being considered in connection with the exemptions?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The hon. member for
Muskoka-Ontario is making the same plea as some of the banks and financial institutions made. We could not release them, so I am afraid we cannot release the firms to which the hon. member has referred.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The answer is no.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 17-Fund established by contributions by employed persons and employers.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I draw the attention of the committee to the amendment to section 17, which appears on the mimeographed list. It is in the form of an additional subsection, to be numbered subsection 5.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the effect of this amendment?


Norman Alexander McLarty: This is another amendment asked by the Railway Association of Canada, to which I referred this morning, and it provides for payment on the basis which they have been following. Its justification is a saving in expense.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 18-Employer liable to pay both employer and employee contributions.
Richard Burpee Hanson: This section provides:
Except where regulations under this act otherwise prescribe, the employer shall in the first instance be liable to pay both the contribution payable by himself (in this act referred

Unemployment Insurance
to as "the employer's contribution") and also, on behalf of, and to the exclusion of, the employed person, the contribution payable by that person.
What is the necessity for the words "to the exclusion of"? Is it intended that the employee shall never have an opportunity to pay?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The intention is to avoid payment being made twice.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Are the contributions
going to be paid in stamps?


Norman Alexander McLarty: It is provided that they may be paid in stamps, or such other method as the commission permits.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister knows that in Great Britain they have cards, and the manufacturer or employer puts a stamp on for himself and one for the workman. There is no stamp for the government. The government takes care of that when the card comes back.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That would not be possible under this measure. It must be done by the employer.


Norman Alexander McLarty: He would have to affix the stamp.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In Great Britain the
employee does not put anything on; it is put on by the employer.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The same is true in this instance.


Howard Charles Green: Why is that exclusion made?


Norman Alexander McLarty: So that there would be no question of double payment being demanded.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 19 agreed to.
On section 20-Manager to be treated as employer.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move that the first paragraph of section 20 be amended to read as follows:
In any cases or classes of oases where employed persons work under the general control and management of some person other than the owner employer, such as the agent or manager of a mine or quarry, or the occupier of a factory or workshop, the commission may by regulation provide that-


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the change?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is a change in drafting.


Thomas Vien: And it is a new amendment, or one which does not appear in the list.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is correct. This is the only one which came in after the committee dealt with the matter yesterday. It is a change in drafting which has been suggested by the legal experts. The changes are these: The word "their" is changed to "the", the word "immediate" is changed to "owner", and the word "owner" in line 16 is stricken out.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The object is to provide that no one shall escape?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes, precisely.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 21 agreed to.
On section 22-Liability of employer of person with certificate of exemption.
John Ritchie MacNicol: As I understand it, the employer of a person who holds a certificate of exemption under section 16 shall be liable to pay the like contributions as would be payable by him as employer's contributions. Why does he have to pay contributions?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The reason is to remove the incentive of the employer to employ those having exemptions. In this respect the present measure is the same as the British act. This provision is to prevent the employer from picking up employees who have certificates of exemption, so that he might be relieved from the liability of paying into the unemployment insurance fund.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am in accord with the principle, but I am wondering how the scheme will work out if there are many such cases.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are exceptional cases.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am referring to those cases where the employer would contribute, but not the employee.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I would suppose that would be a windfall for the unemployment insurance fund, but it is a situation which is not likely to arise often. It was found necessary to put that provision in the British act, and we thought that in this instance it would reduce the incentive to employ persons holding certificates of exemption.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I agree it is necessary to prevent anything of that kind.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
Unemployment Insurance
[Stage Direction]
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
On section 10-Officers and other employees of commission.
Norman Alexander McLarty: I promised the leader of the opposition that during the recess I would obtain an opinion as to the effect of the words "authorized by law". I have obtained from the law branch an opinion which is concurred in by the officials of the Department of Justice, to the effect that as the section now stands it does make the application of the Civil Service Act necessary. I can, if it is desired, read the memorandum which is about four pages in length. The hon. gentleman suggested that I find out when the phraseology had been changed. They refer specifically to such acts as the Patent Act, 1935; the Seeds Act, 1937; the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, 1939; the Department of Finance and Treasury Board Act; the Labour Department Act; the Penitentiary Act, and the Department of Railways and Canals Act. In all these acts a similar phraseology is used, and they advise that this wording will be sufficient to cover the point raised by the leader of the opposition.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 23-Sums deducted from wages deemed trust contribution.
Mr. MacNICOL; Subsection 2 reads:
In the event of the bankruptcy of the employer the commission shall in respect of any unpaid contributions be entitled to the same priority as is accorded wage earners with respect to wages under the Bankruptcy Act.
If there were only enough to pay the wages, nothing would go back to the employer.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury); By subsection 1 the sums deducted are constituted a trust fund and must be accounted for. I think that is wise.
Norman Alexander McLarty: I did not quite get the question asked by the hon. member for Davenport.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In the event of the bankruptcy of an employer there would be two claims, the claim for wages and the claim of this fund. They would be on an equal footing.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I would say they would rank pari passu.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 24 agreed to.
On section 25-Regulations as to manner of paying contributions.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Is it intended to use cards and stamps throughout Canada in connection with contributions by employers and employees? I found that in Holland, France, and particularly England, the working men took a great deal of pride in their cards. When a man walked into a labour office to present his card he would look at it three or four times to make sure that he would know the card when it came back.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Generally speaking, I
think that will be the method, although there will be some exceptions where administrative difficulties occur. The commission has the power to determine whether cards and stamps shall be used, and I doubt if in the case of the railways with their 75,000 employees more or less, the commission will require the absolute use of cards and stamps.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 26-Regulations as to payment of contributions.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Will the sale of cards and stamps be under the control of the government, and how will they be distributed to the employers?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Their distribution will be under the control of the commission, but there are a number of methods which may be used. For example, the post offices may be used as distributing points.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I found that these cards were not easily obtainable in Europe. In a number of instances I had to identify myself as a member of the House of Commons before I could get one. These cards were not available to everyone.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Undoubtedly the cards
will be issued by the employment offices.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 27 agreed to.
On section 28-Statutory conditions for receipt of benefit.
Howard Charles Green: This section refers in paragraph (iv) to courses of instruction or training. What is the function of the unemployment commission with regard to directing wage-earners to take courses of training?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I suppose, Mr. Chairman, it would be fair to say that there are a number of methods which might be used. For instance, there is cooperation with the youth training movement in the matter of training and retraining skilled employees. There has not been laid down a definite programme into which paragraph (iv) would fit, but it was

Unemployment Insurance
thought wise to add the clause in view of the wide training and retraining in which we are now endeavouring to be engaged.


Howard Charles Green: Was there any such provision in the act of 1935?


Norman Alexander McLarty: No. It is a new provision.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is in the British act.


Howard Charles Green: Will the commission have any personnel who are qualified to direct training or courses of one kind or another?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The answer would be, no. The provision simply gives the power to refuse to grant the benefits to those who will not take the courses to which they may be directed. As far as the commission is concerned, it will not set up any courses on its own account.


Howard Charles Green: How is it going to be decided or directed which course a man shall take?


Norman Alexander McLarty: It will be purely a matter of cooperation between those who are prescribing courses and the officers of the commission.


Howard Charles Green: Will they advise as to what kind of training a man should take?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I imagine that when the plan is working there will be a definite connecting link between the various bodies which direct training and retraining, and the commission. I must be a little vague about that because, as my hon. friend will appreciate, it is an administrative matter which has not yet been worked out.


Howard Charles Green: Will the commission be
taking over the youth training programme?


Norman Alexander McLarty: No, not at all.


John Ritchie MacNicol: With reference to the
180 days, it is assumed, of course, that the worker obtains his card. He might work for twenty days for one firm; then turn his card in, and be sent out to work for another firm for thirty days, or he might work for two or three days. The whole total of 180 days in two years is what he bases his claim upon.
Mr. MeLARTA':	That is correct.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: In paragraphs Cii)
and (iii) of the section it states that the insured person has to prove that he has been unemployed "on each day on which he claims to have been unemployed." Who will decide what the nature of that proof is to be?


Norman Alexander McLarty: He proves that by registration at the exchange.


George Hugh Castleden: With regard to the
word "suitable" in paragraph (iii), by which 95826-1284
he is required to prove that he has been "unable to obtain suitable employment," who will decide whether the employment is suitable for that particular man?


Norman Alexander McLarty: That word "suitable" will be covered, I believe, when we come to section 31.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 29 agreed to.
On section 30-Period of unemployment to begin on date of application.
John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not see it here, but I read somewhere that a period of nine days had to elapse before a man can begin to draw benefit.


Norman Alexander McLarty: That comes under section 36.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the benefit start
on the day of his application?


Norman Alexander McLarty: No.


John Ritchie MacNicol: A period of nine days
must elapse?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Under most acts, I
believe, the period is six days. I believe that in England it is six days.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In the United States it is fourteen days.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes, much higher. I
believe that the waiting period in this bill is the same as in the 1935 act.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In other words, he will
be really unemployed for nine days before he receives any compensation?


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is correct.


Alan Webster Neill: Will the minister tell us
about this date:	"A period of unemployment shall be deemed to begin on the date on which the insured person makes application." He may be a hundred miles away from the place to which the application is sent. Is it the date he mails the letter or the date when the letter arrives, or what? It is all very well in a town like Montreal, but suppose the man is at a place a hundred miles away from the government office to which this application should be given. Does the period begin on the day the application reaches the office, or the day the letter is mailed, or when?


Norman Alexander McLarty: May I refer the hon.
member for Comox-Alberni to section 92, paragraph (g). The applicant can use the post office as well.
Unemployment Insurance


Alan Webster Neill: As long as he gets the application in the post office?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 31-Fulfilment of third statutory condition.
George Hugh Castleden: I should like an
explanation of section 31(b).


Norman Alexander McLarty: Has the hon. member's question particular reference to a labour dispute?


George Hugh Castleden: Yes.


Norman Alexander McLarty: If the hon. member will refer to section 43, I believe he will see the significance of this paragraph.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 32 agreed to.
On section 33-Periods not counted in computing unemployment, et cetera.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That the word "remuneration" in line 10 be deleted and the word "wages" substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That the word "of" in line 22 be deleted and that the word "or" be substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 34-Period in respect of which benefit is payable.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That the word "stated" on the last line of page 11 be deleted and that the word "aforesaid" be inserted on the first line of page 12 after the words "three years".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Just one word. I have been trying to figure out this matter, but I do not want to hold up the proceedings, and the minister can give me an answer more quickly than I can figure it out. Assuming that a workman has been employed in the past five years for 200 days a year, or, in all, a thousand days, and then he becomes unemployed, for how many days will be receive compensation?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Perhaps the hon. member for Davenport would let me explain without giving such large figures.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I used those figures
because they are easy to reckon.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Suppose in the first
year a man worked for thirty weeks, he would then be entitled, under what is called the one-fifth rule, to six weeks' benefits. Suppose in the following year he worked for another thirty weeks, he would be again entitled to one-fifth, or six weeks, but with a deduction of one day for every three on which he had drawn benefit in the previous year. That means that in the two years he would be drawing one-fifth of sixty, which is twelve, less one-third of the benefit he drew in the six weeks which he had taken in the first year, which would be two weeks; so in the aggregate in the two years he would have ten weeks.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But my question was, assuming the man had worked steadily for five years?


Norman Alexander McLarty: One year's benefit.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is very good.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 35 agreed to.
On section 36-Waiting days not counted for benefit.


Clarence Gillis: Our problem in Nova Scotia is not one of total unemployment but rather one of partial employment. During the winter months the men work for three days a week. Do I understand that in order to come under this bill the worker must have been totally unemployed, or in what way is the number of days computed?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not know whether I get the significance of the question. In this bill it is not altogether a matter of weeks; it is 180 days in the year. Does that answer the question?


Clarence Gillis: It does not. This is an unemployment insurance bill. Do I understand that in order to qualify one must be totally unemployed?


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is correct.


Clarence Gillis: As far as the mining industry in Nova Scotia is concerned, the men will receive no benefits under this bill-that is, the men employed at the present time-for the simple reason that, so far as I can see, at no time will they be totally unemployed. During the summer they do work steadily, five or six days a week, but in the winter months they lose fifty per cent of their employment owing to the fact that coal cannot be shipped, and notwithstanding that they will

Unemployment Insurance
be contributing to the fund. They will be contributing, although for half the year they will be losing fifty per cent of their time. It seems to me, therefore, that at no time can they come into benefit under the bill as worded.


Norman Alexander McLarty: The commission would
have to determine what the normal working week was. If it determines that a man has been working his normal working week, then he will be entitled to the benefits of the measure.


Alan Webster Neill: There is a coal mine in my district and, as I doped out the Bennett legislation, the men would get no benefit, for the same reason which my hon. friend has given. At times when things were dull they worked for only three days a week, but they had to be idle for nine days before they could get any benefit, although they would be paying their full contribution. This was brought to Mr. Bennett's attention, and he inserted a clause to provide that the idle days should be lumped together and carried on, so to speak. I understood the minister to say that some arrangement was being made under this bill to meet the objection which the hon. member has raised.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I understand that under the continuity rule of 1935 the situation which my hon. friends have brought up arose, and it was to meet that situation that we put in the number of days. I am advised that such a difficulty will not arise.


Mr. JACKMAN:: If a man is employed for three days a week for a number of weeks; that is, if he is out of a job for three days and then gets a job and the next week he is out again, the three days of unemployment in each week will count as part of the nine days so that after three weeks he will be able to receive the benefit?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes, that is correct.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: It does not have to be nine consecutive days?


Norman Alexander McLarty: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 37 agreed to.
On section 38-Only periods of bona fide employment to count in computing benefits.
George Hugh Castleden: Would he not get the benefit of his contributions unless his employment were proved to be bona fide?


Norman Alexander McLarty: He could not. He could not put a stamp on it and thereby obtain the benefit as if he had worked. It must be bona fide work.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 39 and 40 agreed to.
On section 41-Benefits inalienable.
Richard Burpee Hanson: This means it shall not be attachable?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 42-Regulations in respect of special classes.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Will the minister explain this section?


Norman Alexander McLarty: The purpose of the section is, of course, to give the commission the right to deal with certain situations that arise, which cannot be thrown into a general class and cannot be classified in categories, and which consequently can be deemed to be anomalies. This gives the commission power to deal with such situations as piece-workers, those working for less than a full week, and various other factors which we could not cover completely in the bill itself.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 43-Disqualification through loss of work due to labour dispute.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I would point out that paragraph (f) has been deleted and paragraph (g) now becomes paragraph (f).


Mrs. NIELSEN:: I wish to say something about paragraph (a), (i) and (ii). I have always understood that it was the right of labour in this dominion to organize. This paragraph may be in the best interests of the employer but not perhaps in the best interests of labour, if we leave it as it stands. It is not always so much the use of different clauses but the abuse of them that has to be guarded against when it comes to administration. I did not have an opportunity to attend the committee where the various organizations came to present their case, but I have had various letters sent to me from different organizations in this country. I have a letter from the secretary of the Canadian Textile Workers Union, and I should like to quote a small portion which has to do with this particular clause. This is an official statement signed by the secretary and chairman. They say:
"Insured" wo. kers are automatically disqualified from benefit if discharged for "misconduct" or participation in a labour dispute with employers. This means that workers who W'ould build their unions are in constant danger of being discharged for "misconduct", the declarations of the government to the contrary notwithstanding. This also means that the members of trade unions would be subjected to a newer and more widespread system of espionage anti hence intimidated from discussing grievances at meetings of their trade unions.
Unemployment Insurance

Another one comes from the Canadian Full Fashioned Hosiery Workers' Association, in reference to the same clause. They say:
The real joker, as far as the workers are concerned, however, is that provision which disqualifies the worker from any_ benefits: loss of job for "misconduct" or participation in a labour dispute. It is probably all right for Mr. MeLarty to state that "union activity" is not "misconduct" but his employer friends do not agree with him. Last week, after the settlement of the celanese strike in Drummondville 150 workers who took a leading part in this historic struggle were discharged. Some were even given notices informing them that they were being dismissed for union activity.
There is another one from the National Union of Domestic and Industrial Gas Workers, to the same effect:
There are other aspects to the present proposals which we are very much opposed to. In the first place the provision that an employee dismissed because of a labour dispute, should be ineligible for benefits.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I wish to move an amendment:
That in paragraph (a) of section 43, in line 29, after the word "continues" the following words shall be struck out:
"and shall not apply in any case in which the insured person proves
(i)	that he is not participating in, or financing or directly interested in the labour dispute which caused the stoppage of work, and
(ii)	that he does not belong to a grade or class of workers of which immediately before the commencement of the stoppage there were members employed at the premises at which the stoppage is taking place any of whom are participating in or financing or directly interested in the dispute,"
I am sorry I have not a copy of the amendment at the present moment.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Shall the section stand? I very much regret this amendment. The provision is identical with that in the British act ever since the British act started. It is a section which was considered carefully in the committee, and one who has a right to say that he represents labour, the president of the Canadian Trades and Labour Congress, Mr. Tom Moore, approved it. We heard representatives from the major trade unions of Canada; they all approved it. It has the approbation of labour, and I think if the hon. member for North Battle-ford will give consideration to the matter she will realize that, instead of extending the rights of labour, she is taking them away. I appeal to the hon. member to give serious consideration to the amendment she proposes, because rather than adding to the rights of labour, my belief is that it would take them away.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister say that the proposal of the hon. member for North Battleford would be in effect a premium on striking? Would that be the effect of it?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I would not want to go
so far as definitely to answer yes until I see a copy of the amendment. But I think to amend this section would be most inadvisable. It is one that has stood the test in Great Britain for many years; it is identical with the section in the 1935 act; it was referred to in the special committee by representatives of labour, who said, "We are being somewhat generous perhaps but we believe we should be." I think it would be a grave mistake for any amendment to be made to section 43.
Section 43 stands.
Section 44 agreed to.
On section 45-Period of disqualification limited in certain cases.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The word "umpire" has appeared several times, but I have not seen how it is defined.


Norman Alexander McLarty: It is defined later on, in
section 52.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is not in the interpretation section?


Norman Alexander McLarty: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 46 and 47 agreed to.
On section 48-Commission or umpire may revise decision.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I direct attention of hon. members to line 29; after the word "him" insert the word "respectively." I so move.


Thomas Vien: The last line will then read:
. . . decision given by it or him respectively. . . .


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 49 agreed to.
On section 50-Regard to nature of work of insured person.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Will the minister explain the operation of this section?


Norman Alexander McLarty: This refers to a person who is in a particular category in a particular industry; for instance, the secretary of some

Unemployment Insurance
agricultural project, a bookkeeper or an accountant, is deemed a bookkeeper or an accountant, not an agriculturist.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 51 agreed to.
On section 52-Insurance officers.
Richard Burpee Hanson: What is intended to be set up by this section?


Norman Alexander McLarty: This section sets up the officers that will be employed by the commission : an insurance officer who will be attached to the employment office, a referee to whom an appeal can be made from the insurance officer, and the umpire and deputy umpire. In connection with the latter, there are generally very few of them; probably there will not be more than one or two umpires in Canada.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The intention is to use a judge of the court?


Norman Alexander McLarty: It is an important position.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Briefly
what will be their duty?


Norman Alexander McLarty: They have the final adjudication in matters of claims.


Richard Burpee Hanson: All classes of claims?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes. In Great Britain, for example, the decisions of the umpires are published, like supreme court judgments.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 53-Court of referees.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Will there be a limitation on the expenses and allowances of officials under this statute? It always amuses me, when the government sends three men to Geneva or some other place, to find them come back with different expense accounts. There should be some uniformity, I think. I do not like to see half a dozen men, doing the same work, show a great variation in their expense accounts. I would be in favour of the smallest account, not the largest.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I will bear in mind the observations of the hon, member. In the meantime, so far as the statutory powers and rights are concerned in the matter of payment, they are dealt with in subsection 5 of this section.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the hon. member for Davenport has done a
good job in calling attention to this point. I remember the expense account of Hon. Peter Heenan when he went to Geneva.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 54 to 58 inclusive agreed to.
On section 59-Associations which may appeal on behalf of a claimant member.
John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the significance of an association conducting an appeal?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I suppose, so that where an association wishes to take up the cudgels, shall we say, on behalf of a claimant who feels he has been mistreated, it will have the privilege of doing so.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 60 and 61 agreed to.
On section 62-Decisions of umpire final.
Richard Burpee Hanson: The umpire is a judge, is he not?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And it is not intended that there shall be any appeal from his decision?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Not beyond the umpire.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think that is reasonable.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Except that the claimant may perhaps sue the statutory body of the commission.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would
there be a review of the decision of the umpire by way of a crown writ?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I imagine there would be, as in the ordinary case if it were suggested that the commission or the umpire were exceeding its or his power. I imagine the usual right of a mandatory order by the court could be applied for.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On the ground of excessive jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Precisely.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 63 agreed to.
On section 64-Authority to rescind or amend decision.
George Hugh Castleden: I see that an insurance officer has power to amend any decision given in any particular claim. Will there be any appeal from that decision?
Unemployment Insurance


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes; the regular appeal
would obtain. This is merely in connection with new facts being presented. For instance, a worthy claim for benefit may have been wiped out in mistake. That claimant could come along and show new facts, and the claim could be reopened.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 65 and 66 agreed to.
On section 67-Penalty for misrepresentation.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Why is this section under the general heading "legal proceedings"? Why not just call it a penalty, as it is? I think that heading is misleading.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I cannot take any exception to what the hon. gentleman says, but the heading is there.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is the answer we always get when we offer a good suggestion.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Not at all. It may be
that the word "penalty" would make it a little clearer. There is no objection as far as I am concerned, except that some sections following may be affected.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then take them out from under that heading.


Norman Alexander McLarty: This heading would be
proper for section 70, for example, but there are certain civil debts dealt with as well.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It does
not make any difference to me; "a rose by any other name."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The heading affects about ten sections.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 68 to 71 agreed to.
On section 72-Civil proceedings by employee against employer for neglect to comply with the act.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Who will institute the
proceedings on behalf of the employee? The average worker would not know just what to do or to whom to go.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think the best answer
I could give is that it will have to be a matter of regulation as to who shall proceed against the employer. I should think the commission would have to lay down some regulation about that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The government could
not expect an employee to pay the cost of going to a solicitor.
[Mr. Castleden.J


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think that is quite
right. Perhaps I have not answered the question satisfactorily. As far as I can see, it would be pretty much a matter to be determined by regulation. That is what is done under the British act.


Clarence Gillis: I think the hon. member
for Davenport has raised an important question. The answer that it is done in this way in the British act does not make it applicable to Canada.


Norman Alexander McLarty: That was only the last
part of my answer.


Clarence Gillis: In Great Britain the people who come under the act are largely members of trades unions, and when a dispute arises with respect to the unemployment insurance act they have their unions to take up the cudgels for them and fight the case. That is not so in Canada.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but has he read the section? It states:
. . . the commission may pay to such person the benefit so lost and shall be entitled to recover from the employer as a civil debt a sum equal to the amount of the insurance benefit so lost and on recovery shall, unless .payment already has been made, pay the same to such person.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is taken from the British act, is it not?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In Britain I think the union would fight the battle of the employee in almost every instance. I am just wondering if something should not be done to help the employee who may not be organized, who may be in an isolated position. It is difficult for one working man to take action. If the minister says this could be done by regulation and that such regulation will be framed, I am content.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Of course, as I read subsection 1 of section 72, it is the duty and obligation of the commission to do so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, not exactly; it is, I submit, in the discretion of the commission. The word "may" in line 28 is not mandatory.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I believe we have debated that before. However, the fact that it is there, as I think the leader of the opposition will agree, would mean that that word "may" would in this instance be interpreted as "shall". It would be difficult to imagine conditions in which the commission empowered to act would refuse to act.

Unemployment Insurance


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree with that.


Angus MacInnis: It seems to me that the misunderstanding in respect of section 72 arises from the wording of the marginal note. But when one reads the section itself, it seems to be perfectly clear that the commission will look after the benefits of any employee or insured person with regard to whom an employer fails to make the proper collections and proper contributions. I believe it is the marginal note that is at fault.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 73-Powers of the inspectors.
John Ritchie MacNicol: How many employees does a factory have to have before it comes under the bill?


Norman Alexander McLarty: One employee brings it under the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 74, 75 and 76 agreed to.
On section 77-Unemployment insurance fund.
Richard Burpee Hanson: The intention is that the funds shall be kept in a special account in the consolidated revenue fund, and that that account shall be known as the unemployment insurance fund. The section states:
77. (I) There shall be a special account in the consolidated revenue fund called the unemployment insurance fund (in this act referred to as "the fund"), to which the Minister of Finance shall from time to time credit all moneys received from the sale of unemployment insurance stamps and all contributions paid otherwise than by means of such stamps (including penalties payable to the fund) under the provisions of this act.
The next subsection states that the moneys provided by parliament shall be credited to the fund. Then section 78 provides that the Bank of Canada shall be the fiscal agent, and states in part:
Provided that credits in the fund not currently required for the purposes of this act shall, as provided in this section, be invested by the commission in obligations of, or guaranteed by, the government of Canada, and investments so made may be sold or exchanged. . . .
And so on. I suppose those are senior securities of Canada. I was wondering if there would be diversification.


Norman Alexander McLarty: No; they must be in
Canadian government or Canadian government guaranteed securities.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Perhaps
that is the safest procedure. Of course, my
mind travels rapidly to the case of the Manitoba savings bank. After all, Canadian government or Canadian government guaranteed securities are the senior securities of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.	[DOT]
Sections 78 to 82 agreed to.
On section 83-Constitution of committee.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This section is amended by deleting subsection 8 and substituting the following therefor:
(8) Each member of the committee shall receive such remuneration and travelling expenses in connection with the work of the committee as may be approved by the governor in council.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This part of the bill, which deals with the unemployment insurance advisory committee is, of course, a very important part. We find that section 82 provides for the appointment of the committee, to perform the duties specified in the measure. Then section 83 provides for the constitution of the committee and its tenure of office. Just what class of persons will be included in the advisory committee? What would be the nature of their duties? I notice there is a provision stipulating that no member of parliament or of a legislature shall be eligible. I believe that is a proper provision. We have seen it in other acts, and of course the purpose of it is that of protecting the independence of parliament.


William Earl Rowe: And to leave it open for
defeated candidates.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes;
would the minister insert a provision that no defeated candidate or ex-member of parliament might serve? It would appear to me that this committee would be a haven of refuge, and that defeated government candidates would not be able to resist it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We did not have any defeated candidates.


An hon. MEMBER:: How about the
leader of the opposition?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Thank
you, no, not for me, nothing like this. I am serious about this, when I say that I have no hope that the minister will put in such a provision. However, it should be in.


Norman Alexander McLarty: No evil intent, then.


Richard Burpee Hanson: To be
serious, just what class of persons does the minister think he would have on this commission? What do they do in England?
Unemployment Insurance


Norman Alexander McLarty: I was just going to refer to that. After all, this is a most important committee. We have heard a good deal said about the actuarial soundness of the scheme, and to keep it sound we must have a most capable advisory committee. In England they obtained the services of a man of the highest type, namely, Sir William Beveridge, to act as chairman of the advisory committee. As will be seen in subsection 3, one representative shall be appointed after consultation with organizations representative of the employed persons, and an equal number after consultation with organizations representative of employers.
It seems to me that perhaps when the measure was first drawn we might have underestimated the importance of the advisory committee, and that is the reason for the present change. However, we do not now underestimate the importance of the advisory committee. It seems to me that probably a person who could be most usefully chairman of such a committee might be a most capable actuary. I feel that we shall not treat it as a haven of refuge, as has been suggested by the leader of the opposition. Rather we would be inclined to obtain the judgment of the soundest and best representative of industry and labour, and one of actuarial attainments, that we can obtain.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So long
as subsection 8 remains in the section, there would seem to be no necessity for subsection 4, or even for the suggestion I made about defeated candidates.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As I pointed out earlier, subsection 8 has been changed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Speaking seriously, if we are to have any benefit from this measure, then we shall have to obtain qualified persons, and pay them properly.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the effect of the amendment.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am always afraid of these provisions respecting travelling expenses, unless some limitations are imposed. I have in mind two accounts which were paid-not during this session, but during the life of the present government. One of the gentlemen working on a certain matter came from town X, and he took the longest way round to come to his duties. He could travel in two ways, one short and one long. Another man on the same mission, whose expenses were also being paid by the government, lived some twenty-five miles farther away. However, he

travelled the short route and his expenses were less than the man who actually lived twenty-five miles nearer. I do not like to see this travelling expense business left wide open.


Norman Alexander McLarty: If you put a ceiling on it, it must be high enough to cover a man from Victoria in the west or from Charlottetown in the east. That might prove an encouragement to those who live within a shorter radius to see if they could not keep up with the Jones'.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not see why the suggestion of the leader of the opposition cannot be accepted. Subsection 4 states that no senator or member of parliament shall be eligible. However, once a member has been defeated, he is eligible. What halo falls upon him simply because he is a defeated candidate? I think the section ought to read "member or defeated member".


Norman Alexander McLarty: I suppose all I can do is to refer the hon. member to the Independence of Parliament Act. Once a member has been defeated, he is no longer in a position to influence by his vote in the House of Commons any action of this commission. He is as free and independent a citizen as if he had never been a candidate for parliament.


Alan Webster Neill: In one instance, the man has proven himself capable of being elected, in the other he has been defeated and may be hungry for the plums.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This can easily be overcome by a member or senator resigning his seat on the understanding that next day he may walk over to the unemployment insurance commission. It is just a farce.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 84 to 87 agreed to.
On section 88-Organization and maintenance of employment service.
John Ritchie MacNicol: This and the next three sections deal with the same matter. I assume the government proposes to take over all labour and employment offices operated by the various provinces. Will this government have to compensate the provincial governments for the buildings or equipment taken over? Will they take over the staffs now employed in the offices operated by the various provinces?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not think an answer of "yes" would be adequate for the questions asked by the hon. member for Davenport. As he knows, we now make a grant of $150,000 to the provinces for the maintenance of employment offices. To say that we shall take them all over would be misleading; this will

Unemployment Insurance
be a matter of careful inquiry and investigation. Some provinces may wish to retain some offices even though they may not find it profitable to do so. This is something which will have to be worked out. Generally speaking, we will absorb the provincial employment offices in so far as it suits the purposes of this legislation and in so far as the provinces are willing to have us absorb those offices.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then the matter has not been thoroughly discussed with the provincial labour departments?


Norman Alexander McLarty: It was taken up with the provinces by the national employment commission when they were functioning in 1937. I am advised that no objection was raised at that time by the provinces to our taking over the functions of the employment offices. Incidentally, we have obtained from the Department of Justice an opinion that in so far as it may be necessary to implement this legislation, we are entitled to operate employment offices in the provinces. What would happen in practice should a province decide to operate its own employment offices without agreement? Every insured man would come to the dominion office to get his card stamped. He would become accustomed to doing that, and by mere force of circumstances the provincial employment office would be pretty well forced out of business.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I hope that care will be taken in connection with this matter. There has been no suggestion of politics, from me at any rate, in connection with this measure, but here is a chance to hand out a great deal of patronage. I do not want to stir up anything to-night, but as far as my province is concerned it is well known that all the employees in the employment offices are there because they have been vote-getters; in most instances they are ward heelers. That is not an ideal situation in the running of an employment bureau. It may be that after a certain term of experience these men would be of some worth, but I think it is too much to suggest that they be taken over holus-bolus.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I wonder if my hon. friend realizes that the employees in the employment offices will be under the civil service commission.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the
minister says that they are to be appointed by the civil service commission, I am content.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Under section 10.


Mr. HOMUTH:: Does this mean that the government will discontinue all assistance to the provincial offices?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Is that to be the policy of the government?


Norman Alexander McLarty: While no decision has been definitely arrived at, I think it will follow inevitably that when the dominion government is setting up its own system of employment offices it would be rather farfetched to make contributions to the provinces for the same purpose.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I have been given to
understand that Ontario is jealous of its position with regard to employment offices, and that it intends to continue operating those offices.


Norman Alexander McLarty: It can.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: A number of workers will not come under this legislation. This will mean another duplication of services in Canada and we have too much of that already. We 'have nine ministers of agriculture and we have a federal Minister of Agriculture. There is an unnecessary amount of duplication throughout the whole set-up of the administration of this country. Apparently no arrangement has been made with the provinces in connection with the setting up of these employment offices. I think the federal offices could look after those unemployed who do not come under this bill. This could be done by working in conjunction with the provincial authorities. We shall have to have more employment offices in Ontario than we have at the present time, and I feel that we as a federal authority should have full control of this matter, working in conjunction with the provincial departments of labour. This matter is important. I understand there is the possibility of a little cleavage as between the provinces and the federal authority. We should be careful to avoid anything of the kind. I was alarmed at being told within the last day or so that Ontario has no intention of closing its employment offices, that it intends to continue them. I do not think that should be the situation. Of course we have no power to stop it, but representations might be made in such a way that if the provincial government insists on operating the offices it will be clear that it is doing so to its own injury. Let me repeat that we dare not have a continuous duplication of services throughout the country.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think the hon. member for Waterloo South is right when he suggest* that there should be some measure of coordination with regard to employment office* as between the provinces and the dominion. I do not believe there will be any difficulty in that regard. Of course we have the power to open our own offices, but the natural and logical way to dea1 with the matter is by
Unemployment Insurance



CuMMONS

[Stage Direction]
individual agreements with the provinces. Might 1 express the thought that I do not believe there will be a great deal of difficulty in arriving at such an agreement.
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In the event of the dominion joining with the provincial employment services, shall we take over the provincial staffs?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not necessarily. If they can qualify.
Mr. MeLARTY:	They would have to
qualify under the Civil Service Act.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But this government
would not want to take over all the staff which is now employed in Ontario?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is a leading question.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I will qualify that. This government would not want to take over all those who are now employed in Ontario in all the districts where offices are operating, because we now have four labour offices in the city of Toronto-I speak subject to correction.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I believe there are four.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member for Trinity will know exactly how many there are. If I say there are half a dozen in and round about Toronto, is that too many?


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I know there is one in South York and one down-town on Lombard street. Are there just the two?


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: That is the only one in the city of Toronto.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is there not one out at Mimico, or in that direction?


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I would not be far wrong if I said that around Toronto and York suburbs there are about half a dozen labour offices. That is as many as there are in greater London, with about eight million people to take care of. Surely under this system we are going to set up, we are not to be loaded up with political offices such as are scattered around Ontario?


Howard Charles Green: In this section there is no reference to placement work. Subsection 2 stresses the collecting and disseminating of information. Is it the intention of the government that there shall be a special staff working on placements? In other words, whose duty will it be to get in contact with firms and try to persuade them that they

have room for more men, in order to find jobs for the unemployed? This is one branch of employment service work which is not at all adequately covered by the present service. I hope the system to be set up under this bill will be of a more modem type, putting more emphasis on placements, which means finding jobs. Is there any intention that work of that kind shall be done?


Norman Alexander McLarty: No programme has been worked out as to the exact scope of the work which will be undertaken by the employment offices when they start to function. For that reason all I can say is that the suggestion he makes will, of course, receive consideration as and when the offices are to be opened.


Howard Charles Green: I believe that the minister will find, if he refers to the report of the national employment commission, known as the Purvis commission, that they stressed this feature.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes; I remember.


Howard Charles Green: They held that more placement work should be carried on in these employment offices.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Will the youth training scheme come under this bill?


Norman Alexander McLarty: No; it will be entirely
independent of this bill, but there will be cooperation with it in the matter of placements, and of training.


Alan Webster Neill: It is not the intention of the government to occupy exclusively the field of employment offices?


Norman Alexander McLarty: We cannot do that. The provinces will still have the right to maintain and operate their employment offices. We have the right only to the extent of employments which are covered under this bill. To attempt exclusive operation would be to transgress the powers which we have under this bill and under the British North America Act.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: These three sections are most important, almost as important as the provisions for insurance. The big work is going to be the placement of men. Half a dozen men are laid off, and come under the Unemployment Insurance Act. The duty of the offices is to see to it that these men are placed as quickly as possible, the quicker the better; for the sooner they are placed in work, the more actuarially sound the insurance fund will be. Therefore the job of the employment offices is to get unemployed men back to work as quickly as possible. Supposing the office in Kitchener, if one is established there, finds work in the city of Toronto for

Unemployment Insurance
eight men who are laid off in Kitchener; will their fare to Toronto be paid? There is nothing in the bill which makes any provision for that. Is it a matter of regulation?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Perhaps section 91 will provide an answer to the question of the hon. member for Waterloo South.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 89 and 90 agreed to.
On section 91-Advances to workers seeking employment.
Karl Kenneth Homuth: Whatever is advanced to these workers is simply a loan, which they will have to pay back?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this in the British act?


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes, it is.


Richard Burpee Hanson: To what extent is it operative in Britain?


Norman Alexander McLarty: 
Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course Britain is a country of short distances.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I had forgotten that there was such a provision in this bill. This is a rather dangerous provision, yet I can see that there may be a necessity for it.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I am advised that in Great Britain the recovery has been about 95 per cent.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Good.
Excellent.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In Great Britain the head office is in London, and London is connected by teletype with the branch offices. The worker goes into one of these offices and hands in his card, and every office in London is notified that such and such a man is available for service. In the same way they are connected with offices in Manchester, Birmingham and other centres. The question asked by the hon. member for Waterloo South is quite pertinent. His city is a manufacturing centre. Suppose eight rubber workers are laid off in Kitchener; by what means will the head office in Toronto be notified; and if there is work in Toronto for five, six, seven or eight rubber workers, how are they going to get in contact with the expectant employer? Would the fare be advanced for them to go to Toronto? They would need more than that; they would need something to tide them over until they had received their first pay.
The system in the old country has been operating since 1911, and in my judgment it is the finest in the world. I have sat and watched the officials for hours working both in branch offices and in the central office. It is a pleasure to see men coming up to the counter and being addressed by their first name. The officials in all the offices get to know many workers by their first name, and I hope that will happen here. In the old country on one occasion a teletype statement came in saying that a number of boiler makers were wanted. A good many of them had to have their fares advanced to enable them to go to other offered work. The question asked by my hon. friend is, what provision is being made in that regard?


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: On the question of the efficiency of the British system, the committee might be interested in a letter received by one of the employment offices in the old country. It reads something like this: "My daughter Gladys has paid into your scheme for four years and every time she tries to get a bit of benefit you find her a job. It isn't fair."


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Under subsection 3 of section 91, suppose an employer asked for an advance, which he might do under the clause; he might ask for an advance for the worker.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The employer?


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The potential employer. If he asks for an advance and the money is given to enable the workers to come to his plant, which is some distance away, I do not see anything that gives him the right to deduct the advance from the wages of the men so hired.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Subsection 2 covers that:
Any sum advanced in accordance with such regulations shall be a debt due to the commission recoverable by process of law.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Recoverable by the commission. But under this clause an employer can ask the commission to advance money to an employee.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Does it not then become a debt owing to the commission if the commission advances to the employee, at the request of the employer?


Mr HOMUTH:: The employer is responsible for it and it is recoverable from the employer but not from the employee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no provision to take it out of the wages of the particular employee.
Unemployment Insurance


Norman Alexander McLarty: The employer requests
the commission to advance certain moneys to a prospective employee to transfer him to the employer's plant. In the event of the commission complying with the request and advancing the money, that becomes a debt from the employee to the commission.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Not according to the bill


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think so.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Subsection 3 reads:
Anv such advance may be made at the request either of the employer or of the worker, and the person on whose application the advance is made shall be liable to repay the same.
In the case I suggest it is the employer who is making the application.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Perhaps what the hon. member has in mind is the case where the employer actually makes the advance and not where the commission makes it, because in that case it is not a debt due to the commission. The question may be easily answered. If the employer chooses to advance the money to the employee, just where does the commission come into the picture?


Richard Burpee Hanson: And he
would have the right of set-off.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: But where the employer
asks the commission to advance the money-


Norman Alexander McLarty: Then it becomes a
debt to the commission, because the commission makes the advance.


Angus MacInnis: The hon. member for Waterloo South drew attention to subsection 3, which reads:
Any such advance may be made at the request either of the employer or of the worker, and the person on whose application the advance is made shall be liable to repay the same and give such undertaking with respect to repayment of the advance as the commission may, from time to time, by regulation prescribe either general-ally or as regards any specified district or class of applicants.
This section is perfectly clear. I cannot understand how anyone can misconstrue it. If there is one section that is clear, it is this one. The employer asks for an advance for the employee and the employer is liable to the commission. Under subsection 4 all advances of the kind discussed shall be made out of moneys provided by parliament for the purpose. If they are repaid before the end of the fiscal year, advances may be made any number of times without the necessity for the sanction of parliament. It seems to me that the section is the acme of clarity.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I insist that if the employer makes the request, he is liable to the commission for the money.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is no doubt about that.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: There is no provision
whereby the employer may take these advances, for which he is liable, out of the pay of the potential employee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What the hon member says is absolutely correct, according to a careful reading of the bill. If the employer makes the request, then he is liable to the commission and there is no express provision as to his being repaid by the employee. There is, however, a declaration that if the moneys are advanced by the commission they become due to the commission, whoever makes the request. I have a suggestion which might protect the funds of the commission, to a limited extent at any rate. Subsection 2 leaves the recovery of advances as a matter of process of law. It makes it an ordinary debt. It ought to be a crown debt and have priority. After all, it is the money of the taxpayers. They stand in a preferred position, as the minister knows.


Norman Alexander McLarty: My hon. friend means
only to the extent that such sums are advanced by the commission?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes; the
minister leaves it an ordinary debt. If he makes it a crown debt, the board is in a better position.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Perhaps we should consider this: This commission is a corporation; it is not a branch of any department of government. Could we create the right in an incorporated body to recover a debt as if it were one due the crown?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
a good point; in one sense that is true. Supposing the debt is not recovered, by what fund or what portion of the fund will the loss be borne?


Norman Alexander McLarty: I refer the hon. leader of the opposition to section 71; does he think that would help us out?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Yes; that certainly is covered. I think that would be satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 91 agreed to.

Unemployment Insurance
On section 92-Regulations.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this
our own, or is this taken from the British act? These provisions are pretty wide. I object to paragraph (i) on page 30, of the bill, "generally for carrying this act into effect." That is too wide. You cannot apply the ejusdem generis rule there because it is intended to be an omnibus clause in addition. It would be all right if it were limited to regulations of similar nature to those preceding it. But a general omnibus clause like this is not good legislation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is the same wording as the act of 1935.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 93 to 98 agreed to.
On section 99-Reciprocal arrangements.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is an amendment:
The governor in council may notwithstanding anything herein contained enter into agreements with the government of another country to establish reciprocal arrangements on questions relating to unemployment insurance.
It was amended at the suggestion of the law officers by putting in the words "notwithstanding anything herein contained."


John Ritchie MacNicol: This is a really good
section, if I understand it rightly. I found in investigating the question of migration that workmen who have established a claim to unemployment insurance in the old country pooh-pooh the idea of coming to Canada because all they had paid into the unemployment insurance fund in the old land would be lost if they came here to live. Do I understand this section rightly when I interpret it to mean that the government or the commission can enter into an agreement, say with the unemployment insurance board or commission in the old land so that if a worker wishes to come to Canada to live he does not lose his rights; that is, they will be carried on here?


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 100 and 101 agreed to.
On section 102-Contributions under part II payable on date to be fixed by commission.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I direct the attention of hon. members to the amendment; delete the word "fixed" and substitute the word "prescribed."


Mr. BRUCE:: Why are the provisions in regard to health insurance not in this bill?


Norman Alexander McLarty: In the 1935 act they were entirely permissive and provided for the commission to investigate and report upon the feasibility of establishing national health insurance. I know the hon. member for Park-dale is familiar with the provisions of the report of the commission on dominion-provincial relations relative to the distribution of federal and provincial powers, which makes the suggestion that the matter of health is one which should be absorbed by the provinces. The unlikelihood of its being used in this bill was the reason why the permissive clause is not included.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Further may I suggest that it is a specific section in the health act, that the dominion health authorities are instructed to cooperate with the provinces, just as the permissive section in the 1935 act provided.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: But in the act of 1935 certain duties and powers were given to the commission. One of the duties of the commission was to assemble reports and collect information and data. I presume that the idea of that was ultimately to enact a health insurance act, following the lines of this Unemployment Insurance Act. In view of what the hon. member for Peel said this morning, I join him in regretting that some such clause or section is not incorporated in this bill. I think this legislation now being enacted is exceedingly important, and I hope it is only the first step in similar social legislation which will ultimately be enacted in regard to national health. Therefore I urge upon the minister the necessity of adding a section to empower the commission to do what was contemplated in part IV, sections 39 to 41, of the Employment and Social Insurance Act of 1935.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 43-Disqualification through loss of work due to labour dispute.
Norman Alexander McLarty: I believe an amendment was moved by the hon. member for North Battleford.


Thomas Vien: The amendment is that section 43 (a) be amended by striking out the words after the word "continues" in line 29.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Of course I think the
committee should realize that should this amendment be accepted, it would cut out that part of this section which gives rights to those not responsible for the strike. In addition, this section has pretty well stood the test of time in the old country, where it has been in force for twenty-nine years. It was approved by labour during the proceedings of the special committee, and I suggest that it would be
Unemployment Insurance

extremely dangerous and undesirable to adopt this amendment. I believe such a step would be resented by labour.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: I of course would be one of the first to protest if I thought the right to strike or the advantage of labour was greatly interfered with in cases of strikes. I have always advocated the rights of labour, but here one comes up against difficulties which must be met in a practical way. When Mr. Tom Moore was before the committee he was asked a question with regard to these very clauses. No one ever questioned the loyalty of Mr. Tom Moore to the labour movement, or his common sense in dealing with matters affecting labour. As reported at page 116 of the proceedings of the committee he said:
The question of labour disputes, the people being involved; that is where labour is trying to be fair and saying that perhaps it would be asking too much to ask the employer to contribute to a fund that would finance our fight against him. In other words, the unemployment insurance benefit would not be used to strike against the employer.
A little further down on the page I made this comment:
My view of it is that while it is not entirely satisfactory, one might criticize it in detail, there is no other alternative scheme that is workable that we can substitute for what we have here with regard to labour disputes.
Mr. Moore replied:
We think it is a workable act, sir.
Of course I should like to put the labour forces into a position of advantage. It would be nice to say that in cases of strikes their unemployment insurance would continue, but it would not be common sense. It would array against this measure all the employer forces of the dominion. It would make the legislation unpopular, because it would involve it in these labour disputes, so much so that probably the measure would not remain on the statute books very long. As a matter of common sense and arrangement between these parties, I think we must leave this section as it is.


Angus MacInnis: This is one of the sections I spotted as soon as I began to give consideration to this bill. It came to my attention very quickly, of course, because of my long association with organized labour and labour disputes. Before the bill went to the committee I went over it as carefully as possible, in the time at my disposal after I received the bill, with representatives of organized labour and a legal gentleman who gave us legal interpretations as to the phraseology of the bill. We felt that organized labour was safeguarded as far as it was logical to attempt

to do so in this measure. However, I was not satisfied; that is, I did not wish to stop there, and when we were discussing this section in committee I brought up the matter once more. At page 173 of the proceedings of that committee I directed a question to the chairman which was answered by one of the young men now sitting in front of the minister. I put to him the hypothetical case of an insurable employee in one industry whose organization contributed to finance a strike in some other industry, and asked whether a member of such an organization would be barred from these benefits. I was assured that he would not. Mr. Hodgson read from a brief he had with him, part of which I should like to place on Hansard:
Mr. Hodgson:	I think, sir, perhaps the best
way to answer that issue is to read from a brief memorandum which we have on this specific point. It will take but a moment and I think it will show the principles that underlie the interpretation:

Disqualification for participation in a labour dispute entails three preliminary conditions.
1.	There must be a labour dispute.
2.	The dispute must have occasioned a stoppage of work.
3.	The claimant must have lost employment by reason of that stoppage, and the dispute must be at the premises where the claimant is employed.
I should like the committee to note particularly the next brief paragraph, because I think it contains the meat of the issue:
The fact that an employer without offering terms discharges a workman as not worth the standard rate, or not wishing to employ union members, discharges them without offering continued employment on any conditions, would not constitute a labour dispute.
It seems to me that is about as satisfactory as we can expect to get it with the imperfect social system under which we are operating. But there is another reason why I cannot support the amendment. If the hon. member had moved to delete paragraph (a), which disqualifies because of a strike, while it would not be very reasonable, at least it would be understandable. But the hon. member leaves that paragraph in and takes out what, in my opinion, are the real safeguards. Then at the bottom something else is left high and dry, entirely separate from the rest of the section. I do not know if that is intended to be left as it is or to continue from where the deletion commences. My humble opinion is that in respect of this matter the hon. member for North Battleford (Mrs. Nielsen) has been badly advised.


Mr. HANSELL:: May I say a word respecting the amendment of the hon. member for North Battleford. I place myself in her
position, and feel sympathetically disposed

Unemployment Insurance
to the principles she has expressed in moving the amendment. May I, however, point out one or two further matters to which attention might be drawn.
I direct the attention of hon. members to the evidence before the special committee, and turn particularly to page 115. May I observe at the outset that the official reporters have made a mistake in the name. I am sure the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) does not want his name to be associated with anything I might have said. However, in the record the name appears as "Mr. Hanson" when it should have been "Mr. Hansell". I make this observation because some people in Canada might think the leader of the opposition is becoming a monetary reformer.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It would be quite the contrary.


Ernest George Hansell: When I first read the measure I felt, as did the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), that perhaps this section was dangerous so far as labour was concerned. When Mr. Moore appeared before the committee to give evidence I thought perhaps he would spend a good deal of time in explaining the section, and might have some objections to make to it. However, he volunteered nothing, and for that reason I asked him some questions. I read from page 115:
Q. In your submission there was one thing which I expected you to comment on that you did not say anything about at all.
Then followed my question, to which he answered, as reported at page 116:
The question of misconduct is not left to local insurance officers to decide; he cannot just take the word of the employer. He has got to go to a referee; so there is a safeguard there, and it is up to the employer to prove it is misconduct, and not up to the man to prove it is not.
Mr. Graydon: The onus is on the employer.
Then the witness proceeds by further evidence to support the section. May I now call attention to a further paragraph at page 116, where the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) interjected a question. I shall not read it all, but in part it is as follows:
My own view is that something specific should be placed in the act rather than left as to interpretation to the commission. I would like to have your views on that.
Then Mr. Moore proceeds, in a long paragraph, to state that the decisions of the appeal courts have been built up over a period of years. I shall read this small portion of what Mr. Moore had to say:
It is built up out of a mass of experience over a period of time, and that has been found much more effective than attempting to devise
strict regulations. In the light of that experience we were prepared to leave it to the development of decisions on appeals by referees and umpires in this case rather than to attempt to devise something in words that might defeat its own object before we got through with it.
Then the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) states:
My view of it is that while it is not entirely satisfactory, one might criticize it in detail, there is no other alternative scheme that is workable that we can substitute for what we have here with regard to labour disputes.
Then Mr. Moore said:
We think it is a workable act, sir.
The point I should like to emphasize is that the hon. member for Vancouver East and I have said that in the beginning this section attracted our attention. Then, the hon. members for New Westminster and Trinity were rather reticent to accept it without a little further evidence to show that in the eyes of labour it would be satisfactory. Therefore I believe the committee were generally agreed, on the basis of Mr. Moore's evidence, that the section should remain as it is.
Concluding my observations may I say that, should the amendment fail to carry, and in years to come should some difficulty be discovered which would bring about certain hardships on or discrimination against labour, we shall have to conclude that according to Mr. Moore's evidence, he and the people he represents must take some responsibility for it, because we were concerned about that portion of the measure. I believe I may say he assured us that labour was satisfied with the section.


Clarence Gillis: I cannot understand what object would be served by the amendment. I should like to read the section as it would sound, were the section amended in accordance with the proposed amendment. It does not make sense. It states:
An insured person shall be disqualified for receiving benefit-
(a) If he has lost his employment by reason of a stoppage of work, which was due to a labour dispute at the factory, workshop or other premises at which he was employed, except where he has, during a stoppage of work, become bona fide employed elsewhere in the occupation which he usually follows, or has become regularly engaged in some other occupation, but this disqualification shall last only so long as the stoppage of work continues-
And the amendment affects the following part:
-and shall not apply in any case in which the insured person proves-
Then the rest of the section is eliminated down to:
. . . and where separate branches of work which are commonly carried on as separate
Unemployment Insurance

businesses in separate premises are carried on in separate departments on the same premises, each of those departments shall, for the purposes of this provision, be deemed to be a separate factory or workshop or separate premises as the case may be.
Were I to read that in the public press I am afraid I would not understand the meaning of it. However, I have an opinion with respect to this section. While I have all the confidence in the world in my colleague who happened to be a member of the committee which considered this bill, and while I have confidence in Mr. Moore and the other labour representatives, I cannot agree with what is contained in this section. My experience with organized labour has been such that, when it comes to questions of strikes and matters of that kind, I do not trust the employer. I have very good reason for that stand. In the first place, the section assumes that the worker is responsible for strikes. I say that because under this section he is penalized. However, my experience has been the reverse. I have found that labour disputes have been brought about deliberately by operators to serve certain purposes of their own.
Within the last couple of years we had a good example of this in connection with the union to which I belong. A lockout was in force for thirteen months because of an admitted violation of contract by the operator. This lockout was fought by the international union and the district organization, but the union had to carry the load for thirteen months. In a situation like this, under the provisions of this section, a man who had been locked out in order to serve an operator's purpose would be disqualified.
I think this clause should stand in order that it may be reworded. As the section reads now, I know that organized labour across Canada will consider that it offsets all the good features of this bill. There will be a violent reaction against this section. Provision should be made for some sort of investigation in order to determine the responsibility for Btrikes, lockouts and so forth. Why should one side be penalized and not the other? In the lockout to which I referred the men used every reasonable means at their disposal to come to an understanding on the question of wages, but the operator took a most unreasonable stand. An operator may bring about a stoppage of work in order to serve his own purpose, and the men will be disqualified from the benefits of this section. I agree with the principle of this bill, but I am afraid organized labour will not be in favour of this section.
Amendment (Mrs. Nielsen) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

First schedule, part I, agreed to.
Second schedule agreed to.
On third schedule-Insurance benefit.
John Ritchie MacNicol: In the third column of the tabulation of weekly rates the range is from $4.80 to $14.40 for a married person with dependents. There is apparently no difference between the allowance to a man with one dependent and a man with five.


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is correct.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In that respect this bill differs widely from the other act.


Norman Alexander McLarty: This follows the graded
rule.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
On first schedule, part II-Excepted employments.
Alan Webster Neill: Part II deals with excepted employments, that is, people employed in these employments will not benefit under the bill. There are twenty-five of these, and I would say that they cover between 85 to 90 per cent of all industry in British Columbia. In other words, so far as British Columbia is concerned, this bill as it stands is little better than eye-wash. A man does not benefit from this scheme if he is employed in agriculture, horticulture, forestry, fishing, lumbering and logging, hunting and trapping, transportation by water, stevedoring, domestic service and many other types of employment. In order to test this part of the schedule, I intend to move an amendment dealing with logging, British Columbia's second largest if not the largest industry. In order to meet the wishes of those who wanted to deal with sawmills and other wood working industries which do not operate continuously, I have worded this amendment as follows:
Employment in lumbering and logging which are not reasonably continuous in their operation.
That is, in part, the exact language used in the amendment passed by the committee in connection with sawmills, planing mills, shingle mills and wood-processing plants. I have worded my amendment in order to put it up to the commission to allow employment in lumbering and logging

I have a further amendment to deal with stevedoring and domestic service-which are reasonably continuous in their operations. This afternoon the hon. member for Vancouver South explained most ably the difference between conditions in British Columbia and those in the east. The situation is not fair, or reasonable, or just, and I appeal to the good sense of hon. members in the east to back us up by not imposing upon us conditions

Unemployment Insurance
which are so destructive, so to speak, of any benefits under the measure, but which happen to fit conditions here. Surely the English language is capable of being put in such a way that both conditions can be met, and I think it can be met in that way. There are what are called "gyppo" logging outfits which operate for only two or three months. They would not come in because they are not reasonably continuous. But I could name some outfits which log practically continuously, and are stopped only by some condition of the weather, or lack of orders, which this amendment is intended to take care of.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How
would paragraph (c) read if effect is given to the present amendment along with the amendment of the minister?


Alan Webster Neill: Paragraph (c) will now read, among the excepted employments, "employment in lumbering and logging which are not reasonably continuous in their operations." It meets the objection of those who have in mind these two-months logging outfits, and it will take in lumbering, logging and sawmills entirely, because the word "lumbering," according to the dictionary, includes taking the log from the tree into the manufactured article.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I direct attention to the amendment recommended by the committee, and which will be found on page 2. It deletes paragraph (c) and substitutes therefor the following:
(c) Employment in lumbering and logging, exclusive of such sawmills, planing mills, shingle mills and wood-processing plants as are in the opinion of the commission reasonably continuous in their operations.


Howard Charles Green: I take it that the amendment to paragraph (c) which was moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is the one before the committee, and not the amendment which has just been referred to by the minister.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The amendment which I have mentioned is automatically before this committee. It is the bill as amended by the special committee which is before the committee of the whole.


Grote Stirling: This is an amendment to the amendment.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The amendment moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is the amendment before the committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And is
an amendment to the amendment.


Thomas Vien: Part II of the first
schedule was amended by the special select committee by striking out paragraph (c) in part II and substituting what the minister has just read. Paragraph (c) therefore reads at present as follows:
(c) Employment in lumbering and logging, exclusive of such sawmills, planing mills, shingle mills and wood-processing plants as are, in the opinion of the commission, reasonably continuous in their operations.
To which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni now moves:
That paragraph (c), as adopted by the committee be struck out and the following substituted in lieu thereof, as paragraph (c):
"Employment in lumbering and logging which are not reasonably continuous in their operations."
The effect of this amendment would be to add as employments covered by the bill (excluded from the excepted employments), employments in lumbering and logging which are reasonably continuous in their operations. Would remain excepted, to use the word of the bill, only such employments in lumbering and logging as are not reasonably continuous in their operations.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think
that is right.


Thomas Vien: The effect of the
amendment is, therefore, to add classes of employees or classes of employments; in other words, in my opinion, to add charges on the public in excess of those covered by the bill submitted to this committee.


Alan Webster Neill: Will you allow me, before
you give your ruling-


Thomas Vien: Before I give a ruling
I should like to hear hon. members who desire to speak.


Alan Webster Neill: By a strong adherence to
technicalities, possibly the suggestion made by the chairman of the committee may be in order; but I recall, and we can all remember, that, not once or twice but three or four times in this chamber in the last few days, we have been assured under the word of the minister in charge of this bill that we would be allowed to make an amendment of this kind. It was by that means he got the resolution and bill through.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, but I never heard it suggested that the hon. member even proposed to make an amendment until he spoke about it in the house this afternoon. As far as my suggesting the right to make an amendment, I have no such power, and as I say, I had no idea until the hon.
Unemployment Insurance

member rose in his place at that time, that he had any intention of moving an amendment.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. minister interrupted me before I had finished what I had to say in regard to this particular point. The question was raised by several hon. members. I have not now the time to show it from Hansard. I never thought the point would be taken. We all know that there was a rush to get the bill through. We raised various points, and I remember this particular point being raised, because if somebody else had not done it I would have done it; and the answer, the assurance, which we got was, "You can take these things up later on; any hon. member will be at liberty to raise points about these matters." It was by this method of subtle encouragement that the bill went so quickly through the house the other night. I believe that if we look closely at the Hansard report of the proceedings in committee, we shall find that somewhat the same statement was made, "It will always be open." Somebody made the point "You cannot do that, because it will be said that the government will be required to spend public money"; but the answer was, "We won't be too restrictive about that; it will always be open."


Norman Alexander McLarty: Is the hon. member saying that I suggested that any member of this committee or of the house could move an amendment at any time, and that he had my assurance that he could? I regret any misunderstanding with the hon. member-


Alan Webster Neill: Not in so many words.


Norman Alexander McLarty: -but I do not think I would take that authority upon myself.


Alan Webster Neill: It was to be such amendments as we desired; and this was one of them.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I never made any such suggestion, Mr. Chairman.


Alan Webster Neill: This is not an addition to the bill in the general sense; it is an addition to the classification of excepted employments. A word very much used nowadays is "clarify." This amendment is simply to clarify the excepted employments, and in that sense I do not think it involves the expenditure of public money. It may or it may not. We cannot tell. But I fall back on the statement I have mentioned. I will not say that the minister put it in black and white, or used those words in connection with this particular amendment.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Or, to be fair, any other amendment. I did not suggest such a thing.


Alan Webster Neill: But we all understood that we would be allowed latitude.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I did not suggest it at any time, nor would I have the authority- and I try to keep myself within the limit of the authority I have-to suggest that any member of this committee could or could not move an amendment. I did not raise any point of order. You, Mr. Chairman, have dealt with the point of order, not at my request. I have no desire or inclination in connection with it. That, after all, is neither my function nor my duty, nor have I taken it on myself to extend to members of this committee or this house privileges which I would have no right to extend.


Alan Webster Neill: On the question of misunderstanding, was there not a misunderstanding to-day at either twelve or three o'clock when this bill came into committee, and the chairman ruled that we could discuss only the individual items, that we could deal only with the first section, namely, the short title, and he proceeded to enforce that ruling? But it was put forward that there had been a distinct understanding with the minister that we would be allowed to discuss any phase of the bill on the short title.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I suggest to the hon.
member for Comox-Albemi that if he will consult Hansard he will find that there was no such suggestion by any member of this committee. The hon. member for Vancouver South rose to speak after I sat down. The chairman rose in his place and said, "Only with the unanimous consent of the house," and I suggested that we give unanimous consent. I never said a single word, if I remember correctly, about my having agreed that a good deal of latitude would be given. I dislike intensely having this misunderstanding, but in fairness to myself the hon. member should not misquote me.


Howard Charles Green: The minister means the hon. member for Vancouver East; he said Vancouver South.


Thomas Vien: This morning the question arose as to whether the various sections should be discussed one by one. By unanimous consent, a general debate on the principle of the bill, as free as possible, took place, and there has been since then no restriction on the debate. The study of the bill section by section was commenced at five o'clock, this afternoon.


Alan Webster Neill: You would not call this restriction now?


Thomas Vien: No. A point of order.

Unemployment Insurance


Richard Burpee Hanson: The chairman has clearly stated the position. I understand the rule, but I understood that by a sort of silent unanimous consent the provisions of the rule were relaxed and that was why we were all enabled to make our statements. On the point of order raised by the chairman, I suppose it is a part of his duty to raise it on his own initiative, but I must say with great respect that I never saw a chairman so alert as our present chairman to raise these issues and relieve some member of the ministry of the odium of taking the issue. Really, that is where the direction should come from, and I say this with great deference and respect to the minister. I think the minister would be well advised-


Thomas Vien: May I, on that point-


Richard Burpee Hanson: If you would hear me out, perhaps it would be better.


Thomas Vien: Pardon me. I should not like the hon. gentleman to go unchallenged on that point if the implication be that, by raising a point of order based on a rule of the house which binds me as well as any other member of the committee, I was trying in any way to relieve the minister of the odium of raising the point of order. I protest most energetically against such an implication.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think-


Thomas Vien: Order, please. It is the duty of the chair, in committee as well as in the house, to apply the rules. There was nothing further from my mind-and I resent the implication-than to relieve the ministry of any odium. And I am not trying now to relieve even the leader of the opposition of the odium of his implications.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Having been sufficiently spanked by the chairman, I must confess to be still unrepentent.


Thomas Vien: I would refer the hon. gentleman to the rule of the house-


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am quite aware of the rule of the house; I do hot think we should proceed further with the matter. I have said on many occasions-


Thomas Vien: I think the hon. gentleman should withdraw his words.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If the chairman will wait a minute and not be quite so heated, I was going to say that if there was a reflection on the chair I most cheerfully withdraw it. I, more than any other man in
this house, want to be within the rules. If I do not comply with the rules I cannot ask other people to do so, and if there is any offence where none was intended, if any offence is taken, I cheerfully withdraw it. Can I grovel in the dust any more than that?


Thomas Vien: It is not a question of groveling in the dust, but I think it is proper that the chairman should object to any implication of the sort. I accept the hon. gentleman's withdrawal of his remarks, and I declare that I am perfectly satisfied. Nobody, however, could accuse me of undue heat for resenting such an implication.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not want to argue the point, but is the position not somewhat analogous to a case in a law court, as regards the admissibility or inadmissibility of evidence? In a civil action the rule is that the judge does not challenge the admissibility of evidence unless counsel on the other side does, but in a criminal case it is the duty of the judge to do so.


An hon. MEMBER:: In both cases.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In our courts, if there is competent counsel, the judge will not intervene in a civil action; but it is his duty to intervene in a criminal action. However, we may well let the matter go. But I will make a suggestion to the minister, that he do not stand on the point of order but allow this matter to be discussed and to be decided by the committee. If he cannot do that, I have nothing more to say.


Alan Webster Neill: How many times in the last two weeks have we not passed by unanimous consent matters which would have caused great inconvenience to the government had we not given that consent?


Thomas Vien: I do not believe it is in the power of the committee to grant one of its members the right to introduce an amendment which has the effect of entailing the expenditure of public funds. The only way of overcoming the difficulty arising from this aspect of the amendment of the hon. member would be for a minister of the crown to present the amendment. If the minister does not see fit to do so, the committee has no power. I quote from Beauchesne, citation 551:
It is a fundamental principle that no resolution or amendment to increase a charge upon the people can be moved with the Speaker in the chair;-it must be initiated in committee by a minister acting on behalf of the crown.
I quote from May at page 531:
For instance, it was held, ninth March, 1863, that a member could not move an addition to the number of men stated upon the army
Unemployment Insurance

estimates, although apparently the grant for pay upon the estimates provided for a number of soldiers larger than the number therein specified-


Alan Webster Neill: What year was that?


Thomas Vien: That was 1863. The rules have not been changed.


Alan Webster Neill: Oh, yes.


Thomas Vien: I should like to be shown. I continue:
-and analogous motions have been ruled out of order, although the proposed increase in the number of men was nominal, designed only for the correction of an alleged error in the estimates.
I read in Beauchesne, citation 108, that the Speaker "is bound to call attention immediately to any irregularity in debate or procedure and not to wait for the interposition of a member."


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbuiy):: If the chairman has finished, I should lie to invite the minister to accept the amendment, which I hope is in order. He could accept the amendment because it is right in line with the ruling. To suggest anything else is ridiculous. He could accept it and make it his amendment.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Let us get this clear. As far as I am personally concerned I have no objection to the amendment or to any discussion which would follow on it. Perhaps in the long run it would save time to do what is suggested by the leader of the opposition. But consider my position, a minister of the crown sitting through a committee, and then moving an amendment. Then I would have to rise in my place and speak against it. I do not suppose I am entitled to go into this matter now, but I think it is asking quite a bit for a minister of the crown after he has gone through the special committee to move an amendment and then immediately to talk against it. I want to make this position clear, that as far as I am concerned I did not suggest it was out of order.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps we should get back to the unfortunate logger in British Columbia, and see what can be done to help him. I realize that it is the government who will decide whether or not a change can be made in this particular part of the schedule. I would ask the Minister of Labour, if he is unwilling to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, to consider changing this amended paragraph (c) by adding after the words "wood-processing plants" these words, "and logging camps". This means that we are asking that the government give the new unemployment insurance commission the power-not saying (The Chairman.]
they must do so-to bring logging camps under the scheme. Of course we are particularly concerned about logging camps in British Columbia, because there the employment is far more permanent than it is in logging camps in eastern Canada. I believe every hon. member from British Columbia wishes to see loggers included in this unemployment insurance scheme. I am sure even the Minister of Pensions and National Health, a member of the government, would very much like to see loggers included.


Alan Webster Neill: And the British Columbia government.


Howard Charles Green: And, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni says, the British Columbia government have made representations to this government within the last day or two asking them to include the loggers of British Columbia in the scheme. The schedule as amended by the committee gives the unemployment insurance commission similar power to bring under the measure sawmills, planing mills, shingle mills and wood-processing plants if they are reasonably continuous in their operations. We ask the same thing for this other branch of the lumber industry, namely, the logging camps. In other words, we should like the government to make it perfectly clear that the commission can-not must, but can-if they see fit investigate logging camps in British Columbia. This means that all the parties concerned, the loggers and the proprietors, the British Columbia government, and anyone else interested can make representations to this commission on this question. If our suggestion is not accepted, I submit that such cannot be done. Acceptance of my proposal would mean that all the parties concerned can have a hearing. As I said, the commission cannot do it now because in this very amendment that the committee proposed other branches of the lumber industry are named, which by inference excludes logging camps. If the government give the commission power to make this investigation of the camps, the government are amply protected; they can lose nothing, for the commission will have the power to put the loggers in or to leave them out.
I point out that there are thousands of men concerned in British Columbia; our lumber industry is our biggest industry; the government of British Columbia are pressing for this change; the members are pressing for it, and the situation there is quite different from that in eastern Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: All the British Columbia members?

Unemployment Insurance


Howard Charles Green: I think every member from British Columbia.


Thomas Reid: It was fought out in the
committee.


Howard Charles Green: Before the committee a learned counsel from British Columbia, Mr. W. B. Farris, K.C., appeared as counsel for certain logging interests, that is, for employers in the logging branch of the lumber industry of that province. He naturally did not want to have his clients included in the scheme, and he put up as strong, and may I say as extravagant a case as it would be possible to put up.


Thomas Reid: Which we challenged.


Howard Charles Green: But even at that he did say, as found on page 201 of the report of the proceedings, when he was questioned by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare:
Q. You are against any extension of the act to include the loggers and are satisfied with it the way it stands?
Here may I point out that Mr. Farris was perfectly willing to have the sawmill and shingle mill men come under the scheme but not the loggers. The answer was:
A. We are satisfied with it. I would, however, go this far; if after investigation it was found that it was practical or desirable to bring the loggers in under the provisions of the act we would not be opposed to it.


Thomas Vien: That is, if the advisory committee investigated and made such a recommendation?
A. Yes. . . .
All we ask is that the government give power in this paragraph (c) to the unemployment insurance commission to make such an investigation, which would be perfectly satisfactory even to Mr. Farris. If the change we ask is not made, that cannot be done. I appeal to the Minister of Labour to show his great common sense and sense of justice in regard to this question. Our province is vitally concerned about it. I ask that he make the change requested.


Norman Alexander McLarty: There seems to be some misconception as to the reasons that prompted the committee in not making the amendment to part II covering the exceptions. It is in one part of Canada undoubtedly a definitely seasonal industry; in another part it is not. It is just a question of how far this parliament should go in regional legislation. But it was not by reason of the seasonal nature of the work that it was thought wise to exclude logging. It was largely because of the administrative difficulty involved; the matter of inspection, of attendance at employment offices, of the rapid turn-over of labour. The question was brought up at the subcommittee
meeting, and Mr. Watson, the chief actuary of the department of insurance, in dealing with the matter, stated:
. . . You have to keep in mind the whole scheme of administration, including inspection.
. . . The difficulty is to know that the contributions have been properly paid; know they are at work when they claim they are at work, and all these things. You see how easy collusion would be. . . . Take administration for instance. They must have their employment book, and they must register, so that the inspection department may know or be able to check up to see if the stamps are kept on and to see that the persons are at work. . . . There is a certain amount of logging going on up the Gatineau. People could claim they are employed by so and so, and nobody in the world could do inspection. It would be too expensive.
It is not entirely the seasonal nature of the work; it is the administrative work.
I did suggest this to members of the committee, because they pressed me very hard to have this taken out of the excepted employments, but under the provisions of the bill itself I urged upon them that there can be accomplished something along the lines with which the hon. member for Vancouver South has suggested. If an opportunity is given to the commission to investigate this industry; if they find that it is possible properly to administer it under this act; if they find that the difficulties which I have suggested do not exist-I have no knowledge of the logging industry myself but am simply repeating what I am told-then I can see no reason why under section 86 (a) an extension could not be given and this industry taken out of the list of exceptions; I feel that this might reasonably be done. The reason why it was not inserted originally was not because of its seasonable nature, as hon. members from British Columbia seem to think. It was because of the difficulty of administering it under the present provisions of the bill. We are going to have enough difficulty as it is in setting up the administration. I suggest that an opportunity should be given the commission to investigate and see whether this industry can properly be brought within the administrative scope of the bill. If it can, there is no reason why it should not be.


Howard Charles Green: I do not intend to speak any more; I think it is up to the other members from British Columbia to speak if they have anything to say. I am not going to keep at it, but there are also great difficulties of administration in connection with the sawmill industry, for example. Under this proposed amendment to paragraph (c) you have said to the new commission, in effect, "You must go to British Columbia and investigate these sawmills, planing mills, shingle mills and woodprocessing plants in order to see whether or not in your opinion they are reasonably con-
Unemployment Insurance

tinuous in their operations." I submit to the minister that there is no reason whatever why you could not also say to the commission right in this paragraph, "When you are investigating the other branches of the lumber industry you shall also investigate the logging end of it." The commission is the body to decide whether or not there are administrative difficulties; it is not for the house to decide, or for the minister, nor was it for the special committee to decide. The question of administrative difficulties should be left to the new commission which is to be set up.


Norman Alexander McLarty: That is exactly where it is left now by section 86 (a).


Howard Charles Green: I do not see why you should say that the logging camps must come into the scheme under section 86 (a), that they cannot come in under paragraph (c) of this schedule, when you include under this paragraph sawmills, planing mills, shingle mills and so on.


Alan Webster Neill: In regard to the statement as to the difficulties of administration, I would ask how the government expect to collect the national defence tax, which is to be collected from each of these men. I would point out also that the provincial government of British Columbia already collects from these men a tax of one cent a day under the workmen's compensation act, and every last cent of that tax is collected although the same administrative difficulties exist. There is also collected by the provincial government a one per cent tax on wages. There is no trouble in collecting any of these taxes, and I do not see why it should be any more difficult to administer this measure in the same way.


Thomas Reid: In fairness to those hon.
members from British Columbia who were members of the special committee, I think it should be pointed out that we put up just as hard a fight in that committee in regard to this matter as other hon. members have been putting up to-night. The difficulty we encountered-and it has been encountered here also-was because of the interpretation of the word "lumber". We pointed out to the committee when we were discussing the bill that in British Columbia lumbering included logging, logging railways, sawmills, shingle mills, planing mills, sash and door factories and wood-working plants. All these operations come under the word "lumbering", whereas in the central provinces and in the east the word does not cover all these branches. After a great deal of discussion it was decided to widen the bill a little by adding the words "wood-processing plants", in order to include veneer plants, sash and 
door factories and all plants handling wood products.
As one of the members of that committee from British Columbia I was just as much disappointed as the two hon. members who have spoken to-night because it was not possible for us to have logging included in this bill. That is one of the foremost industries of our province. I felt it my duty, lest the wrong impression went out, to say that in that committee we did our best to have logging included, and that we are with the other hon. members in their fight to-night to have that done.


Angus MacInnis: I should like to say
just a few words in this connection. As I pointed out earlier to-day, I think we should bear in mind that there will be many administrative difficulties in organizing the machinery under this bill. I do not suppose that one more occupation or ten or fifteen thousand men from any group will upset or make impossible that organization, but in the committee we were confronted with the fact that we were told by the actuary, Mr. Watson, that he could not certify the actuarial soundness of the bill without further investigation if we were to press for the inclusion of new groups. The hon. member for Rosedale suggests that he would certify it if the commission took them in, but in my opinion he did not say that. He certified the measure as it was drafted, containing these categories; and every other category or group brought in would affect the actuarial situation one way or the other. We discovered that when we were pressing for the inclusion of people receiving salaries of $2,000 to $2,500.
I wish the loggers had been included when the bill was being drafted. If the government would accept the amendment, I would vote to have them included now. But if including them would mean delaying the bill until the actuary could make another report, it would mean that the bill would not go through this session, and we would be defeating the end we are trying to bring about. I should just like to leave that thought with the committee.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: As far as the actuarial
calculations are concerned, the commission already has power to consider taking in new industries or new companies out of industries, or omitting certain ones already included. So the logging industry of British Columbia could well be included under this bill for the coming year without seriously disturbing Mr. Watson's report. We have heard a good deal about the calculations and the

Questions
possibility of accuracy in regard to statements concerning payments into the fund and benefits under it. I think we have heard sufficient to know that of necessity there is a great deal of conjecture in an actuarial calculation concerning a measure of this kind. If one industry in British Columbia, or part of one industry, should be included under it, I do not think the actuarial calculations would be seriously altered. Furthermore, the whole fund, and the calculations which go to make up its soundness or projected soundness, are constantly under review and can be changed from time to time. So I cannot conceive that in a measure of this magnitude the inclusion of a single industry in British Columbia would affect the actuarial calculation to any substantial degree. I believe the present calculation would allow for that action being taken.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I am one who is in favour of leaving the measure as it is at the present time. One point clear in my mind is the magnitude of the burden which will develop in connection with the machinery required to set the legislation in motion. We are now discussing the greatest social expenditure which up to the present Canada has had to face. It will exceed the yearly expenditures for old age pensions, and in the measure as it now stands I think we have gone far enough.
From the evidence given before the special committee I got the definite impression that in setting up the machinery and working out the details of operation we have set ourselves a task the like of which no department in Canada has had since Canada became a nation, except possibly our war efforts. That point was emphasized before the committee by quotations respecting what had happened in the United States and Great Britain. In those countries the plan was so far as possible to bring about a formula as simple as could be found, one which would work with the least difficulty. I would refer hon. members to page 220 of the report of proceedings before the special committee.
Seeing that it is nearly eleven o'clock, I shall not take time to read the quotations, but at that point will be found the advice and the suggestions given to the committee. I say that we have gone far enough, and that we should leave the bill as it is, without taking the additional hazard of going any farther.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have a suggestion to make. It is quite evident that we cannot finish the bill to-night, because questions respecting stevedoring and domestic servants are to be raised. I have opinions 95826-129
respecting those two groups. Then, hon. members for British Columbia foel strongly about those who are connected with logging, and I appreciate the position they take. We have had a full day, and I would suggest that we adjourn until eleven o'clock on Monday morning. I am not going to labour the matter longer, so far as I am concerned, but the minister might be good enough to consult with his colleagues over the week-end. Perhaps, as a result, they would agree to the requests of the members from British Columbia.
Schedule stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, July 29, 1940


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the house that I have received the following message:
Ottawa, November 5, 1940.
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. Sir Lyman P. Duff, G.C.M.G., acting as the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber on Tuesday, the fifth day of November, at 3.10 p.m., for the purpose of proroguing the present session of parliament.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
F. L. C. Pereira, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



NEW MEMBERS

Georges Parent: I have the honour to inform the house that the clerk of the house
has received from the chief electoral officer certificates of the election and return of the following members, viz.:
Of the Hon. Angus Lewis Macdonald, for the electoral district of Kingston City;
Of Louis O. Breithaupt, Esquire, for the electoral district of Waterloo North;
Of George Russell Boucher, Esquire, for the electoral district of Carleton;
Of Alfred Henry Bence, Esquire, for the electoral district of Saskatoon City.



NEW MEMBERS INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Angus Lewis Macdonald, member for the electoral district of Kingston City, introduced by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Hon. J. L. Ralston.
Louis O. Breithaupt, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Waterloo North, introduced by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King and Hon. C. D. Howe.
George Russell Boucher, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Carleton, introduced by Hon. R. B. Hanson and Mr. J. H. Harris.
Alfred Henry Bence, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Saskatoon City, introduced by Hon. R. B. Hanson and Mr. E. E. Perley.

Georges Parent: I think it desirable to inform the house that during the recess Doctor Beauchesne, Clerk of the House, was in communication with Mr. Arthur Sidney Bourinot, son of Sir John Bourinot who was clerk of this house from 1880 to 1903, who expressed the desire to present to the house the chair which Sir John Bourinot used during those years and which had been in the possession of his family.
Doctor Beauchesne accepted the gift and gratefully acknowledged it, and has caused the chair to be placed at the table and it is now occupied by Doctor Beauchesne.



PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
NOVEMBER 5, 1940	2611
Governor General's Speech

[Stage Direction]
The deputy of His Excellency the Governor General was pleased to close the first session of the nineteenth parliament of the Dominion of Canada with the following speech: Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
When the present session opened in May, one free country after another, in quick succession, had become the victim of nazi aggression. Before its adjournment on August 7, Italy had joined her axis partner as an open enemy, French resistance had collapsed, and the government of France had surrendered. Britain herself was threatened with invasion. The theatre of conflict had begun to spread into other lands beyond the confines of Europe. Japan and China were still at war. Among the nations of the world, the United Kingdom and the British dominions, alone, stood in arms, in the defence of the world's freedom.
Canada has willingly accepted the widening responsibilities which events have placed upon her. The measures which you have taken have had in view the immediate task of sharing more completely in the defence of Britain and securing our own country more effectively against internal subversion and external attack. They have also had in view the long range task of ensuring the ultimate defeat of the enemy.
To serve these ends, the structure of the administration has been altered and enlarged. A Ministry of National Defence for Air and a Ministry of National Defence for Naval Services have been created. The scope of the Department of Munitions and Supply has been expanded and its organization strengthened. A
Department of National War Services has been established. The government has been empowered by the National Resources Mobilization Act to bring to the defence of Canada and the advancement of the common cause all the resources of the country, both human and material. In the different branches of war activity there has been a steady expansion and acceleration of training, transport, manufacture and production.
By the Unemployment Insurance Act you have made a valuable contribution to industrial and financial stability in time of war, and to social security and justice in time of peace. It is deeply gratifying that approval was given by all tbe provinces to the necessary amendment to the British North America Act to permit of the enactment of unemployment insurance by the parliament of Canada.
Members of the House of Commons:
I thank you for the financial appropriations which you have made. The determination of the Canadian people to support and advance the cause for which we have taken up arms, has been reflected in the unselfish acceptance by all of its heavy financial burdens.
Honourable Members of the Senate:
Members of the House of Commons:
It has become only too apparent that the lust for conquest will continue to enlarge the theatre of war. The struggle to preserve freedom will be long and hard. May Almighty God guide and uphold its brave defenders.
This concluded the first session of the nineteenth parliament.


[Stage Direction]
i>ous:e of
Commons; ©efcates
[Stage Direction]
Friday, July 26, 1940