1940-07-16

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 91. for the relief of Agnes Dorothy Smith Bruneau.-Mr. Hazen.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of John Eric Pitt.- Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of Dennis Calvert Kerbv.-Mr. McIIraith.
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Camille Perks.- Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 95. for the relief of Maria Cecilia Patricia Gatien Rowell.-Mr. Tomlinson.
Bill No. 96, for the relief of Lemuel Athelton Lewis.-Mr. Homuth.
Bill No. 97, for the relief of Joseph Philias Hector Sauvageau.-Mr. Hill.
On division.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, a question was directed to Mr. Attlee, Lord Privy Seal, in the British House of Commons to-day touching the movement of British children overseas. I shall give the question and his answer. The question was whether he could give any further information about the progress of the children's overseas reception scheme, and he replied:
Yes, sir. The house has already been made aware of the extremely generous offers for the reception and maintenance of British children during the war that have been made from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa, and also from the United States of America. These offers were already sufficient to account for a very substantial number of children, and I have no doubt that they by no means indicate the limit of the hospitality which might ultimately be made available overseas.

Illegal Organizations
As regards the response in this country, the number of children for whom applications were made exceeded the number for whom responsibility had been offered. The government ivould have no difficulty in providing shipping required as sufficient tonnage could be made available. On the other hand the government feel strongly the responsibility that rests upon them to see that any children who go overseas under the government scheme should have such naval protection as would reasonably ensure the safety of their passage during the voyage. The fate of the Arandora Star shows that even a fast passenger vessel cannot always rely for safety on her speed if she is unescorted.
Unfortunately a radical change in the situation since applications were first invited has occurred as a result of the loss of the services of a large part of the French fleet. It is, therefore, in the present circumstances essential to concentrate our whole naval forces on the task of meeting the overriding demands of national security. It is this consideration alone which has forced the government reluctantly to conclude that they must postpone the operation of the scheme for transference of the children overseas until the situation at sea enables them to provide naval escort for ships employed for this purpose.
Similarly the government feel there must be a postponement of special arrangements which they were prepared to make in eases where schools here had planned to transfer pupils to schools in Canada.
Ordinary fast passenger vessels are not escorted and if children are carried on such vessels outside any government scheme the responsibility for any risks on the voyage would not be on the government. In any case the numbers of such children must be limited, since I am bound to repeat that the imperative necessity of conserving our dollar resources to meet other essential demands makes it impossible to allow remittances of funds in any form for the purpose of their maintenance in Canada and the United States.
The government realize that postponement of their scheme, although inevitable, is bound to cause great disappointment amongst parents here and also among those who in the dominion have so whole-heartedly cooperated in making preparations for the reception of the children and their maintenance. I desire to assure them that we keenly appreciate their generosity and deeply regret the inconvenience which the postponement of our scheme is bound to cause them.
To those also in the United States of America who have spared no effort to find homes for the British children I would like to express on behalf of his majesty's government our warmest thanks. I hope that our scheme is only temporarily suspended and that we may yet be able to partake of that warm-hearted hospitality so spontaneously and readily offered.



SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

[Stage Direction]
REASONS FOR DECLARING TECHNOCRACY INCORPORATED and Jehovah's witnesses ILLEGAL ORGANIZATIONS
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, for a number of days I have had a question that I wished to ask of the Minister
of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) but I have just learned with regret that he is not likely to be in the house for some time. Consequently I would ask my question of the government in the hope that an answer may be given, if not now, at some later time.	.
My question is this: Can the government give the house precise information why the organizations known as Technocracy Incorporated and Jehovah's Witnesses have been declared illegal? Since the banning of these organizations I have received many letters and communications from people who are puzzled as to why the activities of these organizations were considered illegal.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member has now asked his question and-


Angus MacInnis: I shall finish in a very few words, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Angus MacInnis: I am asking a simple question of the government, as I have a right to do without all this furore being raised on the other side of the -house. I do not use many words in asking questions, and I object to this curtailment of the liberty of members of parliament in asking questions of the government.


Georges Parent: As I understood it, the
hon. gentleman had already given the gist of his question, and I think that the minister who makes reply knows exactly what is required in the way of answer. I would again bring to the attention of the house-


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my question consists of six lines. Surely I should be permitted to read six lines to the house.


Georges Parent: Yesterday I had to draw to the attention of the house the fact that hon. members in asking questions of the government on the orders of the day should bring in nothing extraneous, that the minister should simply know what the question was about. The hon. member has now made his statement and I think an answer could be given.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my hon.
friend had sent notice of his question to the Minister of Justice, and the minister had a reply which he was prepared to make had he been in the house. In his absence I will read his reply:
"It is not the policy to disclose confidential information upon which a recommendation under the defence of Canada regulations is
National Registration

made by the minister. However, the literature of Technocracy Incorporated discloses, in effect, that one of its objects is to overthrow the government and constitution of this country by the use of force. The literature of Jehovah's Witnesses discloses, in effect, that man-made authority or law should not be recognized if it conflicts with the Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation of the Bible; that they refuse to salute the flag of any nation or to hail any man; and, that they oppose war.
"The general effect of this literature is, amongst other things, to undermine the ordinary responsibilities of citizens, particularly in time of war."



INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED LOSS IN GOVERNMENT MARKETING OPERATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. NICHOLSON (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). To-day's Globe and Mail contains an item to the effect that the government is running the wheat market in the interests of the growers and losing about $1,000,000 a week in the operation. I wonder if the minister would care to make any comment on that item.


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: If the hon. member will
put his question on the order paper I shall be glad to answer it.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to an item that appeared in one of the papers this morning with regard to the hutment accommodation which is being provided by the Department of National Defence; the house might be interested in knowing the progress which has been made in that direction. The item was:
Camp facilities are being expanded rapidly. But it is doubtful whether these can be brought, before cold weather sets in, to a point capable of accommodating 50,000.
Beginning with July 1 and up to last Friday, hutments had been put in shape for accommodation, although not entirely completed, for 19,000. Within another ten days that number will have increased to 32,000, and by August 1 it will be 37,500. In addi-

tion, there is accommodation for 14,000 more already under construction, making a total of new hutting actually in progress, and a large part of which will be completed by August 1, to accommodate 51,500. In addition there is available in Canada winter accommodation for something like 25,000* more, and that does not take into account accommodation for the coast defence garrisons, which makes another 8,000. So that if we can build huts for something like 37,000 in one month I would anticipate that we could within three months up to the end of September construct hutment accommodation, if necessary and the materials are available, for 100,000, making total winter accommodation in this country, not for 50,000, but nearer to 150,000.



CANADIAN ACTIVE SERVICE FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Layton Ralston: Mr. Speaker, the house will be interested to know that approval has been given of the appointment of Major-General G. R. Pearkes, V.C., D.S.O., M.C., who commanded the Second Infantry Brigade, to command the first Canadian division. Colonel A. E. Potts, who commanded the Saskatoon Light Infantry, has been appointed brigadier in command of the Second Infantry Brigade.



NATIONAL REGISTRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National War Services (Mr. Gardiner). In view of the fact that the regulations issued by his department contain penalties for violations or infringements, and that a large section of the Canadian people do not get a daily newspaper, has the minister given consideration to having a broadcast either by himself or by some member of his department over a national hook-up, to acquaint people with the details of the regulations?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of National War Services):: I anticipate that there will be a number of broadcasts between now and the time that the registration takes place, and other publicity will be given to the penalties and other provisions of the regulations.

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. McLarty



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a bill to enact a scheme of national unemployment insurance to be administered by a commission appointed by the governor in council, and to create an unemployment insurance fund from contributions from specified persons and from moneys provided by parliament, for the payment of insurance benefits, to be administered by the commission assisted by an advisory committee; with provision also for the organization and maintenance of an employment service administered by the commission with the advice and assistance of a national employment committee; also with power to the governor in council to establish committees and boards subsidiary to the commission and to enter into agreements with the governments of other countries for reciprocal arrangements relating to unemployment insurance; with provision for the remuneration of the commissioners and the appointment and remuneration of such officers, clerks and employees as may be required for the due carrying out of the provisions of the act and for the costs of administration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to move the resolution which appears in my name, I realize that the task is made much less difficult by reason of the fact that the constitutional authority necessary to move it was taken by this house less than three weeks ago. At that time, I think it is safe to say, unanimous approval was given at least to the principle of the bill, although each one that spoke on it reserved, naturally, the right to deal with the details when they were revealed.
In addition to that, sir, we have been preparing for twenty years for the measure contemplated in this resolution this afternoon. It has received in principle the approval of every section of this house. It has received the consent of every province in the dominion. It passed the parliament at Westminster within the last two weeks in less than nineteen minutes of debate. Consequently I feel that it would be entirely superfluous to deal with a general history of the development of unemployment insurance as a social measure or with the incidents which have followed it in the various countries in which it has been applied. In other words, my task is much less difficult than if this measure were novel to this legislature or to the people of this country.
At the time the resolution was passed asking the parliament at Westminster to confer the necessary power to enact this legislation, we were at war. We are at war to-day; but I suggest that the particular occasion has not changed in as far as the desirability of this measure of social legislation is concerned.
Consequently I will not deal with any of the history or the development of similar acta in other countries, but rather will devote my attention to the question whether this particular time is the appropriate time in which it should be placed upon our statute books.
But first, might I deal with two considerations? It has been suggested that this measure of legislation is being placed on the statute books in the d3ring days of the session. I suggest to you that it is less than two weeks since power was given to this parliament to enact the legislation. Only last Thursday the news was cabled that the royal assent had been given to the enactment of the imperial parliament on which this legislation could be properly founded. Within one day the notice of this resolution was placed upon the votes and proceedings. I suggest that nothing could be done in a more expeditious and more rapid way than, this resolution was introduced into this house immediately parliament had conferred upon it the power to introduce it and enact it.
I do not believe the argument that additional days will be taken by this parliament to pass this desirable measure will make much appeal to the members of this house. No one of us is motivated by the calendar or by the clock. We have a definite duty to perform, a duty to the Canadian people, and no one in this assembly is more anxious than any other to perform that duty. There is no monopoly of the desire to accomplish a public good. And, sir, if it be argued that it may take a few additional days to pass a measure of legislation which throws its cloak of protection in some measure around 4,660.000 of our people, I doubt if this legislature would hesitate a moment in remaining for the time which may be necessary to have it enacted. If it delays us a day, it will be remembered that the government is not responsible for that delay, and I believe we shall meet with the whole-hearted approval of all hon. members if we stay here until this work has been accomplished and the desirable end achieved.
Mr. MacNICOL:: May I ask the minister a question? Did I understand him to say that there are 4,660,000 workers in Canada?


Mr. McLARTY:: No. The total number, actuarially estimated, of workers in 1941 who will be under this act is 2.100.000. The figure of 4,660,000 includes of course not only the workers but their dependents who will be to some extent affected by the act.
It has been suggested that time should be taken to give an opportunity to affected
1648	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. McLarty
parties to present their views as to the desirability of this legislation in whole or the details in part. I believe there is no desire to curtail such representations; but might I suggest that this is not a new species of legislation. We have had the advantage, and I trust have taken it, of the study which was given to the act which was placed on, the statute book in 1935. That study was careful and intensive. We have had, too, the advantage of considering the representations which were made at the time that act was introduced into parliament and at the time it was passed. Two commissions in the meantime have considered the question, not only in its general application to Canada but as to the detailed way in which it should be applied. We have had also the advantage of the consideration of developments which have taken place since that act, largely in the neighbouring country to the south; and while we have made changes in the 1935 act, inevitably so, those changes have been to a great extent founded upon and are the result of progressive developments that have occurred in the intervening time. I suggest therefore that such representations as it may be desirable for this house to receive should perhaps be somewhat limited and should not affect the principle of the act but rather only the changes that have taken place as a result of those progressive developments to which I have just referred.
It has been said: Unemployment insurance is a desirable measure in peace time and under normal conditions, but is this the proper time to introduce it to this house?
There are many here who will remember the conditions that ensued after the last war. There are many here who will remember that on April 4, 1919, a committee was appointed under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Mathers, at that time Chief Justice of Manitoba, which considered industrial and labour conditions. It was the first time in Canada that unemployment insurance had ever been advocated and the report of that committee is as follows:
We recommend to your government the question of making some provision by a system of state social insurance for those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to work, whether the inability arises from lack of opportunity, sickness, invalidity or old age. Such insurance would remove the spectre of fear which now haunts the wage earner and make him a more contented and better citizen.
That report was brought in on June 27, 1919. In September of the same year-and I ask the house to bear in mind that this was in the aftermath of the war and as a result of the conditions which the war produced-there was gathered in Ottawa a large committee

which represented employers and employees, the provinces and the dominion. Speaking from recollection, I believe there were 176 representatives of employers and employees and 34 of the provincial and dominion governments. That was in September 1919. That committee brought in this report:
This committee unanimously endorses the recommendations of the royal commission on industrial relations, that a board or boards be appointed to enquire into the subjects of state insurance against unemployment, sickness, invalidity and old age.
I mention these reports because they happened in the immediate aftermath of the war. I do not need to trace down the developments in Canada from that time to 1935 or from 1935 to the present day, but I should like for a few moments to direct the attention of the house to a situation that arose in Great Britain. As is well known, the unemployment Insurance Act was passed in Britain in 1911. Its total coverage represented at that time
2,250,000.	In the year 1916, a year in which Britain was engaged in war, its coverage was widely extended. At that time the bill which extended the Unemployment Insurance Act was passed through all its stages, including the committee, in one day in the British House of Commons. I am afraid I would not be sufficiently optimistic to suggest that this bill will pass in the same record time.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Give us a chance.


Norman Alexander McLarty: What I do suggest is that, after five years' experience of unemployment insurance, bearing in mind that at that time we were in the midst of a great war, the British parliament thought it of sufficient importance to pass as a war-time measure a wide extension of that act. What was the result? I should like to quote the report of what is known as the Civil AVar Workers of Great Britain, comprising employers and employees and members of the government. It is a lengthy document, but I believe the opinion that it expresses on unemployment insurance as a war-time measure is sufficiently important and sufficiently practical to justify its quotation. May I quote:
It is clear that whatever be the state of trade and finance after the war, there must be a considerable amount of unemployment for some period; how much unemployment there will be and over what period it will last is impossible to forecast. But, whatever it be, there must be a great deal of unemployment which can only be dealt with in one of two ways: either by a considered scheme of insurance introduced beforehand, or by state doles, hurriedly and indiscriminately issued when the moment of crisis arrives. There can be no question which is the better way. State doles lead straight to pauperization. A well devised scheme of insurance preserves the self-respect of the

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. McLarty
worker and assists and encourages him to supplement it by provision, made industrially or through an association.
The reconstruction period should be regarded as one in which all trades and occupations are subject to risk, and, apart from and in addition to all special measures for preventing unemployment itself in particular trades, general provision should be made for prevention of distress through unemployment by seeing that everybody is insured against unemployment.
So far as hardship due to unemployment is not met by insurance, the government of the day will inevitably be driven to fall back on "measures for the relief of distress"; in other words, on a system of doles. It will be impossible in the middle of a great crisis to improvise any satisfactory machinery for administration, and large sums will inevitably be spent in the least effective and most demoralizing way. At the same time, once it is clear that uninsured trades are entitled to public money for the relief of distress, it will be quite impossible to preserve the principle of contributory insurance for the trades included under the present schemes. On practical administrative grounds, quite apart from any question of principle, the method of contributory insurance has the great advantage of providing an effective and automatic means of registering and selecting the individuals who require assistance.
Unless a scheme of general insurance is devised and launched at the earliest possible date it may be impossible to avoid the disastrous chaos of unorganized and improvised methods of relieving distress.
That report, sir, was given in the year in which the war was concluded. The following year the British Unemployed Insurance Act, largely as a result of conditions which the war stimulated and brought about, and doubtless as a result of that report, was extended to include over eleven million of the wage earners in that country.
But there is an additional reason why this measure is an appropriate one at this particular time. It is almost trite to suggest that an unemployment insurance measure does not exercise its full benefit at a time when employment does not exist, or is at a low level. Necessarily the fund which has to be created can best 'be created in a period of high employment. On July 1 of this year employment in this country was higher than it has ever been at any time in our history. Employment is now at its peak. I suggest to this house, is not this an appropriate time, even though unfortunately employment has been increased largely as a result of war conditions, to enact this measure of unemployment insurance?
There is another consideration. It does not mean that because we enact unemployment insurance to-day it will become completely operative to-morrow. There has to be a certain period of training of those who will administer it and carry it on. I should like for a moment to revert to the British 95826-104
experience and quote Right Hon. Thomas MacNamara, Minister of Labour in 1921, as to the effect which the extension of unemployment insurance had in that country at that time. He 6aid:
The extensive widening of coverage under the British Unemployment Insurance Act has saved Britain from a grave danger in the previous year.
Also, in dealing with that point as to the application of the act and the time it requires to place it in operation, I should like to quote one whose name is probably more closely connected with unemployment insurance than any other man in the world. Speaking of the effect of unemployment insurance and its extension during the war, Sir William Beveridge said:
The main result of recent experience both during and after the war has been to confirm the value of contributory insurance as a measure for preventing distress through unemployment. In simplicity, generality, flexibility and cheapness of administration it is unsurpassed. The British scheme, put to the test under circumstances of extreme and unnecessary difficulty, has stood the strain with remarkable success. To this general conclusion in favour of unemployment insurance, two comments may be added. In the first place it is about equally important and equally difficult to begin insurance against unemployment before a crisis of unemployment arises. It is important to be beforehand (not so much with a view of enabling the unemployment fund to build up a reserve, for the place of a reserve can at need be supplied by borrowing, as) in order to let individual insured persons establish their claim by contributions to set up the administrative machinery and to get the staff trained in their duties.

The history of unemployment insurance in the war, however, only repeats the history of fifty years before the war.
A dominating factor in the problem of unemployment has always been the inability or refusal of practical persons to exercise forethought in relation to it, or to realize the inevitability of cyclical fluctuation and the certainty that prosperity will give place to depression.
May I refer to one or two other matters that are important. As I suggested, we are at the peak of our employment. July 1 last registered the all time high. With regard to a great many, however, who are now employed, the question arises whether their employment is of that permanent nature which will induce in them a proper state of mind; they wonder what will happen after the war is over. I suggest that to enact this measure now will have the effect of increasing our production in war time by reason of the greater peace of mind, the settled and composed feeling that it will give to those who are now employed.
At the beginning of the war the major labour organizations of this country came to the

1650	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Hanson (Sunbury)
government with an offer of complete cooperation. That promise they have kept. While there have been sporadic and perhaps spontaneous strikes in industries in various parts of the country, these have not been promoted or organized or encouraged by our great labour groups. Labour has kept its word to this government. I suggest, sir, that it will be of some assistance in maintaining industrial peace if this desirable measure is placed upon the statute books of this country. It will be a measure of recognition of the splendid efforts that labour has so far made and, I believe, will continue to make throughout this war to assist in carrying on this great struggle in which we are now engaged.
During recent years a large number of profit-sharing cooperative retirement savings funds have been established. Over 2,800 individual industries in Canada have adopted such plans. This is altogether desirable. It is the hope that the limits placed by this measure on the contributions by employer and employee will not be sufficiently large to cause any of those plans to be discarded or in the future overlooked. The wider the extension of them the better, because they visualize and express the spirit of cooperation between employer and employee.
To sum up, this measure is necessary at this time to anticipate and in some degree counteract the probable dislocation which will follow demobilization and the cessation of war work. If it is to be effective in accomplishing this purpose it should be placed in operation at the earliest possible moment. The employment services should be taken over and made to function at maximum efficiency; the personnel to make the plan effective should be set up and given the opportunity to function smoothly. We should begin at once to establish the necessary fund to create a backlog when the readjustments which will inevitably accompany peace require to be made.
The surest foundation on which to base democratic government is a happy and contented people. Nothing militates more against happiness and contentment than fear. By this measure fear will be removed to some extent from 4,660,000 of the Canadian people.
Approved in principle as it is by every major labour organization in this country, endorsed by every commission and committee charged with the responsibility of giving it consideration and making recommendations in respect to it, endorsed several times by this chamber, meeting as it does with the unanimous approval of all the provinces, this resolution should be passed by parliament at

this time-not six months from now-and, by the legislation to follow, clothed with the force of law.
This done, it will be recorded of the present generation that at a time when we were bending every effort and endeavour to overcoming the enemy at our gate we were not unconscious of our duty and our obligation to promote the welfare and happiness of our own people.


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition) :: In his remarks on the introduction
of this measure, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) stated in a very moderate way the attitude of the government with respect to this matter of major importance. We are living in the middle of the twentieth century. Canada as a democratic country, together with other nations, has been moving forward in matters of social legislation, and for a period of more than twenty years the underlying principle of this legislation has been given consideration by every government in power during that period.
Towards the close of his remarks the minister paid what I think was a well deserved tribute to labour in Canada. I know of no major eruption in connection with labour since the beginning of the war. I know of the offer at the opening of hostilities to which the minister referred; and as a citizen of Canada I am happy to think that our labour leaders for the most part are men of very loyal sentiments with regard to our war effort. I would not have expected any other attitude on their part than that which they took in the early days of the war with respect to cooperation with the government in the interests of the country. Therefore I desire to join in the tribute paid by the minister to the sane labour leadership we have had in Canada.
In the course of his remarks the minister indicated that this house had given unanimous approval to the principle of this bill. I assume he was referring to the short debate which took place in this house on June 25 last, when the motion for the address to the imperial parliament was passed with, I believe, practically the unanimous consent of this chamber. I think I can safely say that in this house and throughout Canada there is unanimity of opinion with respect to the desirability of this type of social insurance. But when for a moment the minister put himself on the defensive in relation to the introduction of this measure at a stage of the session at least close to prorogation, he was not on such safe ground. This measure was foreshadowed in the speech from the throne, which was delivered on May 16. For five weeks the government made no move in the matter, and

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Hanson (Sunbury)
I personally began to think they did not intend to make a move. I believe I interrogated the Prime Minister in regard to the decision of the government in this matter. On June 25 last the resolution was moved by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), and passed speedily through this house. At that time I think hon. members of this chamber, without exception, expressed approval of the principle. Now, after another three weeks, the bill has been introduced. In the meantime eight weeks of the session have gone by, and I should say that under ordinary circumstances this house would prorogue before the end of this month. However that may be, speaking for myself-for the moment I do not presume to speak for my colleagues-as a member of this house I am prepared to stay here for whatever length of time may be necessary in order that adequate consideration may be given the provisions of this bill.
I am not unmindful of the fact, as I am sure the remarks of the minister must have led hon. members to conclude, that representations undoubtedly have been made to himself and to the government at least on behalf of industry in Canada that ample opportunity should be given for study of this measure. With that request I am in accord, because it is a reasonable one. At the moment I do not go so far as to say that the bill should stand until another session, though in essence I believe that is the request, as well as that time be given for study. I have had no direct communication with regard to the matter from any public body, but I assume that all hon. members have received, as I received to-day, a letter addressed to members of this house by the Canadian chamber of commerce, containing representations which I hope have been read not only by the government but by all other hon. members as well. This is what they say:
In view of the repeated press dispatches intimating that the government intends to introduce an unemployment insurance enactment at the present session of parliament, our executive have requested me again to communicate with you in the terms of our letter of 6th June last.
I received no such letter, and do not know its contents.
The executive wish strongly to re-emphasize their judgment-
I assume this was in the letter of June 6.
-that irrespective of how worthy unemployment insurance is in principle, it does not seem appropriate at this time to make operative any major social legislation of this kind, and are convinced that the operation of such legislation should be deferred until ample time is allowed for a study of its terms by business *and labour, so that its application and many practical aspects may be fully studied.
95826-104*
In the next paragraph the letter goes on to say:
Although .	.	. the government is anxious
to provide against the future ill effects of unemployment, there is a real question in our minds as to whether employees should be asked to bear at this time a new charge against their wages in addition to those regular imposts now in effect. The national defence tax for instance is one of those deductions-
Then it goes on to mention the requests made to employees to buy government war savings stamps.
The only suggestion I desire to make to the administration in this connection is that if such an important body as the Canadian chamber of commerce requests time for consideration and study, that request should not be lightly put aside. After all, under this measure industry as such is going to be asked to pay a large sum of money as its contribution to the proposed fund, and this despite the fact that last month we had a war budget which imposed upon industry very heavy additional burdens. Reference is made in this circular letter to the position of the employrees, who as a result of the imposition of the national defence tax and in connection with other war activities are being asked to bear additional burdens.
The only point I want to make is that the government should afford an opportunity to business and labour alike, if labour so desires, to make whatever representations they wish. I do not purport to speak for any labour organization, but a great burden has been placed upon industry and a large part of the cost of this scheme will have to be borne by industry. As I say, any requests which have been made for time to study this legislation or for an opportunity to make representations should be complied with. Just what method should be adopted, I do not know, but I make this constructive suggestion: When the bill passes its second reading it should be referred either to the committee on banking and commerce, where representations could be made, or to a special committee of this House of Commons, the membership of which should be selected with great care. I know of no more important measure which has come before parliament since 1935-perhaps I should not speak too dogmatically, since I have not been very familiar with the legislation brought before parliament from 1935 to the present session.
I am not suggesting that the bill should be delayed beyond this session, although I was not greatly impressed with the argument advanced by the minister as to the necessity of proceeding with haste. I should
1652	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance[DOT]-Mr. Hanson (Sunbury)
not like to see any haste in connection with this matter. It is just twenty-one years since such legislation was first considered. Twenty-one years for the birth and development of an idea and a principle is quite a long time. I know there have been difficulties, as was indicated in the debate during the last week in June, but they have been cleared away. As I said then, I think the government have taken the proper course to ensure the constitutionality of any legislation that may be brought forward. If a case can be made out by those who have such a substantial interest in this matter; if it can be shown that the advantages about equal the disadvantages, no great harm could ensue if this measure were delayed until another session. I am not suggesting that it should be, but I do say that consideration should be given to representations made by such important bodies as those to which I have referred.
I should like to say something about the principle of unemployment insurance. The minister painted a rosy picture of what would result from the enactment of this measure. Personally I have no means of checking the accuracy of the estimates which he gave, but he stated that this measure, if enacted, would afford protection for over
4,500,000	of our people; I subsequently understood him to mean workers and their dependents. He stated that it was estimated that in 1941 it would afford protection and security for over 2,100,000 workers.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Those are the actuarial figures.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I assume that those figures were based upon estimates made by the officials who the minister no doubt has called in for consultation in connection with the preparation of this work. I have no means of checking the figures; I have no means of disputing them, but I am bound to say that they strike me as being large. I hope I am wrong, because I believe it is the opinion of everyone that the essence of this kind of legislation is security for the industrial worker. That is something for which we all ought to strive.
I have not gone back quite as far as the minister did in his researches; I have confined myself to the consideration of the subject matter covered by the act of 1935. The theory of that act was that it was desirable to discharge the obligation to Canadian labour which was assumed by the peace treaty of 1919, in an endeavour to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour for men, women and children. It never was considered as a -cure for unemployment. The minister took
|Mr. R. B. Hanson.]
good care to avoid making any reference to this class of social legislation as being a cure for unemployment. It is not, it never w'as intended to be and it never will be. I suggest that no system of unemployment insurance will take care of all the unemployed at all times. There will always be some occupations which because of their very nature cannot be brought under any insurance plan. There will always be unemployed who have never been employed. I refer particularly to young people who are coming to the employment age. Conversely, there will always be some unemployed who will have exhausted the benefits to which they would be entitled under an unemployment insurance scheme. Consequently, any such scheme will only be a palliative for this vexed problem of unemployment.
I do not see any useful purpose to be served by debating this resolution at great length when we are all in agreement as to its principle. There are bound to be many categories of labour which will remain outside the scope of any unemployment insurance scheme which is on a sound actuarial basis. There are two points to be considered there. Is this scheme to be placed on a sound actuarial basis? Will the minister be prepared to give all the information he has at his command with regard to the different categories of labour, in concrete rather than in general terms, which will come within or remain without the scope of the act?
This scheme must be on a sound actuarial basis, and we must have concrete evidence that such is the fact. It will not do to adopt any scheme or plan which is simply a device for transmitting money raised by general taxation or borrowing. In essence any such scheme would be a dole, pure and simple. It is quite wrong to say that all classes of labour are in favour of a scheme of this kind. I believe that organized labour as such has indicated its adherence to the principle of some such scheme. But there is a class of workers in this country who may be called "safe" employees. Perhaps that is not very well put; there are those in safe employment in this country who, under any scheme, if they are brought under the act, and I assume they will be if it is essential that they should be, will be taxed for the benefit of those who are engaged in what might be termed the "exposed" positions. An illustration of that might be found among the employees, we will say, of a newspaper, many of whom are highly paid, skilled technical workers, employed day in and day out twelve months in the year. Some of them, I have heard it said, do not want any such scheme as this; from the very nature of their

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Hanson (Sunbury)
employment they never expect to be out of work and they do not want to be. taxed for the benefit of those who are in the. category of "exposed" employment-that, is, those who may lose their positions or whose work is more of a temporary character.
There is another class of labour which to me, coming from the country I do, presents difficulties which cannot, I think, be taken care of by any social scheme such as this; I refer to seasonal employment. This is a problem of enormous difficulty in a country the size -of Canada, having regard to its climatic and other conditions and also to the nature of its industrial organizations.
Under the principle of the workmen's compensation acts in all or nearly all the provinces, each industry or group of industries must -pay a rate of premium proportionate to the hazard in such industry or group of industries, but such a system of insurance has been discarded as being the acme of perfection and therefore impracticable. That is the opinion of the Rowell commission. I have assumed that this principle has been discarded, that you cannot work on the principle of the workmen's compensation acts. I am content to take the opinion of those who have made a study of the matter that such a system would no;t work.
The -minister has been good enough to send me a memorandum which notes the changes in the bill from the 1935 act. They are numerous, so far as I have been able to observe, and some of them are relatively unimportant; 'but there are one or two significant changes, not in principle, but in administration and in respect to contributions. We are adopting a system wherein the so-called "safe" industries, as I said a few moments ago, are to be taxed to help the so-called "exposed" industries. That is the principle which underlies the workmen's compensation acts. But on this principle social security in one field is financed by taxes on production disguised as premiums; I do not think this can be gainsaid by anybody. I mention this not in any controversial spirit but in an attempt to elucidate some of the difficulties that lie behind the putting into effect of social legislation of this kind.
I have not attempted to consider all the economic objections which might be enumerated, because, in spite of' them, and having regard to the necessity of securing and maintaining fair and humane conditions of labour for men, women and children, and to the fact that the physical, moral and intellectual wellbeing of industrial wage-earners is of very great importance to us as a nation, it is in my view desirable, on balance, that we should
adhere to the principle of unemployment insurance. I do not for a moment think that we can evolve a perfect measure, notwithstanding all the, experience of other countries and the vast amount of study which has been given to the subject in Canada, especially during the years 1934 and 1935, and in the preparation of the measure which is about to come before the house. Rather do I suggest to the minister that this bill will, in the first instance, be in the nature of an experiment for Canada, and because it is in the nature of an experiment we should give it the fullest consideration of which we are capable. I am not going to suggest any more than that.
I have been told it is estimated that industry will be asked to pay $50,000,000 into the fund in a good running year, after the act has come into operation. I do not know whether or not that is a correct estimate.


Norman Alexander McLarty: No. I know that the leader of the opposition does not want to give anything but a correct impression. That would be a very exaggerated figure of what industry would pay under 'the rates fixed by the proposed bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have no means of knowing, of course, but that is the figure which has been indicated to me, and I am glad the minister has indicated that it is an exaggerated figure. He will be prepared, when the opportune moment comes, to state the maximum amount which will be taken from industry to finance these proposals.
I think the country would like to have the most solemn assurance that the scheme will be actuarially sound, because if it is not, and there is a deficit, the treasury of Canada will be asked to meet the deficit.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but the actuarial report will, of course, be tabled in the course of this djebate, and provision is made in the bill itself for the scheme being actuarially sound. We shall also -have the advice of the advisory committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have no doubt that the intention is to make it actuarially sound, but I suggest that only experience in actual operation will show whether it is actuarially sound or not. If it is not actuarially sound and there is a deficit, a raid will be made on the treasury of Canada and the taxpayers of the country generally will be asked to pay that deficit. It has been my experience that when in any province a workmen's compensation act was not based on proper rates, or there was overexpenditure in connection with it, almost always the treasury of the province was asked to make
1654	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Hanson (Sunbury)
up any deficit which accrued. That of course ought not to be. We know what has been the experience in England. There were times when there was a deficit; there were times when there was a substantial surplus. I do not know what is the experience of the United States with regard to social security legislation; probably there has not been sufficient time to arrive at a conclusion. But if there is a deficit in Canada and the federal treasury is asked to make it good, the general taxpayers of the country will be called upon to pay the difference. This of course would be neither just nor fair. After all this is special legislation, devised to help one class of our population, and legislation the cost of which should not, in principle, be borne by the general taxpayer. For instance, how could this country ask the farmers, who are in a bad plight, with loss of markets staring them in the face, to pay any part of any such deficits? They cannot do it at this time and should not be asked to do it. On behalf of the people whom I represent in this house and in the country, I must ask for assurances from the minister that the scheme is actuarially sound.
It was stated, I believe in a circular of the Canadian Manufacturers Association which I have read, that in the administration of this scheme, with its corollary of dominion unemployment agencies, there will be set up in this country a bureau of between three and four thousand new government employees. I have no means of knowing whether that estimate is exaggerated, but I am appalled at the idea that we are to have three or four thousand new civil servants, especially since we have already taken on six thousand as the result of our war effort. Ten thousand new civil servants represents a tremendous increase in the cost of government. I have not seen the terms of the bill, but I believe that under its provisions-I know this was true under the old bill-the treasury of Canada bears all the costs of administration. I hope the minister will give the house at least some assurance in this matter. I trust that the estimate is too high.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think I can give that assurance now to my hon. friend. The estimate under the former bill was 3,800. While I have not the definite figure of the estimate under the present bill, the number will be less than that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Oh well, we shall wait and see.


Mr. ISNOR:: Would the leader of the opposition read the statement attributed to the chamber of commerce upon which his estimate of ten thousand employees is based?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not say ten thousand; I said between three and four thousand.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Would the leader of the opposition read the reference?


Richard Burpee Hanson: If I have it here. I think I have it. The chamber of commerce-


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The Canadian Chamber of Commerce?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, it is an inference. If you will turn to page 2, where they are advocating unemployment insurance of the pool type, you will find, at paragraph 1:
Instead of requiring an administrative staff of 3,500 to 4,000 people, with an administrative cost of possibly 15 per cent of the contributions-
Then they go on to argue in favour of a savings plan.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: That is not the chamber of commerce.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, it
is the Canadian Manufacturers Association. I thought I made that clear. I hope the estimate is too high, but I am afraid that, in a far-flung country like Canada, and with the minister's estimate that this is going to provide unemployment insurance for 2,100,000 workers when it is fully organized and all the employment bureaux are in operation, my estimate will not be excessive.
What does that mean? It means just so many more people living on industry, the state, and the contributing employers. In recent years, since the end of the last war, there has been an appalling tendency on the part of so many people to get a government job, to be on the national payroll. To me it has been appalling. I suppose this is to be expected in a time of economic depression. People want a feeling of security, and that, I suppose, is natural. People who get on a government payroll think they are secure, and I have observed that when some of them get there, their duties are ended and they are there for life.


Mr. REID:: That is what they got in the civil service.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, I
did not say they do. I think the civil service by and large is a good cross-section of the people of Canada-perhaps a good deal above a cross-section of the people of Canada. But my observation has taught me that there are too many people in the civil service. I remember going down here, in the twenties, to the Department of Public Works to interview the deputy minister, and there were three men in the outside office to receive me. I had to wait

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Neill
there for nearly an hour, and so far as I could see not one of them was doing anything of any service to this country; they were principally engaged in reading the newspaper. But when I got into the inner chamber, so to speak, I found a busy man doing very important work. That is what I mean: there are too many people in, shall I say,-I do not mean to convey anything improper by this suggestion-the lower strata of the service, hanging on to the civil service, and I suggest to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that, that sort of thing ought to be corrected.
Personally-and I have given expression to this viewpoint before in this house-I have always marvelled at the mentality of a man who wanted a government job, and I have advised many a young man to forget about it, to get out on his own, to solve the problem of existence for himself, and enjoy the happy state of security as the result of his own efforts. To me it is apparent, as a result of my own personal history, that in a surprisingly short time they would find that they had solved the problem of existence and they would be squared away to proceed by their own individual effort to greater things. That, to my mind, is the advice we ought to give the young men of this country who want a government job: Go on your own.
I suppose we shall always have among our people those who want that sense of security and who do not seem to have the power to get it under their own steam. Perhaps it is a good thing that we are not all constituted alike, although it would be better by far, I think, if we could live under our own initiative and under that alone.
I do not think I need say very much more about this measure. I intend to support the principle of the bill and to reserve to myself at all events the right of constructive criticism when we come to deal with the details. Before I sit down I am going to make an appeal to the minister and to the ministry that before this bill passes out of the chamber ample opportunity to be heard should be given those who are directly interested in it-much more interested in it than we are as legislators. They are the men who will have to make the payments, whether they represent industry or labour, and I suggest that they should have an opportunity to sit in on the committee, not only with respect to the principle of the bill but with respect also to its details. That, I think, is their right, and much as I should regret its involving delay in the prorogation of parliament, personally I am prepared to stay here until it is done.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was not done in 1935.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was not necessary.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I was glad to hear the minister talk about the dying days of the session; in my opinion that suggestion should have been true two weeks ago. In the long debates of this session I have taken no part whatever because I considered that I best carried out the wishes of my constituents and the interests of the country by keeping quiet and letting the government put through their necessary legislation, war measures and estimates, so as to dismiss us in order that they might devote their whole energy to the all-important task of prosecuting the war. This particular measure, however, is so important, more so than any other, with the exception of the war measures, that we have had before us in the last five or six years, that I do feel impelled to speak briefly upon it.
First I should like to compliment the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) on the wonderful analysis he made of the bill, far superior to anything I can offer. He ran the whole scale from criticism to philosophy. I do not propose to deal with the measure at that length. I do not agree with all the remarks he made, but by and large it was a fine analysis. There can be few men in this house- largely through the effluxion of time and defeat-who have taken a keener interest and over a longer period of time than I have taken in this matter. I was a member of the committee that sat in 1928 and 1929 for two long sessions dealing with the subject, and between that time and the year 1934 I brought it up in the house some six times. Last year, 1939, I moved a resolution bringing the matter forward again and urging that it was necessary. The debate will be found in Hansard of February 20, 1939. It happened to come on at an early date and there was a long discussion covering nearly fifty pages of Hansard. The debate was held on a high plane. Without depreciating the remarks of many other members who took part in the discussion, I think particularly of the remarks of the hon. members for Essex East (Mr. Martin), Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), and Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). The debate was also noted for the cordial support the proposal received from all members who spoke-and there were many who spoke 

with the exception of one or two in the southeast corner, the social credit group, who with their usual attachment to theoretical impossibilities moved an amendment embodying two changes which would have made it utterly and entirely impossible to enact or carry out a measure of this kind. A vote was not taken because the thing was talked out.
1656	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Neill
When we consider that Britain has had unemployment insurance for thirty years, that all parts of the British empire of any importance, with the exception of Canada, have had it for some time; that thirteen or fourteen countries in Europe have it now; and that the United States adopted it two years ago-


John Ritchie MacNicol: Every state.


Alan Webster Neill: It is in operation now in every state. The scheme embraces in all these countries some 90,000,000 people- insured people-not a population of 90,000,000, because the population figures would give a far greater total than that. All these schemes are on the basis indicated in the motion I moved last year and which is before us now. It is contrary to the proposal set forward in the amendment moved by my friends in the social credit group, and we must believe that the majority are correct. When our friends can convince 90,000,000 people, or a tenth or a hundredth part of that number, then we shall be prepared to subscribe to their view of the situation. So general was the approval at that time that it is unnecessary for me now to set up a straw man in order to knock it down. It is better that we should give some consideration to objections that have been raised outside the house.
I have two letters from companies in British Columbia who make suggestions very much along the lines indicated by the leader of the opposition. They want time to consider the question, to see how it will affect the industry as a whole. If we were going to have a session in September or October or early in November, that suggestion might have been worth, considering, but I think the suggestion put forward by the leader of the opposition, that the bill should be sent to a committee, would meet the situation amply and give every interest desiring to appear, an opportunity to come forward.
I am speaking subject to correction, because I have not a distinct recollection; but I believe that when Right Hon. Mr. Bennett introduced a bill similar to this we made the same plea from this side of the house and were turned down. I am pretty sure I personally suggested that that bill be sent to a committee, more particularly in view of some of its many details, because I discovered by a casual inspection of the measure that a certain class of my constituents would have had to pay their contribution, and, according to the wording of the act, would not have been able to get anything if they were out of work.
I think the bill should go to a committee of some kind, but failing that I do not see [Mr N-ill.]
why it should be postponed until next spring. It will be forty weeks or perhaps more than a year before payments will be made under it, and in any case it will be necesssary to have the act amended next year, because new acts of this sort, intricate as they are, always require revision. The war is now on and payrolls should be fairly good, and it is desirable to start a reserve fund, which would be useful to meet the heavy draft that will be made upon it after the war is over.
The leader of the opposition has to a considerable extent used the language that I was going to employ in connection with the representations of the Canadian manufacturers and the Canadian chamber of commerce. If there are any reactionary bodies on God's green earth it is these two organizations. I recall the opposition they made to old age pensions. They fought tooth and nail against it. We passed that act and nothing dreadful has happened in consequence. The time has long gone by, as Mr. Bennett would say, when it was customary for some of us to allude to the Conservative party as reactionary, but they are communistic in their ideas compared to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. I am glad to say that the Conservative party has had this plank in its platform for a number of years, and so have the Liberals.
I have in my hand the letter to which the leader of the opposition alluded, from the Canadian chamber of commerce. To put it coarsely, I would say it is a piece of hypocritical bunk. The bunk is displayed by the fact that the logic is all wrong, and the hypocrisy is revealed by the fact that the greater part of their argument is put as a plea for the poor working man. They feel that the poor working man cannot stand any more drain on his resources! If that is not hypocrisy I do not know what it is. The poor working man is not a fool; he will not mind paying something if he gets good value for it, and an arrangement by which he and another body share the expense of the benefit he receives is surely not going to hurt him. He will be all for it.
Then they talk about the national defence tax; the poor working man has to pay that. They talk about dreading trouble that will come upon us, they say, because the poor working man has to pay this tax and his attention will be diverted from buying war savings certificates. "Bunk" is the correct description. The real reason is revealed in the fact that it means more cost to themselves. If they stated that frankly and honestly I would pay more attention to them. Here is one argument:	"Another addition to present
reductions from the worker's wages may lead to further demands from labour and add gener-

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Neill
ally to its unsettlement in war time." Is it not a good idea that if the working man spends something on this sort of thing he will not have so much to spend on buying goods, therefore there will not be the same likelihood of an increase in the price of goods, and he will have something to cushion the situation when the fall comes after the war is over?
They also say that they do not think the government is consistent in taking this stand, because they are out for economy. Cheap, shortsighted, ostrich-headed vision! Do they want a bloody revolution after the war? Think of all these idle men who will come back. They will not stand for the situation that prevailed last time.
I know all the standard arguments. It will be said that this will never cure unemployment. No; I and those who advocate it never said it would. But it will help to soften the shock between very active employment and sudden dropping off; and as I said, it will help to keep down purchasing and prices just now and enable the workers to have something later on.
There is a class of people-probably few in numbers, but they always seem to rise to the top in the Canadian Manufacturers Association-who regard any concession to what is called "the working man," whether he wears a white collar or dungarees, as something taken out of their pockets. They think they are being robbed. Look at the situation in the United States before the system they now have was introduced, which apparently is working fairly well. I quote from the speech I made on February 20 of last year. I drew attention to alternative schemes along this line, and said I would address myself to these reactionaries. I quote from Hansard of 1939 at page 1104:
Take the Townsend scheme, which proposed a pension to everyone, rich or poor, at the age of sixty, of $200 per month. It has been calculated by experts, taking the United States as a good illustration, that that would involve the payment of half the national income to eight per cent of the population. .	.	. The
prices of ordinary articles of consumption would have to be raised at least seventy-five per cent. The low wage worker would have his income cut from one-third to three-sevenths. Yet that scheme got a large vote in the United States.
A fantastic idiotic thing like that!
Or let them take, if they prefer it, the Lundeen scheme which was put forward in the congress of the United States by people who frankly called themselves communists.
There was to be no contributory payment, no cessation of drawing the allowance, and no limit. Everyone, rich and poor, was to get it-doctors, lawyers, farmers, everyone. The compensation to be paid would come to more than the average small earner earns, so that it would constitute a premium on losing a job 95826-105
rather than on getting one. Also it was not to be run by the government but by what is practically a soviet. Well, that scheme, foolish as it was, got fifty votes in the congress at Washington; men like ourselves, presumably sane, voted for a thing like that.
Then there was the Sheridan Downey plan. I do not know whether he originated it, but certainly he ran on it in California. The proposal was to give $30 every Thursday to everyone after the age of fifty. It was a scheme propounded by the initiative in that state. Mr. Downey, who put it forward, was elected senator by a large majority, and the governor was also elected on that ticket, although the scheme itself was defeated.
The reason I have mentioned these schemes is this: I ask the house to look at them, and I ask people who do not approve of unemployment insurance to look at the vote these schemes got.


An hon. MEMBER:: Tell us about social credit.


Alan Webster Neill: We have not come to that yet. I do not talk about social credit because I do not understand it.
I ask people who do not approve of unemployment insurance to consider the extent to which these schemes were endorsed although they were utterly wild, could not possibly succeed, and would result in the economic ruin of the people, and be not less injurious to those in whose name and for whose benefit they were put forward, bringing the whole economic structure down about our heads. Do the people who oppose this legislation prefer one of these wild-eyed schemes to a moderate, actuarially sound scheme of unemployment insurance? What if the men coming back from the war, feeling that no party is going to do anything for them, should take it into their heads to vote for one of these schemes, which would get them nowhere? In other words, the Canadian Manufacturers Association and the Canadian chamber of commerce had better accept this measure lest worse come upon them.
Now the government has secured the consent of the provinces, and I wish to give to whoever is entitled to it great credit for having obtained it; for certainly last year I saw no prospect of that at all. It is due either to great diplomacy on the part of this government or to a revival of common sense on the part of the provinces. And they have now got the sanction of the British government. For the benefit, therefore, of the workers and of society at large, and for the protection even of those who oppose this measure, let us get to work and put the bill through and make it as workable as possible. Details will no doubt be discussed in committee of the whole when

1658	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Maclnnis
the bill comes forward and also when it goes, as I hope it will, to the committee suggested by the leader of the opposition.
There was one thing the leader of the opposition said with which I hardly agree. He criticized the fact, which seemed to him obvious, and I suppose to some extent is in certain industries, that it would be a case of those who are safe paying for those who are exposed. But is that not the principle of all insurance? I pay for fire insurance on my house and if I go for years and years and do not have a fire I do not begrudge it, because I have contributed to indemnity in case I need it. The same is true of life insurance. It all hinges on those who are in a position to pay paying for those who suffer misfortune.
The hon. gentleman also spoke about its being required to be actuarially sound. But that has to be judged on the long view. We recall that when it was started in Great Britain they had millions of pounds ahead; during the war, and after the war they went millions of pounds behind. I believe there was some adjustment, but I understand they have repaid the greater part of that loss. It might appear to be desperately unsound to-day, but it might be all right taking the longer vision. It has to be considered along those lines.
Then people talk about the cost. Of course 5rou can talk in millions; it seems a large sum. but a great deal depends on how wide is the basis of people from whom it is drawn. I suggest this question to the house: Can the government and can the country afford not to have it-not, can they afford to have it? If they consider it in this way I believe hon. members will support the bill. I wish it all success. I expect we shall get fuller details in committee of the whole, and possibly in a special committee to which the minister, if he is well advised, will send it.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, since this resolution deals only with the principle which will be contained in the bill to be based upon it, that is, unemployment insurance, I do not think it requires any long discussion. That is also so because of the fact, as the minister pointed out, that this question has been before the country for a long time, approximately twenty-one years. Various royal commissions and other bodies have discussed the question from time to time, and all, I think, without exception, have given their approval to unemployment insurance as a measure of social security. It was approved by the national employment commission in 1938. It was

approved by the Sirois commission in the report recently released. In 1935 this parliament adopted an unemployment insurance bill, and from what little advance notice I have had of this bill I gather it will be somewhat similar to the measure enacted in 1935, with certain changes and modifications which have been indicated by our experience since that time.
For these reasons I do not think any long debate is necessary at this time. I wish, however, to direct attention to a statement made during the debate on the resolution requesting the imperial parliament to amend the British North America Act. In referring to what I said on that occasion the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Roebuck) said I had opposed the measure because it was not a cure-all for our social ills. I say most emphatically that I did not oppose the measure at all. I have always supported it, not only on this occasion but every time it has been brought up in the house. As a matter of fact, as a member of organized labour of long standing I supported this principle long before it was accepted by many in this house. But to say that it is not a cure for all our social ills, and even to say it is,not a cure for unemployment, is only stating a fact. There is something it does; as far as it goes it is a planned and orderly way of dealing with a social problem, and to that extent I think it should have the approval of everyone who believes in dealing with these matters in an orderly, planned manner.
I was amused by a reference made by both the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Hanson) to the loyalty of the organized labour movement, in a somewhat condescending manner. Whoever suggested that at any time the working class of any country had been disloyal? When we look for and find disloyalty to-day it is not among the ranks of the working class or in organized labour; we find it among the upper two hundred, or four hundred, as the case may be. I think we should get away from this idea of patting labour on the back and saying, "You are very loyal, and we appreciate your loyalty." What would we think of the trades and labour congress or the committee for industrial organization if at their meetings they said, "Well, we do appreciate the loyalty and patriotism of the Canadian chamber of commerce," or the Canadian Manufacturers Association or some other group of employers? It would be just as reasonable and as becoming for organized labour to refer patronizingly to the loyalty and patriotism of the Canadian chamber of

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Hansell
commerce-which is very doubtful, of course- as it is for people in this house, and these other organizations, to refer in that way to the working class and the organized labour movement.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I wonder if I might interrupt my hon. friend for just a moment. As far as my reference was concerned it had nothing whatever to do with the matter of loyalty. I was referring to the splendid cooperation.


Angus MacInnis: If I have misunderstood my hon. friend I am sorry. I think we should be very careful in considering proposals suggesting postponement of this measure, although I agree with the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) that it would be an excellent idea to send the bill to a special committee, where those who support it and those who oppose it would have an opportunity to put forward their paints of view, and where we might also hear some suggestions as to possible improvement of the measure.
I do not think it is necessary for me at this time to say anything more. When we see the bill and have time to study it; when it is considered by the committee of the whole, or, better still, when it is sent to a special committee, we will have an opportunity of discussing it in every detail and offering any suggestions we may think desirable in order to improve it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If I may be allowed just a word, Mr. Speaker, I deny that in anything I said in this house I was patronizing anybody, least of all organized labour. I was simply cordially agreeing with the minister in the complimentary reference he made to labour in Canada, trying to associate myself in a very feeble way, if I may say so, with his remarks. I resent the idea that may be suggested as a result of the hon. gentleman's remarks, that I was patronizing labour or anybody else. I do not patronize people.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Just in line with what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) has said, I had no intention of being patronizing. I simply wished to express my appreciation of the splendid cooperation we have received from labour, and the matter of loyalty did not enter into it, because it could not.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Perhaps at this stage of the debate it is not necessary for us to say a great deal, but when the resolution reaches the committee stage, or when the various sections of the bill to be founded upon the resolution are being discussed, we 95826-105i
may have just a little more to say. The leader of this group, the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), has already expressed our opinions and desires with regard to the matter of unemployment insurance, and I need not repeat his statements in that regard.
I would, however, remind the house-and I think my reminder is logical-that this resolution is indicative of the fact that the government evidently expects unemployment to be a permanent problem. We realize-and this group has directed attention to this fact time and time again-that the old order has passed away, that we have reached a high state of progress where the machine is continually putting men out of work. Nevertheless, even though that be our contention, when it comes to a matter of unemployment insurance and the necessity for such legislation we still have to ask ourselves: Why should there be any unemployment in a country such as Canada, a country with tremendous potential wealth and undeveloped resources? The facts are selfevident. I suppose that when parliament prorogues, many of the western members will go home by automobile. Each and every one of them will have to cross the boundary and go home via a United States route. Why? Because we have not an all-Canada national highway. With all the men who have been unemployed during the last ten years we have not been able to complete that national highway. There is only one answer-we have not had the money. I am not going to inflict upon the house a discussion of our monetary theories; I simply want to remind hon. members that we have unemployed in an undeveloped country. I suggest also that even if industry in this country should reach its full productive capacity, we shall still have unemployment.
I think I am right in saying it is the Liberal policy that, along with social legislation such as this, industry itself must be revived. Since this resolution was placed upon the order paper the other day I have been browsing through Hansard of a few years ago. When an unemployment insurance measure was introduced in 1935, considerable debate took place. The then leader of the opposition, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), made reference to the necessity for a revival of industry and trade. His remarks at that time were not startling by any means, but I should like to quote from page 739 of Hansard of February'12, 1935. The present Prime Minister is reported as saying:
Looking at the question of social legislation it is necessary to take a bird's eye view of the whole. Considering what was done by the provinces as well as by the dominion by way of social legislation between 1921 and 1930 one must realize that wliat the provinces could
1660	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance

Mr. Hansell
do depended more than anything else upon the dominion's policies with respect to trade and those other policies which had to do with the revival of industry and business. To restore prosperity was the great objective which the Liberal government had before it.
I suppose it was not news that the great objective which the Liberal government had before it was to restore prosperity. But we want to know now, after this government has been in power for four or five years from 1935, how much industry has been revived as a result of Liberal policies. Although certain trade agreements designed to increase our export market were entered into, unemployment relief rolls continued to increase throughout the years. I should like to quote the Prime Minister a little further along the same line. I quote from page 741 of Hansard of 1935:
As I said a few moments ago social legislation is a type of legislation intended to assist those who, were it not for the legislation passed, might find it difficult or be unable to get along. Of all classes in society which then is the class we ought first to consider?
I am going to pause there for a moment by way of comment. Of course the bill is not before us, but I fancy we shall discover that this is an entirely contributory scheme.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I hope so.


Ernest George Hansell: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) says he hopes so. It must be realized that in any such scheme the only beneficiaries will be those who are employed, receiving wages and able to contribute. According to what the Prime Minister said in 1935, those who should be cared for first are those unfortunate enough to be unable to secure employment. He said that they should be the government's first concern. There was some merit to the scheme to assist the unemployed by means of the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act, but such legislation does not remedy unemployment. So long as we have a tremendous unemployment problem, so long as we have large relief rolls, there will be great numbers who cannot possibly come within the scope of social legislation such as this. I continue to quote the Prime Minister:
The Liberal administration gave the preference, as I believe any administration in Canada would have done, to the men who have served their country overseas, and to the dependants of those who lost their lives or were incapacitated in the great war.
I should like to comment a little on that statement. While something has been done for the returned men, who will say that the legislation to provide for those who served in the war of 1914-18 has been adequate to meet their needs? The expression has been used

that the returned soldier is the forgotten man. We have, I know, our pensions scheme. Nevertheless it is a well recognized fact that many of the men who offered their lives in the service of their country from 1914 to 1918 have been forced on to the relief rolls in the past ten years. I claim, and this group claims, that any man who offers his life in the service of his country in time of war should at least be given the reciprocal advantage of the government offering him security for life when he returns. That is only reasonable, and yet we find, as I have said, that many of our returned men have in the past ten years been forced to go on the relief rolls and live in poverty and misery in Canada.
How often as members of parliament have we had applications from the widows of returned men? They have come to parliament and to our rooms asking if something could not be done on behalf of the widows of returned men. I am not concerned with whether the returned man was wounded in action or not, if he offered his life for his country and then died prematurely and his widow was thrown on relief-and that has happened in many cases-she should have consideration. I go on with the quotation:
That obligation was accepted by the country and always will be, I hope, as the first of all the obligations of a social nature. Next to that all important portion of our population there come those who because of advancing years find themselves either unable to earn sufficient to satisfy their essential needs or who are thrown out of employment, not through any fault of their own, but simply because of that which we have been discussing so much of late, namely, the high rate of pressure at which industry is carried on-
There is one virtue in the Prime Minister's words; he did realize, away back in 1935, that we were coming into a highly industrialized age.
-the new inventions, the machinery used and the like. Men and women who have given their lives to acquiring skill in a particular industry may find themselves, just because of their advancing years, the first to be thrown out when a period of unemployment comes. The employer, through no lack of sympathy but simply because he has to reduce his staff, begins to reduce, and those he lets go first are not the younger persons, not the more active and alert, but those whose years are advancing. They are thrown out of employment first. Knowing that to be so, we felt that those of advanced years were the first to be looked after in any scheme of social insurance. The Liberal administration of the day accordingly brought in an old age pension scheme.
I think we have reason to compliment the Liberal government of that day upon bringing the old age pension scheme into force. But I say that it is not yet adequate to provide

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Hansell
properly for the aged, for those very people to whom the Prime Minister referred so feelingly in 1935. Our attention is constantly being drawn to people who, although thrifty all their lives, have eventually been thrown out of employment and have applied for pensions on reaching the age of seventy. Then to their surprise what do they discover? They have to sign their property over to the government as security for the moneys that may be paid out. It is not very encouraging for aged people to have to do that, and so. Mr. Speaker, I say that the old age pension scheme is still not adequate to-day. I go on with a few more lines of the quotation:
In connection with that scheme we had carefully to consider, as I have pointed out, the three factors I have mentioned this afternoon -first, the financial condition of the country and where the money was to come from.
You see, Mr. Speaker, it is the same old story-where is the money to come from? So I expect that this insurance scheme is going to be contributory, and I am going to use a phrase which the member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Kuhl) whispered a little while ago. Any contributory insurance scheme under the present monetary policy of the country is not an unemployment insurance scheme but in reality a scheme for the redistribution of poverty.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the leader of the opposition this afternoon. He said that he wanted to be certain that the insurance scheme was actuarially sound, and that if in the future there should be any deficit in the fund the taxpayers would have to foot the bill. That seems to be a favourite expression in discussion of measures of this kind. I recall that a few weeks ago the leader of the opposition, in the debate on the address, I believe, said, in reference to the Conservative administration of some years ago, that they did not feel they could ask the people of Canada for defence preparations in years gone by because they could not ask them for the money. It is the same old story, and the leader of the opposition to-day is evidently under the impression that the only place where the government can get money is from the pockets of the taxpayers.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Where else?


Ernest George Hansell: But there is a limit. The pockets of the taxpayers may be empty. Where is the answer to that? Suppose their pockets are empty? The leader of the opposition may say what he likes about the monetary proposals of this group, but I say that
the Canadian people should know now that the leader of the once great Conservative party in this country-


Mr. GRAYDON:: What does the hon.
member mean by "once"?


Ernest George Hansell: I mean exactly what I say-the once great Conservative party. I do not say that the Conservative party at large is of the same opinion as their leader. What I am saying is that this country should know that the leader of the once great Conservative party knows of only one place where to get money, and that is from the taxpayers.
This world is moving rapidly to a changed order, and the change is going to be along monetary lines. I do not intend at this time to discuss monetary policies, but it is the contention of this group that there could be a system of unemployment insurance on a nonr-contributory basis. I repeat that the leader of the Conservative party knows of only one place to get money, and that is from the. taxpayer.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: He is old-fashioned; that is all.


Mr. BROOKS:: Your party had better get somewhere before you suggest too much.


Charles Edward Johnston: Your own party is not doing so much.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Social credit has not got anywhere yet.


Charles Edward Johnston: Where has Conservatism got?


Ernest George Hansell: I fully expected that Conservative members would come to the rescue of their leader. That is natural; it is their privilege.


Charles Edward Johnston: They have a hard job, though.


Ernest George Hansell: The leader of the opposition has said that the taxpayer would have to foot the bill. Now let us suppose that there is no deficit; even then the taxpayer would have to foot the bill. Why? Under a contributory scheme of insurance both the wage-earner and the industrial corporation are' required to contribute. Their contributions are written into the costs of production of the particular industry, and the taxpayers who are consumers must pay a higher price for the products of that industry. Therefore the taxpayers have to pay in any event.
The scheme now before us is being initiated in time of war. If we reach our full productive capacity during the war, it is to be supposed that the great majority of those
1662	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Hansell
now unemployed will be put to work. But there is going to be an aftermath of the war, and I agree with the leader of the opposition that under present fiscal and monetary policies something serious will happen when the rolls of the unemployed begin to expand after the war is over and somebody has to pay the bill. It is true that under our present monetary policy the taxpayer must pay. Personally, and not speaking now for my group, I am disappointed that the proposal made by the Prime Minister at the beginning of this session was not carried through, namely, that a committee of the house should be set up to discuss after-war problems, because this is one scheme which will encounter serious difficulties when the war is over and the industrial pace of this country begins to decline.
I should like to say a word on behalf of the agricultural industry. Evidently agriculture is not to be included in this scheme. It seems to me that in almost everything we do, the primary producer gets the raw end of the deal. I do not know why that should be so. I do not intend to discuss the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, but under its terms the farmer is contributing and is shouldering his own relief problem. I believe that the industry of agriculture should receive consideration in some manner, if it be possible, in connection with this bill. I do not know just how it could be done. I assume that the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) has made an endeavour to solve the problem, and I hope he can suggest, either in committee on the resolution or when the bill to be founded on it is being discussed in the house, a possible way for the farmers to receive the benefits of the scheme.
I do not believe that our group will be found in opposition to this legislation. Broadly speaking, under the present economic set-up, it will help to some extent to relieve unemployment so far as financing the unemployed is concerned. But we believe that, provided a change of the monetary policy of this country were brought about, a much better measure could be put into effect.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the discussion of this resolution, which perhaps transcends in importance any resolution which has come before the house in recent years, I am fully conscious of the effects which the proposed legislation will have upon a large section of the Canadian people. I was amazed to learn from the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) how large a number of people will be affected by the measure. If I remember his words 
and figures correctly, 2,100,000 workers will be directly concerned, and the number is increased to 4,660,000 by the numbers, dependants included, who will stand to gain some benefit from the proposed legislation. This alone indicates the extensive scope of the measure which is about to be introduced.
While, I confess, I have not had a long experience in public life, one thing which has impressed itself upon me in connection with this particular legislation is the length of time which democracy takes to get needed reforms completed and concluded. I was interested in the minister's remark about prorogation and his suggestion that we might endeavour to push this measure through as quickly as possible. With that I agree, but may I add that it seems strange that this question of hurrying and hastening the legislation should arise, at this stage, after the matter has been discussed on the hustings, in the press, and on the floor of this chamber for a period of at least twenty years. I feel that under these circumstances the demand for haste comes a little late so far as this parliament is concerned.
To me it is a condemnation of the government-and I say this in a friendly and fair way-that there has never seemed to be any logical reason why the address could not have been brought before the house at the very beginning of the session. Had that been done, the British House of Commons and the House of Lords would have had an opportunity of dealing with this matter much earlier, and an opportunity would have been given to this chamber to consider the measure with more deliberation, perhaps during the middle stages of the present session, instead of being called upon to deal with a matter of such importance in the dying days thereof. That would have enabled us to have the committee suggested by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), to which representations could have been made by the various interests that are necessarily affected by a bill of this sort. Most laymen are not perhaps so much interested in the constitutionality of legislation such as this, or in the various details of its operation except in so far as they affect the interests of these people. But they are all wondering, notwithstanding the explanation given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) during this session, why we have waited twenty years for such a bill to be put on the statute books. That question has not been definitely answered by anyone that I have heard in this house or outside.
Most people believe that during the days of prosperity which followed the close of the last war we experienced in Canada a great inflationary movement whereby wages were

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Graydon
higher than they are to-day, prices of agricultural products were greater, a larger volume of money was being handled by the Canadian people and the incomes of most citizens were higher than they are even at the present time. Yet, during that whole period, under the Liberal regime, from 1921 to 1930, we had an opportunity which was passed up when an unemployment insurance scheme could have been introduced into this house. True, there may have been constitutional difficulties in the way at that time, but what can we not do when we really put our minds to it? If we want to rid this problem of its red tape and its constitutional difficulties we know what to do; as the Minister of Labour pointed out, it took only a few minutes of the time of the British parliament to give us the power to do what we are now attempting. There was therefore no logical excuse for waiting until this day and hour for the introduction of something that means so much to a great section of our Canadian people.
Let me say a word with regard to the working men of Canada. I have lived among them, and I live among them to-day. I meet them from day to day, and I try fully to understand and appreciate their problems. I can say, from the experience I have had and from my knowledge of the working men of Canada, that in the past few years they have been faced with a situation which I hope will not be repeated in this dominion in the years to come. Throughout the length and breadth of the country one hears people theorizing about the condition of the working man and his family without understanding the problems which these people have to face. I often wonder how many men who speak in these terms of the working man really know the plight in which he finds himself to-day. Many of these working men get low wages- and I know this because I come in contact with many of my neighbours who receive low returns for their work and know what they have to put up with, the trials they are faced with year in and. year out. It appals me. It makes me ashamed that conditions of that kind should exist in a productive land like Canada. But what is worse, the bread winners of these families, drawing low wages, in many instances do not get sufficient to cover any of the emergencies that may arise, or even to provide adequately for their present needs. It is impossible for them to make such provision, and for that reason I appeal to the government and the people of Canada to deal with the problem of the working man earnestly before it is too late.
We often hear it said that the working man worships false gods in economics and politics, but there is a legitimate excuse for
that. How many members of this house, if they had to keep wives and families on $12 and $13 a week, year in and year out, would not be tempted to worship the same gods, political and economic? So far as the working man and his family are concerned, I want to pay them a tribute for their splendid contribution to Canada's war effort. I was glad to hear the leader of the opposition make a statement along this line, in such uncompromising terms, when he pointed out that on the outbreak of war, and as the war progressed, there was not a section of the country, rich or poor, that gave more unstintingly of their loyalty and service to the cause of the empire than the working men of Canada and their families. They deserve every credit.
We are sometimes prone in this country to place undue emphasis on certain sections and classes of the population and to regard them as the great empire and nation builders of the land. In peace or war the working man and his family, together with the great agricultural communities, provide the lubrication for our financial and economic machinery, to a greater extent perhaps than any other section of the population. These men and their families are to-day bearing a heavy load in connection with enlistment for war service. In all parts of the country one can see where the working men's sons in great numbers are enlisting for service in the air, on the sea and on the.land. In time of war the working man bears a heavy share of the burden; in times of depression the burden falls just as heavily upon him. And all the time, while such matters are being considered, the ghost that haunts these people-and I know this because I talk with them day after day-is insecurity for the future.
After all, these men and women are just as anxious as any other class in the community to have their boys and girls get a decent share of the educational facilities afforded in Canada, and when they do get that opportunity one finds men and women, from their ranks, rising to positions of prominence in every line of endeavour. They have made a substantial contribution to the progress of Canada in agriculture, in business and in public life.
I welcome the bill to be based on this resolution because, while I realize that it may be perhaps more limited in its application than most of us might wish, and will not meet all the hopes, dreams and desires of the working man, at least it is a step in the right direction. Because it will give some additional measure of security to that section of our
1664	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Gray don
people, I believe that all hon. members will want to have their share in supporting this measure.
I might refer to another matter which is agitating the average working man and his family to-day. It is well known that when changes take place in price levels, when the cost of living takes its upward course in times like these, wages do not always follow the rise in the cost of living. To-day throughout Canada working men find this rise taking place. I know I shall be supported by hon. members who have working men in their ridings when I say that in spite of the excellent efforts of the war-time prices and trade board the cost of living has gone up to a degree which is perhaps not realized by all hon. members, and wages have not in the main proportionately increased. The government might well take into consideration the question of the rising prices of some commodities that the working man has to buy; for in many industries wages are stationary, and the rising cost of living is bringing about an almost impossible situation for working people who even previously were having great difficulty in carrying on.
I hope that the bill which the minister brings down will contain a measure of real relief to the men and women who are engaged in one of the nation's most important and valuable efforts, that is those who do manual labour in the factories and plants in this country. I am not so much concerned about the legal .and technical and constitutional aspects as I am about the results. As I have said more often perhaps on the hustings than in the house-many seem to have more courage on the hustings-we underestimate the intelligence of the people of Canada if we think that we can increase the pay of those on the government payroll, if we think that as a government we can keep on paying fancy salaries to people on commissions such as will be set up under the proposed bill or throughout the government service. I say to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour, all they need do is to sit down in any country store for half an hour, or stand on the corner of any street in any town in Canada and ask people what they think about the salaries paid to some men in the public service and on commissions as compared with salaries and wages earned by many of our people. They will find a body of public opinion which is simply boiling over at the thought that at this time when we are asking for equality of sacrifice and service, there is actually not complete equality of sacrifice and service at all.
I do not believe in being a demagogue and stirring up passions in regard to these matters, but I believe this thing should be said plainly [Mr. Graydon.)
and clearly in this house. You cannot expect a working man and his wife, who are trying to live on twelve or fifteen dollars a week and who read in the newspapers from time to time of the salaries being paid to men and women, men particularly, in this country for services the importance of which is perhaps not always appreciated, to be entirely satisfied. To say the least, it does not advance or promote the kind of national unity that this country so sorely needs to-day. So I say, without the slightest hint of unfriendly criticism but with all the emphasis at my command, that not only during this war time but in the period to follow we must see to it that the working men of this country are satisfied that there is some semblance of equality of sacrifice on the part of different classes of citizens of our land. The working people expect that, and as the Minister of Labour said, they constitute over forty per cent of the entire population. They have a voice which speaks loudly, and I urge upon the minister that the relief given to the working men of Canada in his bill be concrete, definite, and that it shall mean to them something more than just another piece of legislation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All hon. members who have spoken on the resolution this afternoon have been in complete agreement as to their support of the principle of the bill to be based upon it. In- these circumstances I would not think of detaining the house more than a few minutes to add anything to what has been said by the Minister of Labour (Mr. MeLarty) and other hon. members who have spoken on the motion. However, one or two questions have been raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and other hon. members, and I might attempt to answer very briefly the points which I believe are uppermost in their minds.
Let me say first that with respect to the personal interest which I have had for years in the question of unemployment insurance, as with respect to all other forms of social insurance, I do not intend to say anything this afternoon. I think my record in these matters is sufficiently well known.
Also I do not think it necessary to review the different discussions which have taken place in this house with respect to unemployment insurance. Speaking the other day, June 25, on the resolution relating tq the address to the parliament of the United Kingdom for the amendment of the British North America Act, I did give a brief outline of discussions which had taken place; all that I think it necessary to say on that score

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Mackenzie King
was said at that time. I should, however, like to make perfectly clear this afternoon the purpose of the government with respect to the enactment of this measure at this session. It is our desire and intention, unless something wholly unforeseen should arise, to have the measure enacted at the present session of parliament. As hon. members know, and as the hon. member who has just spoken said a moment ago, we have been waiting a long time for the opportunity to enact an unemployment insurance measure.
The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) said that people were asking why it had taken twenty years to reach the time when an unemployment measure could be introduced in this parliament. My answer is that this has been due to the fact that it was considered advisable and in fact it was necessary to obtain the cooperation of all the provinces of Canada if such a measure were to be an enactment of the federal parliament; and it was not until this very year that for the first time in the history of this country it was found possible to get all provinces to agree to an amendment to the British North America Act which would permit of the enactment of an unemployment insurance measure by this parliament. Speaking on, this point on a previous occasion I said I did not know that it was necessary for us to wait until all the provinces had agreed. As a matter of fact, I would say emphatically that I do not believe the assent of every province is necessary to permit both houses of this parliament to address the British parliament with respect to an amendment to the British North America Act; but I do think it is all to the good as respects this particular measure that we have been able to secure the cooperation of every province. As late as last year three provinces continued to withhold their consent. I doubt whether we would have been justified in attempting to go ahead with the measure under those circumstances. This year, however, all the provinces have fallen in line, and in proceeding this session we are taking the very first opportunity to introduce an unemployment insurance measure now that we have secured this general agreement.
Of course at the time the British North America Act was passed it was never thought national developments would take place as rapidly as they have in our dominion. When the British North America Act was passed, the provinces were scattered; questions relating to employment and the like were left to the provincial legislatures. I do not imagine the fathers of confederation dreamed that
many of the problems with which we are faced to-day would come into existence in the course of a century; but they have come upon us rapidly, as all things have developed in the last few years, so that to-day we are faced with entirely new conditions.
There is one fortunate circumstance that we should perhaps note in connection with this unavoidable delay. It has given our parliament an opportunity to be guided in its action in this important matter by the report of the Sirois commission on dominion-provincial relations. To-day the government has before it the assurance of that commission that in its opinion the enactment of such a measure by the federal parliament is desirable at this time. By proceeding with the measure this session we are doing right in losing no time in getting it upon our statute books in the form of an enactment.
There is another reason why it is desirable to proceed with this measure this session. No one can say what matters we may have before us at another session of parliament. To-day the wav is sufficiently clear for us to give our thought, time and attention to measures of this kind; but to what matters this parliament may be called upon to give consideration at another session, I think almost any one of us would hesitate even to surmise.
I agree with the leader of the opposition and others who have suggested that there should be no undue haste in the consideration of this legislation. There is plenty of time to give ample consideration to all the provisions of this bill, and on behalf of the government I say that we wish to have the matter very fully and carefully considered. We do not wish to press it unduly in any way; rather do we invite the fullest consideration by both houses of parliament to this very important measure.
In this connection may I say a word with regard to the point raised by the leader of the opposition and, I think, dwelt upon also by the hon. member for Peel, as to why we were so late in introducing the bill into this house. I think I can answer that in a word. The government has had a very important legislative programme, the most important part, of course, having had to do with war measures it was necessary to introduce. Naturally such measures were given precedence, and they have occupied most of the time of the house up to the present. In particular I would mention the war budget, to which the leader of the opposition has referred. The hon. gentleman made a significant point in referring to the budget, when he drew attention to the fact that the budget had an important bearing upon this measure. The government would have been unwise had it attempted to intro*
1666	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Mackenzie King
duce this measure before the introduction of the budget. That was at least one of the reasons why we did not introduce this measure at an earlier stage of the session. We felt that hon. members, as well as the taxpayers throughout the country, would wish to know what was in the budget, and what their obligations under it would be before we introduced a measure which, as my hon. friend has rightly said, would have an important bearing upon the proposals contained in the budget. As to the possibility of addressing the British parliament at an earlier stage, in dealing with that matter previously I think I .said that I did not believe the British parliament would take more than a day or two at the most to meet the request of this parliament. I had the best of reasons for my belief; and, that being so, we did not feel it necessary to ask both houses to consider the address at an earlier date.
The last point I have noted relates to the best method of considering this bill. The leader of the opposition has suggested that after second reading it might be referred to the banking and commerce committee or to a special committee of this house, in order that business men, manufacturers, labour and others should be given ample opportunity to appreciate, understand and, if desired, make representations concerning its provisions. I am inclined to believe that the extent to which any of these parties may wish to review this legislation will be seen when the bill itself is brought down to be more apparent than real. After all, all classes in the country had ample opportunity to consider a similar measure some years ago. I believe they will be agreeably surprised when they consider the differences between the present measure and the one which was introduced and passed this parliament in 1935. At any rate they are already familiar with the sort of provisions that will be found in this bill. Naturally, until they see the bill they will wish some opportunity, should it then be thought necessary, to be heard with respect to its provisions. But if the bill is distributed immediately, particularly to those who have asked to be informed as to its provisions; if they are given, as they certainly will be, an opportunity of perusing it carefully and making representations to a committee of the cabinet if not to the government in its entirety, that may amply serve their purpose. If that opportunity does not appear to be sufficient, I may say that so far as the government are concerned we have an open mind with respect to having the bill referred to a committee. We have a standing committee that has to do with industrial and international relations which might be the appropriate committee to which to send the

bill. But if debating it in committee of the whole house instead should prove to be adequate, we may save time by following the usual procedure. On the other hand I may say quite frankly that if there does appear to be any real, substantial demand and neces-< sity for having a special committee of the house appointed to which the bill may be referred and before which those interested may be heard, that is a matter to which my colleagues and I are quite prepared to give consideration between now and the time second reading is given.
I should like to say just one word in conclusion. I agree with the leader of the opposition that until the bill itself is before the house and its provisions are known to all hon. members, probably we shall be consuming unnecessary time if we begin to debate the resolution at any length. With the unanimity that has been expressed to-day from all sides of the house as to the principle of the bill, I should hope that we might be justified in passing the resolution without much in the way of further debate, and the bill given first reading a little later in the day.


John Ritchie MacNicol: When a similar bill was
under consideration in 1935 did not the senate appoint a committee before which appeared people from all over Canada, representing all schools of thought?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My recollection is that that was done and it is quite possible it may be done again in the other house.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have
no control over them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have no
control over the other house.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS



THE CEDAR RAPIDS MANUFACTURING AND POWER COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 44, respecting the Cedar Rapids Manufacturing and Power Company-Mr. Abbott-Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-Power to sell or dispose of undertaking.
Mr. STIRLING:: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the sponsor has given any

Cedar Rapids Company
explanation of this bill. Would he explain why it is necessary at this stage to ask for these powers?


Mr. ABBOTT:: It was explained on the
first reading of the bill that the additional powers which the company is seeking are powers possessed by all commercial companies incorporated under the dominion Companies Act. They are powers included in section 14 of that act. The first powers, sought by paragraph (g), are identical with the equivalent powers contained in the general Companies Act. The second powers, sought by paragraph (h), to distribute among the shareholders of the company in kind, specie or otherwise, any property or assets of the company, are the same as those granted under the Companies Act except that there is omitted any reference to surrendering the charter of the company because obviously that cannot apply to a company incorporated by special act. The third powers, sought by paragraph (i), are to amalgamate or consolidate with any other company. I do not know whether I explained on the first reading of the bill that the Cedar Rapids Manufacturing and Power company is a subsidiary of Montreal Light, Heat and Power Consolidated, which owns, I am informed, all the shares with the exception of 100 odd, which include the directors' qualifying shares and a few shares in the hands of individual shareholders who, again I am informed, cannot be traced because their addresses have been lost. To all intents and purposes tins company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Montreal Light, Heat and Power Consolidated.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. gentleman has told us the objects of the bill. Will he explain the underlying reasons for asking for these powers now? Is it the intention to consolidate the company with Montreal Light, Heat and Power Consolidated, or just why are these powers being sought at this time? These are powers which are not in the original act but are enjoyed of course by companies incorporated under the Companies Act as it now' stands. There must be a reason why the company wants these powers. What is the intention of the company?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am advised that it may be the intention to eliminate the subsidiary and transfer the assets to the parent company. I believe that was discussed when the bill was in the miscellaneous private bills committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I was not there.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Having in mind that
only a short time ago we granted power to Beauharnois to divert the whole of the river, starting with 30,000 cubic feet per second and then, later on, the whole river, I would suggest that this company will not have any power to sell. Once the river is diverted, what more is there to sell? They will not be able to sell any power.
' Mr. ABBOTT: I am afraid I am not able to throw any light on that subject.


Mr. CHURCH:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the sponsor of the bill a question or two. First, let me say that private bills should be considered on the proper nights, Tuesdays and Fridays, but last night a bill respecting another power company went through without anybody here hearing it read or knowing what was going on. That was the Ottawa Electric company bill. Parliament should be very careful not to grant any monopolies now that war is on. The bill that went through last night for the Ottawa Electric company was among a batch of divorce bills being read. With our soldiers fighting overseas for our country, we should be careful not to grant monopolies to power, light and transportation companies because after the war the wreckage will be so great there will be nothing left to salvage, and if these mergers of power companies are permitted, the people will have to pay high rates for essential services of all kinds. The Cedar Rapids company came to parliament and got a charter, and this is no time for the company to be coming to parliament for an amendment to permit trafficking in the company's shares without the people who will be affected in the municipalities knowing anything about it. As I said, we amended the charter of another power company last night. They wanted to merge with some subsidiaries with a view, to economy. I believe that we should have a report made on all these bills by the proper officers of the department concerned. Otherwise we shall simply be creating monopolies in this country, and we shall have so many boards with their officials that they will reach, four deep, from here to Lansdowne park. We should have somebody to tell us whether these bills are within our power to pass or not. Not by the widest stretch of the imagination can this bill be said to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, and it is amending the Companies Act to grant them certain privileges by special act. Parliament should go slow in passing these bills to permit these added powers.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
Stanstead and Sherbrooke Insurance

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 33, to incorporate the Stanstead and Sherbrooke Insurance Company-Mr. Gingues-Mr. Yien in the chair.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to ask the sponsor if this bill has the sanction of the federal department of insurance?


Mr. GINGUES:: The bill was approved by the committee last week.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the superintendent of insurance approved it?


Maurice Gingues: Yes.
Sections 1 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On section 11-Cash payment on deposit note.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May we have some explanation of section 11? We are putting this bill through so fast that I cannot follow it.


Maurice Gingues: The company was organized about 105 years ago, and has operated by statute since its formation. In the beginning, business was confined to the two counties of Stanstead and Sherbrooke. After a while the company extended their operations elsewhere in the province of Quebec, and later on they did business in other provinces, so to-day they are asking permission to operate by federal charter to facilitate doing business all over the country. The superintendent of insurance has approved this bill. In any event, if there were anything wrong we would not have to worry about it, because no changes can be made until they have been approved by the department of insurance of the province of Quebec. We have given a similar privilege to the Canadian Mercantile Insurance company and other companies. I ask the committee to approve this bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is an old company which is now seeking a federal charter; I understand that much. It has operated on the mutual system from time to time; that would appear to be a fair inference. What is meant by section 8, that a policyholder before he receives his policy shall deposit his note, and that sort of thing? What is the system under which they have these deposit notes, which are referred to again in section 11? Would the hon. member explain these sections?


Maurice Gingues: The company will operate in the same way as it did before. The only difference is that it will operate under a federal charter instead of under a provincial statute.
[Mr. Church.1


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not understand it.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: I should like to have an explanation of subsection 1 of section 11. Do I understand by that subsection that those who are assessed may make a payment by note? It is not very clear.


Maurice Gingues: The same as with all mutual companies.


George Hugh Castleden: Is the payment by note?


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: The custom is that a note is deposited for the premium; the full amount is not paid at the time. When moneys are required the directors can call upon the one who gives the note, to the extent of its value.	[DOT]


The CHAIRMAN:: I think the answer will be found by reading section 11:
A cash payment on account of the deposit note in such amount as the directors may determine by their by-laws may be demanded and received from the policy-holder on the mutual system before he obtains his policy and the remainder shall be payable wholly or in part at any time when the directors deem the same to be necessary for the payment of the losses or expenses of the company.
I might explain to the committee that, under the mutual insurance system of the province of Quebec-and I believe the same system is in operation in at least some other provinces- each member of a mutual company gives a deposit note and receives a policy assuring him of a certain benefit in case of losses by fire.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Each
policy-holder?


Thomas Vien: Each policy-holder.
Then, if there are losses suffered by other policy-holders, each policy-holder is called upon to honour his note on calls made by the directorate, as set out in section 1, to meet-the losses as they arise.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12-Cancellation of mutual policies.
Thomas Langton Church: I should like to know from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) if the superintendent of insurance has looked into this bill, of which the first twelve clauses of powers are already before the committee. What is the policy of the government regarding this particular type of insurance company with wide powers to deal in about fifteen classes of various kinds of insurance? We have now a deluge of them in Canada. Some of them, as we found out last session, were

Detroit and Windsor Subway
simply getting a legal franchise and peddling it over the country for gain as a charter. Has the government any policy as to giving insurance companies of this description such very wide powers as are contained in sections 7 to 12? What does the superintendent of insurance say about the matter?


Mr. ILSLEY:: I must say that I have
not a memorandum from the superintendent of insurance concerning this particular bill. I was going to ask that the third reading should stand until the next sitting of the house so as to make sure there is no objection from the superintendent. I am satisfied that there is not, otherwise I should have heard from him, because undoubtedly the matter came to his attention, and the hon. member who is sponsoring the bill says that the superintendent approves it. Further than that, I have no information to give the committee.


Mr.   ICINLEY@: I might say it is true that
it was approved by the superintendent of insurance before the banking and commerce committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 13 to 22 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported.
.DETROIT AND WINDSOR SUBWAY COMPANY
The house in committee on Bill No. 35, respecting the Detroit and Windsor Subway Company-Mr. Martin-Mr. Vien in the chair.
On section 1-Capital stock increased.
Thomas Vien: Subsection 2 of section 7, of the original act, introduced by section
1	of this bill, was amended in the senate by adding in the third line of subsection 2, after the word "stock," the words "without nominal or par value."


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member should explain the amendment.


Mr. MARTIN:: The matter came up in
committee for consideration, and I believe that, with the exception of the provision now section 2 of the bill, it met with the approval of the committee, in principle. I believe it was on the suggestion of the solicitor for the corporation that section 2 appearing on page
2	of the bill was added, and the provision of that amended section is that in the event of the surrender of the shares authorized by section 1 not having been fully completed in accordance with the powers conferred by the act, then the privileges accorded by the act are to be regarded as not having been extended.
The whole purpose of the bill lies in the capital structure of the company, which originally authorized one million shares without
par value. All the shares are issued and outstanding and, with the exception of the directors' qualifying shares, are owned by a company known as the Detroit and Canada Tunnel Corporation, which is a Michigan company. No public interest whatever is involved and no actual interest of any Canadian body is concerned in the bill. It is a matter of internal economy of the Canadian company requiring a readjustment of the share capital which will enable the United States company to avoid what would be undoubtedly unjust taxation having regard to the value of the shares held by it in the Canadian company. I submit that the bill deserves to be passed in the form in which it now is.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McLarty, that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution :
That it is expedient to introduce a hill to enact a scheme of national unemployment insurance to be administered by a commission appointed by the governor in council, and to create an unemployment insurance fund from contributions from specified persons and from moneys provided by parliament, for the payment of insurance benefits, to be administered by the commission assisted by an advisory committee; with provision also for the organization and maintenance of an employment service administered by the commission with the advice and assistance of a national employment committee; also with power to the governor in council to establish committees and boards subsidiary to the commission and to enter into agreements with the governments of other countries for Teciprocal arrangements relating to unemployment insurance; with provision for the remuneration of the commissioners and the appointment and remuneration of such officers, clerks and employees as may be required for the due carrying out of the provisions of the act and for the costs of administration.
Thomas Langton Church: This resolution contemplates a system of unemployment insurance with contributions to a fund from specified persons, together Yvith moneys provided by parliament, for the payment of insurance benefits. Everyone admits the principle of unemployment insurance. Indeed, this question has been before parliament for a considerable time, long before I
1670	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Church
entered the house. It formed a part of the Liberal platform of 1919, but we in Canada do not seem to be able to do anything at the right time. We generally do the wrong thing at the right time. The principle of unemployment insurance is something that we should have adopted years ago, but the British North America Act has been blamed for our failure to adopt it. I submit that what we need is a British North America Act for the living and not for the dead.
I should like to find out something about the subject matter of this resolution. Everybody is in agreement with the principle of this form of insurance, but I want to find out whether the government really intend to cany it out, and put it into effect as soon as possible this year. Having regard to the burdens, the artificial barriers, and the restraints placed upon business to-day by the war and by the budget, do the government really intend to go ahead this year with this scheme, in such a time as this, adding to the burdens both of industry and of labour and putting more men out of employment? We ought to know that before the resolution is adopted. Has the country at the present time the ability to pay, and what do labour and industry say about the matter?
We have nearly reached the sixty-third day of the session. How does it come about that the government have waited until to-day to bring forward such a programme as this? They have waited until after the bringing down of the budget. If they do not intend to go ahead with this scheme, why do they introduce the legislation? I believe in the principle of private enterprise and initiative as against state trading and the nationalization of industry. I was a member of the house in 1922, and I remember when I was one of two Conservatives who then supported the principles of old age pensions, sickness and unemployment insurance, and hospitalization. I have supported these social forms of legislation as I always do, and I have never voted for legislation against human rights or human nature or social legislation for the masses of the country. But is this the time for this legislation, and are the government in earnest?
In 1922 and 1923 I supported unemployment insurance because at that time I believe we had the power to bring in such an insurance measure under the much abused British North America Act. Grants were made by this parliament for technical education and old age pensions, and could have been made for sickness and unemployment insurance in the same method and way under the part of

section 91 relating to "public debt and prop-. erty". That is how this parliament got jurisdiction over votes for .technical education and old age pensions, and under the same clause, notwithstanding what the law courts say, they had power to make these voluntary grants for this work if they saw fit, and could have extended it to unemployment insurance by votes to the provinces for them also to administer it.
I should like to find out something from the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) while one of his supporters from Vancouver is talking to him over there-I should like to have the amiable minister's attention, Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) gets through;
I do not object to him being over there; in fact, I am glad to see him over there; I think sometimes he looks better over there than here. But I should like to find out whether the government really means business about this scheme and is going to put it into effect as soon as possible, because there is no money provided for it in the present budget. Is the government going to run up an overdraft, and, if so, to what extent? Then I should like to know whether there have been any conferences with industry and labour on this question, in view of the budget which is such a heavy burden on the working classes, a budget which industry cannot carry, which is simply leading to state socialism.
I have been a consistent supporter of sickness and unemployment insurance ever since I have been in parliament. I refer to some remarks I made in the debate on unemployment insurance on March 31, 1936, supporting the principle, because I have always been a consistent supporter of labour and of trades unionism in this house and out of it, and one of the things I am glad of is that during a long public career which has not been without considerable stress and strain, I have nevertheless always managed to receive and retain the support of the very large majority of the working classes not only of Ontario and Toronto district but of this country. And I shall continue to support any useful social legislation on their behalf at this time, or any other time, but the government should tell us why this legislation has been left until this. time, why it is brought down now, and when they will put it into effect. The past five years have been years of wasted opportunity in both peace and -war alike, by this government. They have been too late all along the line; they thought they had all eternity in which to bring about a system of sickness and unemployment insurance and to order a national registration of man-power.

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Church
The Victorian era built up assets for the future, but this generation has been squandering them in the name of state socialism. In the Victorian era the people kept the state; to-day the way we are drifting towards state socialism, the state keeps the people. If this is just going to be a resolution to be passed and left there, the minister should say so, and tell us why it will not be put into effect as soon as possible. How is it going to affect industry and labour and the relief of these unemployed people next winter? The two industrial provinces will have to bear the burden. Ontario and Quebec are paying eighty per cent of the cash taxes, including income and sales taxes. Has the government consulted industry and labour in Ontario and Quebec about this policy, and are they going to put it through, and, if so, then what is going to be the effect on relief and relief grants to the municipalities during the coming winter, which is going to be the worst winter this country has ever experienced? Are the provinces going to unload all the main burdens on our cities?
In Canada we have a war of two kinds, as I have before described in the debates on relief on April 1, 1936, when I said:
We have a war in Canada to-day, a war between millions of our fellow men and poverty and starvation, a war between youth and poverty. The enemy is just as dangerous as a foreign foe in war time. Against a foreign foe we unite; against our intei'nal foe we are disunited, and do nothing to check or repel it. When the invader is at our gates the country mobilizes its entire resources, its man-power, its transportation system, its capital, but in time of depression and unemployment driving people to the wall the industrial workers are left without any protection at all; they bear the brunt and we do nothing but sit around and appoint commissions.
Regarding the other kind of war I then went on to say in support of a system of unemployment insurance instead of the dole, on a bill of the minister of labour of that day:
I would like to say a word or two in relation to industrial employment, because_ I want to contrast with the precepts of Christianity the way the industrial workers are used. Contrast our professions with the ruthless competition, the cruelty and vice of present-day business and industry. Here personality counts as nothing, the dollar is all supreme. Modern life is machine life, soulless, a life of standardization, high-speed production, a highly efficient organization for the making of profit. Everything is done in the mass, and life is made uniform, monotonous and artificial.
I was urging this scheme on the people four years ago. I said further:
Wages are shockingly low, often below the level of mere subsistence, so that people are forced into immoral and criminal ways of life to eke out a precarious livelihood. The maximum in hours of work is exacted in return for the minimum in wages. Senior employees,
whose lifeblood has been drawn from them by long years of faithful service, are in many cases cast out without retiring allowance to make room for younger and cheaper people.
This shows the necessity for the principle of this resolution.
It matters not what suffering is entailed for human beings so long as the stockholders are paid their dividends. This amazing selfishness and shortsightedness of the modern industrial system is creating a progressively lower standard of living and a vicious struggle for existence on the part of the working people, and increasingly serious social problems which must find their tragic solution either in war or in revolution. In the face of modern methods of competitive living the royal law of love, bear ye one another's burdens and so fulfil the law of Christ, is a hollow mockery in Canada, presumably a Christian country. This is the contradiction of modern life: a truly wonderful appreciation of the value of the single soul in some quarters, but an absolute denial of any such value in others.
That is all too true, Mr. Speaker.
Regarding the necessity for this measure, I proposed in 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938 and 1939 an unemployment insurance scheme for the youth of Canada which, if it had been adopted, would have saved this country some part of the $900,000,000, because that is what the dominion, the provinces and the municipalities have paid out without an insurance scheme for relief work, unemployment relief and all that kind of thing, and nothing to show for it except the dole. The system I proposed was national service for youth, instead of riding the rods, a service by which youth could learn a trade and get pocket-money, food and raiment as well as military national service, and at the end of his apprenticeship he would be an air mechanic or pilot or fitted for a journeyman in twelve of Canada's key industries. If that national apprenticeship policy I proposed four years ago had been adopted, Canada would have got a substantial part of the Chamberlain rearmament orders here, whereas Canada got only one per cent of them, while all these men were on the dole, and youth left to ride the rods and seek employment all over Canada.
I have only a few more words to say. I do not wish to delay the new minister in getting his resolution through, but I should like to have two or three questions answered. Is this resolution going to be a substitute next winter for the relief grants now cut to pieces by provinces? The provincial secre-tarjr of Ontario has announced that starting on the 22nd instant great numbers of men who cannot get a job are to be cut off all forms whatever of relief. Many of these men are not able to work. I should like to know where the jobs are, because I have about
1672	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Church
two hundred men in my own riding and large numbers of others looking for jobs all the year round. They are not fit for the jobs the Ontario government say they can get in new Ontario and other places. When these grants are cut off, who will have to pay? Is it to be the hard pressed municipalities of Ontario and Quebec, which have had the income tax and other forms of taxes taken away from them by federal and provincial authorities? Are these people to be dumped on the steps of the city or town halls in the industrial provinces of Ontario and Quebec and other provinces, while the provinces will say, "Go to Ottawa; they have a system of unemployment insurance; let Ottawa take care of it? It is their duty, not ours, and let real estate pay for it all." I believe the government should have a conference with industry and labour in order to see where this is going to end. This is a good form of protection, but I believe in protection for all the people all the time, not just for some of the people some *of the time.
There is another matter as well. These artificial barriers, liabilities, burdens, taxes and restrictions placed upon business are blows to every private enterprise in Canada, and they cannot stand it very much longer. I support the principle of this measure and the necessity for it, as I have always supported it; but I doubt the ability of industry and labour to carry it, and the time, in view of the budget and the war, to pay for it. I doubt whether this is the time to bring up this issue in Canada, with industry being driven to the wall as I have described it, with the war, the loss of markets, the gold situation, and the march of Hitler closing some of our industries.
I have been a consistent supporter of labour. When I was mayor of Toronto I instituted the eight hour day in all civic undertakings, which involved several thousands of men; I brought in the platoon system in the fire and police departments, and supported pension systems among the civic employees of these and other departments and boards. I have been a consistent supporter of public ownership utilities which have established pension and insurance schemes for their own employees. Many of the larger private utility industries have these pension and retirement schemes as well. Is it fair and equitable to load this added cost on those industries? We must consider the ability of industry and labour to pay, with a war on.
The Sirois report referred to this matter. What has happened to that report on -this question? It has been committed to the

archives-"Earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust", along with the ill-fated voluntary registration of women-in sure and certain hope that this be the last heard of it by this government.
The other day the Prime Minister (.Mr. Mackenzie King) said that the scheme would come into operation as soon as possible. That is what the government said when it was part of the 1919 Liberal platform, and in 1922. when I was a member of the committee which recommended old age pensions and unemployment insurance. That was my first session of parliament, and I was one of the two Conservative members of that committee to vote for that report.
I want to find out from the minister, now that he is going to have an unemployment insurance scheme for civilians who stay at home, what the government are going to do in regard to a national system of insurance for our soldiers, these young men of nineteen, twenty and twenty-one, many of whom are in the air over England and Germany to-day, forming our first and only line of defence for Canada, because Britain is our last hope of defence for Canada and insurance for our soldiers after they return home after demobilization.
This matter has been made a political football. Since the beginning of this session I have asked five ministers what the government proposed to do, but as yet I have had no answer. I also asked that question during the war session, and last week I asked it of the Minister of Finance, who once again promised consideration. Yesterday I saw 400 men lined up in front of the armouries on University avenue in Toronto, a large number of them young industrial workers, who want to fight Hitler, not the sham of home defence. They receive SI .30 a day, and when they are at the exhibition grounds they have to pay twenty-five or thirty cents a day for carfare. When I was head of the municipality, soldiers could travel on the old civic car line system free of charge, but now they have to pay, while this parliament provides automobiles for officers, some non-commissioned officers and favourites. I ask parliament to pay for this carfare now in this war because times have changed.
What are the government going to do? Does this system of unemployment insurance provide for the soldiers overseas, or just for those who stay at home? Will it provide protection for soldiers when they return home, broken in body and spirit, after fighting the battles of this country against Germany? Is any action to be taken, or is our insurance just for home fighting to be done by our

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Roebuck
home guards, who are to be insured under this resolution and have employment, and who train for a few weeks every year?
These are questions I think the minister should answer, and the returned men are expecting an answer from this government. As long as hon. gentlemen opposite are the government of the day, the onus and responsibility are upon them, not upon the opposition, to decide and settle this soldier problem for their dependents. I believe some announcement should be made immediately, for the sake of those who have gone overseas as well as for the sake of those enlisting, as to whether or not there is going to be an insurance scheme instituted for these men.
During the great war the city of Toronto insured 60,000 men. That was a splendid system, which greatly assisted recruiting. I do not know what would ever have been done by the dependent families without that. Nearly
6,000	soldiers from Toronto alone lost their lives in that war, and this insurance was a wonderful help to those who were left behind. As I pointed out during the war session, the United States had a national insurance system covering soldiers who went overseas. Last year the then Minister of Finance stated that the government could borrow money for two-thirds of one per cent, and there is now a great deal of money in the banks drawing little or no interest at all, so I think money should be available for a scheme of this kind, adapted to Canada's circumstances. The United States effected great economies and avoided a huge bill of costs after the war by means of their insurance scheme, so I hope the minister will make some announcement before this measure leaves this house, of a national insurance scheme for soldiers, with clauses for after the war to ensure against unemployment.
Once more the municipalities are going to find themselves in difficulties next winter with relief. In their budgets last spring they placed certain sums for relief. Now, with the province and no doubt the dominion cutting relief allowances to pieces, the municipalities will have to find an amount equal in some places to perhaps another mill or a mill and a half on their tax rate in order to take care of their relief problem and look after these poor people who cannot obtain employment, and real estate will have to bear the load. It is an intolerable burden that the average taxpayer can stand no longer our overgovernment and overtaxation.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Yien in the chair.


Mr. ROEBUCK:: I should like to put
myself right with the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), who this afternoon complained that I had said he had opposed the measure during the debate on the constitutional resolution concerning the amendment to the British North America Act. Let me say to the committee that I acquit the hon. member for Vancouver East of ever having opposed the measure, and may I point out that during the previous debate I did not say he had opposed it. The hon. gentleman said this:
. . . unemployment insurance, when we get it, will not be a solution of the social problems which confront us in this country. Unemployment insurance has not solved the social problems in any country where it has been put into effect.
My words were these:
The measure has been attacked in the house this afternoon, first by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), on the ground that it is not a cure for unemployment; second, by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), on the ground that it is not a cure for social ills.
I may have erred in using the word "attacked", although those words did seem to me. to be an attack on the measure. But I accept the hon. member's explanation in its entirety, and I want to say that I did not say he had ever opposed this legislation. I hope that makes it right -between us.
I would not speak on this measure again were it not for the fact that this question has been raised. There has been something in the nature of a competition among hon. members to decide who has supported an unemployment insurance measure the greatest length of time. I think I hold the record because the Prime Minister moved a resolution at the great Liberal convention of 1919 favouring unemployment insurance.


An hon. MEMBER:: This is 1940.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Coming of age.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Twenty-one years is a long time to be asleep.


Arthur Wentworth Roebuck: The Prime Minister moved that resolution over twenty years ago and I had the honour of seconding it on the floor of the convention. So I have supported such a move for a long time. I do not think it is necessary for any of us to protest our interest in this legislation, our loyalty to the principle involved and our desire to see it work. I know this legislation will pass, and I do not think it is necessary for us to support it by making long speeches either in the committee or in the house.


Mr. GREEN:: The minister -made no explanation this afternoon with respect to that part
Special War Revenue Act

of the resolution which provides for the setting up of a national employment service. This particular part reads:
. . . with provision also for the organization and maintenance of an employment service administered by the commission with the advice and assistance of a national employment committee.
The minister will remember that the Purvis commission recommended the setting up of honorary advisory committees which would serve in the different parts of Canada and be able to advise on the problems peculiar to their respective districts. I hope that that recommendation is not being overlooked in the bill to be founded on this resolution.


Thomas Langton Church: A commission a day will keep Hitler away.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I think if the hon. member waits until the bill is before us, he will have a more complete answer. Speaking purely from recollection, I think the provisions relevant to the setting up of employment offices are similar, if not identical, to those of the 1935 act.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. McLarty thereupon moved for leave to introduce 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 bill read the first time.