1940-07-19

Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, the standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, begs leave to present the following as its second report:
The standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government begs leave to present the following as its second report:
Your committee has considered the following items of the estimates referred to the committee on June 28, and approve the same, viz:
445-Maritime Freight Rates Act, Canadian National Railways, eastern lines, $2,000,000.
1764	COMMONS
Railways and Shipping-Second Report
446-Maritime Freight Rates Act, Railways other than Canadian National Railways, $800,000.
458-	Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, capital advanced, $21,000.
459-	Canadian National Railway Company, $15,000,000.
460-	Prince Edward Island Car Ferry and Terminals, $327,000.


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: On a question of the privileges of this house in relation to the report which has just been presented, I should like to make one or two observations and have your ruling in the matter, Mr. Speaker. First, the report just read was not read to the committee in accordance with the terms of the reference; second, the report is incorrect inasmuch as it speaks of approval, whereas in the committee the approval was given on division; and in the third place, the order of reference most clearly recites that copies of the evidence shall be printed for the use of the members. The evidence of the proceedings of the last meeting held by the committee has not yet been printed and there has been no opportunity for the members to peruse the printed report. That is the question of privilege which I raise on behalf of the house, and when that question is disposed of, Mr. Speaker, I purpose raising a question of personal privilege as a member of the committee. I therefore suggest that this report ought to be sent back to the committee for further consideration.


John Power Howden: This is not the final report but merely an interim report. It was submitted to representative members of the committee from the various sections of the house. The final report is to follow.


Joseph Henry Harris: Speaking again to the question, I am advised that the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black), the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Jackman) and the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) did not receive copies of the report. Through the courtesy of the chairman I was privileged to see the report before it was brought in to-day.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The house referred to the committee on railways and shipping, on June 28, resolutions 445, 446, 458, 459 and 460 of the estimates for the fiscal year 1940-41. The committee has submitted to the house a report approving these resolutions.
If this report is concurred in, these resolutions are adopted and there is no necessity of referring them to the committee of supply. The meaning of such a procedure would be that part of the estimates had been approved

by the house without having been considered by the committee of supply. This is against the principle laid down in standing order 60 which provides that no resolution for public aid or charge upon the people may be passed by the house until it has been referred to a committee of the whole. The report of the committee on railways and shipping not only cannot be concurred in, but it cannot be referred to the committee of supply because there are in it elements of an instruction; and, as May and Bourinot point out, pages 524 and 418 respectively, no instruction can be given to the committee of supply, as it can only consider the estimates recommended by the crown. Moreover, even if a motion were allowed to be made either to concur in the report or to refer these resolutions, no debate or amendment could be permitted on it, as such a motion does not come within the scope of standing order 38.
I must rule that the select committee's report, which consists only in the approval of certain estimates, cannot be debated at this stage of the proceedings when the Speaker is in the chair. A motion therefore must be made to refer the resolutions as part of the total estimates to the committee of supply, which will be free to consider them, and also to discuss if necessary the select committee's report.


Joseph Henry Harris: I now rise to
a question of personal privilege as a member of the committee. This report does not carry out the order of reference, and it does not give to this house what the reference demanded in the order of June 27, which said:
. . . report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon.
The "observations and opinions thereon" are not in any way in either of the reports reported upon. The matters discussed had to do with vital questions concerning this house and concerning Canada. It is clearly shown that since the Canadian National Railways had had six months' experience in which they had earned millions more than they budgeted for, the item of $15,000,000 is not required. It was forced through the committee on division, and this report did not mention anything of the division. It was also deposed that we were committing Canada's dollars-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Georges Parent: I understood the hon.
member wished to speak to a question of personal privilege. He is not entitled to enter into a discussion of the merits of the report or give particulars with regard to the stand that might have been taken in the committee.

Closing oj Burma Road
These matters, as I have already indicated in the opinion I have given, may be discussed on the floor in committee of supply when the report goes there.


Joseph Henry Harris: If I may be permitted to refer to rule 38, debatable motions, paragraph (m):
. . . and such other motion, made upon routine proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the house, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangements of its proceedings-


Georges Parent: Order. What the hon. member is referring to may be perfectly correct when there is a motion before the house, but there is no motion before the house now.


Joseph Henry Harris: I conclude,
then, by saying that my personal privilege as a member of this committee is infringed in that the effect of our deliberations is precluded from reaching this chamber in the way it ought, and this reflects on me as a member of this House of Commons, by conveying the impression that I as a member of the committee approved of a report of which I did not approve.



PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):: Yesterday the hon. member
for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Dupuis) presented a report from the joint committee of both houses on the printing of parliament. It is set out on pages 231 and following pages of Votes and Proceedings. It includes a long list of documents, with the recommendation that none of these be printed. I am of the opinion that on principle a good many of these reports need not be printed, but I wonder if we could not make some arrangement in respect to this list and perhaps have a list agreed upon, because in my opinion some of these reports should be printed. Some of my friends have taken exception to the terms of the report; concurrence has not been moved, so that as yet there has been no opportunity to debate the matter. The government might provide some opportunity for discussion of the matter; or we might have a conference on it.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I shall be glad to look
into the matter and have a word with my hon. friend regarding it.



CLOSING OF BURMA ROAD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), notice of which I sent this morning. According to to-day's papers, Lord Halifax, replying yesterday to a question in the House of Lords, said that Canada has been kept fully informed of what his majesty's government had in mind when considering the closing of the Burma road. Are we to infer from this statement that the advice of the government of Canada was sought and given in regard to this situation, which may profoundly affect future relations in the Pacific? If so, what advice was given to his majesty's government on behalf of this dominion?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government was informed of the views of the British government with respect to the closing of the Burma road, but no advice was tendered by the government of Canada to the government of the United Kingdom.


Mr. HANSON (York-43unbury):: Was any asked for? That is part of the question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. There is usually opportunity for comment on any communications that come from the United Kingdom government, and there was in this case. If the government of Canada had felt at the time that it was advisable to comment, it would have been done, but no comment was made.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 98, to establish an unemployment insurance commission to provide for insurance against unemployment, to establish an unemployment service and for other purposes related thereto.
1766	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Hanson (Sunbury)
Richard Burpee Hanson: I had assumed that the minister would take this opportunity to make some further observations with respect to this bill; but since he has not risen I feel it incumbent upon me to occupy a brief period of the time of the house.
As I said the other day, in my opinion no more important measure than this has come before parliament for a long time; and by way of a personal explanation in regard to what may be considered an ineffective discussion on my part with respect to the principles and details of the bill I may say at once that I have made really a brave attempt to master this measure, but I am afraid without any great success. In ordinary times ample opportunity would be given for study and discussion of a measure of this kind, even though it were intended that the bill should be referred to a special committee. I am not finding fault with the decision to endeavour to get this bill through, but in my view the time permitted for study and discussion is wholly inadequate. Notwithstanding that fact, in view of the approach of prorogation I think I at least should not be responsible for any further delay, and therefore I shall proceed to make my contribution to the discussion of this measure.
The underlying principle of the bill is pretty well established. There has been a good deal of discussion about it in the public press; and of course five years ago there was a very great deal of discussion and study of this important problem. A number of notable changes have been made in the method proposed, however, and the entire construction of the bill is so involved that it is most difficult, at all events for me, to interpret what these proposals really mean, with respect to administration and other important features. As far as I can gather from the bill, there are a few main principles involved. First, there is the fact that insurance benefit is a right established by contributions previously made, and in no sense a form of relief. I do not intend to labour that point because I think it is elementary, fundamental and fairly well known. The benefits are to be in proportion or relative to the contributions made, and at the same time they will entitle a low paid worker to receive a relatively high percentage of his wages. In the second place, weekly insurance benefits are not to be as great as or greater than normal weekly earnings, and of course that is fundamental too. They could not possibly go beyond normal weekly wages. The third principle involved, which to me is a

vital principle, is that the normal standard of living of the wage earner is to be protected. I think that is highly desirable.
Certain things in the bill are quite clear; for instance, the insurance benefits and the statutory conditions. Section 28 of the bill sets out the statutory conditions for the receipt of benefits by an insured person, who is subject to the four conditions there enumerated. The first of these conditions is that contributions shall have been paid in respect of the worker while employed in insurable employment for not less than 180 days during the two years immediately preceding the date on which a claim for benefit is made; second, that the wage earner has made application for an insurance benefit; third, that he prove that he has been employed each day he claims to have been employed, that he is capable of and available for work but unable to obtain suitable employment; and fourth that he proves either that he duly attended or had good cause for not attending any course of instruction or training approved by the commission, and so on.
In that connection the only variation from the act of 1935, so far as I am aware, is that under the present measure contributions will have to be made for a period of not less than 180 days, while under the previous act contributions were to have been made for not less than 40 full weeks. I assume those would be weeks of six days, making 240 days in all. These contributions were to have been made before a person would be entitled to receive benefits under the act. There is a substantial difference in this regard, and when the minister comes to speak on this motion for second reading-if he does-I hope he will give the house and the country good and sufficient reason for reducing the period from forty weeks, or, if I am correct, 240 days, to 180 days. I make that statement because in my opinion-and since I am rather asking for information than making an assertion I should like to be corrected if I am wrong-this may operate with respect to the actuarial soundness of the measure.


Mr. McLARTY:: Does the hon. gentleman wish me to refer to that now?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I
would prefer to have the minister just make a note of that. This is the first point on which I am asking for information. I am not raising this question in a controversial way at all; in fact I am not raising any questions concerning this measure in a controversial

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Hanson (Sunbury)
way. It is too important for that. Since the principle is acceptable to me, at all. events, and I hope to the country, in my opinion we should not approach the consideration of this bill in any controversial spirit. Rather we should bring to bear all the calm, judicial ability we may possess, and for the most part my consideration of the measure will be from that angle and not otherwise.
The second query I desire to direct to the minister is this. Are the provisions relating to the setting up of the advisory committee as wide as those contained in the act of 1935? As I read the provisions, they are not as wide. In the act of 1935 the advisory committee, in my view and I think in the view of those who studied the measure most carefully, constituted the chief guarantee of the continuing actuarial soundness of the scheme. If in any way that has been impaired, then I think it is a pity. Before the bill emerges as legislation, consideration might be given to that factor.
My third query is in the nature of a safeguard to the public and to investing employers and employees-if in that connection I may use the term "investing". Has a qualified actuary certified to the soundness of this bill? It is my information that under the 1935 measure the opinion of a qualified actuary of high standing in Canada was sought. I believe, too, that actuaries from the insurance department gave similar certificates.
The bill provides for administration by three commissioners to be appointed by the government, a chief commissioner, and two others, one to be appointed after consultation with labour and the other after consultation with industry. The chief commissioner is to hold office for ten years, the other two for five years. Under the old measure each commissioner was appointed for ten years, because continuity of service was considered desirable. It was believed that if the administrators were men of the calibre they ought to be, their time should not be limited to a five-year period. There may be good reasons for the variation in the present instance, but so far those reasons have not emerged. I have no doubt the minister will make some observations in that connection.
To a great extent the success or failure of this measure will depend on how it is administered. As I stated the other day when we were discussing the resolution, in Canada this class of legislation is necessarily an experiment. It is true that in instituting the scheme we are guided by the experience of other nations; nevertheless so far as Canada is concerned it is an experiment, so that one cannot insist
too strongly that the men to be appointed to the commission shall be men in whom the public have the greatest confidence. Their duties will be not only administrative but judicial or quasi-judicial; therefore they must be men having very high qualifications. The greatest care must be exercised in their selection. I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) in making the selections will not be guided by political considerations. I am not suggesting they intend to be, and I wish to make that clear. But in setting up a board which will have to deal annually with 875,000,000, I invite them most earnestly to select not only executives of administrative and judicial ability but executives whose characters and qualifications shall be of the highest.
I do not know what the government propose to pay these men, but the salaries should be adequate and commensurate with the responsibilities attached to the office. In that connection I would point out that for the most part Canada has never paid high salaries- of course there are some notable exceptions. For instance, in order to obtain the services of a good man to head the Bank of Canada we had to go to a high executive of one of our own banks. A gentleman from the United Kingdom was not considered persona grata to head a Canadian institution, if one could judge from some of the observations made from certain quarters in the house at that time. Perhaps that was a sound principle. Perhaps it was wise not to go outside our own borders to obtain the services of able executives. But if we want them we must pay them. My only quarrel with respect to the public service has been that we have had too many, but perhaps we did not have enough in the higher brackets who could do the work they were called upon to do. Certainly in many instances we have not paid them adequately. During the time I have been a member of the House of Commons we have lost to Canada many men with high technical qualifications and scientific attainments because we did not pay them adequate salaries. If we could save something in one respect, we might make up for it in the other respect to which I have alluded. In fixing the salaries of these men we should not be niggardly, -and we should see to it that the men appointed are fully capable of filling the positions they will hold. I earnestly suggest that they be paid decent salaries. Corporations have dealt with this problem and solved it satisfactorily. One of the reasons why we cannot get men of high
1768	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Hanson (Sunbury)
character and ability to enter public life in Canada is that the financial rewards are not adequate.
Of course there is another reward for public service. I agreed one hundred per cent with the Prime Minister when on one occasion he said that service to the state in a legislative capacity is the greatest service which any man can perform for this nation. I hope that idea will grow among our people. I say that because in days gone by a sneering attitude, if I may use that expression, has been taken towards public men. The term "politician" in some respects and in some quarters-I hope not in all-has become an epithet of disrespect. I am sure every hon. member within the sound of my voice will agree that that ought not to be so, and I hope we may do something to educate the people in that regard. Therefore when the board is set up I trust the Prime Minister will give every consideration to the matter to which I have referred.
May I venture to add one further word in this respect? Under the previous measure Colonel Harrington of Nova Scotia had been appointed chief commissioner. No better appointment, at all events at that time, could have been made. Colonel Harrington has made a life study of social conditions and social legislation. He is now in private life; he is detached, politically, and to me at all events his appointment would be an ideal one.
If I recollect aright, Mr. Tom Moore was appointed as the representative of labour. I venture to say that a more fitting representative of organized labour could not be found throughout the length and breadth of Canada. I know that he was prepared to give his best services when he was appointed five years ago. I suggest that consideration be given to the appointment of Mr. Moore or some other gentleman of like calibre. I do not want the Prime Minister to think that I am nominating an unemployment insurance commission for him; that is not my intention, but I feel we should have that type of man as a member. As far as Colonel Harrington is concerned, I always thought it was a pity that Canada lost his services.
I should like to know the weight of unemployment used in arriving at the actuarial basis of this bill-I understand that term to mean the average unemployment over a given period of years. Under the 1935 act the average unemployment over a period of years was computed at 11-5. The view was expressed at the time by certain persons

that that percentage was not large enough for actuarial computation purposes. In my judgment this bill should and must provide for what will probably be a tremendous dislocation at the end of the war, a dislocation much greater than was anticipated in the semi-depression period of 1935. I hope I am mistaken, but that is my view. If I should prove to be right, it would be better if the weight of unemployment were made greater.
By section 7 of the old act the insurance commission was directed to make investigations in order that proposals might be made to the government, first, with respect to providing for the extension of insurance to excepted employments, and, second, with respect to making provision for the assistance, during unemployment, of persons ordinarily employed in any of the employments excepted from the operation of the act or ordinarily employed in insurable employment but who for the time being were not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits under the act. In the operation of this bill it will be found that that class of person will crop up, especially if industry happens to slow up and unemployment increases.
Bv a third provision of section 7 of the old act the commission was instructed to make investigations for the purpose of making proposals for providing, in cooperation with educational authorities and institutions, or otherwise, physical and industrial training with a view to maintaining or increasing the physical fitness, skill and efficiency, or enlarging the knowledge of men engaged in an industry in which they normally seek employment. Of course that is a wholly desirable thing to do. It would permit men to improve their status in the trade or industry in which they are employed. This is especially true since we seem to have done away to a large degree with what was known as the apprenticeship system. So far as I know, in my part of the country the apprenticeship system exists only in connection with the mechanical trades employed in the railway shops. The responsibility for this must rest upon our educational authorities, and also upon parents. I suppose every parent likes to see his son in a white collar job, but labour in a shop or trade is just as dignified as the work of a clerk behind a counter.


An hon. MEMBER:: Better.


Richard Burpee Hanson: My hon.
friend suggests that it is better. I suppose this is a psychological effect, largely the result

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Hanson (Sunbury)
of education. Perhaps it would be better for this country if we could get back to what I would term first principles.


Mr. REID:: The dignity of labour.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is
such a thing as the dignity of labour.


Mr. McIYOR:: A dollar goes just as far
no matter how it is earned.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not
know that the observation of my hon. friend is relevant. The commission under the 1935 act was to undertake investigations for the purpose of making proposals also with regard to the training and instruction of men in some occupation, trade or handicraft, or employment in any work, having regard for their capacity, training and experience, with a view to rehabilitating them for regular employment. Under the same section, the old commission was instructed to make investigations with respect to schemes of assistance. The intent of that section was that the work of the commission should not be limited wholly to administration, but that it should make investigations with respect to the extension of the principle of unemployment insurance and of employment itself. I may be wrong, but after examining the present bill as carefully as I could in the limited time at my disposal, I gather that that whole section has been omitted from it.
The next topic I should like to discuss-I must confess that I have not attempted to correlate the different topics-is the appointment of officers and other employees of the commission. Section 10 of the bill states:
Such officers, clerks and other employees as are necessary for the proper conduct of the business of the commission shall be appointed or employed in the manner authorized by law.
What law? What is the meaning of that term "authorized by law"? Is it the law of to-day, of to-morrow, of next year or of ten years from now? That should be made clear. Under the 1935 measure the officers, clerks and employees of the commission were to be appointed by the civil service commission. That may not be the ideal method of appointment, but in 1935 it was, so far as I am aware, the only feasible method save and except appointment by the government. It may be said that appointments will be made by the commission itself. But that means appointment by the government, because when appointments are made by a commission that is under the control of the government, as this commission by and large will be, those desirous of appointment will bring pressure to bear
upon the member of parliament supporting the administration. Members of parliament are just as human as anybody else and, willy-nilly, think in terms of votes and the reaction upon themselves. So that unless the applicant is wholly unfit for the position for which he is applying, and unless the member has a good deal of backbone and is inherently honest, he is bound to write a letter of recommendation to someone in authority to see that John Jones or Tom Brown gets a job with the unemployment commission.
I shall not repeat what I said the other day with reference to civil service or government employment, but unless the phrase "in the manner authorized by law" is clarified, to me it is not clear what the appointing power will be. The minister should give us a clear statement in this regard.
Subsection 2 of section 10 provides:
The commission may, subject to the approval of the governor in council, from time to time temporarily employ such persons of technical or professional attainments as the commission may deem necessary.
This provision was in the 1935 act. It relates entirely to persons of technical or professional attainments. There may be difficulty in having this class of employee appointed by the civil service commission or in the manner provided by subsection 1 of section 10. The previous administration in setting up its measure adopted this method of appointment of temporary employees of technical or professional attainments, and the government has seen fit to follow that course. It may not be the best method, but at all events it is a method that occurs to one as being proper having regard to the type of the men to be appointed.
A provision in the previous measure relating to national health has been omitted from the present bill. Of course national health is an important matter, but it may be held that it is not strictly relevant to the question of unemployment insurance. With that view I have no particular quarrel, but it was suggested to the government of the day that it was a proper topic to be considered, and perhaps the minister can give good reasons why a similar provision has been omitted from this bill.
I want to deal for just a moment with the question of excepted employments. In part II of the first schedule of the 1935 act the excepted employments comprise eighteen different categories. The same list of excepted employments appears at page 34 of the present bill, except in one important particular. In
1770	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Hanson (Sunbury)
paragraph (rn) of part II of the first schedule of the present bill, a limit of $2,000 a year of earnings is imposed, as it was in the same paragraph in the previous act, but on a different basis. I hope the minister will explain just what is meant by this provision. I shall not take the time to read the two and compare them; the minister knows the point much better than I do.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Has the hon. gentleman in mind the distinction drawn in the 1935 act and in the present bill as between manual and non-manual labour?


Richard Burpee Hanson: 
Norman Alexander McLarty: Oh, no.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Well, add them up:	$28,000,000 contributed by the
employees, $28,000,000 by the employers, $11,000,000 odd from the government, $5,000,000 for cost of administration, which will steadily mount. Let me renew the admonition I gave the Prime Minister the other day. Unless the scheme is actuarially sound, there may be a deficit which the government will be called upon to meet and the general taxpayers will be asked to dig down into their pockets. The farmers, who can ill afford to pay any additional taxation, will be asked to contribute to this scheme.
This is a substantial sum of money to be taken from wage earners and industry in this time of war, especially when we consider that we are taxing hundreds of millions of dollars from the people for our war effort, and when we bear in mind the deficit of the national railways, which fortunately is steadily diminishing under present conditions, and the unknown number of millions in connection with wheat marketing operations. Just where that will lead us in the coming year I do not know, and I do not think the government knows either, but it must be a headache for anyone who has anything to do with it. If on the other hand we can be assured as a nation that unemployment insurance will end unemployment relief, upon which the nation has expended a billion dollars or more in the last ten years, I am certain that as a nation we shall be far better off. But I am afraid that expectation is utopian.


Mr. MARTIN:: It is impossible.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am
inclined to agree, although I did not like to put it as strongly as that. But if we have unemployment relief in the coming years or after the war on a scale comparable to what we have had in recent years, and have to bear the burden of unemployment insurance levies as well, some people are going to be sadly disillusioned.
1772	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Hanson (Sunbury)
I have tried to offer some contribution to the discussion of this most important measure. I am glad the Prime Minister has decided to move that the matter be referred to a special committee; it will save the time of the house. I regret that personally I could not serve on the committee; I should have enjoyed the work. I think the best contributions I have ever made to the work of parliament were made in the select standing committees; I look back with some degree of satisfaction to the service I gave to the country in that connection. I hope the committee will give the careful study to this measure that it deserves; that they will deal with all the provisions of the bill relating to administration, and make recommendations to the house if they are not in accord with the provisions of the bill, and that the bill will come back to this house with a report upon which we can take intelligent action and complete the legislation. I hope the committee will call into consultation representatives of trades and labour organizations, boards of trade, manufacturers and industrialists-all who will be vitally affected by this measure, and get their views. I hope the committee will also be given power-I have not examined carefully the notice of motion the Prime Minister has on the order paper-to take independent advice from technical men even if it costs this country something in the way of retainers and fees.
I commend the principle of the bill. I have tried to make such criticisms as have occurred to me, although much of what I have said may be already in the minds of hon. members; if so, I apologize for trespassing upon their time.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: As one who has perhaps made as long a study and survey and investigation as any one into the operation of unemployment insurance in every countiy in which such insurance is in practical operation, I cannot let this bill pass second reading without speaking briefly.
First I feel that I should extend a word of praise to several men who are not now in this house, some because they did not care to run again, others because they were defeated, and one is unwell. These men, throughout the eleven years that I have been here and for several years before, I have known of as active in regard to this matter. The leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Woodsworth), who is ill, did a very great deal, in season and out of season, in his advocacy of unemployment insurance; unstinted credit is due to him for the part he played.

I wish to refer also to Mr. Heaps, who formerly represented Winnipeg North. Years ago Mr. Heaps introduced resolutions on this subject in this house, and I always listened to him with a great deal of interest because he was earnest in what he advocated. I am glad to hear that he is now with the Department of Labour, perhaps on this very work. Another man, also I believe in the Department of Labour, who when speaking on this subject in this house always showed good sound sense, was Mr. Humphrey Mitchell, who represented Hamilton East. Hon. Wesley Gordon spoke on it very effectively; also Doctor Stanley, who represented Calgary East, and the former leader of our party, the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett.. Tribute should be paid to these men who are not here. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) deserves great credit, also the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). The Prime Minister himself (Mr. Mackenzie King) has been an advocate of this principle for as long as I can remember. He is in the house still, thank heaven. I am a very warm friend of the Prime Minister, and I am always pleased to see him, for more reasons than one. There are others I might mention, some of them on our side, but these are all whose names come to my mind at the moment.
I should mention some labour papers; I shall select two, although I know there are others. The Labour Leader of Toronto has persistently and consistently advocated unemployment insurance for fifteen years or more. I believe the Stevenson Brothers operate that paper. I say this because I am happy, in the realization as I am sure all these people are, that the long battle to enact in this country an unemployment insurance law will most fortunately end in the legislation that I hope will be passed at this session and go into operation as rapidly as possible. In Montreal there is another labour paper, the Labour World. I might also mention one who consistently writes in that paper, one who has given to this subject most extensive study, Bernard Rose, K.C. I hope he is well; I have not seen him for some time. He is a barrister, and as my leader said in suggesting commissioners, if the department finds it necessary to employ a barrister I do not know of anyone better acquainted with the whole subject of unemployment insurance from its very early stages than Bernard Rose, K.C.
My own studies of this matter have given me a great deal of joy. I have sat in the labour offices in the capitals of all the countries that now operate practical unemploy-

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. MacNicol
ment insurance. I have sat in the branch offices in their main cities and watched the operation, and have seen the unemployed coming in with their cards, which I illustrated on a former occasion. I am firmly convinced that this is one of the finest pieces of legislation that has been introduced in this house.
I have no fear whatever that it will not give satisfaction. Similar legislation has given eminent satisfaction in the old country. Of course I realize that we have to creep before we walk. The government is perhaps not bringing in as complete a measure as they may make it five years hence if they are still in power; they will find opportunity to improve it. That was the experience in Great Britain, where they adopted unemployment insurance in 1911. At that time the scheme covered only about two and a half million workers, while to-day it covers about twenty million, including a long list of workers not mentioned in our act, I presume for good reasons. I concur in what the government is doing, in not trying to run the whole gamut at once but rather in establishing the principle and getting it in operation, just as they did in England. As the minister has said, the present bill will cover only 2,100,000 workers, but I have no doubt that before many years pass our unemployment insurance scheme will cover many more than that. I have every confidence in the principle and am more than delighted to know that this measure is going through.
There is one point I might mention, though it is not included in the bill and no one else has said anything about it. I presume the government will take into consideration the many companies that now have systems of unemployment benefits, workmen's compensation and so on. This was done in the United States and in England. When the 1911 bill was enacted in Great Britain the government cooperated with the great labour unions and companies that had their own out-of-work schemes. As a matter of fact the British labour unions deserve the entire credit for having unemployment insurance legislation enacted. Previous to that legislation being passed the great labour unions had their own out-of-work benefit schemes, or unemployment insurance as it is called to-day, with fairly substantial financial backing. Then when the British government took over the system the labour unions were able to give the government the benefit of their experience, which proved of great assistance. I have no doubt whatever that the minister will cooperate with any of the companies in this country that have initiated their own schemes of this kind.
I have studied this bill very carefully and compared it with the bill passed in 1935. In general it is pretty much the same, though there are a few differences and one or two new provisions. There is one thing which I have not found in any other unemployment insurance measure; that is the staggered rate of contributions. I see the minister shakes his head. Under this bill the contributions are based on the wages received, whereas under the bill of 1935 the contribution of a worker twenty-one years of age and up, for example, was on the basis of 25 cents from the worker, 25 cents from -the employer and 10 cents from the government plus all administration costs. At that time I thought this would make the effective contributions about 25 cents, 25 cents and 25 cents, which compares with the rate in England-above 21 years for males, unless it has been changed recently-of 20 cents from the employer, 20 cents from the worker and 20 cents from the government. This scheme is somewhat different, since it is based, on seven different wage schedules ranging from a minimum of $5.40 a week to a maximum of $38.50 per week or approximately $2,000 a year, which was the maximum established in the 1935 bill. I have no reason to criticize this change; it may or may not be an improvement, and time alone can tell.
It appears to me that the benefits under the British bill are and under the 1935 bill were a little better than those proposed under this measure, and of course there may be some reason for that. For instance, if we look at the second schedule on page 35, class 5, which deals with workers receiving from $15 to $20 a week, which I believe would cover the great majority of ordinary workers in Canada, in Great Britain a worker with a wife and four children coming within this category would receive $10.36 per week while unemployed. That is on the basis of $4.14 for the father, $2.19 for the mother, and 49 cents for each child, plus 25 per cent. Under this bill, however, the husband, wife and four children would receive only $9.60, if I have it figured out correctly. In other words the present bill does not give a large family. the benefits that would have been paid under the old bill, or that are paid now under the British bill.


Norman Alexander McLarty: I wonder if my hon.
friend is bearing in mind the eighty per cent limitation contained in the former bill, which provided that in no case, no matter how many
1774	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. MacNicol
dependants there might be, would a benefit be paid in excess of eighty per cent of the wages received. That would make a substantial difference in the various categories.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The worker receiving $20 a week still would not receive more than 80 per cent. Under the United States measure a worker receives up to 50 per cent of his wages or $15 per week, whichever is the greater. Under this bill the worker, his wife and four children would receive only $9.60; under the 1935 bill he would have received $12.30 and under the British bill he would receive $10.36. However, I presume this staggered rate is based on some sound reasons, which I hope the minister will give us when he speaks again.
There is one feature of the United States bill which did not appear in the 1935 act and which is not in the present measure. As the minister well knows, in the beginning the federal government of the United States enacted what they thought would be an example unemployment insurance bill which might be adopted in every state. They said, "We will impose a three per cent excise tax on the wage rolls of all companies having eight or more employees. If the state then adopts a bill comparable with our example bill, we will return to the state 2-7 per cent of the contributions made by the state payroll, and retain -3 per cent ourselves for the contribution we make to the operation of the unemployment insurance scheme."
They had another provision, however, known as the merit clause, which worked to the advantage of all concerned. The manufacturer was encouraged to organize his plant so that employees laid off would be at a minimum. In other words, under ordinary circumstances he might lay off a number of workers, but if under the merit system he hoped to come under the provisions of the measure he would organize his plant so that workers would not be laid off but be engaged in other departments. In this respect their measure strikes me as one tending to permanency in jobs, and with that feature of the United States bill I am in complete agreement. Perhaps the minister will point out something in this bill which would be comparable, although at the present time I have not succeeded in finding it. Briefly, manufacturers in the United States are encouraged to give more continuous employment.


Thomas Reid: Do not the manufacturers pay all the compensation?


John Ritchie MacNicol: The manufacturer pays for the worker, too; but of course he takes

it off the worker's wage, although that does not appear in the bill.
The three chief systems are those found in the United States, in Great Britain and that now suggested for Canada. As I pointed out earlier, the system in the United States has the good feature of a merit clause which has the effect of encouraging the manufacturer to maintain continuous employment. The British system provides for standard contributions at the ratio of 20, 20 and 20, while the one now before this committee provides for staggered contributions.
Some one has asked: "Is this the time to enact an unemployment insurance bill?" I maintain it is. If we cannot enact it now, when can we enact it? Certainly we cannot enact it after the war, if at that time we have a vast amount of unemployment. And in passing I must say I believe the war will not be over for a while. There can be no doubt that if this war develops in any respects like the last one, in two years from now the men and women in this country available for jobs will have them, making war materials. We may have over again the same conditions which existed in 1917 and 1918. In my view, on that basis we should have in Canada at least one or two good years during which full wages will be paid, and when full employment will be available. During that time a vast amount of money will be laid aside through contributions. Many people have been discouraged from advocating unemployment insurance because of what was known as the dole. I never looked upon those payments in Great Britain as a dole. If Great Britain had not done what it did after the war she would have had a revolution, and in my opinion $500,000,000 is a small amount to pay to avoid a catastrophe of that kind.
Better than that, they have amended their act to the point where such vast surpluses have been accumulated that they have paid off, I am told, $100,000,000 in the last three years in respect of capital expenditures brought about by the dole. In my last trip to the old country I spent a good deal of time in the government labour office, and while there I was told that they were piling up money in such huge amounts under the operation of the unemployment insurance scheme, that within a very few years the $500,000,000 dole debt would be wiped out. In addition to that they are piling up funds until to-day- or at the time I was there-there was $225,000,000 of a surplus, in addition to what they had paid off the former dole.
Nothing will accumulate as rapidly as moneys paid under an unemployment insurance scheme. Just fancy 2,100,000 workers paying into the government coffers, under this

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Maclnnis
measure. Those 2,100,000 workers will pay in a lot of money in a year's time. If they are ipaying it in now, they are paying it when they are receiving wages, and those amounts will be laid up against their unemployment, if indeed they are unemployed at the close of the war. I hope even after the war is over whatever government is in power in Canada will have established some scheme under which the natural resources of the country can be developed, so that when our men return home there will be ample work for them to do. I am convinced that such a scheme could be put into operation. Perhaps our fears that many men will be unemployed after the war are all unfounded.
Let me offer a suggestion to the government. We have heard it said that another group of men may be inclined to hold up the passage of this bill. I wonder if hon. gentlemen from the other house could not be invited to send representatives to the committee of this house which is to discuss the measure.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: They will be invited.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In that way the two houses could operate together.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They will have that opportunity.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They are entitled to recognition. In my judgment hon. gentlemen in the other house do a good job. In fact I do not know what we would do without the other house-and I do not mention it by name, although I believe all hon. members know what I mean.
I have spoken on this subject on many occasions, and it gives me great satisfaction to be in the House of Commons on the occasion of the enactment of a measure providing for unemployment insurance. I have spent fifteen years of my life advocating such a measure-eleven years in the house and four out of it. As I have said on other occasions, from long association with many thousands of men, and from having been in a position to observe what happens to them when they are laid off, I am a convinced advocate of unemployment insurance. I will not give details in this connection, because I have done so before. Let me state briefly, however, that anyone who has been associated with working men, anyone who has given employment to men, knows there can be nothing more heartbreaking than to lay off a man who has been employed by a company for ten to twenty-five years. I have known men to be laid off after employment of thirty-five years, and to have received nothing but the
words, "I am sorry, old man, but I cannot
do anything for you." If ever there was a piece of legislation to which the working people in Canada were entitled, certainly it is legislation bringing about unemployment insurance; and I am going to do my best to assist the government in putting this bill through.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, before I begin the few words I wish to say in regard to this measure I should. like to thank the hon. member for Pavenport (Mr. MacNieol) for his kind observations in reference to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) who has not been able to be present for some time. May I thank my hon. friend, too, for what he said about a former member of the house, one who in the last parliament sat for the constituency of Winnipeg North. I refer to Mr. Heaps. Both of these gentlemen have, as he has said, for many years worked strenuously for legislation of this kind, and I am sure both of them will be pleased to hear of the generous tribute paid to them by the hon. member for Davenport.
It is not my intention to delay the house, nor do I intend to make an exhaustive analysis of the bill. I do not think that is necessary at this time. Speaking for the group with which I am associated, I would point out that we have now had an opportunity to read and to examine the bill. Although we do not consider it perfect, we do not intend at this time to indulge in any criticism of it. We realize it is going to a committee, and that is the proper place to make criticisms and offer suggestions. We should like to see in the bill certain provisions which are not in it; on the other hand we would prefer to leave out of the bill certain provisions which appear in it.
This bill follows quite closely the 1935 act for which I voted. Where changes have been made, I believe they show an improvement. The government have decided, quite wisely, to send the bill to a special committee. In that committee those who are in favour and those who are opposed to the bill will have an opportunity of making their representations. I am glad to see that the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) is to be a member of the committee, and I hope that both the minister and the government will not allow the reference to committee to be used as an excuse for the postponement of the enactment of this legislation. The government should insist upon the house remaining in session until this measure becomes law. Those who will benefit have waited for this legislation for many years, and in my opinion the psychological and social consequence of a
1776	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Maclnnis
further postponement would not be good. I am willing to stay here if necessary until the snow flies in order that this bill may be placed upon our statute books.
There are one or two points which I should like to stress in order to show the desirability of passing this legislation at this session. First, after the bill is passed it will take several months to organize the machinery necessary for administration. After contributions have begun to be made it will be thirty weeks, and perhaps longer, before the legislation will become operative in the sense that benefits are being paid. Even though we do pass the bill this year it will be late in 1941 or 1942 before any benefits are paid under it.
Second, all contributions made are to go into the unemployment insurance fund from which will be paid out any benefits. The employees' contributions, the government's contributions and the employers' contributions will go into this fund, and in addition the government is to pay the cost of administration. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) referred to the large amount of money which would be taken out of circulation each year, but I think that will be more apparent than real. In any event, it would be taken out only for a short time. Over a period of years all the money collected will be paid out in unemployment insurance benefits. While I am not an authority on these matters, I do feel that a time like the present when the government is anxious to curtail consumption, particularly consumption of an unnecessary kind, is the best time to build up a fund such as this. I think this should meet some of the objections being made to the bill. Objection has been oSered by certain people who have never before shown much interest in the condition of the working classes. These people point out that the enactment of this measure at this time will bear heavily upon the low paid workers. May I point out that there is an easy way to get over that difficulty-increase the wages of the low paid workers. The leader of the opposition said that Canada has not been noted in the past for the payment of high salaries. We may not have been noted for the payment of high salaries, but we certainly are noted for the payment of low wages.
There is another reason why I want to see this bill pass. Any one who has gone to an unemployment relief office and has watched applicants for relief make their applications, be examined and very often be treated roughly by the employees of the office, will realize the degrading effect of unemployment relief. While this measure will not by any means put an end to the need for unemployment relief, it will take a certain number of people, how
TMr. Maclnnis.]
many I do not know, out of the category of relief recipients. When they become unemployed, instead of having to go to the relief office and have all their private affairs investigated, they will go to the unemployment insurance office, present their cards, and certain conditions being met, they will receive their unemployment insurance benefits as a matter of right and not as a matter of charity. That in itself is a great step forward. I hope the time will come when we shall be able to bring more of the excepted occupations under the operation of this bill.
There are many questions which I should like to ask because a number of sections are more or less obscure to me, but I think we can get all the information we desire in committee, and perhaps to better advantage than by asking questions of the minister across the floor. Not only will the minister be in the committee, but it is hoped that there will be present experts who understand the administration of a measure of this kind. As I said before, I hope the government will do everything possible to expedite the passing of this bill. As far as this group is concerned, we intend to assist in every way possible. We will try to improve the bill by offering advice, but we accept the principle and we want to see the legislation in operation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, two years ago the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) introduced a resolution calling upon the government to consider the advisability of taking such action as it has now decided to take. In seconding that motion I expressed at much greater length than I propose to do to-day my views with regard to this question. Rut I cannot escape the responsibility of dealing with this measure now because I represent in this house a constituency which possibly more than most constituencies in the country will be deeply affected. I am provoked for another reason to take part in this debate. The Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) comes from a county and a city that are also my own, and I know the house would not rob me of the privilege of extending to him congratulations -both upon the manner in which he introduced the legislation and upon being in a true sense its father.
The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) in the two able presentations which he has -given to the house, -has made a number of observations on this bill which I think require some comment. It is highly desirable that the country should not be led into the position of thinking that this measure is capable of yielding something that it is not

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Martin
capable of yielding. On the other hand no effort should be made to minimize its benefits. Speaking the other day, the hon. leader of the opposition said:
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.
No unemployment insurance scheme in any part of the world has yet been able to operate without calling from time to time upon the national exchequer for further assistance, and for us to assume to-day that there will in the course of time be no further demands upon the treasury is, I think, not to face realities. I would say to the hon. gentleman that in the course of time as this bill operates we shall experience what they have experienced particularly in England, because through circumstances which we cannot now anticipate the need will arise from time to time for calling on the exchequer to bolster up the fund.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Does the hon. member not think they have passed that stage in England? They have raised their rates to such an extent that their scheme is on a sound actuarial basis.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is ,a matter for argument. I can only say that in an article in the Yale Economic Review Mr. Keynes, writing on this aspect of the matter, stated what I have just now affirmed, namely, that since one cannot anticipate the character and extent of employment, it must be expected that from time to time variations in the contributions by the state will have to be made, particularly in view of the dislocation that is bound to follow the war. Any hon. member would indeed be bold to say to the house now, in reply to the hon. gentleman, that we shall not be called upon in this country to furnish more financial assistance than is at present contemplated. Moreover, when the leader of the opposition says that we ought to see that the measure is actuarially sound, I think there should be a clear understanding as to what is actually meant by the term "actuarially sound". If by "actuarially sound" is meant that we shall seek to establish a measure which will be actuarially sound in the sense that life insurance is, that is impossible in unemployment insurance because the nature of the risk in life insurance is altogether different from the nature of the risk in unemployment insurance. While it is laudable to try to make unemployment insurance actuarially sound, we must not be unmindful of the fact that it is impossible really to make it actuarially sound.
When the hon. gentleman asked the Minister of Labour if a certain authority on unemployment insurance had been engaged on this measure, I presume he was thinking of the eminent statistician and authority on this question, Mr. Wolfenden, who of course represents on this whole subject one school of thought which I think it is fair to say is not the dominant school in regard to the actuarial possibilities of unemployment insurance.
But my main reason for taking part in this debate now is this. We have the assurance of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and of the Minister of Labour that it is the intention of the government to see this measure enacted this year. But I believe I know something of the kind of representations that will be made from all over the country by various groups the moment this measure gets into committee, and unless a clear limitation is imposed upon the nature of the representations that will be permitted- and if all of these groups are to be heard, there is no possibility of this measure passing the house this session. Consequently-I say this now because I am not a member of the oommittee and shall have no opportunity of saying it later-I think it should be definitely understood that because this question has been reviewed by at least three royal commissions and constantly discussed in all sorts of ways during the past twenty years, nobody will be allowed to appear before the committee to discuss the principle of the bill. Otherwise there will be no opportunity of the measure coming back to the house this session, and it is wholly desirable that, as all of us agree, it should be enacted now if for no other purpose than to give it a trial and to deal with unemployment insurance in an experimental manner.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the hon. member suggest that if a substantial body of employers and a substantial body of wage-earners appear in opposition to the principle, they should not be heard?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say that very thing, and for the reason that the country has had ample opportunity to consider this bill or the fundamentals involved in it. While it has some features that differ from the Bennett legislation, the fundamentals are the same, and all the criticism that was leveled against the Bennett bill and all the suggestions that were then made have been generally known for a considerable length of time. To pursue any other course would mean that this bill would not be enacted this session. Therefore there is fundamentally nothing new that is not already known by the department, the

1778	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Martin
government and the country. Nothing new can be submitted by any group. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association have said, by implication, that they regard this measure to be so dangerous at the present time that they propose to resort to every legitimate means to see that during war time it does not become law; and the effectiveness of that organization will be apparent, I think, when the committee assembles.
The attempt may also be made from other quarters, when the committee meets, to urge upon the government that at the present time at any rate the scheme should not be made compulsory. I hope that if that sort of representation is made, the attitude of the committee will be made clear, because I am sure that the attitude of the house is clear. There can be no question that in ithe light of experience in England our scheme should be made compulsory. First, because a compulsory scheme assures the widest possible distribution of the risk; second, because by levying a contribution on employers, employees and the state, the burden is equitably distributed; third, because by having the state participate in contributions as is done in England, as distinguished from the Wisconsin scheme, for example, the government can shift a considerable share of the burden on to those groups in the country which financially can bear that burden through graduated income and inheritance taxes.
The explanatory note opposite page 3 of the bill indicates that it is the government's intention to establish a commission to organize a national employment service with regional divisions and local offices. The English experience certainly indicates that unemployment insurance cannot be successfully administered unless it is harnessed to a system of employment exchanges or employment offices. In this country we have nine provincial employment exchanges or offices all operating with different policies and consequently lacking coordination calculated to effectuate the purpose of these employment exchanges. Perhaps in speaking on the second reading the minister may indicate whether, in the adoption of the scheme, the provinces have intimated their intention of abandoning their employment offices; because obviously, if the scheme is to function successfully, there cannot be any overlapping and the central authority must be able to deal effectively with the kind of problem that these employment offices have to deal with.
It will be argued in the committee that we should not consider unemployment insurance in relation to unemployment relief or 
to the general question of the rehabilitation of labour. This legislation, as far as I can see, does not envisage all the possibilities, and it falls short of adequate consideration of what the perfected legislation in England has taken into consideration, namely, that during a period of prolonged depression, or during a period such as the present when the depression is certainly less acute, unemployment insurance in itself is not sufficient to meet the needs presented by a situation of that sort and must be related to the question of unemployment relief, to the question of the rehabilitation of labour, and to such questions as national health insurance and the like. All these matters are part of a composite scheme, and consequently, when the hon. gentleman said that he agreed with my interjection as to the impossibility of unemployment insurance ever doing away with relief, he concurs, I take it, in the view that unemployment insurance and unemployment assistance or unemployment relief must go hand in hand. The objective is not to do away with relief but rather to cushion it and to have both activities working together.
Finally, the argument will be made before the committee that since every employed person in Canada cannot benefit from unemployment insurance, and since there are vast areas where it will be of small embrace, instead of having a national scheme we should have regional schemes. I have been advised of one group who propose to go before the committee and recommend not a national but a regional scheme. If that is proposed, then I suggest three answers. First of all, the scheme should undoubtedly be compulsory; second, it should be contributory, and third, it should be on a national scale; otherwise serious difficulties would arise. First, the working class move constantly from one province to another, and the difficulty would be greatly enhanced in such an instance particularly when one worker moved from an insured province into an uninsured province. Second, it would be unfair that the taxpayers of an uninsured province should contribute equally with the taxpayers of an insured province. Third, the producers of an insured province would be saddled with a substantial item of cost which would not be borne by their competitors in the uninsured provinces. That would be an obviously unfair provision with respect to employers of labour who had to compete with lower costs in a competing province. I might add a fourth consideration. If the scheme were not on a national basis,

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Neill
the system of labour exchanges would be frustrated through their jurisdictions not being nation-wide.
Because there is a great move in the country against the enactment of this measure at this time, particularly in view of the fact that we are at war, certain sections of industry are taking a definite view in that regard. Perhaps because I represent a heavy industrial section of the country, strong representations have been made to me that our primary occupation at this time should be in the direction of winning the war. No one quarrels with that as our primary objective, but it is shortsighted for certain sections of industry to assume that taking care of the unemployed is not an integral part of our war effort. Certainly industry is short-sighted in not envisioning the kind of difficulty that will face this country when the war is over unless we have taken the steps which this house so determinedly proposes to take to-day. The spirit which all members of the house have displayed towards this measure indicates its desirability and the importance of enacting it at this session, no matter what the difficulty may be.
I conclude by saying to the Minister of Labour, coming as he does and as I do from an area in which there is unemployment for many months of the year because of the type of industry that predominate in the community, he will have done nothing in his public life greater than to create this measure when he is able to say at the conclusion of this session, as I hope he will be able to say, to his people and to all the people throughout the country that one further great reform for a harassed group of our population has finally been realized.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: When the resolution on which this bill is founded was before the house we were not furnished with sufficient details-it was not possible- to enable us to understand a measure of this magnitude. I was glad, therefore, when I heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) agree to the suggestion put forward by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and endorsed by myself and others, that the bill should be sent to a special committee, the idea being, as I thought, that it would be thoroughly discussed in a non-partisan way and, if necessary, appropriate amendments made. Since then I have seen the bill, and while I have not been able to go through it as carefully as its importance demands, I see that there are considerable improvements on what is known as the Bennett bill. I do see in it, however, some places where I think 95826-112J
further substantial improvements could and should be made for the benefit of the workers for whom it is intended.	[DOT]
Since then I have seen the names of those constituting the special committee, and I am not nearly so hopeful of improvement in favour of the worker. I have heard a good deal about non-partisan service in the last few months, and I supposed that would be demonstrated in the composition of this committee. I expected to see members representative of what are known as the "big interests" and big employers, and quite properly; and the government represented to some extent; also and particularly members representing what would be called the working section of the community. But on analysing the committee of fifteen I see that there are three cabinet ministers, a very large number out of fifteen; they and those they can control would almost guarantee the bill going through without any changes. There are ten Liberals, a huge majority in a committee of fifteen, and three Conservatives, one social crediter and one representative of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation.
Let us consider their occupations and thus get some light on their possible leanings. There are ten lawyers. Now I like lawyers; I admire them; I had an ambition at one time to be a lawyer myself. Nevertheless we must view conditions as they are. The means of livelihood of lawyers, their profession, puts them in touch far more with the business interests than with the working man. Compare the big corporation lawyer with the average man here and there who takes up the cause of labour. And the ten Liberals give a partisan taste to the composition of the committee. Then we have two hon. gentlemen representing business interests; their interests would supposedly be against the bill, as has been indicated by the last speaker. Another one is a minister of the gospel; he has already expressed himself as having no faith in the measure. There is a farmer, but no farmers are eligible under the bill. There is a social crediter; he has already expressed himself as being in line with the views of his leader who said that "unemployment insurance is only a bauble, only a glittering make-believe which will lead to disappointment or despair", so we may wash out his usefulness on behalf of the working men. Then we come to one man who can honestly claim to represent labour; he is the only member of the committee who in years gone by has consistently advocated this legislation in the house. But I am afraid he will have a hard time getting much for the benefit of labour out of ten lawyers and the parson. I
1780	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Neill
would almost say that it appears as if a dictum had gone out that this bill is not to be changed. If that is the case, why send it to a committee; why not take the vote now? We have lost so many of the privileges of private members this session we might lose a few more; it would save time at any rate.
There are two or three further points that I would mention, because I shall not have any further opportunity. There are many points, but I have time for only one or two. The fact that these points to which I take exception were all in the Bennett bill does not justify their existence in this bill, because this government is supposed to improve things and get further light as time goes on. On page 14 of the bill we find a section relating to disqualification for benefit. Please note it is not disqualification for insurance, but disqualification for benefit. That is, you can be insured, but when you come to draw the benefit you will be disqualified.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You can
pay but you cannot receive.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes, and when I state who
is not to receive, hon. members will appreciate the point I am trying to make. They will find it on page 15. Among those who cannot draw insurance after having paid for it are those in receipt of pension under the Old Age Pensions Act. That is in paragraph (f). What in high heaven is the relationship between the Old Age Pensions Act and unemployment insurance? This is an insurance fund into which the worker has paid and from which he can demand compensation if he qualifies. If my house is burned down it would not excuse the insurance company from paying if they said, "You are not hard up." That is the position taken here, "You are getting $20 a month, therefore you will not be paid insurance under this bill although you may have been paying in for five or ten years."
Section 33 on page 11 even provides for a man having what one may call a side-line occupation being able to obtain benefit, if his main job is gone but he has some little side job such as usher in a theatre, and provided it does not exceed a dollar a day. But-a man is going to be condemned because he is in receipt of an old age pension.
There is a worse feature than that. When you and I hear of people having old age pensions we naturally think of $20 a month. Not a bit of it; there are many reasons, I could speak for hours on it, why people do not get $20 a month, although they are entitled to it. The regulations are framed and the interpretation is so twisted by certain boards that people do not get what they are entitled to.

Take one example; if I own a piece of land away out in the bush, it is worth $100 if I could get it, which I cannot; it is assessed at $1,000; that is quite common in British Columbia, and the board of pension commissioners say that I am drawing $50 a year income, five per cent on that amount. In addition, I have to pay $30 a year taxes, so I am out $80 a year, and that is taken out of the $20, or something like $7 a month.
There is another system of deduction. The board say that they must take into consideration anything which the wretched applicant "might be expected to receive," not in the opinion of the applicant but in the opinion of the board. So they say to the applicant, We "expect" you ought to be receiving so much from your married daughter's cousin, or something of that kind, and we will take that off the $20. I know of cases in which the Parents Maintenance Act is worked in. In one case they wrote me stating that they would not give an old man a pension because he should be living on his son, and his son was living on $5 a month relief at the time. In another instance I think of, in a province which I will not name, I wrote saying, "Why are you giving this man only $15 instead of $20?" The answer I got in black and white from the government official was, "We consider $15 is enough for the likes of him." That, is, they did not say "for the likes of him," but that was clearly indicated. I said, "Yes, but the law calls for $20"; and I had quite an argument. I had to appeal to Ottawa and get a ruling before they would agree that the law did call for $20. They might just as well have said they thought $10 or $5 enough.
I know of cases where the amount of pension that people get is less than $3-$2.87 in one case-after these deductions are taken off. And because a man is getting $2.87 a month he will not be eligible under this bill. The provision was, I know, in the Bennett act, but I cannot think that it is just. So I suggest that that clause be struck out, or at the very least that it apply only when a man is getting the full old age pension, although even that would not satisfy justice. If a man is entitled to benefit by having paid for a number of years he ought to get it, and his poverty or riches has nothing to do with the matter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: May I
suggest that if he is entitled to insurance benefit he would not be entitled to old age pension.


Alan Webster Neill: But the board would not let a little thing like that worry them. Nevertheless the bill as it stands provides that if the man is getting old age pension he will not get

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Neill
the insurance benefit. I claim that he should still be eligible for benefit for a certain time, because this old age pension is not a reward for work; it is a private income, just as if the man had a little money left him.
Then I want to take exception to the classes of people, as set out on page 33, who cannot be insured. The first group includes people employed in agriculture, horticulture and forestry. In the old country those employed in agriculture are insured; why should they not be insured here? I object particularly with regard to this exception of those employed in forestry. Even men employed in fishing are not eligible. Of course much will depend upon how the word "fishing" is interpreted. An actual fisherman would not be eligible because he is not an employee. But some of the canneries work ten months a year; certainly their employees should be included, but I believe the word "fishing" would be held to cover them, and I think that provision should be modified.
My principal objection is in regard to the exclusion of those employed in lumbering and logging, exclusive of such persons employed in such sawmills as work more or less all the time. The word "lumbering" of course covers sawmills. Conditions in regard to logging and lumbering are totally different in British Columbia from those in eastern Canada. Once more we in the west have our old, time-honoured grievance; the east rules and decides everything and we get nothing. If it were not for the war I think I would lend my support to a scheme to separate from the union. I know how inopportune that would be, but we are not getting a square deal. Look at the fisheries business. In Nova Scotia they get millions of dollars to help that industry and we cannot get anything. It is the same in this instance. Why cannot the government take notice of the fact that conditions in the west are entirely different? Is it prejudice, or is it just that they are indifferent? On the coast and on Vancouver island lumbering and stevedoring go on all year. Only three things stop logging or sawmill operations. One of these is a fire condition in the summer time, but that is not seasonal; it does not occur at a certain date each year. Sometimes operations are shut down for two or three weeks in the middle of the summer, and sometimes there is no interruption at all. Another cause may be snow on the ground, but I have seen winters without snow, when operations were not halted at all. The third reason might be lack of orders, but of course that would qualify employees for this insurance. The exclusion of British Columbia logging and lumbering and stevedoring is grossly unfair discrimination.
I should like the minister to explain why people engaged in transportation by water should be left out. This includes men who work the year round on boats plying up and down the coast from Vancouver to Prince Rupert, and so on. They work all year; they are not held u,p because of ice in the St. Lawrence, or anything like that. Do the people here not know that? Do they not know we have different conditions out on the Pacific coast? If they do, why do they not take cognizance of that fact?
Then I see that those employed in domestic service are left out, except where they are employed in a club or something of that kind. A girl working in a boarding-house will be eligible, but a girl working in a private house next door will not be. When the girl leaves the boarding-house and goes to work in a private house, or vice versa, all sorts of problems will arise. Why should not the girl working for $5 or S10 a month be treated as the rest are treated? I do not know; I do not see any reason for it.
I have not time to go further into the bill, but I hope the committee will not bind themselves to follow the Bennett act too closely. I know that argument will be put forward, as I have heard it again and again already: "Oh, well, it was in the Bennett act." Perhaps if Mr. Bennett were to have an opportunity of redrafting his act now, he would make changes in it, because, as time goes on, all these matters require revision. No doubt this bill will be revised next year.
Since this will be my only opportunity to do so, I would urge the committee to bring under this measure loggers, lumbermen and stevedores in British Columbia, or at least those on the Pacific coast, Vancouver island and the lower mainland. I would urge them also to make the change I suggested with regard to old age pensions. So far as I can see, the amounts to be paid and received are not only reasonable but are an improvement over the old act, and I have no doubt the minister is entitled to a great deal of praise for the work he has done. My remarks are not in criticism of him; I have just taken this bill as it is, and I hope some attention will be given the matters I have mentioned when the bill is being considered in the special committee.


Mr. J. A. MARSHALL (Gamrose):: Mr. Speaker, thus far in the discussion this afternoon we have heard from hon. members representing industrial areas which will benefit materially from the operation of this measure. Coming as I do from an agricultural constituency, I should like to support the request of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. 1782	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Marshall
Neill) that logging be included in the list of industries coming under the bill. I would ask also that agriculture be included. If I may be permitted to use the expression, it does seem to me that we take a crack at agriculture on every possible occasion. So I would ask that when this bill is taken up in committee the inclusion of agriculture be seriously considered.
The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) told the house that in his judgment the scheme was not actuarially sound. If that is so we should see to it that the bill is so altered as to make it actuarially sound.


Norman Alexander McLarty: In fairness to the hon, member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), I do not think he suggested that there was anything unsound about the actuarial principles of the bill.


James Alexander Marshall: I think the hon. member made the statement that we must be prepared to face deficits in connection with the operation of this measure, and in my judgment no scheme is actuarially sound if it involves the possibility of deficits.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sorry I happened to be out of the chamber for the moment. What I said was that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) had suggested that we certainty should shun any possibility of deficits and should endeavour to make the bill actuarially sound. With that suggestion I did not quarrel; but I did say that if by the term "actuarially sound" he meant in the sense that life insurance is sound, then he was expecting something which a measure of this kind, establishing unemployment insurance, could not possibly give. That was what I meant.


James Alexander Marshall: I accept the statement of the hon. gentleman. He also spoke about experimenting in connection with this bill. Britain has experimented with unemployment insurance for twenty-nine years, and later in the course of my remarks I shall endeavour to show just what has happened there. The United States has had a social security plan in operation for a number of years. Surety we should be able to benefit by the experience of Britain and the United States and see to it, as far as humanly possible, that this measure is actuarially sound.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni referred to the attitude of this group with respect to unemployment insurance. I should like to place on record two statements made by the then hon. member for Edmonton East, Mr. Kennedy, in the course of the debate on the resolution presented by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni last year. These two 
statements clearly and concisely show what our stand is. At page 1139 of Hansard for February 20, 1939, the then hon. member for Edmonton East is reported as follows:
I agree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that the government should not wait but should undertake as quickly as possible the introduction of some scheme in an effort to help the unemployed in various parts of Canada.
And then, towards the conclusion of his remarks he said this:
In conclusion, if a plan is to be introduced which will really assist our Canadian people, it must be one which will assist all classes. It must be a plan which will better the living conditions of the people of Canada, rather than make them poorer.
In other words, we are in favour of unemployment insurance. But in connection with such a scheme there are two points that I wish to emphasize. First of all, the insurance should be wide enough to cover all classes of workers, irrespective of the type of work in which they are engaged. Second, it should be non-contributory. In other words, we believe that the premium or the coverage should be found by the state. Naturally that brings up the old question: Where is all the money to come from?
One point which must be brought home to the people of Canada is that this is no cure for unemployment. I do not believe that point can be emphasized too strongly. No matter whether we have unemployment insurance or not, we shall continue to have unemployment in Canada. To-day we are living in an age of plenty, instead of an age of scarcity. Technological improvements are continually throwing men out of work. Drudgery is being taken from the backs of humans, and placed upon machines. In consequence, unemployment is a sign of progress. To-day we are at war. As we all know-and I hope this is true-industry is working to full capacity. In recent speeches made by the minister in charge of industrial war activity we are led to believe that industry is working at full capacity. Despite all that, unemployment continues to exist, thereby giving the lie to an opinion frequently expressed to the effect that a good war would cure unemployment.
I have heard the Minister of Labour (Mr. McLarty) speak with respect to this bill. He has not told us anything new. In the measure before the house he has not given us any relief for western agriculture. As was stated this afternoon by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), it is a notable fact that bankers are included in the scheme, whereas agricultural helpers are excluded. He wondered why that

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Marshall
was so. Well, in the course of the next few years he will find out why Mr. Banker is included in the scheme.
Let us analyse the measure. First of all, three parties are involved: the employees, the employers and the government. The employee contributes anywhere from nine cents to thirty-six cents a week. Where does that money come from? The employee is also a consumer, and that money will come out of his pay envelope, thereby reducing his purchasing power to the extent of the payment he may make. Articles which ordinarily would be purchased by an individual paying into the scheme must go unpurchased, and remain on the shelves of the store-keeper.
The employer. is the second party to the agreement, and he contributes anywhere from eighteen cents to twenty-seven cents a week. Where does that money come from? He includes that in the price of his goods, and to that extent the goods increase in price. These prices must be shouldered by the consumer. Again the consumer pays.
The government is the third party to the plan. Where does the government get its money? According to orthodox methods at present in vogue, there are only two ways of getting money, the first by borrowing and the second by taxation. No matter whether the government borrows or not, eventually it must tax back that money, and the money will come out of the pocket of the consumer. It is apparent, therefore, that the consumer pays the full shot for the whole thing. That is a point we should remember.
I have on my desk an article which appeared in the Financial Post, under the heading "Pay envelope not all it seems", and which reads:
An example of how the unemployment insurance contribution will affect a man earning slightly under the maximum of $2,000 yearly is shown below. The individual in question is married with no children. He contributes to a mutual benefit society weekly, is voluntarily buying war savings certificates at the rate of $1 a week, and contributes to group insurance carried by his employers.
The following table showing the weekly pay of a worker, and the weekly deductions from his pay will, I believe, be of interest to hon. members.
Weekly pay	 $38 00
Deductions:
Mutual Benefit Society	 $0	19
2 per cent national defence tax 0	76
Income tax provision	
0	64War savings deduction	
1	00Group insurance	
0	20Unemployment insurance	0	36Total deductions	
3 15Net pay	
$34 85
The payments indicated in this table are diverted from channels of trade, and as a result goods lie unpurchased on the shelves of store-keepers across the country.
There are two questions to which I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Labour, and I would ask that when the bill reaches committee stage he give answers. First, will the freezing up of vast sums of purchasing power bring about a condition whereby large quantities of goods will remain unsold on the shelves of our store-keepers? How does the minister propose to remedy that situation which, I suggest, must inevitably happen? My second question is: How does the government propose to finance its contribution, one which is bound to become very large as the situation becomes more acute?


Richard Burpee Hanson: By taxation.


James Alexander Marshall: I would beg the indulgence of the house for a moment to read briefly from a book written by a gentleman held in high esteem by all Canadians. This gentleman is no sentimental visionary; rather he is one who has served in the school of practical experience. It was a surprise to me to find that he had definite views on money and the place which it held in the general economy of a country. No one can accuse him of being timid, because I think all hon. members will remember the speech which he made in Toronto, for the making of which he was asked to come back to the land of his forefathers. I refer to the Hon. James H. R. Cromwell, who was United States ambassador to Canada a short time ago. We came to like this young man and we regret that he has had to leave our country. He wrote a book entitled "In Defence of Capitalism", which I recommend to hon. members. On page 181, chapter 3, part III, of the book, he deals with unemployment insurance and claims that such a measure should be repealed. I should like to quote one or two short extracts in order to give hon. members the views of one who should know what he is talking about because he has spent a great part of his life in industry. I quote from page 181:
In the case of unemployment insurance, on the other hand, adherence to the laws of scientific money would prevent the recurrence of general unemployment, and so would render provisions for such a condition unnecessary. The only basis, therefore, upon which unemployment insurance could be deemed justifiable and logical would be the defeatist contention that depressions are unavoidable.
On the next page he refers to the amount of money which it would be necesary for the government to advance in order to carry
1784	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Marshall
through this scheme of social security, as it is known in the United States. He states it would cost at least a billion and a half dollars a year, and then goes on to say:
For this and for other reasons, hereinafter set forth, we reject the idea of unemployment insurance just as emphatically as we support the idea of old age security, and we recommend the repeal of those provisions of the social security act that relate to unemployment compensation. We contend that depressions can be prevented and that congress should adopt measures to render such catastrophes impossible, thereby assuring security in old age-and should cease to waste time contriving temporary palliatives, such as unemployment insurance, designed solely to cushion the shock of the next disaster.
At the bottom of page 182 he has this to say:
We have endeavoured to show, however, that business recessions and general unemployment are caused by a lack of purchasing power which, in turn, springs from neglect to scientifically increase the flow of dollars and to synchronizi the flow of dollars with the flow of goods.
I should like to close with this quotation from page 184:
The px'esent unemployment insurance law is analogous to selling the blood of an invalid in order to buy him a crutch; in other words, full employment is retarded in order to furnish a mere palliative for the next disaster. Taxes are raised to pay useless administrative costs, prices are raised to bear the burden of payroll assessments, enterprises are further entangled in red tape, and our economy is exposed to possible deflation through the purchase of federal bonds, as was explained in section 86. Are all these disadvantageous complications to be endured for the sake of supplying a mere bromide or, at best, for providing a method for making dollar additions, not only questionable in affect, but cumbersome and wholly unnecessary?
Surely forward-thinking citizens, once cognizant of the facts, would no longer tolerate such obvious palliatives as unemployment insurance but would demand fundamental and available preventives, that would put an end to periodic break-downs of our economic machine.
I commend to hon. members a close study of those words written by one who should and does know what he is talking about.
In the short time remaining at my disposal I should like to refer briefly to what has taken place in Great Britain. An unemployment insurance scheme was inaugurated in that country in 1911, and in 1936 a survey was made by an economist who, I understand, is of some note. I refer to Mr. S. Burton-Heath. One fact which he brought out and which I should like to stress is that unemployment insurance of a conventional type functions when it is least needed and breaks down completely when it is needed must. Up to the end of October, 1932, the British gov-

ernment had put into the scheme, in addition to regular contributions by employers, employees and the government itself, the staggering total of $910,000,000. The system was r vised in 1932 by a committee set up for that purpose, and at that time the government was going behind at the rate of $195,000,000 a year. This was cut at the time the survey was made in 1936 to $130,000,000.
From 1911 to 1914 the scheme functioned fairly well; from 1914 to 1918, the war years, it prospered, but it ran into some snags after that. In the middle of 1919 there was a surplus of $88,000,000. In the meantime the scheme was extended to take in other branches of industry which had not previously been included. Then came the aftermath of the war when the forces were demobilized and the country found itself faced with a serious situation. At that time there was appropriated $304,000,000 to meet the emergency. By 1920 the fund had been exhausted com-: pletely and the government had pumped in an extra $107,000,000. The scheme was extended further to take in domestic servants and agricultural labourers, and the number under the scheme rose from 4,200,000 to 11,500.000. Contributions were increased, and one government fell because it adopted a policy of increased assessments. Since 1920 the scheme has been adjusted; it has been amended, and it has been revised. To-day it is not called the Unemployment Insurance Act; it is called the Unemployment Act. Every year since 1922, with the exception. of two years, the scheme has shown a deficit ranging from six million to two hundred million dollars. These are some facts which I hope the committee will weigh carefully when the bill comes before it.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say that this scheme has been devised on orthodox actuarial lines by a committee of individuals who actually believe that it will work. To carry through this scheme will require money and plenty of it, and I am confident that we shall have to go to the treasury time and time again in order to make up the difference. Under our orthodox system of finance the money can come from only one source, and that is taxation. That brings us back to the old question of finance. Until we tackle this financial problem there can be no feasible plan of unemployment insurance, and when it is tackled there will be no need for one.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the house will permit me I would move that Mr. Speaker do not leave the chair at six o'clock. My purpose in making the motion is that I understand there are only one or two more members who desire to speak on the second

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Roebuck
reading of the bill, and it would appear that we might be able to conclude the debate shortly if we continue to sit after six. If this motion is agreed to, when the time comes for the Speaker to leave the chair I would move that the house then adjourn until Monday, thereby not having a sitting this evening.
Motion (Mr. Mackenzie King) agreed to.


Mr. A. W. ROEBUCK (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking part in this debate at this stage because, as a member of the special committee, I shall have plenty of opportunity at a later date, but I come from an industrial constituency in which a large number of people are interested in this bill and I feel that I cannot pass in silence certain remarks which were made by the member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) with regard to the personnel of the committee that has been set up.
The hon. gentleman questioned to some extent the bona fides of the committee, the attitude of the committee, on the ground first that there were too many lawyers on it. Perhaps that might well be charged. I remember that once the Hon. Arthur Sifton, at that time premier of Alberta, was charged with being a lawyer in an agricultural province, and he acknowledged the fact but said that he was not much of a lawyer. I can reply perhaps in the same way, at least for the purposes of extenuation.
But more important was his statement, which I feel I cannot let pass, that only one member of the committee had been an advocate of unemployment insurance for any considerable length of time. Perhaps I can judge others by myself. I do not wish to defend all the members of the committee; it is not necessary, but I do not wish to pass that suggestion so far as I am concerned. I have advocated this measure on innumerable occasions over a great number of years, and on two occasions at least that advocacy is of record. I can go back some twenty-one years to the occasion on which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) moved on the floor of the great convention of that year his labour measure, including this particular subject, and he did me the honour of asking me on that occasion, twenty-one years ago, to second the motion, w'hich I did. Not only so, but in more recent years, representing the province of Ontario, I defended the Unemployment Insurance Act, before the privy council. Both those occasions are of record and there are many others. I think the country should be assured that the members of the committee which will study this measure will give it sympathetic as well as careful and bona fide consideration.


Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, possibly what I have to say on this measure would have been better said on the resolution or in the committee, but on account of my association with at least one organization that has been bitterly and unjustly attacked when the resolution on unemployment insurance was first introduced, I feel that I should say something now.
First, let me say that I am in favour of unemployment insurance. I would not go so far as to say that I am 100 per cent in favour of this bill because I have not had an opportunity of studying it thoroughly, and from what I have seen in it there are some provisions that I would change. I shall not dwell upon that more than to note that in my opinion it is not sufficiently inclusive. The bill leaves out, as has been mentioned on other occasions, loggers, and that affects us in British Columbia. It leaves out another class, stevedores, who, I think, should be included. The bill contains no benefits at all for farmers, and also leaves out domestic workers.
I am not here to defend the Canadian Manufacturers' Association or its members. The manufacturers are pretty well organized and I think they can look after themselves. The labour people are well organized and, I think, are not badly handled, and they can look after themselves. But if there are any people in Canada whose backs we are riding on to-day it is the farmers, and they are not looked after in this bill. That is all I shall say in that regard.
I just w'ant to call attention to what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) said about the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. I intended to read more, but since the time is short, I shall read only three lines. He said:
If there are any reactionary bodies on God's green earth it is these two organizations.
He was referring to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. His statement, I think, was not called for. First, it is not the truth. The minister in introducing the bill referred to the fact that already 2,800 manufacturers in Canada had not waited the twenty years that this government has been talking about unemployment insurance and social legislation, but had already established such benefits for their workers as insurance, superannuation, health insurance, under schemes of their own.
In my own industry at the present time we have seven deductions; sickness insurance, workmen's compensation, and so on, and we are prepared to take in unemployment insurance. I spoke on behalf of unemployment

1786	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Mayhew
insurance at the last annual convention of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and I can say this to hon. members: I have listened this afternoon to some good speeches in favour of unemployment insurance, but I have heard just as good speeches in favour of it on the floor of the convention. Therefore, while there are those here who may put up an argument from their point of view, there is also an argument on the part of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. Let me say this: If you want to divide us into groups of labour and capital-and there is no reason why you should do that-you certainly cannot say that all manufacturers are sinners and all employees are saints. You must simply say that we are two groups, each having its share of sinners and saints-and the saints are very scarce in either group.
May I give an answer to my hon. friend (Mr. Martin) to my left? I take exception to his statement that organizations should not have an opportunity to present their ideas upon this subject before the committee that is to be appointed. Surely an organization which is going to contribute $28,000,000, as indicated by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) this afternoon, should have a right to be heard on the question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman must remember what I said. I said that before groups are allowed to go before the committee, it should be recognized that only those shall be heard who are agreed to the principle of this bill. They should not come to argue the principle of the bill. To say that I opposed wholesale representation is not correct.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: I submit that any representative group has a right to make reasonable representations to that committee. Personally I will certainly object if there is any tendency on the part of the -committee to rush the bill through without giving those interested a chance to be heard, because people from one end of Canada to the other have a right to come before the committee. I am one of those who are prepared to stay here until the snow flies, as the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) says, in order to get the bill through. I do not think that discussion should be cut off. I shall be disappointed if the Canadian Manufacturers' Association do not bring to the committee some constructive suggestions. I shall be disappointed if they come with the intention of tearing down the plan we have built up, but surely men who contribute something should have a right to be heard. We have a right to listen to them and an equal right to listen to those who represent labour on the committee. There
rMr. Roebuck.l
were some other observations which I should like to have made, but I shall probably have another opportunity to present them to the house.
Hon. NORMAN A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour): It is now after six o'clock, and I will not encroach upon the patience of the house by making any lengthy remarks at this time. With one exception, every one is agreed this afternoon, that it is important that progress should be made with this bill and that it should get to the committee at the earliest possible moment. For that reason, if second reading could be given the bill this afternoon and the committee appointed, it could proceed with its work the first thing on Monday morning.
It has been a congenial task for me as minister, sponsoring a bill such as this, -to have received such whole-hearted approval of the measure, in principle, as has been given this bill. Criticisms there have been, more in the way of suggestions, and some members have been kind enough-the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill)- to suggest that where changes have been made in the former act they have been helpful. It is only reasonable that this should be so. We have had, in the preparation of this bill, the advantage of the large volume of work which was done before the 1935 act was passed. A great deal of attention was given -the matter at that time, and we have bad the benefit also of experience in the United States.
We have endeavoured to improve the bill, and I believe that, in a measure, we have succeeded. For example, we have adopted the ratio rather than the flat-rate rule. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) referred to that in his remarks this afternoon. The reason for that change is this. This is a broad country and the cost of living and wages vary in different sections. The result of the application of the flat-rate rule would be, in view of the fact that unemployment benefit can never rise as high as wages, that the yardstick used to measure the benefits would necessarily have to be the lowest wages paid in the lowest wage-paid area in the country. The method we have adopted in this bill gives a much greater and wider measure of elasticity in a country such as this, and I suggest that this is a definite improvement. We have cut down the period required to qualify for benefit. We have amended it so that not only may it be on a weekly basis, but it may be on a daily basis as well, so

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. McLarty
that we get away from the doctrine of continuous employment, which was complicated in the last measure.
A suggestion was made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson). He said, "You have done this, but we have to be convinced that you are actuarially sound in doing it." That is a very fair suggestion. I know that he will not ask me to produce this afternoon all the actuarial figures, but I do say, with respect to the particular question as to the weight of unemployment, that the same figure has been adopted by the same actuary who computed the 1935 figures. The actuarial portion of this bill is the most important. A certificate of health has been given it by competent actuaries, and that will be submitted to the committee at its very first sitting.
As regards the administration of the bill, the leader of the opposition pointed out that, according to section 10, the officers and clerks will be appointed according to law. I would remind him that it follows from that that they are appointed through the civil service commission. It does not have to be so expressly stated, nor was it so expressly stated in the 1935 act.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The 1935 act does say expressly that the employees must be appointed by the civil service commission.


Norman Alexander McLarty: Then my annotation is incorrect.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am sure of it.


Norman Alexander McLarty: There need be no question about it, because with such a number of employees engaged under such a measure as this, it would be only reasonable to presume that the civil service commission would make the necessary appointments.
There have been suggestions, too, that the coverage might be extended in some cases, such as logging, and that it should be withdrawn in others, for example, banking. It should be remembered that the bill applies only to those drawing less than $2,000 a year, and in the particular instance that the leader of the opposition gave, I think he answered his own question splendidly when he said that, after all, you cannot take in all the trades in which employment is precarious and leave out those that are steady; otherwise you get away from the very principle of insurance.
The hon. member for Comox-Albemi suggested that he understood the suggestion to be made that when the bill came to the committee, no amendment could be made. I do not know where that idea came from, because my conception of the purpose of the 95826-113j
committee is to examine the bill and make such amendments as may be designed to improve it. Certainly there is no thought, as far as I have anything to do with the matter, of ignoring representations that might properly be made by various organizations. I feel that in 1935 the committee went into the question very carefully and that if we could limit to some extent the representations regarding the bill to the changes that have been made since the 1935 act, it would be helpful in the matter of time, but I do not think we could place any limitation on representations which properly refer to the bill and which may come before the committee.
I had intended to speak a little more at length, but since the house has been kind enough to stay beyond the usual hour of adjournment, I think I should be trespassing on its kindness too much if I kept it any longer, and, as I say, there will be another opportunity when the report comes from the committee.
Motion (Mr. McLarty) agreed to and bill read the second time.



REFERENCE OF BILL TO SPECIAL COMMITTEE FOR CONSIDERATION AND REPORT

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a special committee of the house consisting of Messrs. Cardin, Clievrier, Graydon, Hansell, Homuth, Jackman, Jean, Maclnnis, Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre), McLarty. MeNiven (Regina City). Picard, Pottier, Reid and Roebuck be appointed to consider Bill No. 98, an act to establish an unemployment insurance commission, to provide for insurance against unemployment, to establish an employment service, and for other purposes related thereto, with power to call for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses, and to report from time to time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister suggested that this committee would get to work on Monday morning. I suggest that there will be very few members of the committee in Ottawa on Monday morning. It seems to me that Tuesday is the earliest possible time.


Norman Alexander McLarty: It might be possible to have an organization meeting on Monday morning, and then perhaps the committee could meet at four o'clock on Monday afternoon. I think it is important that we should start on Monday.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King tha house adjourned at 6.15 p.m.
1788	COMMONS
European War-Mr. Mackenzie King
Monday, July 22, 1940