1946-07-04

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HUGHES CLEAVER (Halton) moved that the fourth report of the standing committee on banking and commerce, presented on Wednesday, July 3, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. HOMUTH:: 1.	What was the rate of war risk bonus paid to seamen on Park Steamships operations?
2.	Who authorized this payment?
3.	From what fund was it paid?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 
DEPARTMENT OP NATIONAL HEALTH-PHYSICAL FITNESS BRANCH
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Who are the chief officers of the physical fitness branch of the Department of Public Health (a) stationed at Ottawa; (b) elsewhere?
2.	In what theatre of war did the deputy head of the department and his chief officer in each of the provinces serve?
3.	What is the salary of the deputy and what were his travelling expenses for the last year of record?
4.	Have any of the provinces so far refused to adopt this programme? If so, what provinces?


Mr. CLAXTOX:: 1.	(a) Ian Eisenhardt, national director of physical fitness; S. B. Carey, technical assistant to the national director of physical fitness; (b) Nil.
2.	Ian Eisenhardt-
1940-	41-Enlisted in the Canadian army; served on Pacific coast; commissioned as second lieutenant, First Battalion Irish Fusiliers, Vancouver Regiment; promoted to first lieutenant.
1942-	43-Promoted to acting captain; seconded to National Selective Service and placed in charge of developing wartime sports and recreation in Canada for war workers and their families.
1943-	44-Canadian army sports officer, National Defence Headquarters, Ottawa with rank of acting major.
June 1944-Granted indefinite leave of absence to assume the post of national director of physical fitness, Department of Pensions and National Health.
5.	B. Carey-
1939-Enlisted in Canadian army chaplain service.
1941-	Reposted to ship conducting staff- Atlantic ocean and England.
1942-	Reposted as auxiliary services officer, Labrador.
1943-	Reposted National Defence headquarters, Ottawa (administrative duties).
Nov. 1943-Assistant to Canadian army sports officer, National Defence headquarters, Ottawa.

Discharged, as from chaplain service, with rank of captain.
3.	Salary S5.000. Travelling expenses for 1945-46-S3.749.23.
4.	Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick have not yet signed agreements with the dominion government.
fMr. Mcllraith.]



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. FLEMING:: 1.	(a) What was the quantity and value of
Indian corn imported into Canada in each of the years 1941-5, inclusive, and in 1946 to the latest date for which figures are available; (b) how were these annual totals broken down among the countries from which Indian corn was imported?	_	.	.
2.	(a) What rates of subsidy were paid in Canada on such Indian corn during the said period; (b) what was the total amount paid by way of such subsidies during each of the years aforesaid?
3.	What is the basic price of such imported corn effective on and after May 20, 1946?
4.	What quantities of corn from Argentina
have been purchased for delivery in Canada in 1946, and what subsidy payments have been made or arranged thereon by commodity prices stabilization corporation and/or wartime prices and trade board, and what is the rate of such subsidies?	.	.
5.	Has the dominion bureau of statistics discontinued publication of its monthly report "The Grain Situation in Argentina?" If so, when and for what reason?


FAMILY ALLOWANCES-REGINA DEPARTMENTAL BRANCH
Mr. PROBE:: 1.	What are the names, ages, nature of duties, rates of remuneration and qualifications of each employee, in Regina, of the Family Allowance Branch, Department of National Health and Welfare during June, 1946?
2.	Which of the above employees are (a) permanent; (b) temporary; (c) casual employees; (d) war veterans?
3.	On what dates did each of the permanent
and temporary employees above listed qualify for appointment?	_
4.	Is the Department of National Health contributing to old age pension or paying childrens' allowance to any of these employees? If so, what are their names?



CONSOLIDATION AND AMENDMENT OF ACT- ADDITIONAL PUISNE JUDGE FOR EXCHEQUER COURT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Exchequer Court Act to increase the number of puisne judges of the court from two to three, and also to present a measure to consolidate and amend the Judges Act to include provision for the appointment, tenure of office and duties of the judges of the dominion and provincial courts, fixing judges salaries and providing for the payment of salaries, and for the payment of increased salaries, travelling allowances and annuities to judges and annuities to their wives and widows in certain cases and subject to conditions therein set out.

Unemployment Insurance
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will he inform the house what steps are being taken and what progress is being made by the united nations economic and social council by way of preparation for the prospective world trade conference; and, when he is answering the question, will he say whether there is any possibility that the conference will be convened this year?


Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have had no notice of the question, and I am not sure that it is properly directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce; but I shall confer with the Prime Minister and see what answer can be given.


Gordon Graydon: May I point out that I delivered notice of the question to the minister's office at two o'clock to-day or thereabouts. Perhaps there has been some mishap.


James Angus MacKinnon: The cabinet was in session up to half past two to-day, and that may be the reason for my not receiving it.


Gordon Graydon: Perhaps the minister or the appropriate member of the cabinet will take the question as notice and have it answered to-morrow.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
"journal" OF JULY 3
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. LENNARD (Wentworth):: On a question of privilege, I wish to refer to an article that appeared in last night's Ottawa Journal, to the effect that Mrs. Fred Rose had conferred with a number of members of parliament in an effort to end the isolation of her husband in a Montreal gaol. In this article she is quoted as follows:
I believe I can say that all the members of parliament with whom I have talked have expressed themselves as against this policy of isolation . . .
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that this is a reflection on many of the members of this house, and
I want it distinctly understood that I was not one of those interviewed.
In this connection I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he can say when the seat for the riding of Montreal-Cartier will be declared vacant.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Until the pending appeal has been heard and a report of a conviction made to His Honour the Speaker from the court, the seat will not be declared vacant. Further consideration will be given the matter after the final decision of the court.



BUILDING MATERIALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: May I ask the Minister of Finance whether he has taken occasion to look into the cause of the cement shortage in southwestern Alberta? The other day I asked whether he would be good enough to do so. That there should be a shortage of cement in Canada is something which it is beyond my power to understand.


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: I did look into the matter, and I intended to write to my hon. friend. When he asked the question I said I thought it was hardly a proper question to be answered before the orders of the day. However, the information that I have received is that there is no greater shortage in that part of the country than there is elsewhere, and the shortage is due to the heavy demand.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of bill No. 243, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940.
Mr. C. C. I. MERRITT (Vancouver-Burrard):: Speaking to the amendment which is now proposed to the Unemployment Insurance Act, I should say at the outset that for the most part, so far as one has been able to understand this very long bill in the short time at our disposal, the changes are very welcome indeed, and a revision of the act in the light of the past five years' experience is timely.
I was glad to note, when I read the report of the debate on this bill in the other place that the advisory committee is now looking
Unemployment Insurance

into the possibility of making some increases in the benefits payable under the act to unemployed persons with dependents. This is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. But since I understand that the scope of the investigation of the advisory committee went only so far as to permit consideration of what increases could be actuarially made without any increase in the rates payable under the act, I should not imagine that any such increases could be substantial. The disappointing thing about the amendment is that neither in the bill itself nor in the statement made by the minister is any hope held out that consideration will be given to making some fairly satisfactory increase in the benefits, if necessary by the increase of the rates payable; because of course this fund must be on an actuarial basis.
Now that we have come through the first year or so of peace, and for the first time use is being made of the benefits under the act b,v a substantial number of persons, there is general realization in the country that these benefits do necessitate a steep drop in income from the moment a person becomes unemployed. Take for instance the two top classes. A person earning from $80 to $100 a month, upon becoming unemployed, is reduced to between $48 and $54, and if he is in class 7 earning over $100 a month he gets not less than $57.60 and not more than $62.50 a month provided he has a dependent. Hon. members will realize that if one takes say $25 a month out of that amount for rent, which I believe is a reasonably conservative estimate for that item, there is not much elbow-room left for the unemployed person. It is perfectly obvious that if this scheme is to be successful it must be maintained on an actuarial basis; therefore, the benefit cannot be increased unless the government itself is prepared to make a greater contribution without an increase in rates.
I hope that consideration is also being given by the advisory committee and by the minister to the possibility of increasing the benefits, particularly to married persons, substantially above the sum of $14.40 a week, which is the maximum possible, even though it might mean some increase in the rates payable. I hope that some scheme can be worked out under which these increased rates would not bear too heavily on a person while in employment. Naturally all these matters have to be taken into consideration by the experts on the commission, but it struck me that if it were possible to pay a higher benefit for the first month, let us say, after a person becomes unemployed, the shock of the drop from his [Mr. Merritt. 1
full earning rate to the unemployment insurance rate might be lessened. In my opinion, in that first month will fall the extra expenses, the back bills that have not been paid, and during that interval time would be given the unemployed person to turn around so that if he is going to remain unemployed more than a month he at least would have a better opportunity to adjust himself to the new conditions.
From a Gallup poll which was taken last November it w'ould appear that there is a general feeling among the lower-paid wmrkers across Canada that the maximum rate of benefit for a person with dependents is too little. It must be obvious that with costs rising as they are to-day, $14.40 is not enough to keep a family in a bare state of maintenance. But any scheme for increasing rates would require an increase in the rates payable. The other way to bring increased benefits on an actuarial basis is for those who have the custody of the fund to reserve it strictly for those for whom no suitable employment exists. If we can be sure that benefits are paid out only where no proper work is available for the applicant, then over the course of some years-and perhaps not so many-I am sure that the factor of safety, which the actuaries must have applied, could be modified and some increases granted without raising the rates payable.	[DOT]
I agree with the minister when he said yesterday that suitable employment is a difficult thing to define and must be considered in each case. Even then I am sure it is not easy. But all the efforts of those concerned with this act must now be directed toward an increase of the benefits which are payable, so that they may reach a level which will, if possible, enable an unemployed person to pull in his horns and save himself from going deeply in debt. At the present time I am sure that a person who was unemployed for a long period would be bound to go into debt or to draw heavily on the amount that he may have saved.
As to prevention of depletion of the fund, I should like to call the attention of the house to some of the figures given, in the debate in the other place, with respect to payments into the fund since its inception and the benefits which have been paid up to the present time. The figures show that up to 1945 substantial payments were made into the fund and the payment of benefits was quite negligible. As a result the fund built itself up to the good position in which it finds itself now, with more than $300 million to its credit. But in 1945 there was a substantial increase in the benefits paid

Unemployment Insurance
out consequent upon the unemployment after the end of hostilities. If I recollect rightly the benefits paid out in 1945 amounted to about $14 million, or 17-5 per cent of the revenue of the fund for that year. That figure may be, and probably is, a bearable figure now, but for the first three months of 1946 one finds that over ninety per cent of the amounts paid into the fund were paid out in benefits to unemployed persons. We have a considerable amount of unemployment in the country at the present time. On May 3 I believe 210,000 people were unemployed, and that, of course, is too many. I do not think it can be denied that on occasions in the future this fund will be called upon to bear much heavier burdens than the amount paid out so far. Therefore the payment out of more than ninety per cent of the amounts paid in in the first three months is not a fact that one can quickly brush aside. I hope, and I know, that the minister is taking that into consideration and will project forward what will happen to the fund if such rates of payment are kept up.
When the minister made his statement yesterday he said the unemployment services which are set up under the bill will come under his immediate direction, whereas the operation of the fund itself remains entirely under the unemployment insurance commission. I believe it is proper that that should be so. I agree that he must have direct power in respect of the unemployment services. If the fund is to be kept on an actuarial and sound basis there is much point in its being handled by the unemployment commission, and not being subject to the dayJby-day direction of the department administering the unemployment services.
I mention the question of suitable employment because it is there that a raid can be made upon the fund. If the time should ever come when persons would be kept on unemployment insurance when suitable jobs were available, then the fund could be quickly depleted. That would do great harm to those who are paying into it, and to those with bona fide cases of actual need, who are the persons for whom the fund was set up.
Although the minister has said that there are insurance officers in every district to handle these applicants, I did not gather whether they were officers of the unemployment insurance commission or of the Department of Labour, responsible to the minister; whether they took from the minister or from the commission itself the directions given to them for their guidance in deciding what is suitable employment. I hope he will make that point clear when he speaks in this debate.
What I have been saying is given strong support by a statement in the Ottawa Journal of recent date in which the deputy minister of labour is reported to have said with respect to the need for finding agricultural workers:
"We can place ten thousand workers on the land" said Mr. Mac Nam a ra, "and the bulk of those men with farm experience are now beginning to accept the inevitable in going to work."
Later, though this is not a direct quotation, the report states:
It had been the policy of the unemployment insurance commission "for some weeks" to cut off their benefits in cases where men refused work for which they were qualified.
That report gives rise to the question whether the unemployment insurance fund has been too liberally administered, and used in a way which ultimately would work against the people who now or in the future might have very real need for its assistance; and whether such a liberal policy could work against the possibility of an increase in the benefits payable without an increase in the rates as well. Certainly while I should be the last to wish to see the regulations or the act enforced in such a way as to harm anyone who finds himself out of work, I think the need to take care of the unemployed who have dependents must outweigh any notions of excessive liberality; and the quotations I have just read would lead one to believe that people who heretofore could have gone to work but did not wish to "accept the inevitable" have not been required so to do. Indeed in the second quotation the actual words "refused work" appear. So I hope the minister will make a further statement on this matter of suitable employment, and indicate whether or not it is within his power, or the power of the unemployment insurance commission, or both, to determine what is suitable employment at any particular time, whether these insurance officers come under the commission or under the minister or under both, and what authority issues to them their instructions.
Again, it seems to me very important to have an understanding of what is meant -by "a reasonable time" in section 31, dealing with the entitlement to continuing benefit after being on the roll for some time, there being no suitable work of the kind to which a person has been accustomed. After a reasonable time one must accept employment of some other type for which one is fitted; and I think the construction of that word might be explained with some benefit. I want to emphasize that my remarks on this point are made in the desire to see the benefits increased, particularly to those with dependents, and are
Unemployment Insurance

in no way offered in criticism of persons who may be on the unemployment insurance rolls at the present time.
There are only two other points I should like to mention. I thoroughly approve the establishment of the employment service under the arrangements the minister has described. I see this service has certain powers and duties in regard to the investigation of working conditions and opportunities for work, which will enable it better to carry out its functions. I want to offer one suggestion to the minister. The employment service, which of necessity will be closely concerned with examining employment opportunities in all parts of Canada, to my mind will have a great opportunity to assemble data and perhaps come to conclusions in regard to the improvement of working conditions in various parts of Canada. I refer particularly to the possibility of providing better housing accommodation and greater opportunities for the construction of houses in mining and logging camps which are far removed from towns and cities. It seems to me that good housing in our mining and logging camps, and indeed on farms and throughout the country, is a wonderful way of adding to good labour-management relations and to promote industrial peace instead of industrial unrest. The improvement of conditions in that respect, of course, would be a way of keeping up production, maintaining employment and relieving the burden on the employment service itself.
Suitable housing in these places, which when you come right down to it are the places where we produce our natural wealth, would kill two birds with one stone. It would enable men to be united with their families on the job and take them off the unemployment insurance rolls, because men are much more willing to travel to another place of employment if they are able to take their families with them; and moving a family out of a congested city area would free additional housing accommodation at that point, where housing accommodation is most critically short. So without going into it further I feel that this employment service could well work closely with the department responsible for housing in devising some amendment to the National Housing Act which would make funds more readily available for the construction of housing accommodation in these outlying places, thus contributing to the work of both the Department of Labour and the Department of Reconstruction.
The other matter about which I should like the minister to tell us something when he speaks is unemployment as related to the

Unemployment Insurance Act. According to the last word of the department, as at May 30 there were in Canada 210,000 people unemployed, while at the same time there were 115,000 opportunities for employment. In order that we may see the relationship of these figures to the unemployment insurance fund I hope the minister will be able to tell us how many are receiving unemployment insurance at the present time, and how many of them have been on the unemployment insurance rolls for more than three months.
That is about all I wish to say on the motion for second reading.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Did the hon. member ask for the number of those in receipt of unemployment insurance for three months?


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Yes. That period of three months, which I mentioned, was one chosen at random. Perhaps information for one, two and three months might be useful to hon. members.
Without making any pretence of having digested the bill in full, let me say in conclusion that I welcome the extension of the benefits to veterans and to those in the lumber industry. I hope the minister will not wait too long before bringing within the operation of this useful act some other classes in the community.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, the measure before the house is worthy of commendation. There is one matter to which I would draw the minister's attention, and to which I believe he will have to give consideration as the years go by. In my view the principle of contributions on the part of employers and employees is not a sound principle upon which to enter the future. I suggest the minister should gradually and progressively eliminate contributions required from both employers and employees.
Employees' contributions decrease purchasing power among the people, which is exactly where we want the purchasing power to be. Contributions by employers tend to increase prices to consumers, which is exactly what we do not want, because it has a tendency toward inflation. Contributions by the government from moneys raised by taxation, the means by which money now being used for this purpose is obtained, also decreases purchasing power by taking it away from the people throughout the country, which is exactly where the purchasing power ought to be. It also tends to increase prices, which again is a means of producing inflation.
In his customary fashion the minister will be inclined to laugh off the suggestion that the government should make contributions,

Unemployment Insurance
and should make them with debt-free money, money which is created debt free in accordance with the surplus production of the country in goods and services. As the minister grows in wisdom and understanding he will be less inclined to laugh off that suggestion. He will come to realize that it is the principle upon which the future must be based.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940, is a voluminous document, although there is in it no outstanding new principle. I should like however to make a suggestion to the minister which I hope he will see fit to accept. My suggestion is that after second reading the bill be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations. I shall attempt to give the reasons why I believe that suggestion to be a wise one.
The Unemployment Insurance Act is a relatively new statute, having come into effect on July 1. 1941, so it has been in operation only five years. It affects a large proportion of the population. I believe the minister said vesterday it applied to approximately one-fifth-


Humphrey Mitchell: I said fifty per cent of the population.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, fifty per cent of the population, and perhaps one-fifth or more of the adult population. It affects employers of labour as well as employees.
Until a year ago there was very little unemployment in the country, and relatively few claims for unemployment insurance. Consequently there had been few complaints as to the operation, or perhaps I should say the administration, of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Since a year ago, however, unemployment has increased to fairly large proportions, with the result that claims have increased in proportion. There have been many complaints about the administration of the act. I am sure the minister knows that better than any other hon. member. Some of these complaints arise because of a general misunderstanding of the purpose of the act. Others arise from faults in administration which I shall not criticize at this time but to which I shall refer.
Many of the communications I receive from people who find fault with the administration of unemployment insurance benefits indicate that because they have contributed to the fund they are therefore entitled to benefit from it under almost any circumstances which may separate them from their employment. They feel that when they are
ill they are unemployed, and that consequently it is illogical that they should be refused the benefits of unemployment insurance while they are ill, but granted them if they are unemployed and well. They believe also that if they retire from industry and have not drawn benefits from their contributions, the contributions should be returned to them. These complaints arise from a misunderstanding of the purpose of the act, a misunderstanding which can be overcome only through education of both employers and workers.
Unemployment insurance is a means of sharing the risks of unemployment. Workers in the sheltered trades share the risks with the workers in the unsheltered trades. Employers and the government, through their contributions, also share the risks. Workers and employers pay directly into the fund, while the people as a whole pay indirectly by means of the government's contributions.
I listened with interest to the points raised by the hon. member for Vaneouver-Burrard (Mr. Merritt) and I agree 'with most of what he said. I doubt very much if any unemployment insurance scheme could be satisfactory if we were to have a prolonged period of mass unemployment. An unemployment insurance scheme that is actuarially sound is not designed for that sort of thing. Unemployment insurance schemes in all countries are designed to carry the worker from one period of employment to another. The contributions made by the worker, the employer and the government are based on the estimated percentage of workers which may be unemployed over a period of time. I do not remember the exact percentage upon which our act is based, but I doubt if. present contributions would be able to finance present benefits if more than ten per cent of our working force were unemployed. If the percentage of unemployed went above that, the contributions to the fund could not provide benefits at the rate now paid.
I think perhaps the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard will agree with me when I say that as the benefits paid are based upon the wages received, what is required is an increase in the wage rates which in turn would increase the amount of the benefits received. Let me point out to the house how low the wage rates are on which benefits are based. The first class covers persons under sixteen years of age who are earning less than 90 cents a day. In this case the employee does not make a contribution; the employer pays the whole contribution of 27 cents a week. The next class includes persons earning from $5.40 a week to S7.50, and here the contribution by the employer is 21 cents and by the
Unemployment Insurance

employed person, 12 cents. The third class covers those earning from $7.50 a week to less than $9.60 a week. The next class covers those from $9.60 to $12, and so on up to those earning $38.50 a week or $2,000 a year. This maximum was later raised.
No benefits are paid for those who earn under 90 cents a day. The next class receive a benefit of $4.08 for a single person and $4.80 for a person with dependents; these benefits are based on earnings between $5.40 and $7.50 per week. It is obvious that if we are to appreciably increase the benefits they will become larger than the earnings on which they are based. I do not think that is practicable. The thing to do is to increase wages, and then if a person happens to be unemployed his benefits will be increased accordingly. I am not objecting to an increase in the benefits, but I do want to show that you cannot increase the benefits very much without giving the worker a higher remuneration in benefits when unemployed than he is receiving in wages while working. Obviously there would be no reason in the world why he should work under such circumstances.
As I said earlier, during the last year a great many complaints have been made to me in connection with the administration of the act. I realize the handicaps under which the unemployment insurance commission and the minister have been working. The minister is practically the commission at the present time, because there is only a chief commissioner. \s I said before, this is a new field of idministration, and that in itself would make be administration difficult. The commissioners vho were appointed had had no previous experience with legislation of this kind. The Minister and the commission had to contend lot only with inexperienced staff but also with inexperienced administrators. Until we get over this particular phase, while criticism might be popular I am inclined not to engage in it at the moment.
Let me again draw the attention of the minister and the house to the desirability of referring this bill to the standing committee on industrial relations. The bill affects a large number of workers, and an opportunity should be given to their representatives, to the representatives of organized labour particularly, to make representations as to the shortcomings or otherwise of the act. The employers also should have an opportunity to appear again before a committee.
I had the privilege of being a member of the special committee to which the bill was referred in 1940 when it was introduced in this house as a new measure. A large number of representations were made at that time,

and I am convinced, now that five years have passed, that we should again hear from those who are affected by the act as to what they think of it, how they think it can be improved, and so on. I urge as strongly as I possibly can that when this bill has received second reading the minister move that it be referred to that standing committee. If it is not referred to the committee it may not be possible to have second reading of the bill to-day, because of the short time we have had to examine the bill. I was fortunate in getting a copy of it last night, but until about one o'clock or half-past one this afternoon most hon. members, at least those of my group, had not seen it. We should like to have more time to study it. If, however, my suggestion finds favour with the minister, perhaps we could let the bill have second reading without extended debate.
Mr. DAVID A. CROLL (Spadina): As one who for some years was responsible for the employment offices in the province of Ontario when there was very little employment, I am not likely to be given to much criticism today, but the minister said he wanted a little, so I shall try to provide it.
The hon. member for Vancouver East said that unemployment insurance is not new. I agree with him but as we know the act, it is almost in its infancy in this country. But the idea that unemployment is an insurable risk was given official sanction in England back in 1911, and it has developed there and on the continent with the result that to-day we profit from their experience. Canada is able to benefit to some extent from the field work which has been done in other countries.
The unemployment insurance commission, in adapting to Canadian conditions the theories which have been developed, has done an admirable job. I do not expect there will be any criticism of the commission or of the act. As a matter of fact we who were away from this country for several years were glad to know that in 1940 the house took the time to place this act upon the books, and in 1943 to improve it. It indicates that hon. members of that day were thinking about us and laying well the cornerstone of the unemployment insurance structure. I think this is a great social measure, and I fully agree with what the minister said about the present administration of the act. All of us are familiar with the workings of it.
It should be made clear, however, that the first purpose of the act is to find work for those who have been thrown out of employment. whether because of labour turnover, of seasonal unemployment, or of the vagaries

Unemployment Insurance
of the business cycle. And that purpose is a proper one. The people want work, not charity. Statements one sometimes hears, that they are more interested in drawing insurance than in obtaining work, are just rot. It is only when the possibilities of obtaining work have been exhausted that benefits are payable, and then of course in each case they are based on the amount of the contribution and the length of time during which they have been paid. To this scheme 2,294,000 insured persons and 150,000 employers contributed over $62 million in the year 1945, to which the government added twenty per cent, or some $12,500,000, as its share. Out of this fund $14 million were paid in benefits over the same period: as the hon. member for Vancouver East has already told the house, it amounted to 17-5 per cent. To paint the over-all picture, from the inception of the fund to the end of February, 1946-I am quoting from the April, 1946 issue of the Labour Gazette-the total amount contributed has been $348,309,381, and the total amount paid out in benefits for the same period was $29,530,514, leaving a net balance in the fund of $318,778,866.
I think there will be general agreement that the method of contribution up to the present time has not worked too badly, except that apparently the government's contribution has not come up to what it ought to be. In Great Britain, subject to certain statutory exemptions, all male workers under the age of sixty-five and female workers under the age of sixty are covered by unemployment insurance. The contributions are shared in equal thirds by employees, employers, and the state. The scale of contributions and benefits for males is as follows-this is another provision of the scheme which appeals particularly to me, and I recommend- it to the minister: in addition to the weekly benefits there are benefits to a wife or other adult dependent of sixteen shillings weekly; as to children, each of the first two receives five shillings weekly, and others receive four shillings.
The United States works on a different scheme. Unemployment insurance is wholly within the province of the states. However, the Social Security Act authorizes federal cooperation in two ways. Federal grants are made to states to defray the costs of administering state legislation. We had a joint plan of providing for the employment offices, before this scheme came into effect in Canada. Employers are allowed credit against the federal unemployment tax for their contribution to a state unemployment fund. The federal unemployment tax is an excise tax levied on all payrolls of employers with more than eight employees; it amounts to 3 per cent of the wages paid, and covers everyone.
I point out to this house that up to the present time the fund has ben more than adequate, and that a surplus has accumulated which swells the fund very considerably. But when we come to examine the benefits paid, the inadequacy of the scheme becomes apparent. Total disbursements to date have been less than ten per cent of the fund. In this connection the hon. member for Vancouver East gave some figures. The British operate on the basis of paying the same benefit to a person, whether he is married or single, then making an additional allowance to his wife, and then a further allowance to his children. We look at it in a rather different light, and the differential between the married man and the single man at the present time is so little that in that respect the act fails. If a single person receives $4.08 in the first category, the married man receives $4.80, and in the second category the single man receives $510 and the married man $6, so the relationship remains about the same. It is true that the first four years of the commission's existence have been good years, and the amounts of benefit have only begun to show a marked increase in the last twelve months; but the fact remains that after five years ninety per cent of the fund is still untouched.
I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrand that is no reason for raiding the fund, because it belongs to the people who have contributed to it. But let us examine the case of a married man with a child whose income while he is employed is the largest possible under the act, $2,400. The average industrial earnings in Canada in 1942 were recorded at $31.44 a week and in 1939 at $24 a week. If we strike an average we get an earning of $27.72 a week; yet the largest possible unemployment benefit under the act is $14.40 a week, or 51-9 per cent of a man's earning capacity. In the United States it is 60-8 per cent, and in Australia 53-4 per cent.
In the United States, where unemployment insurance is financed by a tax on salaries, regardless of the amount of salary, and is in all cases with the exception of four paid by the employer, the benefits range from a minimum of $15 to a maximum of $28. One might go on and quote statistics relating to England and Australia, but I believe a comparison between benefits payable in different countries gives no real indication of their adequacy. There are many disparities, differences in costs, differences in standard of living of differ-
Unemployment Insurance


Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I should like to say a word on this bill before the house goes into committee. As has been pointed out, most of us never had a chance to see the bill until about one o'clock to-day, because it was not put into our boxes until that time; therefore it v'as difficult to go over the bill as carefully as some of us would have liked. The only thing we could judge the bill on was the address of the minister of yesterday. After reading what the minister said and looking over the bill, it can be said that it is going, to be a little improvement on the bill of 1940.
I wish to say to the minister that while I am not sympathizing wdth him

he needs no sympathy; all he needs is a little criticism and jacking-up once in a while, and then he does very well-he will have a difficult task before him in administering this act. It is bound to present a lot of difficulties. He can clearly see that now, because while this bill is entitled the Unemployment Insurance Act, greater attention should be paid, possibly by the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe), to an employment act. The more an employment act fails to fulfil its obligations, the greater the obligation that rests on the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) to carry out the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
It can be readily seen that the number of unemployed is steadily climbing. A few months ago we had something like 250,000 registered unemployed. We now have around 300,000.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend is just going in reverse.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is not the way it is reported from my part of the country. Look at the statement just put out by the deputy minister, in which he took a rather dictatorial attitude in regard to transporting workers from one part of the country to another. That, too, I think is going to add to the difficulty of administering, the act.


Humphrey Mitchell: When my hon. friend talks about a dictatorial attitude, I should like him to enlarge on that a little.
Unemployment Insurance


Charles Edward Johnston: Very well. I did not want to go into too much detail-


Humphrey Mitchell: Because you haven't any detail.


Charles Edward Johnston: -but since the minister is asking for it I am sure he will not mind if I elaborate a little. It has been stated already that those who do not obey a direction from selective service in regard to employment will be given only so long before having their benefits cut off. If that is not getting dictatorial I do not know what is. I shall go into that a little more fully when we come to discuss what is meant by "suitable employment" in the bill. I was not going to discuss the bill in particular to-day, but I do think the minister is going to run into a great deal of difficulty in the administration of this act when he comes to define what suitable employment is. That is a difficulty right now, as a matter of fact.


Humphrey Mitchell: Has my hon. friend a definition?


Charles Edward Johnston: I can give the minister his own definition; I do not suppose he will object to that. I quote from page 3105 of Hansard for yesterday:
On the other hand it is likewise specifically provided that after a lapse of a reasonable interval from the commencement of unemployment, employment in another occupation is not to be considered unsuitable (in other words it is suitable) if the wages offered are not lower and the conditions not less favourable than those obtaining in that occupation.
Then the minister went on to say:
-what is not suitable to-day may well be suitable a month from to-day.
The minister will correct me if I am wrong, but there I think he was trying to define what is suitable employment. I must admit that he has defined it very vaguely, but I do not think he would care to endeavour to define it right now. I too realize the difficulty of defining just what suitable employment might be.


Mr. WARREN:: Would the hon. member tell the house just what he considers unsuitable employment?


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. member probably was not in the house when I began to speak. I was giving the minister's definition; surely the hon. member would not object to that. I did not want to get into too much of an argument on this matter-


Ralph Melville Warren: I should like an answer to my question. What is unsuitable employment?


Charles Edward Johnston: I will tell you what suitable employment is. It is employment a person desires of his own accord, which gives a desirable remuneration. Would the hon. member object to that? Anything else is not suitable.


Ralph Melville Warren: I have never known of unsuitable employment.


Charles Edward Johnston: If I tell you what suitable employment is I imagine you would have sufficient intelligence to know what unsuitable employment is. You just put in the negative form and you have your definition. A moment ago the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) mentioned what might be considered unsuitable remuneration, when he said the total payment to a married man was $14.40 a week or about $60 a month. In my opinion that would not be suitable remuneration.


Ralph Melville Warren: Well, Mr. Speaker-


Charles Edward Johnston: If the hon. member will just sit down and wait until we consider the bill, we can go into these detailed discussions then.


Ralph Melville Warren: Perhaps the hon. member would answer this question. Did he ever know of a man with health and a little initiative who could not add to that amount, in some way, through his own enterprise?


Charles Edward Johnston: I do not think I quite got the question.


Ralph Melville Warren: Did the hon. member ever meet a man who was living on unemployment insurance who could not add to his income, if he was in good health and had a little initiative? Could he not add something through his own enterprise?


Charles Edward Johnston: But the act definitely limits him in that regard. If he is in receipt of other remuneration, that is taken into consideration in fixing the amount he receives. I am afraid my hon. friend has not gone over the act very carefully.


Ralph Melville Warren: I know something about it.


Charles Edward Johnston: A few years ago in the old age pension committee the hon. gentleman was very much disturbed over the possibility that old age pensioners might receive increased pensions. I should think he would be also disturbed over the possibility that a material advantage would be given these people under this legislation.


Gordon Graydon: Better call the whole thing off.

Unemployment Insurance


Charles Edward Johnston: I think perhaps that
would be a good idea, and my hon. friend can discuss it whenever he sees fit. I believe the consensus is that this act is an improvement over what was in existence previously. I have no strong objection to it, but I should like to point out that as time goes on our unemployment problem will get worse instead of better. With the present system of contributions, as the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) has pointed out, the difficulty will become greater. It seems to me the remarks of the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) would be found to have a great deal of merit if they were properly considered. He suggested that the government should be. contributing more to this scheme, and that view was supported by the hon. member who preceded me. The fact is that when the employee has to contribute, his purchasing power is reduced. When the employer has to contribute, the purchasing power of the public is reduced because increased costs of production go into the price of goods; as a result the people can buy less goods; industry can produce less goods because they sell less, so there is a general increase in unemployment. Whether or not people like to accept it, I think that is a sound proposition, and I believe the government must recognize it as such or find their difficulties in administering this act continually increasing. So I should like to support the suggestion of the hon. member for Spadina that the government should seriously consider increasing its contribution; and I would go one step further. The government has issued state money, and I think the Bank of Canada should be used for this purpose. It would not entail any increased taxation if the Bank of Canada were used to provide at least a portion of this increased government contribution.
These things will interfere with the administration of the act as it stands; the minister will have difficulties under many sections. As I read the act I can see trouble ahead in the administration of the section which tries to define suitable employment. I noticed the minister's interpretation in Hansard and tried without success to find the same interpretation in the act. I shall discuss that point when we come to it in the bill, but it seemed to me that what is contained there was quite the opposite to what was stated by the minister. I think that is all I care to say at the moment.


Mr. W. G. CASE (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to attempt to discuss the bill. In common with most hon. members I have not had an opportunity to' 63260-197
look at it, because I have only just received a copy of it. I should like to make some references to what appear to be disabilities in connection with unemployment insurance. In doing so I am not in any sense critical of the measure itself; I think unemployment insurance is indeed commendable legislation. It will not however in my opinion be fully appreciated or fully operative until such time as we can combine health insurance with unemployment insurance.
I, too, hold the view that because of the higher cost of living there is much to be said for consideration being given to increasing the benefits to workers. I am not in any sense sympathizing with those who are unemployed and who refuse to accept good, healthy employment, and I am not too critical of the stand taken by the deputy minister because I know something of the hardships being experienced by farmers in my own riding who would be only too glad to have some good, robust fellows help them out at this time. It seems to me we must draw the line somewhere.
However I feel that no measure of governmental assistance should have as its objective a deterrent to work. When I suggest that benefits might be increased for the worker I am appreciating the fact that the benefits from unemployment insurance are limited. That is, there is a time limit on them. And while a worker may be unemployed, I do not feel that he will cease to look for employment because he knows that his time in that regard would be limited. There may of course be exceptions to the rule.
As I said, I am going to refer to some of the handicaps about which people complain. I have in mind those who are temporarily employed. I suppose it is difficult to have the act apply to all in a practical way, so that it can be administered without too great administrative costs. But, to give an example, I am thinking of a lady who is now married but who engages in temporary work by relieving cashiers at certain offices and by doing secretarial work for from two to four weeks each year. Certain deductions are made for unemployment insurance. Yet the fact remains that if she worked only two weeks in each year, it would be a matter of about fifty years before she would be eligible for benefits. It is felt, of course, that that is a hardship.
Another class I have in mind is that of farmers who left their farms, I suppose for some very good reasons-I hope that in the main they were patriotic reasons. They left those farms during the war to engage in industrial enterprise, and while so doing contributed to unemployment insurance. Now that the

Unemployment Insurance

war is over they have the idea of returning to the farm. Perhaps they have reached more advanced years and for that, or for some other very good reason they feel they should return to farm work. In doing so they are no longer eligible, as farmers, for the benefits of unemployment insurance, and yet have no hope of recovery of the contributions they have made.
I have had certain representations made to me in that connection. I believe I have been able to satisfy these people that they are in the same position as people who carry fire insurance on their buildings. Those people feel they are most fortunate if they do not suffer loss from a fire. If those who were so employed were in a position to avoid unemployment, they made a contribution to something worth while for their less fortunate fellow citizens. Nevertheless these people feel they are being called upon to make a contribution from which they receive no benefit, inasmuch as when they return to their farms they cannot make the claim that they are unemployed.
The other group which comes to mind is that of graduate registered nurses who, I understand, are not eligible for benefits. Yet, Trans-Canada Air Lines employs graduate nurses to perform the duties of stewardesses, and while so employed I understand they make contributions to the unemployment insurance fund. When they leave the employ of Trans-Canada Air Lines, either through marriage or through returning to their former occupation, I should like to know how they can claim unemployment insurance. If they marry and leave Trans-Canada Air Lines they are not eligible; and if for any other reason they have resigned and returned to their former occupations they find that as nurses they are not eligible. Their feeling is that they have made contributions from which they receive no oenefits upon their return to their normal professions.
It is with those groups in mind I have referred briefly to the disabilities under which some people feel they suffer. I am thinking of insurance in its broadest sense. When one thinks of life insurance he thinks of a type of insurance from which at some time, sooner or later, someone benefits. The individual himself can benefit during his lifetime, in accordance with the contributions he has made, from purchasing endowment insurance. If he has whole life insurance his heirs will benefit. With this type of unemployment insurance, contributions are being made, and a great deal of administrative detail would be involved if it were worked out in the practical sense I

have suggested. However the individual receives no benefit, and neither does his estate if an insured person dies.
So in that sense I have compared unemployment insurance with fire insurance in the sense that a man who has paid fire insurance and has suffered no loss from fire has received no benefits beyond the protection he has had during that time. Unemployment insurance can be looked upon in the same way. It is true that the insured person may receive no benefit beyond the protection afforded during his lifetime.
While listening to other hon. members I have taken note of the vast proportions of the bill, and have concluded it would be wise if the minister would accept the suggestion that the bill be referred to the committee on industrial relations, where it might be more carefully reviewed, and returned to the house in a form in which we might discuss it.
The main theme of my remarks I have already covered, and when the minister speaks I should be pleased if he would refer to the points I have raised, namely those who are classified as temporary help, those who have returned to the farm, and registered nurses.


Mr. GLEASON BELZILE (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I offer no excuse for speaking in French, because I had only a short time to collect a few notes on the subject. I believe the French language is supposed to be understood fairly well throughout the house, and for that reason I shall discuss the subject in my native language.
(Translation):	Under section 4 of the
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940, the administration of that legislation was entrusted to the commission. It had been deemed accessary that the commission should be an autonomous body and that it should be granted full administrative powers.
Under section 96 of the act, all reports, recommendations and submissions required to be made by the commission to the governor in council, must be submitted through the minister. In other words, the commission is not responsible to the minister as regards the administration of the act, and the minister is merely a link between parliament and the commission.
On September 4, 1942, order in council No. 7994 was passed; the minister was thereby entrusted with the full administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940, as well as with the application of the National Selective Service regulations, the staff and the offices of the commission being placed under the jurisdiction of the department. That order in council lapsed on April 1, 1946.

Unemployment Insurance
What is provided by the proposed amendment to the act as the latter now stands is that the commission should be responsible to the minister as regards the administration of the employment service in Canada which it shall have to organize and maintain. The meaning of the word "responsible" is vague and obscure; that term could certainly be construed as meaning that the commission must account for its actions to the government, but it could, in a wider sense, authorize the minister to direct personally both the policies and the administration and even give him full direction of the employment service. Such is the interpretation the minister gave yesterday and which can be found at page 3106 of Hansard:
Clause 23 makes the national employment service responsible to the minister and permits it to carry out additional duties not within its formal functions.
It is therefore obvious that the minister is undertaking, under this legislation, to perform the work of the commission. During the war there was much confusion among the public and! the officials because of the double jurisdiction of the commission and the minister on the commission's affairs. What is now proposed by the bill is merely the perpetuation of that ambiguity.
The commission holds a delicate balance between capital and labour. It consists of a commissioner appointed after due consultation with labour organizations, of a second commissioner appointed after consultation with employers' organizations and of a chief commissioner appointed by the government and representing the public at large. Its functions are, in fact, quasi-judicial in character. Now experience has shown the inexpediency of investing any minister with judicial powers, and I seek no further proof of this than the unwarranted interference of the minister or deputy-minister of National Revenue in the assessment of income taxes.
Part III of the act, in its present form, provides that the Commission shall organize an employment service placed under its own jurisdiction; which means that employers, labour and the government each have their say in the policies and management of the employment service.
The bill proposes that this triple interest be replaced by the single control of the minister who-humanly enough-might be subject to political or even private pressure, whereas the commission is a body corporate independent of political pressures or of private interests.
The result of this change in employment service administration is that the officials of 63260-197J
the commission will have to serve two different masters and therefore the public will be at a loss to know how they are standing.
Up to now, the commission's offices housed both the employment and the unemployment insurance services. After the adoption of order in council P.C. 7994, they bore the name of employment and selective service offices. Now they are called national employment service offices, which name denotes but a part of their activities. The local offices are not solely concerned with the placement of people in jobs, they must also attend to unemployment insurance claims, collect contributions as well as issue and recover unemployment insurance books. The impression given by signs displayed on local offices is that they are employment offices exclusively. Some even refer to the national employment service as if it were the whole thing, although it is but one department of the unemployment insurance commission.
At first, the change contemplated in the bill seems inconsequential as far as the unemployment insurance fund is concerned, for it will remain under the administration of the commission who is responsible to the government. However, it appears that, within a short time, the dissolution of the commission will be requested in order to put unemployment insurance under the direct supervision of the minister. Then, there would be strong reasons for claiming that since the employment service comes under the minister, there is no reason why the commission's fund should not. At the present time, the commission is trustee for the fund and it has been created in 1940 to safeguard the interests of both capital and labour and in order that the provinces would feel that unemployment insurance was not administered by a single federal department, but by an autonomous and independent body.
The restriction or suppression of the commission's authority would affect not only the interests of both capital and labour, but also and directly, those of the provinces. From the sole administrative angle the present amendment is unwarranted.
It is evident that the federal government, doubtless with the consent of the provinces, has invaded the provincial field of activities, when they passed the Unemployment Insurance Act. To my knowledge, there are in each province employment offices as well as labour departments. Therefore, friction in matters of jurisdiction is unavoidable and encroachments readily occur; to my mind, in order to avoid such overlapping of jurisdiction and continuous frictions only an inde-
Unemployment Insurance


Humphrey Mitchell: I am making a note of what the hon. member is saying. I can give him the answer now if he wishes it.


Mr. LOCKHART:: They receive a form and are exempt from income tax deduction. But if the same students, under exactly the same circumstances, go to the unemployment insurance offices they are required to take out unemployment insurance books, notwithstanding that they make the same statement as was made to 'the income tax department, namely that they intend to go back to school in September and continue their studies to a conclusion. I do not find anything in the bill dealing with this, although I had gone through it hurriedly before asking the question.
There will be a number of other matters which I shall raise when the bill is before the house in committee. Maybe it is going to a special committee; I do not know; that would I think, save a lot of time. I hope the minister will give an explanation of the procedure which I have mentioned, and which has been brought to my attention recently on numerous occasions.


Mr. W. F. KUHL (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, discussion of a bill of this kind always raises some important principles, principles so important that, it seems to me, whether we are to have freedom or not in this country depends on our attitude toward them.
The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), as well as a few others, suggested that the problem with which we should be concerning ourselves was not so much that of providing better unemployment insurance benefits, but rather that of dealing with unemployment, and it is on that score that I should like to say a few words.
As I have already suggested1, this raises a fundamental question in our national economy. In pre-war years we debated this situation at length for many days and months, and we are already concerning ourselves once more with the problem of unemployment and its solution.
Personally I want to take decided issue with some of the objectives which have been both implied and suggested in the debate thus far. We shall never make progress in this subject until we establish sound objectives. In this modern streamlined age those who suggest that to make people work from eight to twelve hours a day is a solution of the unemployment problem are so far from the truth that they cannot even see it. Those who suggest that in this age of technological advancement it is possible for people to derive all their incomes as a consequence of working for eight or ten

Unemployment Insurance
or twelve hours a day fail absolutely to recognize the circumstances in which we now find ourselves.
A word first of all in connection with legitimate objectives. I ask seriously, as I have done on many previous occasions in this chamber, is the provision by government of work for its people a legitimate objective; is it sound and desirable; is it the objective of the economic system?
On that point I should like to quote from a book by the founder of the social credit principles, Major C. H. Douglas, entitled, "Monopoly of Credit." This is what he has to say in relation to the objectives of the economic system, at pages 116 and 117:
In attacking an engineering problem the first point we settle, with as much exactness as possible, is our objective. No engineer observer of the discussions which take place in political and lay circles on the industrial problems of the present day can fail to be struck with the fact that the problem itself is rarely stated with any clearness. For instance, the paramount difficulty of the industrial system is commonly expressed as that of unemployment. Therefore the suggestion involved is that the industrial system exists to provide employment, and fails. Those who are engaged in the actual conduct of industry, however, are specifically concerned to obtain a given output with a minimum of employment and in fact, a decreasing amount of employment. Consequently, those who are' talking about industry and those who are conducting industry have in their minds objectives which are diametrically opposed and incompatible.
That is a pertinent quotation which should be considered by each and every individual who presumes to give advice on the subject of employment. We are seeking, I assert, to proceed in two opposite directions at the same time, and that is manifestly impossible. On the one hand, we encourage engineers and inventors to do everything humanly possible to eliminate the number of necessary hours of work. It is quite obvious to anyone; it has been stated repeatedly in this house by hon. members of every party, that one of the greatest contributing factors to unemployment in this day and age is technological, the substitution of power machinery and mass production methods. We recognize that; we say, yes, the machine obviously does displace human labour; yet the very same people who make those statements suggest that we must deliberately put people to work.
I ask, how can we proceed on that basis? Is it reasonable to proceed on that basis? The first thing we must do if we are to make any progress at all in this subject is to lay down a sound objective. To those who are worried about how to find jobs I can suggest a solution in two minutes. Instead of building our highways with the huge machinery we have to-day, whereby one man and one
machine can do the work of a couple of hundred people, let us go back to the pick, the shovel and the wheelbarrow; if the wheelbarrows are too big let us cut them in half; if the shovels are too big let us use spoons, and there will be jobs for everybody. Follow the same principle not only in the matter of building roads but in all branches of industry and you will have jobs for innumerable people, twenty-four hours a day, if that is what you want. To those who suggest that the purpose of the economic system is work in the ordinary sense, I say that if they are to be logical that is the kind of thing they will have to do and, in fact, it is the kind of thing that was done in the days preceding the war. They did it in my own constituency in the construction of the Jasper-Banff highway. Roadbuilding machinery was standing on the roadside rusting, while young men with university training were building that highway with picks and shovels, just because it is assumed that a man is not entitled to eat unless he is slugging away at something, no matter how useless it is.
I assert, therefore, that we have to come to grips with this issue. This talk of putting people to work smacks of totalitarianism, and I deny any man the right to tell me to go to work when we collectively and individually have designed machinery to do the work for us. It is contrary to economic progress and contrary to the rights of the individual. We must recognize and acknowledge that we live in an age entirely different from that of our ancestors of even fifty years ago. Let me give one more quotation from Major Douglas. Here is one with regard to the question, how many hours of work would there be available if we used machinery to maximum capacity?


Humphrey Mitchell: Who is Major Douglas?


Walter Frederick Kuhl: The founder of the social credit principles, a Scottish engineer, one of the greatest men living to-day. If the hon. gentleman would take time to read his books he would be a little more up to date on the question of employment and unemployment and this country would be a little better off. I recommend the books of Major Douglas to him. If he has not the time to read all Douglas' books, here is a useful compilation of the best extracts from those books, entitled, "The Douglas Manual." I would be glad to lend him my copy. I was about to give another brief quotation from Major C. H. Douglas, in which he deals with the very problem that now confronts the Minister of Labour and will confront him more and more as time goes on. This applies to all those who entertain ideas of putting people, physically capable of working, to work for eight or
Unemployment Insurance

ten hours a day. This is what Major Douglas had to say in "Economic Democracy", at pages 85 and 86, in the days before the war:
It has been estimated that two hours per week of the time of every fit adult between the ages of 18 and 45 would provide for a uniformly high standard of physical welfare under existing conditions, and without endorsing the exact figures, it is perfectly certain that distribution and not manufacture is the real economic problem and is at present quite intolerably unsatisfactory.
That is another quotation with which the minister, I suggest, should concern himself very greatly. The same remark applies to all those who discuss the subject of full employment. There are in this chamber, and outside as well, those who, whenever they hear me and others who share my views making statements such as I am now making, imply, suggest and even directly state that to talk in the manner in which I am now talking is to advocate a loafer's paradise. Anyone who has made a study of this subject knows that it is not so. It is not at all work to which I object. It is being compelled to work, particularly by other human beings, which is nothing less than slavery. I say to the Minister of Labour and to any government that when the people, collectively through their inventive genius, have created sufficient machinery to reduce the working day to six hours, or to four, or to whatever number it may be reduced, and when, confronted with such a situation, the minister says that we are not going to recognize that situation but will put people to work even if we have to set the machinery on the roadside, he and those who take that attitude are assuming a prerogative which is not theirs, and they are actuated by a motive which is anything but democratic and which smacks of totalitarianism.
So far as hours of work are concerned, I believe everyone acknowledges that it is only common sense that, collectively or individually, the workers should not be obliged to do more than such work as the machine cannot do. That is common sense, and if it is not I should like someone to point out to me wherein it is not common sense. Otherwise, what is the purpose of the machine? Repeatedly I have put on the record statistics to show the extent to which power machinery has displaced human effort in this modem age. I have not under my hand at the moment the authority, but I have several times quoted figures to indicate that the average number of man hours per unit of production, for all production in the United States, has declined from 6-3 in 1905 to 2-3 in 1935, and if we

had the actual statistics to-day we would probably find that it was 1-3. That has taken place in the last fifty years.
In the face of that, how can anyone suggest that it is physically possible, taking advantage of all the machinery at our disposal, to provide jobs for all who are physically capable of working, so as to furnish them with sufficient incomes with which to buy all the products of industry? It is impossible. I assert, therefore, that the first requisite is to reconcile ourselves to this situation. If we are to permit science to progress naturally, then we shall never again have that combination of circumstances in which everyone physically capable of working can get an eight-hour day or anything like it. So we should not expect of each other that we should be employed in work to bring about the production of essentials and the luxuries of life to any greater extent than the power machine cannot operate. It is evident from the quotations which I have given from Major Douglas that the number of hours that anyone would have to work would be very small indeed in this day and age.
That is just a consideration from the physical facts which stare us in the face. But the greatest objection I have is the approach from the philosophical point of view, and that is the assumption on the part of individuals that they have the right to determine what others should be engaged in. I believe the hon. member for Spadina implied that. I say that we shall have freedom only when people have the maximum opportunity to choose for themselves what they wish to do. What I wish to see in Canada for myself and for my fellow men-and I am speaking particularly on behalf of those who sent me here-is a set of circumstances in which my fellow men and I can choose the things we wish to do, instead of being ordered around and pushed around and shoved about as the hon. member for Spadina indicated. We shall have freedom only when all of us have the maximum opportunity to choose what we wish to do, and we shall never have that opportunity until we have incomes that will enable us to do it.
The greatest concern I feel we should have in the unemployment situation is the matter, not of jobs, but of income. That is what we ought to concern ourselves with; and simply to raise unemployment insurance benefits by contributions, either from the employer or from the government, will not help under existing financial policies.
It has been pointed out that under existing circumstances it is the consumer who pays in the final analysis. What difference does it

Unemployment Insurance
make whether the government or the employer, or the worker or the salaried individual contributes? It all comes ultimately from the consumer, and there is not enough in the consumer's pocket to enable him to buy all the products of industry in the first place, even if what the consumer has were not taken from him. That is another position which must be acknowledged by economic thinkers. It is assumed by almost everyone in this house except the members of this group that industry is self-liquidating; that all you need to do is to start an industry, get it going, and automatically it will distribute enough money to buy back its own products. That is one of the greatest economic fallacies which we hear expounded to-day. No industry or business, whether it be a peanut-stand, a comer grocery store or a million dollar corporation, can distribute enough money to buy back its own products. All you are doing under the existing financial policy is redistributing poverty; that is what the whole unemployment insurance scheme amounts to, the redistributing of poverty.
What we need is not a redistribution of existing income, but a greater income. In normal times our income is never equal to our production. We must reconcile ourselves to that fact, and if we proceed to balance our national income by supplementing the incomes of the people to the point where the national income is equal to the national production we can wipe out the whole unemployment insurance bill and all similar legislation. When that takes place our people can enjoy freedom. They will not need to take orders from any government bureaucrat. When their incomes are supplemented by national money to the point where national consumption balances national production people will not only be enabled to acquire the national production but will have the freedom to choose what they wish to do. It makes it possible for machines to be used to the maximum degree and the work-week reduced to the absolute minimum, thereby giving the people plenty of leisure.
A few moments ago the hon. member for Spadina said that people want to work. I deny that. He does not want to work any more than I do.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. member is speaking for himself.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Yes, I am, and I resent the [DOT] imputation that he should set himself up in any way to recommend to me what I should do. I say that is a prerogative which no government official should have.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Yes.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Is the hon. member saying that he would pay everyone a national income whether he worked or not?


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Yes. Without that you have no freedom. The reason they should obtain this income, or national dividend, whether they work or not is that they are entitled to it by reason of being citizens of this modem civilization. A dividend is not a hand-out; it is the heritage which belongs to the individual whether he works or not. That is a fundamental.


Charles Edward Johnston: The recipients of the family allowances do not work for it.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: The work has been done by our ancestors. We who are alive to-day have contributed nothing to the discovery of electricity, the steam engine, diesel power and all the other inventions which make this great abundance possible to-day. We have simply accepted it, but we have not had sense enough to devise a proper system of distribution to enable us to enjoy the potentialities of production which it is possible for us to enjoy to-day. Certainly I say that this supplement to the individual's income should be received whether he works or not. He must receive it because he is entitled to it, and no one- whether the state or anyone else-has any right to step in between and determine how and where he should spend it. That is the glorious aspect of the social credit philosophy, wherein every man has the right to choose what he is to do, and does not have to take any orders from a government bureaucrat. That is the kind of civilization I should like to see in this country of ours as well as in every other country. Therefore I resent the inference or the direct statement by anyone that he is going to tell me what to do, where to go and what not to do. I want to choose that for myself. I claim that privilege for every one of my fellow men.
What people want is not work in the ordinary sense. They want an opportunity to indulge in leisured pursuits. That is what the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mitchell) privately seeks to do. He does not spend any more time in the house than he has to; he does not write six paragraphs in a letter when he can get away with two. He conserves his energy.


Humphrey Mitchell: He works sixteen hours a day, six days a week.
Mr. KUHl. That is because he has to. If he did not have to do it he would not do it.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is work to **t. here and listen to the hon. member
Unemployment Insurance


Walter Frederick Kuhl: I am not saying what it is to listen to the hon. gentleman; it is worse than work.


Charles Edward Johnston: The minister is getting personal, in a kindly way, and he should not do so.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: I wish to say another word or two on the question of work and leisure. A moment ago I said that privately we are constantly trying to relieve ourselves of our so-called work, not that we might necessarily lie in the shade all day. Usually people who have the opportunity for leisure expend more energy on their leisure pursuits than they do on their normal work. Here is a young farmer sitting on one of these stream-lined, rubber-tired tractors in the heat of the day with a parasol over his head, purring up and down his fields, and if you ask him what he is doing he says he is working. Right across the field there is a young fellow on a football field. He has no hat on his head and he is chasing a pigskin across the field, sweating and burning up energy. When you ask him what he is doing he says he is playing. What is work, and what is play? I should like to have the minister answer that one. Work does not consist of the amount of energy one burns up. What determines work is whether you are obliged to do it or not; that is the only thing that determines it. The thing that determines play is that you choose to do it, even though you may burn up ten times as much energy as you do in your regular work. What everyone is seeking to do is to reach the place where he has the maximum time in which to choose and follow leisure pursuits, whether that be sports or cultural pursuits or what have you.
We shall never be a nation; we shall never reach our height as a nation until we have the right to indulge to the maximum in voluntary self-chosen pursuits. This will be possible only when our incomes are high enough to enable us to enjoy the spare time which is misnamed unemployment and should properly be termed leisure time.
I have said all that I wish to say on this occasion. Perhaps I have exhibited more heat than light; but I must say that I become positively incensed, after being here for ten years and still being obliged to listen to the claptrap on this subject of unemployment and employment, and I simply cannot contain myself any longer. If there is to be any more of this foolish talk-and in my estimation it is foolish talk, then I am going to rise in my place on every occasion and give the house a barrage whether they like it or not.
LMr. Mitchell.]


Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: After the warning we have just heard I realize that I have to be pretty careful, but I should like to say a few things about the bill which is now before us to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. It seems to me that the criticisms which we make about this matter, and the suggestions which we offer to the minister and to the government, should be divided into two classes. If I may say so I feel that these two classes of criticisms and suggestions have been somewhat confused in some of the speeches which have been made during the course of this debate.
First of all, there are things which we can say about this act strictly as an Unemployment Insurance Act, and we should keep it in mind, regardless of all the other reforms and social improvements which some of us advocate, that at the moment we are discussing a measure which is simply one dealing with unemployment insurance. On the other hand, having made suggestions directly bearing upon this measure as an insurance proposition, we can then make suggestions to the government as to things that are lacking in our social set-up, which are pointed to by the act now in operation and by the things it fails to do precisely because it is only an insurance act.
Under the heading of things that should be said about it as an unemployment insurance act I draw attention to three matters in particular. Two, I believe, have been discussed already, and I should like to add another. In the first place, I was interested, as other hon. members were, in the statistical job done by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) in regard to the rates of benefit. I think he made his case very clear when he insisted that if the act, as an insurance act, is to fulfil its function in our economy the government should give consideration to an increase in the benefits payable under it. I hope consideration will be given that suggestion not just in the distant future, but rather that the proposal of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) will be implemented and this bill sent to the standing committee on industrial relations, where we shall have an opportunity of hearing representations from interested bodies, both management and labour, and can see what may be done even this year along that line.
The second suggestion to which reference has already been made has to do with this question of defining suitable employment. I recognize the difficulty. I recognize also, because I have before me the national insurance act of the United Kingdom, that the definitions in this government's act regarding suit-

Unemployment Insurance
able employment are almost word for word the definitions to be found in the United Kingdom act. But what we get into, as the minister pointed out yesterday, is not just the definition of suitable employment laid down in the act, but the interpretation or the understanding and application of that definition by the officials of the commission and those all the way down the line who administer the act. In his speech yesterday in introducing the resolution preceding this bill, the minister said there were employments which might not be considered suitable right away but which might be considered suitable later on. He will remember that last fall he and I had a bit of a dispute back and forth about the tabling of a certain document, which he finally agreed to make public, which showed that he had suggested to the unemployment insurance officers that employment offering a certain reduction in wages might not be regarded as suitable employment three or four weeks after a person lost his job but might be regarded as suitable employment a few weeks later when securing employment seemed almost hopeless. I appreciate the difficulty of defining this, but it seems to me that we are going to get into a great deal of difficulty if we do not find a way of making clearer and more precise what suitable employment is, particularly in terms of wages.
The main feature about unemployment insurance that it has been possible to sell to the working people of this country is that it is distinct from relief in that it establishes a worker's right to benefits. Even when it is argued that the amounts paid at present are not much more than relief, still the fact that the worker does not have to submit to a means test but rather that this is his by right has made it an acceptable proposition. However, when under the latitude that is taken in defining or interpreting the definition of suitable employment there is this stretching of that term and the disqualifying of people who feel they should not be disqualified because they are not prepared to accept employment at a lower wrage, we begin to break down that confidence that this is a measure which establishes benefits belonging to the workers by right. I hope this subject alone will appeal to the minister, because he admitted it was a matter of difficulty, as sufficient reason for acceding to the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver East that this measure be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations.
The only other point to which I should like to refer while treating this measure as an insurance act is the question of the waiting period. I did not discover in what the minis-63260-198
ter had to say the other day, nor have I been able to discover in the amending bill now before us, any suggestion of a change in regard to the length of that period. I have recognized in certain instances similarities, indeed in a few particulars almost the exact phraseology, as between this measure and the unemployment benefits sections of the United Kingdom act, but here is a point on which there is quite a difference. In Canada the waiting period is nine days, whereas the waiting period in the United Kingdom is only three days with respect to both entitlement to sickness benefit and entitlement to unemployment benefit. That is another matter it does seem to me should be considered, something that is properly a subject for consideration when dealing with this measure as what it is, namely an unemployment insurance act. Because of these three suggestions, and others that have been presented during the course of this debate, I strongly support the suggestion of my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East, and I hope the minister is giving consideration to the idea that after second reading this bill should be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations.
At the outset of my remarks I indicated that there is another way to look at this measure, another heading under which to offer criticisms. Some of those criticisms have already been offered, but I want it to be recognized that in doing so we are pointing to something that is admittedly not feasible within an act which is only an unemployment insurance act. Certainly it is clear that the operation of this act has pointed to the need for at least two other features in our whole social security set-up. As many hon. members have pointed out, one of the principal difficulties facing many workers is that they find themselves paying insurance to protect themselves against unemployment arising from the lack of jobs, but many find themselves unemployed not for that reason but because of illness. No matter how much we may try to point out that in such case they cannot receive benefits under this bill because actuarially they are only paying for unemployment insurance, still it is a let-down and a source of disillusionment to them, just as in the case of the farmer who insures against hail but finds that half a dozen other things come to re-destroy his crop. So that the operation of this act is certainly pointing up-and I am sure the minister would agree with me, if only he would fight for it within the government of which he is a member-the need of an over-all programme of social security.

Unemployment Insurance

In the past, we in this section of the house have had a good deal to say about the overall programme of New Zealand and the overall programme being developed in Australia. I should now like to say a word about the national insurance bill that was enacted by the parliament of the United Kingdom just this year. I have here a number of documents connected with the bill, the actual bill itself and certain command papers outlining the main provisions of the national insurance scheme in the United Kingdom. Part of the explanatory material is as follows:
The bill provides for a unified and comprehensive scheme of national insurance, which will eventually cover practically everyone in Great Britain, and will give the following benefits: Sickness benefit, unemployment benefit, maternity benefits . . .
And there are three types of maternity benefits set out. Then it refers to widows' benefits, of which three types are described. Following this, we find mention of guardian's allowance, retirement pension and death grant.
I could go into details respecting the amounts paid, the benefits received back, and we could get into arguments back and forth. But the chief point of difference between this scheme and the scheme now being brought into effect in the United Kingdom, which is similar to the ones in New Zealand and in Australia, is that in these other parts of the commonwealth there is an over-all scheme which insures the people of those countries, not against only one of the things which might happen to them, but against all those things over which they have no control. It gives to those people the feeling, not that they are paying taxes from which they may receive no benefits-along the lines of the complaints voiced by hon. members to-day-but rather that they are contributing to a national pool out of which they will receive protection against any of those things which may happen to them and over which they can have no control.
Precisely because the Unemployment Insurance Act has been in operation, but does not go far enough, the government must realize, as the people do, that this kind of thing is sorely needed in our national economy, and I hope the minister will fight for it in the government of which he is a member, and not leave the matter to the government which will some day take the place of the present one.
The other point emphasized in connection with the operation of the act was referred to by the minister yesterday afternoon. I refer particularly to what the minister is reported to have said at page 3105 of Hansard for July 3, when he was discussing the whole question of suitable employment. Let me pick out only a sentence or twTo:
[Mr. Knowles.}
Or a man who has reached retirement age for a given occupation cannot hold out for employment of that kind. Similarly, there are certain skills which were required during the war which have little or no place in a peace-time economy. Then there are always circumstances peculiar to an individual claimant . . .
As I listened to the minister yesterday and read his speech to-day, it seemed to me there was a recognition of the fact that unemployment insurance is only a last-ditch protection, and that what is needed, despite what has been said by the hon. member who just preceded me-and I shall say a word about his remarks in a minute-is a programme which will provide for full employment.
I take second place to no one, not even to the previous speaker, in my insistence that the hours of work of our Canadian people should be reduced, and reduced far beyond any goals we have yet tried to establish. The aim of life is not just that of working to eat and eating to work, ad infinitum; surely it is on a higher level than that. But I believe we should realize that when we advocate full employment we are not thinking of employment as an end in itself but rather as a means to bring about the provision of a sufficient quantity of goods and services so that our people can live a life on a higher standard, as has been envisioned by so many of us.
That is not all that can be said about employment. Tt is also to be noted that employment signifies participation by the people of a community such as ours in the production of the things that they, in turn, can enjoy. The fact is that employment is not an end in itself but an index of whether or not we are achieving our goal of production, and thus a steadily rising standard of living. Unemployment insurance will not do that, but full employment will.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: What is full employment? Define it for us. Is it eight hours a day, or twenty?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It might be eight or twenty or even two.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Who will determine that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Full employment is the use of our energy and our resources to produce as high a standard of living as the people of this country want. That is not clap-trap; rather it is a matter of taking an attitude of responsibility. I say, too, that in a world such as this which is torn asunder, a world which is lacking in goods and services and in which there is so much suffering, starvation and want, there is a moral responsibility placed upon the human race to do a bit of

Unemployment Insurance
work and to attempt to produce a quantity of goods sufficient to make possible a better life the world over.
Along with that, by all means let us aim at a reduction in the hours of labour. Let us aim at the elimination of drudgery, and let us realize that the man who, of necessity, must work even at the most menial task, or a task involving the greatest amount of drudgery, is, after all, a human being entitled to the same spiritual, cultural and social amenities and privileges in life as any other person.
We are not going to accomplish this by falling back on unemployment insurance. The difficulties mentioned yesterday afternoon by the minister, when he explained how we must be prepared in many instances to settle down to lower rates of pay in order to have suitable employment, and his reference to the fact that certain people who developed war-time skills have had to accept occupations in which those skills were not required, suggest that we need, not just a measure to fall back on, but an aggressive policy designed to increase employment, and for the production of all the goods and services we can possibly produce.
We shall achieve that purpose only when we accept as our aim, not production for greater profit, but production for the use and needs of our people. I leave the subject at that, in the hope that the minister will agree to the suggestion that the bill go to the standing committee on industrial relations. If this is done the provisions of the bill can be dealt with in detail, and needed improvements made. I have in mind particularly the rates of benefit, the defining of suitable employment, and shortening the length of the waiting period. We could also discuss in that committee those further steps we must take to achieve a proper economy and a proper degree of social security for our people, toward which unemployment insurance is only a short step.
'Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1 -Working week.


Gordon Graydon: Before we proceed to debate the bill in committee, I should like on two grounds to offer objections to the consideration of this bill in the manner in which the government now proposes to proceed with it. I had hoped that before second reading was given to the bill the minister would have given some explanation for the government's reasons for referring this bill to committee of the whole. In my opinion, this bill is one which should properly be sent to the committee on industrial relations.
63260-198i
When the unemployment insurance bill was before the house in 1940 a great deal of information was obtained and there was a great breadth of discussion which took place and which proved of exceptional value to the country as a whole. Not since 1941 has industry, labour or the public had an opportunity of appearing before a committee of the House of Commons. The minister was not the minister at that time, but I know he has read the proceedings of the committee of 1941. I am sure he will agree that there have been few committees of this house which have done more valuable work in the interests of industry, labour and the public generally. I think we are entitled to ask the government to send this bill to a similar committee.
There are many things that cannot be done in committee of the whole, such as the examination of witnesses and the like. In addition, there is a time element involved. The whole House of Commons is anxious to proceed as quickly as it is humanly possible with the work of parliament in order that we may be finished before the end of the year. This is a time when valuable time should be saved if at all possible. By sending this bill to a committee, not only could the time of the house be saved but valuable contributions would be made to the evidence which was presented to the committee in 1941.
The committee of 1941 was dealing with a wartime situation and we are now being asked to deal with this whole question of unemployment insurance from a peacetime point of view. I ask the minister to send this measure to the committee on industrial relations, and I base my request on the two grounds I have given. I think they are of sufficient weight to warrant his not overlooking the objections which have been made from this side of the house. I ask the minister, I appeal to the minister, I urge the minister to alter his decision with respect to this bill and move that it be sent to the committee on industrial relations.


Humphrey Mitchell: I had intended to answer some of the questions which had been put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and other hon. members. I have no objection to sending this bill to a committee, as is suggested by the acting leader of the opposition. I am in the hands of the house in that connection. However, I would point out that recently there was a meeting of the advisory committee of the commission. Public hearings were held, and the organizations interested had an opportunity of appearing before that committee and making whatever representations they wished.
Unemployment Insurance

At this late stage in the session we want expedition. After all, there are only three major changes being made in the act. One is the amendment dealing with merchant seamen; the second covers the powers given to the minister in connection with the employment service, and the third fundamental change is the amendment which grants the right to a person to earn SI AO a day instead of $1 and still receive the benefits.
I must take the advice of lawyers, and we have endeavoured to rearrange this bill so as to make it understandable. It looks like a lengthy piece of legislation; but, as I say, there are only three fundamental changes. If my hon. friends desire that it be sent to the committee, I am quite prepared to have the bill sent there. I would point out that there are many committees sitting at the moment, and I do not think we could get witnesses to come before this committee in less than two weeks. This is holiday time for most people, with the exception of members of the house and officials of civil service who are advising us-


Mr. MacNICOL:: That is coming soon.


Humphrey Mitchell: We hope so. I am simply pointing out the practical difficulties. Any question of increases in rates must, of necessity go before the advisory committee. That is a matter requiring long study; it is something that could not be done overnight in a committee of the House of Commons. I am in agreement with my hon. friends; I should like to have the benefits as high as they possibly can be within the realm of sound administration. One hon. gentleman referred this afternoon to non-contributory unemployment insurance. We have battled that out in this country. Some seem to think that it is the easiest thing in the world to take everything out of the barrel and put nothing in. The labour and employer organizations of this country understand the basic principles of contributory unemployment insurance.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Share the poverty.


Humphrey Mitchell: Share the poverty;
share the sense. Perhaps my hon. friend would start off by being sensible.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: You will learn by and by.


Humphrey Mitchell: We are trying to be sensible about this, not humorous. If hon. gentlemen want this bill to go to a committee I have no objection. Frankly, I think there will be more expedition if we proceed with the bill at the present time. The meetings of the committee might be long delayed and we could not get the bill back to the

house within a reasonable time. The amendments affecting returned veterans and merchant seamen are of fundamental importance at the present time. What I am fearful of is that we may run into difficulty and the session may be prolonged. The hon. member for Vancouver East who knows more about unemployment insurance than any hon. member in this house-


John Ritchie MacNicol: I cannot admit that.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. members who have spoken this afternoon are interested, like myself, in this matter. Those hon. members will be in the front rank when we are discussing the questions I have just mentioned. I think we can carry on that discussion just as easily here and do it once, rather than allow the bill to go to a committee where the matter would be discussed, and then be discussed again in committee of the whole.


Angus MacInnis: I agree with the hon. member for Peel that this bill should be sent to a committee and I do not think it would delay the work of the house. The Minister of Labour has said that there are only three major changes, but that is not the important feature in connection with unemployment insurance. It is the parts that have not been changed that we are worrying about, not the parts that are changed. The two national labour bodies and the running trade have their national offices here and could make representations to the committee in a short time.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would point out that the two labour organizations to which my hon. friend refers appeared 'before the advisory committee only two weeks ago. I repeat, if my hon. friends feel that the bill should go before this committee, I am ready to consent.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I have consulted with the acting leader of the opposition and with the-I think-acting leader of the C.C.F., and it has been decided that we proceed.
This afternoon there were one or two matters raised which I should like to clean up right away. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard asked about the numbers receiving benefits. During the month of May a total of 127,866 persons received benefit payments amounting to $5,221,870, or 2,719,245

Unemployment Insurance
compensated unemployed days, compared with 158,168 persons who were paid $7,011,579 for 3,446,271 compensated unemployed days during April; and 22,294 persons were paid $672,869 for 349,996 unemployed days in May,
1945.	The average duration of the unemployment compensated was, then, 21-3 days in May, 1946, 21-8 days in April, 1946, and 16-4 days during May, 1945. The average amount of benefits paid per beneficiary was $40.84 in May, 1946, $44.33 in April, 1946, and $31.60 in May, 1945. The average amount of benefits paid per compensated unemployed day was $1.92 in May, 1946, $2.03 in April, 1946, and $1.92 in May, 1945.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Did the minister say that the average time for each unemployed person in receipt of benefits was sixteen days?


Humphrey Mitchell: No; 21-3 days in May,
1946,	21-8 days in April, 1946, and 16-4 days during May, 1945.
The hon. member for Grey North spoke about nurses. Nurses have been covered under the act since 1943; that is, excepting practical nurses. That takes care of that benefit. The hon. member for Lincoln raised a point about students. That is an insurable risk, and the benefits accrue while they are working in industry. For reasons best known to themselves those benefits are maintained for five years. The average cost of the benefit is about six cents a day. In an insurance item like unemployment it is necessary to cover everybody, and that is the reason why nurses and students are covered similarly with other persons in industry.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: What I was trying to get at is, why the exception in one department and not in the other?


Humphrey Mitchell: One is income tax, and the other is the risk involved in unemployment.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: It seemed inconsistent to me.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
William Ross Macdonald: Section 6. Carried.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would go a little more slowly. We have had this bill before us for only a few hours. We cannot follow it as fast as you can read it.


William Ross Macdonald: I will read a little more slowly.
Section agreed to
On section 7.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Section 7 is really the substitution of new clauses for sections all the way from 27 to 49. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, you might call them individually.


William Ross Macdonald: Under the general heading in section 7 is the whole of new section 27, " Right of insured person to insurance benefit." " Payment of benefit where applicant a juvenile, a person of unsound mind, or deceased."


Angus MacInnis: Before we leave new section 27, this section defines conditions of receiving benefit. It states-
(b) capable of and available for work; and
(e) unable to obtain suitable employment.
There has been some discussion of this matter of "suitable employment," and I would ask the minister to explain the procedure now followed in ascertaining whether the employment offered to a person in receipt of benefits is suitable employment or is not suitable employment, and under what circumstances a person is denied benefit if he does not accept the "suitable employment" offered by the commission.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have here a brief dealing specially with that, which I might read:
In view of the provisions of the act and the conditions resulting from the war the commission has taken the view that a reasonable interpretation can be made along the following lines:
1.	Where claimants have had technical training and experience in a skilled occupation they should be allowed a considerable period to find work in their own occupation before being required to make a complete change in their occupation and sacrifice their training and experience. The extent of the change of occupation involved would have a bearing on the interval allowed. For certain specified groups of skilled workers, the commission has instructed its offices to allow a period of three months before a change of occupation is insisted upon, provided that employment in the claimant's usual occupation has a place in a peace-time economy and that he is not barred from the occupation by reasons of age, physical deterioration, et cetera.
2.	Occupations which have many of the same characteristics may be segregated into groups. If employment is not available in the claimant's usual occupation he may be offered employment in another occupation in the group in which his usual occupation falls. Because of the similarity of the occupations in this grouping a comparatively short period of unemployment is a reasonable interval.
3.	The extent of the contrast between wages and conditions of work in the usual occupation and the other occupation has a bearing on the period allowed before a change of occupation was insisted upon. The commission does not require claimants imemdiately to accept very much lower rates of wages. However, following the war period the employment available for some of them may use only pre-war skills and may be at lower rates of wages than those to which they have become accustomed during the war. The period allowed for a change of occupation which includes a lower rate is therefore made progres-
Unemployment Insurance

sive. For instance, employment in another occupation at a wage rate of 5 cents an hour lower is considered suitable for some claimants after three weeks of unemployment, while an occupation paying a wage rate of 10 cents an hour lower would be considered suitable only after four weeks of unemployment.
4.	Other factors taken into account by the commission are the number of years the claimant has been employed in his usual occupation, provided it is a skilled occupation; distance of work offered from the claimant's home; prospect's of work in his own occupation, either in his own district or in another district; domestic responsibilities of the claimant and adaptability of the claimant, particularly where employment is in another part of the country.
5.	Workers discharged from purely war work in plants, for example, shell-filling plants, where there are few if any similar skills required in peace-time industry, may be offered employment in another occupation with practically no interval allowed.
6.	Persons who have been transferred from one part of the country to another to engage in war industry and who choose to return to the areas in which they formerly resided, may reasonably be expected to accept any work available in those areas without any interval.
7.	Workers trained in specific war jobs with previous experience in some other occupation should be allowed only a short interval before being required to accept employment in an occupation in which they have had some experience.
Ini addition to that, we have set up across the country courts of referees composed of a chairman and representatives pf the trade union and employers, and from these courts of referees there is a further appeal to the umpire. Probably my hon. friends have had more complaints than I have, but as a rule any complaints that are made funnel into the minister's office and those I have received up to now have been few and far between. In Great Britain they have had the same difficulty with much longer experience than we have had. We are just moving into what might be called the administrative period in the application of unemployment insurance. With the end of the war and the reconversion of industry, a measure of unemployment in any country that was engaged in the war-any free country at least-is inevitable, and in Great Britain they have had a measure of unemployment. To-day there are between four hundred thousand and five hundred thousand people registered for unemployment insurance, notwithstanding the fact that there the labour situation is much tighter than in Canada. I would assume that, in the light of the experience gained by the courts of referees and by the umpire, we shall be able to build up a system of precedents that will permit the orderly administration of this difficult aspect of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Frankly, I do not believe that we have had enough experience because in this country this is a virgin field of a kind that does not exist

in Great Britain, where they have not the same seasonal employments that we have in the dominion. However, I think it can be stated that the courts of referees, the insurance officers, and the umpire will, in the course of the day-by-day application of this vital and difficult aspect of the administration of this measure, build up a method of procedure which, in the light of experience, will meet the situation in Canada. We have at the moment seven thousand cases before boards of referees.


Angus MacInnis: The act provides for the training of persons who have lost employment, in order to fit them for other work. Before a person is compelled to take what the commission regards as suitable employment, what provision is made to train such persons for such employment if they are not already fully qualified?


Humphrey Mitchell: That problem has not been a difficult one up to now. Of course we have thousands of veterans in training under the jurisdiction of my department. We have not so many civilian war workers. One of the most amazing things is this. At the collapse of Japan I had jurisdiction over the selection, and power of direction, of the men and women in the industrial and agricultural life of the country. I came to the conclusion, against the advice of many people, that the quicker we got rid of these controls, the better it would be for Canada, and in about four months we put more than a million people, through the employment service, into the employment stream of Canada, which is an indication- if we get suitable labour relations-of the ability of this country to face up to the problems of peace and a measure of full employment. Of course we are interfered with by conditions in other countries. The coal strike in the United States, and more particularly the steel strike, had a great impact upon employment conditions in Canada. But we expect, should the need arise, to be able to expand the application of the training of war workers in vocations necessary to fit them into the industrial and commercial life of the country. The pressure, however, has not been great up to now.


Angus MacInnis: Can the minister explain how the new part of subsection 2 of the clause operates?
... in the case of a deceased person or a person of unsound mind, benefit may be paid to any person who, in the opinion of the commission, is equitably entitled thereto . . .
Under what conditions would benefits accruing to a deceased person be paid to someone else?

Unemployment Insurance


Humphrey Mitchell: The benefit due to him when he dies is paid to his heirs.


Angus MacInnis: That means that if he dies while drawing benefits they will accrue to his heirs?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Mr. JAENICKE:: "Is equitably entitled thereto". What does that mean? I can understand "legally entitled".


Humphrey Mitchell: It simply means that he is not getting the benefit under false pretenses. There are sometimes cases where people do get benefits under false petenses.


Mr. PROBE:: I was interested in what the minister said with regard to the terms under which his department might consider employment suitable. There is in the February issue of his official publication, the Labour Gazette, a case which I should like to have him comment upon briefly-CU-B44. In this case an instrument mechanic was receiving seventy cents an hour and, presumably on the basis of a forty-four hour week, would receive $30.80 a week. When the work in the aircraft plant in which she was engaged was discontinued, work was offered her subsequently through the employment service at $15.30 a week. She appealed to the court of referees and the decision that was given was, in effect, that this was considered suitable employment. The job offered was an elevator operator's job at $15.30, which in my province is below the minimum wage. If that is what the minister had in mind as suitable alternative employment, it seems to me that this clause does not mean a great deal. Were there any extenuating circumstances in this case? It is printed here and therefore I judge that it is a type case.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am not familiar with the case to which my hon. friend is referring. Apparently it was the decision of the umpire. A good many factors may enter into it-what the worker did before the war, the interval of unemployment during which benefits were drawn, and so on. All these things will enter into it. My hon. friend can see that if it is the decision of the umpire it came up through the boards of referees in Regina, was it?


John Oliver Probe: That I cannot say. It was in the Labour Gazette and I took it to be typical.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend would like to see the full judgment I shall be glad to get it for him.


Mr. FULTON:: This new section 27 refers to insured persons. For the sake of information, would the minister outline briefly the
history behind the apparently traditional exception of agricultural employees from the category of insured persons? It is important in our province where agricultural work is seasonal work. I am sure there are difficulties.


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not desire to take up too much of the time of the committee, but those of us who followed the establishment of unemployment insurance in Great Britain will remember that it started off with six trades covered, if my memory serves me rightly. We started off with a much larger coverage than that. In commencing their scheme in Great Britain, they were fortunate in that there was comparatively full employment. We were fortunate in Canada in that we were able to build up a fund because there was comparatively full employment in this country. In Great Britain, where they have social cohesion and climatic conditions somewhat different from what they are in Canada, where employment in farming is more or less looked upon as a trade or calling, it was twenty-five years after the inception of the plan in that country before agriculture was brought within the orbit of unemployment insurance. I hope it will not take twenty-five years for us to do it in Canada, particularly in my hon. friend's province where climatic conditions beyond the coastal range are similar to what they are in Great Britain and in New Zealand, in that there are not the great extremes of climate which we have in eastern Canada. In the light of the length of time since the inception of the plan in Canada the tempo of movement in the coverage under the act has been far greater than in any other country that I know of. Certainly it has moved with greater expedition than in Great Britain.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The minister then looks forward to the day when agricultural workers will be covered?


Humphrey Mitchell: Certainly; I look forward to the day when every man and woman working gainfully in this country will be under the scheme.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Would the minister answer the question I asked him on second reading with regard to insurance officers? Do they take their instructions from the minister or from the unemployment insurance commission? Whose employees are they?


Humphrey Mitchell: They take their instructions from the commission.


Gordon Graydon: Who are the members of the commission?


Humphrey Mitchell: The members are Mr. L. J. Trottier, chairman, Mr. R. J. Tallon, nominated by labour, and Mr. George W. Ritchie,
Unemployment Insurance

who is the nominee of the employers' association. Mr. Tallon is from Calgary, Mr. Trot-tier from Montreal, and Mr. Ritchie from Toronto.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the memorandum on the question of suitable employment from which the minister read a little while ago been given publicity? Has it acquired the force of law? Perhaps one way to get that answer is to ask whether in dealing with these matters the referees go back to the act and make their own interpretation, or are they governed by the principles in the memorandum which the minister read?


Humphrey Mitchell: These are for insurance officers only; the referees, of course, go back to the act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister knows that some of us are quite worried about this memorandum. I hope he will not say that we are being political. I say that before he does, because it is a matter of deep concern. A good many trade unionists who are not necessarily political have spoken to me about it. Let me be quite frank about it. Having made that preface, may I say that I have had trade unionists come to me in Winnipeg and say that these instructions which have been given to insurance officers seem to have the effect of depressing wages. It looks as though the government is trying to say to war workers, the party is over and you might as well accept the inevitable and come down to these lower rates of pay. There are cases such as that which my colleague, the hon. member for Regina City referred to, and one or two about which I have written the minister. They are people who were in war work, and they were told to take employment at lower wages. It was done on the basis of this memorandum which says that five cents an hour less might be suitable employment after three weeks, and ten cents an hour less might be suitable employment after four weeks. These provisions, if not properly understood, do give rise to the feeling that the government is saying to workers, accept the inevitable and come down to a lower wage rate in the post-war period.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let me say this without equivocation. This government has no idea of that kind in mind whatsoever. I am speaking of the government now. Let us wipe that completely out of our minds.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish you could wipe out the memorandum.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is all right. I shall come to the memorandum in a minute. There is the other side of the medal, namely, ad-
ministration. This is not sentiment; it is administration. If my hon. friend has had any trade union experience he knows that you have difficulties and complexities in connection with unemployment benefits in trade unions. There has to be a rational administration, or else the unemployment benefits go down the drain and it is not solvent. Unfortunately all people are not honest. The memorandum is merely a guide. After the insurance officer has made his decision, the employee has the right [DOT] to go before a board of referees composed of an equal representation of labour and management with an impartial chairman. In my experience I have found that if you have a good case you need have no fear of going before a tribunal of that description. If employees do not get from the board of referees what they consider to be justice they still have the right to appeal to the umpire. I do not think I can say much more than that. I am a great believer in the system of adjudicating disputes. We would have less trouble in the industrial field to-day if the orgainzations we set up, composed of employees and employers, were given the respect to which they are entitled by people who ask for representation on these boards or commissions or whatever the case may be.
If my hon. friends have any suggestions to make-and no doubt next year in the light of experience they will have-we shall be glad to receive them. We shall find difficulties arise, and we shall possibly find out that some of our approaches to the problem are not in the best interests of the people concerned. My hon. friend can rest assured that as far as I am concerned-and I am sure that this is true of every hon. member-what we have in mind, and nothing else, is that the man who is entitled to insurance by right, because he has contributed to it, shall have every ounce of justice to which he is entitled. We cannot go much farther than that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just this further word;
I appreciate the position the minister is taking, and he is being perfectly logical so far as the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act is concerned. But I want to say that the man who has lost his employment at a fairly good wage rate and is forced to take employment at a lower wage rate does not regard it as the last, word in justice merely to get his unemployment insurance, which is a lower rate still. He wants another job at a rate somewhat comparable with that which he had during the war. My concern with this memorandum is not so much that it is vitiating the Unemployment Insurance Act as that trade unionists feel that it has a depressing effect on the wage level generally.

Unemployment Insurance


Charles Edward Johnston: Perhaps I was wrong, but I took it from the minister this afternoon that this memorandum had been withdrawn. Is it still in force?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know what my hon. friend is referring to.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am referring to the memorandum which was referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The one the minister read from a while ago.


Humphrey Mitchell: No; it is in operation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is the one the minister did not want to table last fall. It was secret then.


Humphrey Mitchell: I can give my hon. friend a copy of it. There is no secret about it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not now; I already have it.


Charles Edward Johnston: It says that work which may not be suitable this week may be suitable next week, perhaps at five cents an hour less, or that two weeks later it may be suitable at possibly ten cents an hour less. From what the minister said I took it that the memorandum had been withdrawn.


Humphrey Mitchell: No.


Charles Edward Johnston: It is still in force?


Humphrey Mitchell: Absolutely.


Charles Edward Johnston: Then I must agree with the hon. member who just took his seat that it does leave a bad taste in the mouths of employees when they know of the existence of such a recommendation to the board. From what the minister said a moment ago I do not believe that is his intention. He gave the word of the government that it was not the intention that people should go to work for less; but this memorandum definitely directs the officers to offer work one week, and if it should be found unsuitable because of lower wages it indicates that the same work might be offered to the same individuals the following week. The inference to be taken might well be that since they will be a little harder up by then they will be more susceptible to the offer. I do not think any other interpretation could be put upon it. The minister said a moment ago, and I take his word, that this was not the intention; but most assuredly anyone reading the memorandum can take no other meaning from it. Then, if you take what the minister said yesterday, that what is not suitable to-day may well be suitable a month from to-day, and put the two together,
you would almost think the minister was supporting this memorandum, though I do not think he is. So that I believe it would be only fair to the workers and to the minister himself-because this will be a difficult thing to administer-to withdraw the memorandum and replace it with something else that would give a clearer indication of the government's policy. This is a most dangerous and most unsatisfactory thing to leave in the hands of the officers.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let me ask my hon. friend this very simple question. What would he do with a woman welder in an aeroplane plant who, prior to the war, had been a domestic servant?


Charles Edward Johnston: Let her get married, if she wants to.


Humphrey Mitchell: All right; if my hon. friend would put that in the memorandum.


Charles Edward Johnston: The minister is now trying to evade the question. Here the board has definite instructions-


Humphrey Mitchell: No, it is not the board. That is a guide to insurance officers.


Charles Edward Johnston: Well, perhaps I used the wrong term. Here is a guide to the insurance officers. It is not only a guide; it is more of a directive.


Humphrey Mitchell: No, it is not.


Charles Edward Johnston: You might almost call it a directive. Here they are directed that they can offer men work and, if it is not suitable, they can just sit back and say, "Well, we will wait for a week and perhaps then he will be more susceptible." Then, when the man comes back a week later he may find the wage rate lower still. I think the influence is bad, and I believe the minister agrees with me. In my opinion he would be well advised and the officers of his department would be well advised to have that memorandum withdrawn entirely and something more palatable put in its place.


Humphrey Mitchell: As I pointed out, nobody is all-wise, but we all try to be fair. That is not a directive; it is merely a guide. In my hon, friend's own province of Alberta a good many people left agriculture and went into war industries for reasons best known to themselves, patriotism and what have you. With the contraction of war industry and the shortage of farm labour, they have been given the privileges that were extended during the war, in that they did not have to enter the armed forces as long as they remained in agriculture and moved backward and forward between agriculture and war industry according to the season. Under those circumstances and in a
Unemployment Insurance

democracy I think they should go back to agriculture. I have pointed out that there is a tremendous shortage of farm labour, and we must not forget that in Alberta we are still using German prisoners of war and conscientious objectors. You cannot laugh that off, as an administrative responsibility.
As I say, I am not responsible for this; it is the responsibility of the unemployment insurance commission, but they are dealing with a difficult problem. I think I have given this analogy in the house before, but it is like a man writing a piece of music. He thinks it is fine when it is on paper, but when it is played on the organ it may not sound quite so good.


Gordon Graydon: It depends on who is playing the organ.


Humphrey Mitchell: That might be true. It is the same with an act of parliament, the constitution of a farmers' organization, a trade union or a fraternal society; the only way to find out whether a thing works is to play it on the organ. In this case we are dealing with applicants for unemployment insurance benefits. I think I can say that the commission as such do not want to do anything that is not fair and just. If, in the light of experience, this does not work successfully, no doubt the commission will change its guide to the insurance officers. It must be remembered, however, that they do not have the final word. There is always the court of referees and then the umpire. Having had some experience in the appointment of these courts of referees across this country and some knowledge of the people who make them up, I feel certain that claimants for insurance benefits will be treated with justice and fairness. After all, it is a human thing.


Angus MacInnis: May I preface the question I am going to ask the minister by making two statements. First, I want to say that in any event, as far as I am concerned the minister may take it that I appreciate the difficulties of administering the Unemployment Insurance Act; as I said this afternoon, first, because it is new legislation operating in practically a new field, without experienced administrators or experienced staff. The second thing I should like him to know is that as far as I am concerned I will not try to press upon him anything I would not do or try to do myself in the circumstances. I do not think I need say anything more to prove my fairness in dealing with this matter. But I think we as a parliament must be vigilant in these things because, as my hon. friends to my right are so careful to point out on every possible occasion, bureau-

cratic boards may get into the habit of ordering people around. Consequently we have to be on guard here and, if there is any need for criticism, we should offer that criticism as a guide and suggestions to those boards. That is the way in which I approach the matter. I do not for one moment doubt the sincerity and the desire of the unemployment insurance commission to administer this act fairly and efficiently. I have had some correspondence with them. I have also held conversation with them, and I am convinced on that point.
But in this circular 34 there is an item which the minister did not read. I should imagine he has not read it all, and I am not suggesting that his not having read it is any indication that he has tried to hold anything back. Section 11 at page 3 of the copy I have states:
If an applicant is seeking employment in an occupation which is no longer found in his locality, he must be prepared to change his residence if he still desires work in that occupation.
What help is given a person under these circumstances who may have to move from one locality to another? He may be put off unemployment insurance benefits, and move to another area.


Humphrey Mitchell: Under the wartime regulations we established extensive arrangements to pay the fares of people moving from one part of the country to another. The commission has the power to advance those fares.


John Oliver Probe: I wish to refer back to the unfinished symphony to which the minister referred a minute ago because, as near as I can see, it is working out, not as a symphony, but as a raucous discord. I still wish to emphasize that in the cases cited by the Labour Gazette, which are considered satisfactory I have no doubt, or they -would not be printed here-they are type cases-a person who was receiving $30.80 a week for a normal 44-hour week is directed into employment at $15.30 a week. Those are the facts in connection with case CU-B44 of June 27 of last year. I maintain that the policy which the minister has explained, and which apparently he is translating into instructions to his insurance officers, his courts of referees and his umpires, is doing nothing but degrade the wage scale across this country. I say that $15.30 a week is below the minimum wage of our province; and if that is suitable employment in the opinion of the Minister of Labour, then I say he is far from the right track, so far as getting a labour symphony is concerned.


Humphrey Mitchell: Let us get on with that symphony. My hon. friend is quite clear in what he says. I do not know the case he is

Unemployment Insurance
talking about, but I understand the figures he has given. Let me tell him what the change has been. There is an appeal to the court of referees and then an appeal to the umpire. My hon. friend is not suggesting to me that I should tell the umpire what to do, is he?


John Oliver Probe: Well-


Humphrey Mitchell: Just a minute; you have had your say. Just sit down for five minutes. I shall give figures to support my contention. I do not know the case he has mentioned, but I say that I never would be afraid to go before an impartial umpire or arbitrator if I had a good case. If one comes to the courts with clean hands, that is all he requires.
Out of 145,000 claims there were 7,000 appeals to courts of referees; and out of those
7,000	there were only forty appeals to umpires. When you are operating in a big way, that is not a bad record.


John Oliver Probe: I would say it is good.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is not bad. I do not know anything about this girl about whom my hon. friend speaks. I do not know what she did before the war. My hon. friend probably knows her better than I do.


John Oliver Probe: I wish I did.


Humphrey Mitchell: He has said that she is an instrument maker.


John Oliver Probe: That is what the Labour Gazette says.


Humphrey Mitchell: Well, she claims to be an instrument maker; but she may be the only person in the world who thinks she is an instrument maker.


John Oliver Probe: May I say-


Humphrey Mitchell: Just a minute, now. The mere fact that it is on paper is not proof, and any person who has had experience in industrial operations appreciates that. Before the w'ar she may have been a stenographer or a domestic servant on a Saskatchewan farm; I do not know what she did. However, I will say this, that I have set up a good many boards and commissions; but I have not yet taken the position that, once established, I should tell them what to do. A procedure of that kind would be in direct contradiction of everything our institutions stand for, everything we believe in.


Mrs. STRUM:: Has the minister any way of ascertaining whether or not these claims are correct? I dislike the implication in the minister's remarks to the effect that people who fill in these papers are falsifying the record.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend got that impression, I am sorry. What I meant to imply was that sometimes they do; it is possible. Human nature is a peculiar thing; it ebbs and flows, and there are variations of it.'


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Yes; I understand all that.


Humphrey Mitchell: But I am not suggesting for one minute that people make out these claims dishonestly. I do not believe that, and neither does anyone else in the chamber. Unfortunately, however, once in a while somebody robs a bank.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: My question was: Have you any way of checking on these applications?


Humphrey Mitchell: I thought I had explained that.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: No; you just told me about human nature.


Humphrey Mitchell: And if I may say so, to my hon. friend, human nature is sometimes a strange thing.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I am talking about checking the records.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, there is a record, absolutely.


Mr. CARDIFF:: I understand that unemployment insurance does not apply to farm labour.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is so.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: How will it apply to farm labour that was induced to enter industry last fall and to work there all winter, after the farming operations were completed? Were those men sent back to the farms, where they belonged, or are they now under unemployment insurance?


Humphrey Mitchell: I assume that most of them went back to agriculture; at least I hope they did. Of course, during the war my department had power of direction. We could insist that when they left the farms in the winter and entered industry they were to go back to the farms in the summer. But, as my hon. friend knows, shortly after the collapse of Japan those regulations were repealed, and there is free employment of labour in Canada at the present time.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I believe that was true during the war years. But the trouble is that at the present time it is utterly impossible to get farm labour. Why? One reason is that the farmers cannot afford to pay the wages being paid in industry. Another reason is that farm labour was taken into industry a year or so ago and has not been sent back.
Unemployment Insurance


Mr. HAZEN:: Speaking of robbing the bank, I believe there are some instances where unemployment insurance has been taken advantage of by the very people whom it is intended to benefit. I should like to draw to the attention of the minister a case which recently came to my notice. This man owned or operated a farm and, after hostilities commenced, he obtained employment in war work. Vt that time he made over his farm to his wife without any consideration and she continued to look after the farming operation. When the war ended, his employment with the company he had been working with ceased. He has since been working on the farm, which is owned by his wife, during the daytime, and after six o'clock he goes to work as an electrician. During this period he has been drawing unemployment insurance at the rate of S14.40 a week.
I am informed that he is able to do this because he is actually working in the day time on a farm. When he went to fill in the form he stated that he was working on the farm during the daytime when actually he is working also as an electrician after six o'clock at night. I will not say that he has been getting away with something, but the fact is he is getting $14.40 a week when he is working on a farm in the daytime and continuing his employment as electrician at night. This man does not think he is doing anything wrong, because the advertisements and notices that have gone out from the employment service have led him to believe that he has a credit of so many dollars and he thinks he has a right to draw on that. I think loopholes of this sort should be sealed up and the regulations redrawn and the forms prepared in such a manner that this sort of thing cannot happen.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would think that individual had made a false declaration and, if my hon. friend will give me the name privately, I shall be glad to have the commission look into the matter. Under the act as it stands, at the moment a person is entitled to earn $1 a day as subsidiary earnings, but if this farmer-electrician is holding down two jobs I should like to know who he is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to make one more appeal to the minister to take up with the people who had to do with the drafting of this memorandum the matter of having it discarded or at least rewritten. I grant that there are some things in it that have to be there for the purposes of administration, but the tone of it has got under the skin of a good many trade union people. The minister replied to the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East in connection with a man 
seeking employment in an occupation which no longer offers employment in his own locality, by stating that the fares of people who move were paid. It is one thing to be willing to pay the fare of a person who wants to move, but is another thing to give the impression that a person must move or he will forfeit a right which he thinks he has because of having paid into a fund. There is another section a little further along in this bulletin No. 34, which reads:
For example, it may not be expedient during the early days of unemployment to require him to take work in another district, but as the hopes of obtaining suitable employment in his home district diminish, work at a distance may have to be regarded as suitable.
It may be that something like that has to be included for the purposes of administration, but the minister knows as well as I that statements such as that have an effect upon working conditions and wage levels. I think I speak for all of us who have been objecting to this memorandum from this side of the house when I say that we do not rise to express the view that there is in this instance any need of a fundamental change in the Unemployment Insurance Act, but that the government should realize the wider implications and be on its guard against being responsible for the depressing of wage levels.


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall be glad to bring to the attention of the commission the observations of my hon. friends in connection with this document. I would point out that Canada is a continent, not a country. In a vast country like this you must have a measure of mobility of labour. At the present time I am moving people from Nova Scotia into the Maine woods. We are expecting to move farmers from western Canada to the east and eastern farmers to the west in order to get off the harvest. The hon. member for Vancouver East will remember that last fall we received an appeal from the city council about the congregation of labour in Vancouver, and at that time we considered it necessary that we render a measure of assistance to that municipality by providing for the migration back to where they came from of that labour which had come to that district for purely war industry purposes.
These things are not static; they are active. We must make every effort, to place these people in gainful employment. My hon. friend has often spoken of conditions in Great Britain. After the previous war they had in South Wales and other districts, particularly in Barrow, what were referred to as depressed areas, and efforts were made to move labour from Barrow into other parts of the country.

Unemployment Insurance
In a country like Canada, with 12,000,000 people squatting on a continent, we cannot take the position where we can say, "Hamilton and no further", or Regina or Moose Jaw or what have you. I do not know how we could expect to make this country tick under those conditions. By the very nature of things we are bound to have stagnation in certain industries. An example of this was the aeroplane industry after the end of the war. It is necessary to provide for the movement of labour to other parts of the country where gainful employment can be found.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I concur in the statement of the minister about providing for the mobility of labour, but what we are talking about is using language in connection with the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act to the effect that people must be prepared to move. It is the "must" we do not like.


Mr. JAQUES:: I received a letter from a man in Montreal which I should like to read, and then I will ask the Minister of Labour his opinion of it. This letter is signed "John C. Wilson" and is headed, "A new serfdom." It reads:
Do the veterans realize the shameless swindle which is to be put over them under the guise or mask of unemployment insurance? The correspondence columns of the Montreal papers should be read throughout Canada. In response to several complaints ("Jobless for four months, and not received a cent," et cetera, et cetera) the actual facts have been stated with admirable clearness in Montreal Daily Star of May 13 on page 3 by the assistant manager, Mr. Heffernan.
He quotes this by Mr. Heffernan:
"Unless the job is accepted, the man will be disqualified from benefits for six weeks." Whatever his skill or qualifications, whether skilled mechanic or white-collar worker, ''as long as the pay is within the minimum set by the province of Quebec, even if as an unskilled furniture-worker at 20 cents an hour, he will be disqualified."
Not only so. "Every refusal thereafter, even during the six weeks, will add a similar period to his disqualification." Thus a skilled tradesman or even an accountant or professional man, who persistently refuses work at 20 cents an hour, will never receive a cent of unemployment insurance.
If the proper English word for this is not "peonage," what is the correct word for it?


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend will let me have the letter I shall be glad to look into it. I am sure that he cannot ask me, with about 2,300,000 people insured under this scheme, to know them all. But I shall be glad to look into it.


Norman Jaques: But is it the fact, that highly skilled men will be forced to take any unskilled! job?
Mr, MITCHELL: The answer to that is, no.
Section 7 (new section 27) agreed to.
Section 7 (new section 28) agreed to.
On section 7 (new section 29)-Periods not counted in computing unemployment.


Humphrey Mitchell: This is a section the hon. member for Vancouver East wants to speak about. It is one of the fundamental clauses. The amount is raised to $1.50 a day.


Angus MacInnis: Yes. I have no objection to that. That is not the point I wanted to ask the minister about. It says:
An insured person shall be deemed not to be unemployed . . .
And then it goes on-


Humphrey Mitchell: That is the same as in the old act. There is only one change, namely to $1.50.


Angus MacInnis: I want the minister to make some changes. In the subparagraph relating to holidays, is everybody drawing unemployment benefits considered to be not unemployed on a holiday? I have had some experience in working, and sometimes I had to work longer on holidays than other days, and had to work Sundays. If holidays and Sundays are "out" as far as an unemployed person is concerned, he is not unemployed on those days because he is not supposed to be working on those days. But there are many people who work on Sundays. I worked for twenty-five years delivering milk and as conductor on a streetcar, and I had to work Sunday as well as week-days. If a person who delivers milk, in the western cities anyway, becomes unemployed, is it considered that he is not unemployed on Sundays?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am informed that this merely deals with short-term workers. The question my hon. friend raises comes in a later section. Since the original drafting of the act, we have taken care of it in these amendments. The 40-hour week was the exception to the rule, and the act defined a week as from Monday to Monday. But under the amendments later on in this bill, consideration is given to the hours of work of the normal week, rather than the week itself.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: Do I gather than a man can draw unemployment insurance and go out and pick up odd jobs so long as the remuneration does not exceed $1.50?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes. It used to be $1; it is raised to $1.50.	'
Section 7 (new sections 29 and 30) agreed to.
On section 7 (new section 31-daily rate of benefit).
Unemployment Insurance


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: On this section, I understand that the unemployment insurance advisory committee has been considering changes in the rates of payments and changes in the contributions to make contributions of employers and employees equal each other. If that has been done; if that meeting which the minister referred to between the labour unions and those other persons who are interested and the advisory committee, which took place two weeks ago, has reached any conclusion on this quite important point, I am surprised that it is not included in the bill we have before us-the increase of rates which was found to be possible. What took place at that meeting and when may we expect the proposed increase to be placed in the statute?


Humphrey Mitchell: I have received the report of the advisory committee and in effect it extends the coverage and does in a minor way increase the rates to dependents. I am speaking now from memory. The bill had been drafted. The government decided that consideration should be given to that next year, probably, rather than this year. As my hon. friend knows, there is no restriction of coverage for anybody who works for an hourly, a piece-work or a daily wage. The coverage is restricted on persons in the salaried class running up to $2,400 a year. In the drafting of a bill like this, and the amendments, I w'ant to be very frank in saying that the recommendations come at a period when we do not feel it advisable, particularly in the light of economic conditions at the moment, that the amendment should be made this year.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: That statement surprises me, because I had understood that another class was to be added to the classes of payments which would be a class at a higher rate and would make higher contributions and would receive higher benefits. I feel sure that, as a result of our expenditures in the war, money rates of earnings are going to be much higher than they were before the war. It would seem to me that the sooner we get a new schedule of rates and benefits based upon present and possibly future money values rather than upon pre-war money values, not only will the individuals who come under the fund benefit in a way which is most important to them, in view of higher costs, but the fund itself, I believe, will benefit by the early application of the new provisions. The sooner the payments-in commenced, the better it would be both for the fund and for the people concerned. If the recommendations of the advisory committee are at all acceptor. Mitchell.]
able, I should feel quite strongly that the sooner they are introduced, the better-this session, if possible.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend speaks of money values. I think it is fair to say that money values on the North American continent at the moment are in a state of flux. We do not know what the value of the dollar will be twelve months from to-day.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister knows,
though, does he not, that it is not going down?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am a little older than the hon. member, and I believe that what goes up must come down-even an aeroplane or a rubber ball. I went through this after the last war. I was talking to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is just back from New York, where butter at the moment is selling at $1.25 a pound. We do not know what is going to happen, and any prediction regarding the price structure on the other side of the line is simply a leap in the dark. If human nature follows the trend indicated after the last war, as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle said to-day, we may be in a very difficult position on the North American continent a year from now. Wherever you have inflation you have starvation and destitution later on. That goes for every country.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Deflation.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend says
"deflation." He has a peculiar brand of money theory with which I do not agree, but I will not argue that question with him this evening.


Mr. HANSELL:: May I suggest that the minister stick to labour.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have the floor at the moment, and I do not wish to get into an argument on phony money at this moment any more than anyone else wants to argue about it just now. I have expressed my opinion and my hon. friends can express theirs. Let me say that the reason why we are moving with caution in the extension of coverage in respect of all these things is that we do not know what the relation will be a year from now between the present value of the dollar and the value of the dollar as it was in 1940, 1941, 1942 and 1943. No one can make any such prediction in view of what has happened in the United States in the last couple of weeks. They may be moving into an inflationary spiral with the inevitable collapse afterwards. We are living in peculiar times, and all I can say is that I trust that at this time next year conditions will be more stable than they are at the moment.

Unemployment Insurance


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I had naturally thought, from what I have heard the minister say with regard to the government's price control policy and their ability to handle the situation, that the much feared deflation after inflation would not ensue. Apparently the minister is not so sure now when he comes to this point. Would he tell us whether or not the report of the advisory committee on these possible increases of rates and benefits took into consideration the uncertain state of financial affairs in the world? If the advisory committee have taken that question into consideration, then surely, they being concerned more than anyone else with the actuarial basis of the fund, their recommendation would be a safe one for the government to follow. It seems to me that there are already increases in the cost of various articles. If, therefore, these possible increases are withheld it will be a serious matter.
Mr. MaeINNIS: I wonder if the advisory committee has given some thought to increasing the differential between the rate for a single person or a person without dependents and the rate for a person with dependents. If you look at these rates you will find that apparently it does not cost very much for a man to keep his wife, or vice versa, for the wife who is working to keep her husband. If a single man or woman is unemployed in category 2 the rate is $5.10 a week. If a married person, male or female, with a dependent is unemployed that person receives ninety cents extra, which brings it to $6. These rates that were set out in 1940 when the bill was passed should be revised upwards at least to the extent that the cost of living has gone up and to the extent that we feel it will go up within the next few months, though, of course, I realize that you cannot keep moving a scale of benefits of this kind up and down as the cost of living rises or falls a few points. The differential, however, is far too small, and I suggest that the advisory committee give thought to increasing it as between the person without dependents and the person with dependents. Has the minister at hand the percentage of benefits paid in each of the seven categories in which benefits are paid?


Humphrey Mitchell: It is not before me at the moment but I will make inquiries.
Mr. MaeINNIS: It is stated that the weekly rate of benefit shall be six times the daily rate. In many occupations now the week is a five-day week. In Ottawa many of the larger stored are closed all day Saturday, and the same is true of other cities. Many of the industries also operate on a
five-day week. Has any arrangement been made to bring the act into conformity with the five-day week?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes; that has been done. In the first section it has been provided for.
Mr. MaeINNIS: Would this section not conflict with the other?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am informed that there is no conflict.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I am afraid I am not entirely satisfied on the point I was discussing.
I see from new section 28 that the insured person does not receive a benefit unless he has contributed to the fund for a period of 180 days in the first two years. It would seem to me that if we delay in applying the new rates until the next session of parliament it will mean a delay of two years before the new class can come under the fund. If I am right in that, and I wish to be corrected if I am not, if any recommendation that is possibly acceptable to the government has been made to them, certainly no time should be lost in implementing it, and it should be in this bill. Could the minister amplify what he said, that it was not possible to bring it in this year. In the light of my objection that certain persons would not be covered for two years, will he state the reasons why it would not be advisable this year?


Humphrey Mitchell: I have given all the reasons I can think of. It is a matter of judgment. When my hon. friend spoke this afternoon he spoke of raising all the rates.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: For dependents.


Humphrey Mitchell: Well, for dependents. I thought I heard him say all the rates, but I take his word for it. Of course, when you raise all the rates you have to raise the payments by the insured. That is elementary.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Yes.


Humphrey Mitchell: When you speak of raising the rate to $25 a week it means in a broad way that the contributions paid by both employer and employee would have to be doubled. We have to face up to that problem.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister will find that I said exactly that.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, I agree. As I say, this report was received just prior to the thing that happened in the United States. It is all a question of judgment; that is all. Their report does not increase the payments in the direction which the hon. member for Vancouver East would wish them to be increased, namely, in the lower b-xekrts, if I heard him
Unemployment Insurance

correctly, but that is the decision we came to. The recommendations of the committee are not fundamental recommendations; they do not cover the broad field. I am now speaking from memory; they do not touch the payments made to single persons, but they do increase slightly the payments made to those with dependents. In addition, an increase is made in the contribution by the employer.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister has not answered the other question I asked him. Will that mean that if it is held until next year it will be two years before it comes into force?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes; if paid to-day it would be two years.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: Then it will be three years if brought into force next year?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.
Section 7 (new section 31) agreed to.
Section 7 (new sections 32 to 34 inclusive) agreed to.
On section 7 (new section 35)-Waiting days not counted for benefit.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Here is one of the places where, as has been pointed out, we are not so critical of the changes made as we are with some of the changes which have not been made. Was consideration given to shortening the waiting period to something less than nine days?


Humphrey Mitchell: I am informed by the advisory committee to the commission that that is the next thing they are to consider. As soon as there is enough money they will consider it.


John Oliver Probe: What is the British practice in this regard?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is three days.


Humphrey Mitchell: It was six and it is down to three now. Ours is nine.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Three in the new national insurance act for both sickness and unemployment.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is right.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I do not know whether this is the place to ask this question, but I understand that if an insured person is unemployed he is eligible to draw benefits until his contributions have been exhausted.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Before he becomes eligible for unemployment insurance again, does he start all over again?


Humphrey Mitchell: Sixty days.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: He has to be employed for sixty days before he is eligible for any unemployment insurance benefits?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.
Section 7 (new section 35) agreed to.
Section 7 (new sections 36 to 38 inclusive) agreed to.
On section 7 (new section 39)-Disqualification through loss of work due to labour dispute.


Mr. GREEN:: Will the minister explain just how this new section affects men who are thrown out of work by reason of a strike which does not concern them directly?


Humphrey Mitchell: They get benefits.


Howard Charles Green: For example, during the lumber strike in British Columbia, which was settled a few days ago, there were men from the Pacific lumber inspection bureau whose job is to do log-scaling-


Humphrey Mitchell: These men got benefits.


Howard Charles Green: For a time they were refused.


Humphrey Mitchell: The matter was investigated and they got the benefits.


Howard Charles Green: Is there a clear-cut definition of the conditions under which they will get benefits? There were other men who were working in industries which were affected because they could not get logs. I believe that they, too, were refused unemployment insurance. Where is the boundary line? There should be a clear-cut line.


Humphrey Mitchell: There are three things, namely, participating, financing and directly interested in. The case to which my hon. friend refers was brought to my attention, and one of the ranking insurance officers on the top level was sent to Vancouver to straighten it out. As a rule, there is always a point of view on both sides. When a situation like that arises, what the commission does is to send out a ranking officer to make a decision. You have to make a decision in the light of the conditions in the dispute as they exist, because you have to be careful that you do not finance a strike, that the people who are paying unemployment insurance contributions in Montreal, say, do not help to finance a strike in Vancouver or Toronto. One has to be careful and cautious in the payment of benefits when a strike takes place. For that reason the commission is careful, and in the Vancouver dispute they sent out their ranking

Unemployment Insurance
officials to settle the point at issue on the ground in the light of the conditions as they see them at the time.


Howard Charles Green: Is the disqualification supposed to extend beyond the men who are actually striking? Take the case of other men who cannot work because a strike prevents their factory from getting material. Are these men disqualified?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not get the point. I shall get it in a moment, I suppose. If they were in the same union in the same plant they would be disqualified. Does that answer my hon. friend's question?


Howard Charles Green: No. They were working for another firm which had to shut down because it could not get the raw material. The reason it could not get the raw material was that there was a strike. What happens in that case?


Humphrey Mitchell: I should not like to express an offhand opinion. I would think they would be entitled to benefits, but I say that with reservations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The act is pretty clear.


Humphrey Mitchell: Is that not the answer?


Angus MacInnis: Yes. Paragraph (a) of new section 39 covers it. It says:
that he is not participating in, or financing or directly interested in the labour dispute which caused the stoppage of work.
I am glad to hear the minister say that he sent someone to Vancouver, because I had complaints from persons who were refused benefits although they did not belong to the unions which were on strike, but were put out of work because a stoppage of work was caused through lack of material. I wrote to the commissioner about one case. One of the difficulties in getting the matter settled is the distance between Ottawa and the various places where the inquiry has to be made before any report can be made by the commission.


Humphrey Mitchell: We got that official away just as quickly as we could.


Howard Charles Green: This section does appear to be clear. It says:
That he is not participating in, or financing or directly interested in the labour dispute which caused the stoppage of work.
I had representations, I presume from the same people who made them to the hon. member for Vancouver East: yet the unemployment insurance officers in Vancouver ruled, I believe, that the men in question were not entitled to unemployment insurance.


Humphrey Mitchell: I sent a senior officer there, for that very reason. You take a local officer in a matter involving perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars; he is pretty cautious, and rightly so. When we get a situation of that kind we see to it that one of the senior officials goes out and gives the necessary directions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It seems to me that the case raised by the hon. member for Vancouver South is covered by subsection 1, which makes it clear that a person is disqualified only if there is a stoppage of work at the plant in which he is working. In the case of the secondary industry to which my hon. friend refers, the stoppage of work is not due to a labour dispute at that plant.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I also received representations in that case, and I happen to know quite a few of the men who are inspectors for the Pacific lumber inspection board. It struck me that case was so clear that it should not have been necessary to make representations to Ottawa. There the point that seemed to be involved was that all the inspectors actually work at the plants that were on strike, but they are employed by a totally different organization. Neither the Pacific lumber inspection board nor its employees were in any way connected with that strike. They are men who have high responsibilities in the checking of lumber, and it was a case in which I should not think there would be any need for hesitation on the part of the officials who were investigating.
The other point I wanted to ask the minister about was not a hypothetical case but an actual case I discussed with him, in connection with the moulders' strike. Would the employees of the brass foundry which is closed down because it is picketed by the moulders' union be debarred from benefits, though they themselves are not on strike and belong to an entirely separate union?


Humphrey Mitchell: It would depend on whether there was participation in the strike. I do not know the exact details, so that I should not like to give an opinion offhand. Anyone wanting to go to work, belonging to a union but not being able to get through the picket line, is in a difficult position. I want to say to my hon. friend that I would not go through any picket line.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are speaking personally? Or as Minister of Labour?


Humphrey Mitchell: Speaking personally.
These fellows may belong to the organization; I do not know. If my hon. friend wants my people to look into the matter I shall be very
Unemployment Insurance

glad to have that done for him. The hon. gentleman asked what was the doubt in our mind. These people worked in the mills, you understand, and it had to be decided whether they were part of the industry and taking part in the strike. My hon. friend, who is an old military man, knows that sometimes you find those in the lower ranks cautious about making decisions. They like to look up to the top and see that they have some measure of protection.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: This section provides certain safeguards, but there is a broader over-all picture, in this sense. We will say there is a strike in a certain industry, probably not in the same city to which I would relate this question. In that other city there exists a trades and labour council. I have known this to happen. That council has a meeting. They do not join in the strike by means of a sympathetic strike, or anything like that, but they make a cash contribution of $40 or $50 or $100 for the benefit of the workers on strike. Many industries in the city where this trades and labour council is located might be affected by the strike in the other city. Some might have to close down because of the shortage of supplies which ordinarily would come from the industry on strike. In that case it would seem that these people would all be disqualified because their organization had made this cash contribution to assist the workers who were on strike. Would that seem to be reasonable?


Humphrey Mitchell: Offhand, I should not think so. I should think they could give money if they wished. I know I have given a good deal of money away.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: You do not think they would be bound by the stand of the organization?


Humphrey Mitchell: I would not think so.


John Oliver Probe: Would the minister just indicate whether "labour dispute" means a lockout as well as a strike, in order that this may be clarified?


Humphrey Mitchell: It means a lock-out as well as a strike. That is defined in section 2 of the act.
Section 7 (new section 39) agreed to.
On section 7 (new section 40)-Disqualification for neglecting opportunity to work or failure to attend course of instruction.


Charles Edward Johnston: Paragraph (d) reads:
(d) has without good cause failed to attend a course of instruction or training that the commission directed him to attend for the purpose of becoming or keeping fit for entry into or Return to employment.

I am wondering if that could be interpreted so that a man might be directed for training into some business he was not desirous of entering, or which would not further develop the training he already possessed. Could the board direct him into training for some position for which he was not fitted, or which he did not desire?


Humphrey Mitchell: If I were out of a job and were offered training, I think I would take it. I do not know of any case like that. Perhaps it is a hypothetical case.


Charles Edward Johnston: What I have in mind is that a man might be a carpenter and be directed to take training as a bricklayer.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my hon. friend knew anything about the trade union movement he would know that they never train carpenters to be bricklayers or vice versa.


Charles Edward Johnston: But it is not so stated here.


Humphrey Mitchell: I should not think that would be a good example. At the moment there are not enough bricklayers or carpenters to go round.


Charles Edward Johnston: I think the wording should be changed to indicate that the training should be along the line of the previous training. I do not believe it should be left to the discretion of others to decide whether a man should follow a new line of endeavour. It seems pretty dictatorial.
Section 7 (new section 40) agreed to.
Section 7 (new sections 41 to 48 inclusive) agreed to.
On section 7 (new section 49)-Question arising during court proceedings.


Angus MacInnis: What is the explanation for this section?


Humphrey Mitchell: The courts have endeavoured to decide coverage. This merely gives the commission the final and only authority with respect to coverage under the act.


Angus MacInnis: There is no appeal?


Humphrey Mitchell: No appeal; there is an appeal to the umpire.


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: But beyond that there is no appeal.


Humphrey Mitchell: No.


George Hugh Castleden: And the commission has power to reverse its own decision?


Humphrey Mitchell: On new facts, yes.
Section 7 (new section 49) agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
Sections 8 to 17 inclusive agreed to.

Unemployment Insurance
On section 18-The commission may pay benefit to insured person where contributions not paid.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister explain this?


Humphrey Mitchell: If a man is not covered and the commission finds out later that he has been covered, the commission can pay the benefits, even though the contributions have not been made.


Mr. FRASER:: What safeguard has a
person?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is his safeguard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is in a case where he should have been covered?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 19-Unemployment insurance fund.
John Oliver Probe: Thus far in the operation of the fund has there been any month where payments out of the fund have exceeded receipts? What about April?


Humphrey Mitchell: April of this year was the first month.


John Oliver Probe: What was the excess?


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall get that figure for the hon. member.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister will remember, as those of us who dealt with this matter a few years ago remember, that, following the last war, in Great Britain a substantial fund had been laid aside, but it was not very long until the whole fund running into hundreds of millions of dollars had been dissipated. I do not mean that the money had been wasted, but it had been drawn out because of the great amount of unemployment.
We might run up against the same condition in this country, and it must not be taken as a reflection upon the Unemployment Insurance Act. The whole purpose of the fund is good. But both employers and employees will have to use their heads and meet situations as they arise. I am one who believes that if such a time should come we should be ready with the finances of the country to support it. The fund, which so many people seem to think is large, may actually be too small. But if such a time should come support should be given sufficient to carry on the obligations under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I have great faith in it. It has done a wonderful job, both in the old country and in Canada, as long as we have had it. It must
not be allowed to fail. The country itself, through its finances, would have to save the fund if and when it became depleted, to that extent.


Humphrey Mitchell: May I say to the hon. member for Regina City that the payments of benefits in the month of April were $1,500,000 more than the contributions.


John Oliver Probe: That is the only month?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


George Hugh Castleden: I think it is generally understood that in any case of general unemployment any insurance scheme will break down.


Humphrey Mitchell: It is like an earthquake.


George Hugh Castleden: Yes; it is beyond the efforts of human nature, and cannot be helped. Has the department some figure below which we would be on the safe side? What is the figure of unemployment in Canada beyond which the minister does not think the act would operate? What is the peak?


Humphrey Mitchell: It is estimated-and this is only an estimate-that it would be from 7i to 10 per cent.


George Hugh Castleden: For what period could it be carried at 10 per cent?


Humphrey Mitchell: Indefinitely.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 20 and 21 agreed to.
On section 22-Governor in council may extend provisions of part II.
Angus MacInnis: I understand that an order in council has been passed to bring loggers on the west coast under the act.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Angus MacInnis: Are they now covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act?
Mr. MITCHELL; On August 1 of this year.


Angus MacInnis: Will that extend to loggers in any other part of Canada?


Humphrey Mitchell: At present it applies only to British Columbia.


Angus MacInnis: All lumber workers in British Columbia are now covered by the act?
Mr. MITCHELL. They will be on August
1.


Angus MacInnis: Has the commission considered bringing in the longshoremen of British Columbia under the act?
Unemployment Insurance


Humphrey Mitchell: I am informed that consideration has been given to the matter. I had jurisdiction over the longshoremen at Halifax during the previous war, and I know and my hon. friend knows that there is some difficulty in that connection because these men work for so many different contractors.


Angus MacInnis: Longshoremen and loggers on the west coast are in pretty much the same situation as loggers and longshoremen in eastern Canada. Longshoring work in British Columbia is all-year work; it is not seasonal like the work in Montreal, Quebec and the ports on the great lakes. Longshoremen who work on the west coast and at the open ports on the Atlantic coast should be brought under the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Howard Charles Green: Is that the only reason why longshoremen are not covered by the act?


Humphrey Mitchell: It is largely an administrative difficulty because they work for so many different employers and because their employment is highly seasonal.


Mr. LOW:: Does that apply also to loggers outside of British Columbia?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, absolutely.


Howard Charles Green: Longshoring on the west coast is certainly not a seasonal occupation. I should like to endorse what the hon. member for Vancouver East has said. There seems to be no good reason why they should not be covered by the act.


Humphrey Mitchell: They may work for many different employers in the one day. The matter is under consideration and I shall be glad to bring it again to the attention of the commissioner.


Angus MacInnis: Is the longshoreman
exempt from income tax because he works for different employers?


Humphrey Mitchell: I would not think so.


Angus MacInnis: If you can collect income tax you can also collect unemployment insurance contributions.
There is another matter I should like to bring up. Representations have been made to me by certain employees of the city of Vancouver who have been removed from the act. These employees work in the cemeteries which are owned by the city. I took the matter up with the chief commissioner, and he sent me the following letter under date of June 5, 1946:
I might explain that insurability of employment by cemeteries came up for consideration a couple of years ago when it was drawn to the attention of this commission that an anomaly

existed which had given rise to some grievance. As you know, many cemeteries are operated by churches and other bodies which are classed as charitable institutions within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Act. These institutions are not required to insure their employees and this exception extends to employees of cemeteries operated by them.
On the other hand, cemeteries operated by municipalities and by private companies were required to insure their employees. Strong objection was taken by some of the latter and representations were made to the commissioner to remove the anomaly by exercising the powers granted under section 14 (1) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, which reads as follows:
After quoting the section, which I do not think I will read since the minister will have it before him, the letter continues:
As a result the commission made a regulation, which came into effect on April 22, 1944, which was the item quoted in the letter of April 9 from the accountant for Vancouver. The regulation provides in effect that any cemetery which is required to furnish graves to the poor without charge is relieved from making contributions for its employees. The provincial statutes of most of the provinces require both municipal and private cemeteries to do so and for this reason they felt that they should be put on the same basis as charitable institutions.
The cemeteries in the city of Vancouver are not charitable institutions; they are run by the city. A person employed to-day by the cemetery department may be employed tomorrow by some other department. These employees want to come under the Unemployment Insurance Act so that they may draw benefits if unemployed. They feel that if employees of charitable institutions are exempt there is no reason why they should be. As employees of the city I think they have as much right to be covered by the act as employees of any other department of the city.


Humphrey Mitchell: There was an anomaly in the administration. Charitable institutions did not come under the act and in its wisdom the commission removed all cemetery employees from the coverage of the act. A similar anomaly existed in another direction in connection with power plants. Privately owned power plants came under the act, while municipal and provincial power plants were exempted, and they were all put under the act.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Many municipal employees do not want to come under the act because they feel a degree of security in their employment. The hon. member for Vancouver East asked if all lumber men in British Columbia are covered and the answer was in the affirmative. Are all lumber men in Canada covered?


Humphrey Mitchell: No.

Unemployment Insurance


Wilfrid Garfield Case: It applies only to British Columbia?


Humphrey Mitchell: So far.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 23-Organization and maintenance of employment service.
Mr. CROLL:: How many people have been trained under this plan?


Humphrey Mitchell: We have not those
figures in front of us.


George Hugh Castleden: How many unemployed veterans are receiving benefits?


Humphrey Mitchell: I have not that information in front of me but I shall be glad to get it for my hon. friend.


Howard Charles Green: What additional duties are to be given to the commission? Subsection 4 of the new section 88 reads:
The commission shall assume and carry out such other duties and responsibilities -as the governor in council, on the recommendation of the minister, may require from time to time and, in respect of such other duties and responsibilities, shall be responsible to the minister.


Humphrey Mitchell: Speaking now as an individual, I want to say that I believe in ministerial responsibility. During the war we had to use the employment service for many things which were not covered by the legislation but which had to be done by order in council. At the present moment we are doing many things through the instrumentality of the employment service that are not covered by legislation. One item is apprenticeship training. For registration and all things necessary to carry this out in the different provinces we use the employment service. In the training of veterans we use the employment service; I mean that they move through that organization. Sometimes it is necessary to take a strike vote in some industry, and I use the agency for that purpose. Or take the movement of farm labour during the war, when we moved hundreds of thousands of people from agriculture in the winter to the other basic industries in the country; that was done under the direction of the minister through the employment service. I regard the employment service as a dynamic institution. You have to be prepared to make decisions, make them quickly, and give the necessary direction. I believe it can be truthfully said, notwithstanding some criticism, that without the employment service and the direction given to it by or through the minister during the war period, we would have had a very difficult situation in this country. Had we not had an employment service at the close of the war where, through ministerial responsibility, we could act quickly and
give the necessary direction from day to day, I do not believe we would have passed through these last six or seven months as we have done. My mind goes back to the last war, when only ten per cent of the industrial structure of this nation was engaged in war production.
That, in short, is the story. I cannot tell what to-morrow I may find it necessary that the employment service should do under the direction of the minister. My hon. friend can rest assured that anything which should be done will be done through the medium of that organization, if it is in the interests of the economic well-being of this nation, of the employers and of the working people who go to make up its working force.


Howard Charles Green: The idea is that there shall be wide power given to the employment service for these special duties?


Humphrey Mitchell: Absolutely, yes.


George Hugh Castleden: The minister does not mean that this will solve the unemployment problem?


Humphrey Mitchell: No.


George Hugh Castleden: Nor will it solve the condition the minister stated to-night, that we have to use and are using prisoners of war for industry and agriculture in this country at the present time?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes; and let me say this, while we are speaking of prisoners of war, that I would send these people back to Germany, where they belong, to-morrow morning if I had my way. That is where they belong and that is where they should be.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Back to England.


Humphrey Mitchell: No, to Germany. That is where they come from.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They have to go to
England first. They are England's prisoners.


Humphrey Mitchell: We found it necessary to retain them here. We have had representations from Alberta, Manitoba, and particularly Ontario, in connection with the sugar beet crop this year. Let me say also that under no circumstances will prisoners of war be used, under my jurisdiction, in this country as cheap labour. The cost to the employer must be on a par with that normally paid in the particular industry; and just as soon as we can get replacements of these prisoners by men in agriculture and the other avocations in which they are engaged, rest assured that they will be pulled out of this work as quickly as they possibly can. They are being pulled out now.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 24 (new section 92)-Definitions.
Unemployment Insurance
Mr. BROOKS:: I notice in paragraph (a)-
(a) "discharge" means any honourable termination of service from the forces since the thirtieth day of June, 1941.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs will remember, when we were discussing veterans affairs matters in our committee, reference was made to a good many men who, by reason of certain army offences, did not get honourable discharge but were serving periods of time in detention in penitentiaries and in other institutions, for military offences which would not have been civilian offences had they not been in the army. I believe there was a board of review which was reviewing all these cases-


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: -and a good many of these men (have been given discharges; whether we can call them "honourable" discharges or not I do not know. The point I wish to make is this: If these men are satisfactorily discharged as far as the veterans' acts are concerned, would they be considered honourably discharged as far as this act is concerned?


Humphrey Mitchell: I think, I would say
"yes" to that.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The minister is satisfied
that that is correct.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


John Oliver Probe: I do not want to prolong the discussion, but throughout this new section 92 I find no provision for members of His Majesty's forces other than those resident in Canada at the time of enlistment. I have particularly in mind paragraph (c), subparagraph (ii). There are or were in the forces of the United Kingdom quite a number of young Canadians who went there just prior to the war, and while they did not serve in the Canadian forces they served in the British forces and some of them are now returning. They had actually made their domicile in Britain, or thought they had, just before the war, and when the war broke out they joined the first force which they could join. The Minister of Veterans Affairs is familiar with many such cases. Since the war they have changed their minds; they do not now want to be domiciled in England and they are returning to Canada. What is their status? According to this clause, I believe they are not eligible for the government contribution to the unemployment insurance fund. Was it intended to discriminate against them?


Angus MacInnis: Would they not be eligible under new section 92, paragraph (a) (iii) ?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


John Oliver Probe: But they were not resident nor domiciled here.


Angus MacInnis: The subparagraph states:
domiciled and resident in Canada, who served in the armed forces of any of the nations allied with His Majesty in active operations against the enemy in the war and was domiciled in Canada at the time he joined any such forces for the purposes of the war, and who returned to Canada within two years of the date of his discharge from such forces, or of the eighth dav of May, 1945.
I think such a man would be eligible even if he were absent from Canada, if he were normally resident here.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If he intended to come back.


Humphrey Mitchell: This section is taken in to to from the veterans legislation. There is no change; it is just as it was; and goodness knows it has been discussed enough in the veterans affairs committee. If I have any understanding of the functions of the committee, if they have left anything out which is for the protection of the veterans I should like to know what it is.


John Oliver Probe: I am not on the committee this year, and for that reason I want to get it clear in my mind as to whether or not the men I have referred to are regarded as domiciled and resident in Canada. I recall that this matter was discussed last year in committee, but I do not remember what happened at that time. It looks to me as though these young men who went specifically to join the British air force just before the war, who intended to be domiciled thereafter in the United Kingdom, and who since the war have decided that Canada is where they belong, may not be covered by this section.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, they will be covered.
Section 24 (new section 92) agreed to.
On section 24 (new section 93)-Qualification period.


Angus MacInnis: I have one question. The first line reads:
A veteran who completes fifteen weeks in insurable employment within any period of twelve months . . .
What about the veteran who was not able to put in fifteen weeks in any such period? Where does he come in?


Humphrey Mitchell: He does not get it. That is the qualification.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister knows that after the great war in Great Britain they had the same experience, and the country found it necessary to give these men insurance by

Unemployment Insurance
putting them on the unemployment insurance pay roll. Apparently we are not going to follow that here.


Humphrey Mitchell: No. We have not found it necessary yet.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I suggest that the time will come when it will be found necessary.


Humphrey Mitchell: The ordinary employed person pays for thirty weeks. This veteran pays for only fifteen weeks.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But no one knows better than the minister that, following the great war, there were in Great Britain hundreds of thousands of veterans who were twenty-five and thirty weeks unemployed in one year and the government put them on the fund.


Humphrey Mitchell: They get veterans out-of-work benefit.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Two or three years from now.


Angus MacInnis: How long would a returned man who came under unemployment insurance in this way be in this category, that is to say, this section of the Unemployment Insurance Act? Would he ultimately come under the general operations of the act, or is it of a diminishing nature?


Humphrey Mitchell: Oh, no. He comes straight under the act, with all the rights and privileges.


Angus MacInnis: But does he change his status at some time from that of a veteran to that of a civilian under the act?


Humphrey Mitchell: As soon as he has had fifteen weeks. He takes his position under the law the same as the civilian.


Angus MacInnis: And that is the only difference?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.
Section 24 (new section 93) agreed to.
On section 24 (new section 94)-Contributions in respect of veterans.


John Oliver Probe: The contribution made on behalf of the veterans by the dominion government equals the usual amount contributed by the employer plus that of the employee?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


John Oliver Probe: But there is lacking from this contribution the twenty per cent additional which would normally be contributed had this veteran been a civilian rather than a veteran; that is to say, contributed by the government.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is paid by the government.


John Oliver Probe: I did not read it in that way.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is paid by the government.


John Oliver Probe: If I have that assurance from the minister I have nothing more to say on the point.
Section 24 (new section 94) agreed to.
On section 24 (new section 95)-Report on fund.


Howard Charles Green: In new section 95 there is provision for the advisory committee to make reports on the effect upon the fund of these contributions. I presume the idea is to report if the fund is being depleted.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: What happens if it is found that the fund is being depleted? Will the commission go back to the veteran and demand payment from him?


Humphrey Mitchell: The advisory committee reports to parliament.


Howard Charles Green: The section says that "the governor in council may"-it does not state that the committee reports to parliament.


Humphrey Mitchell: The advisory committee does report to parliament.


Howard Charles Green: The section states that the governor in council may, on receipt of a report, take into consideration immediate measures to remedy any depletion of the fund due to the operation of this part, which depletion shall have been established by the report of the committee. Would it not be wiser to provide that if there is such depletion it shall be made up from the consolidated revenue fund?


Humphrey Mitchell: Frankly, I do not know the reason for that language. It was taken en bloc out of the veterans legislation. I may not be a member of the government when that happens. I cannot look into the future that far. I may not be a member of the government of that day, but I assume that if my hon. friend is a member of the government, or if the hon. member for Vancouver East is a member of it-probably not the same government-


John Ritchie MacNicol: You never can tell.


Humphrey Mitchell: -they will do the sensible thing, just as I assume that this government would.
Unemployment Insurance


Howard Charles Green: I take it that when the minister says the government would do the sensible thing he means the government would make good whatever depletion might take place.


Humphrey Mitchell: The fund would be kept liquid.


Howard Charles Green: In other words, the fund would be made up out of the consolidated revenue fund. In that case, I think it would be well to put that provision in the act because, according to the present wording, the veteran could be called on to make good the deficiency.


Humphrey Mitchell: We cannot commit future governments. My hon. friend understands the principle that one parliament cannot commit another.


Howard Charles Green: Every statute you pass commits a future government as long as that statute stands. If a subsequent government wishes to change a statute it may do so. At any rate, I suggest that it should be made clear in. this section just how the deficiency will be made up, and I do not think there is any dispute that it will come from the consolidated revenue fund.
Section 7 (new section 95) agreed to.


John Oliver Probe: Mr. Chairman, may we revert to new section 94?


Humphrey Mitchell: When we have disposed of the other.
On section 7 (new section 96)-"Veteran" to include certain merchant seamen.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Are merchant seamen under this act at the present time?


Humphrey Mitchell: No. They will be as soon as it is assented to.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is, all merchant
seamen?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: And they were not previously?


Humphrey Mitchell: No.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If a man continues in the same employment for fifteen weeks he gets the full benefits?


Humphrey Mitchell: I did not clearly understand that.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If the merchant seaman had been under this act prior to the present amendment-


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Perhaps I can answer this. In the case of a merchant seaman, he is required to have been in insurable employ-
ment for thirty weeks, but in the case of the veteran who is in receipt of the two bonuses referred to in new section 96, he must be in insurable employment for fifteen weeks.
' Mr. BROOKS: He can continue, if he has been a merchant seaman, in his ship for fifteen weeks after the war; he gets the full benefit of unemployment insurance and the government pays that share.


Humphrey Mitchell: After this measure comes into force.


Lionel Chevrier: And if he is in receipt of the bonuses referred to in this section.
Mr. MacINNIS1: Where does the Minister of Transport find that the merchant seamen must have made contributions for thirty weeks.


Lionel Chevrier: It is in section 13 of the old act. That refers to all persons who are employed in any of the employments specified in part I of the first schedule, and part I is being amended by order in council so as to cover the point I mentioned a moment ago.


Angus MacInnis: I may not be able to read legal language, but this states that "veteran" shall include merchant seamen; and if veteran includes merchant seamen, surely the provisions that apply to a veteran who is not a merchant seaman will apply to a merchant seaman.


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend looks at section 13 he will, see that people who receive unemployment insurance get it by virtue of that section.


Angus MacInnis: Section 13?


Lionel Chevrier: Section 13 of the old act says that persons who are employed in any of the employment specified in part I of the first schedule to this act are entitled to unemployment insurance, and those who are excepted in part II are not entitled.


Angus MacInnis: This part does not make any reference to part I or to section 13 of the act.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right. But if my hon. friend turns to page 20 of the bill-we passed section 19 a moment ago-he will see that it says:
On the recommendation of the committee and the commission, the governor in council may extend the provisions of this act to any of the employments specified as excepted employments in part II of the first schedule . . .
And Part II of the first schedule has to do with transportation on water.

Unemployment Insurance


Alfred Johnson Brooks: My point is that if merchant seamen were included in the act before, why are they put in this special section?


Lionel Chevrier: They were not included in the act before.


Humphrey Mitchell: Perhaps I can explain it in a sentence. Normally a merchant seaman comes under the terms of the act just the same as any other civilian worker. He has to have thirty weeks with the exception of those who are in receipt of war bonus, which is considered active service. They come under the same condition as the men in the fighting forces.


Angus MacInnis: That is those who are mentioned in new section 96?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is right.


Angus MacInnis: That is what I was dealing with all the time. Is the advisory committee or the commission considering the bringing of transportation by water under the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is in this bill.


Angus MacInnis: Does that apply to transportation by air?


Humphrey Mitchell: That is already in.
Mr. MaoNICOL: Are the merchant seamen on the great lakes covered also?


Humphrey Mitchell: They will be under this bill.


Howard Charles Green: Does the benefit given by the new section 96 apply only from the time this bill comes into effect? In other words, has it any retroactive effect?


Humphrey Mitchell: No.


Howard Charles Green: Suppose a merchant seaman was discharged six months ago; would he get any benefits under this new section 96?


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes; he is covered by the manning pools; he is in the manning pools.


Howard Charles Green: It covers the man who was discharged before the bill comes into effect?


Humphrey Mitchell: Certainly.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Transport shakes his head.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am saying "yes"; that is definite enough, is it not?


Howard Charles Green: Yes, if it is correct.
Section 7 (new section 96) agreed to.


William Ross Macdonald: We shall revert to new section 94.	.


John Oliver Probe: The minister said that the object of this new section was to ensure that out of funds appropriated by parliament there will be handed over to the unemployment insurance fund an amount equivalent to what would have been paid had the veterans been in civilian employment, namely, a combination of the three amounts, that which would be contributed by the employee and the employer, plus the twenty per cent which the government normally contributes to the unemployment insurance fund. With all deference to the minister I do not think that is the way the new section reads. If that is the intent of the act I do not think it is properly worded. I shall read the part which applies.


Humphrey Mitchell: I have the answer. I know what is in the hon. member's mind.


John Oliver Probe: The section reads:
. . . there shall be credited to the fund out of moneys appropriated by parliament for the purpose, the amount of the combined contributions of the employer and the employed person under this act, for a period equal to the period of service of the veteran after the thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and forty-one, and the rate at which the same combined contributions shall be computed is the average of the con tributions shown by the unemployment insurance records of the veteran to have been paid by him and on his behalf for the said fifteen weeks. . .
And so on. As I read this, the government's share of the civilian equivalent of contribution is not being paid out of moneys appropriated by parliament. If that was the intention, would the minister consider-


Humphrey Mitchell: I shall clarify it for my hon. friend. Section 94 deals with the contributions of the employer and the employee. Section 77, subsection 2, of the present act dleals with the government contributions. You have the employer and employee contributions in section 94 and you get the government's contribution of twenty per cent in section 77, subsection 2, of the old act, which reads:
The Minister of Finance shall also credit in like manner from time to time out of moneys provided by parliament an amount equal to one-fifth of the aggregate credits from time to time made as aforesaid after deducting from the said aggregate credits any refunds of contributions from time to time made under the provisions of this act from the fund.
That is a combination of the three classes.
Section 24 agreed to.
On section 25-Regulations concerning persons under same employer partly in insurable employment and partly in another employment.


Howard Charles Green: There are two paragraphs in this section, (o) and (p), on which I should like to ask the minister a few questions.

ci 152
Unemployment Insurance

Apparently they are giving the employment service powers which they have not had heretofore.


Humphrey Mitchell: That is true.


Howard Charles Green: For example, paragraph (o) gives the employment service power to require every person who has engaged an employee, who ascertains that he requires or will require to engage an employee, or who ascertains that an employee has left or will be leaving his employment, to give notice to the employment service. Then the next paragraph reads as follows:
requiring every person seeking employment to notify the employment service of such fact and to supply prescribed incidental information in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed.
Surely it is not neeessarj' to take powers which are so wide.


Humphrey Mitchell: We had that power, of course, under the national selective service. It is in effect. What we want to get is a running picture from day to day of the employment situation in Canada. That is the only reason for it. It has been carried on ever since national selective service regulations were instituted. It is still being done at the moment. That is the only reason it is in there. It is to give us a live picture of the movement of labour from day to day in the dominion.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister think it will be possible to get every person who is looking for a job first to report that fact to the employment service? It seems to me to be an impossible requirement. It Will never be carried out. It will be annoying to people who are looking for work and also to employers, if they have to report every time they want to hire a new employee. If they have to report that fact to the employment service it will mean that the employment service must keep many additional records and a large staff. I suggest to the minister that there is no need to go that far. Surely it is not the function of the employment service to put its finger into everybody's business in that way for all time in the future.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think it is. I am not a statistics fiend, and I have always been afraid of those people who have a stack of statistics under their arms. However, I believe it is well to have some knowledge of the labour market, of employment conditions, the numbers employed and all that sort of thing from day to day. I do not think you could enforce a thing like that in rural parts-
IMr. Green.)


Howard Charles Green: You cannot enforce it anywhere.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think you can, in large measure. I do not mean in an enforcing sense, but I think it can be done with a degree of cooperation from both employers and employees. The hon. gentleman may rest assured that these powers will not be abused as far as I am concerned; but here we are endeavouring to obtain better and more up-to-date knowledge of what one might call the labour market and labour conditions throughout the country than we have ever had before. We have figures quoted here. I remember that just before the last election someone predicted that we would have half a million people unemployed by October of last year. I sometimes think some people were disappointed that we did not, because they had predicted it.


Howard Charles Green: The minister is not looking at me when he says that.


Humphrey Mitchell: No; I was looking at the hon. member for Regina City. I do say sincerely, however, that my hon. friend may rest assured that there will be no abuse of these powers as far as I am concerned.


Howard Charles Green: I suggest that the one thing more than anything else which made the employment service unpopular was that people had to line up there day after day and wait hours to get service. If now in peace time it is to be the plan that everybody looking for jobs must go to the employment service-


Humphrey Mitchell: No, absolutely not.


Howard Charles Green: -then you will have greater line-ups than ever; you will have your whole system clogged, and I suggest to the minister that he give careful consideration to this question before bringing in regulations that require everybody to report before getting work.


Humphrey Mitchell: I appreciate fully the import of what my hon. friend says. One reason I took the course of eliminating the controls in selective service was the very simple reason my hon. friend has just enunciated. I thought there would be such a tremendous movement of labour that our offices would not be able to handle it, that we would have congregations of people in downtown Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto and so on. Some of my officials warned me against the sudden dropping of these controls, but I said to them, "You will be amazed at what free men can do, how they will find a niche for themselves in the economy of this country." I believe our decision has been justified by what has happened since then. As I have said, over a million people were put into the


Unemployment Insurance
employment stream in the course of four months without any undue stress or strain on the employment service.
What I am driving at here, however, is merely a reporting system. I do not want people to go to employment offices, but we want to know the ebb and flow, the turnover in the labour market of this country. This may be a jump in the dark. It may be the wrong thing to do, but we feel that we can have a more reliable barometer of employment conditions by applying this very simple idea of reporting both by the employer and the employee, who, however, does not have to go to the employment office.


Howard Charles Green: But the great majority of these people will feel that they must go to the employment offices.


Humphrey Mitchell: If they are claiming benefits they will have to do so.


Howard Charles Green: I am quite certain a large number of them will not bother about reporting at all; therefore the minister's information will not be accurate because it will be only partial information. If my firm were going to engage a stenographer, for example, it would be a great nuisance to have to report to the employment service that we desired to employ a stenographer, and I am sure all firms will feel that way about it. They have had so many government reports to make out, both dominion and provincial, and have been so greatly handicapped in carrying on their business, that I do not see why the employment service should require these reports from either employees or employers.


Humphrey Mitchell: The hon. gentleman may rest assured that this power will not be abused.


Angus MacInnis: I am not sure whether or not it is necessary; but, as more people come under the Unemployment Insurance Act, if they are to be directed to employment it will be essential for them to report somewhere in order that they may be so directed. Otherwise there would be no control whatever of those who lose their employment. If the employment offices have not a list of the jobs vacant and another list of persons looking for jobs, I do not see how they can function. As more and more people are brought under unemployment insurance, the greater will become the need for these employment offices. For instance, if stenographers are under the Unemployment Insurance Act and my hon. friend wants to engage a stenographer, since stenographers who lose their employment must register with the employment office the obvious place for him to look for a stenographer is the employment office. Of 63260-199J
course, if there is a huge unemployment pool and the supply of stenographers is much greater than the demand, then he might be able to get one by advertising or in some other way. I submit, however, that if the Unemployment Insurance Act is to operate properly, at least those who are receiving benefits under it will have to be registered in file employment offices.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 26 to 28 inclusive agreed to.
On section 29-Secrecy of records.
Mr. CAMPBELL:: Will the minister explain why this section is necessary? It seems to me that we have now quite a lot of difficulty in getting information, and this will make it worse.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think it is a fairly well established principle that there should be some privacy for the individual. That is an old British tradition. It is the only reason for this provision. Any information we get from the man or woman in regard to his or her personal affairs, in connection with an application, is confidential and should not be given to anyone else. That is the general practice.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Do you not have enough protection now without having this? Members of this house will be precluded from getting this information, too.


Humphrey Mitchell: This has'reference to the public generally. Take yourself and myself as individuals. I think my private affairs are no business of anybody, and neither are yours. A man may come to the unemployment office and want somebody to find his wife for him, or find out something about her. That is not our business. We deal with people just as employees, and any confidential information we get from men or women should remain in the files of the offices. We do not want to be snoopers for people who want to find out information about others who are drawing unemployment insurance, or who are covered by the scheme and receiving benefits.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You will have enough
to do without that.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: If we get a complaint in a certain case and want certain information, this will preclude members of parliament from getting it?


Humphrey Mitchell: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 30 to 38 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported.
Printing and Stationery


[Stage Direction]
Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Secretary of State) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Public Printing and Stationery Act in relation to advances authorized to be made to the King's Printer for the purchase of materials to execute orders and requisitions and payment of wages, and to provide that the total amount of such outstanding advances shall at no time exceed the sum of two million dollars.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in tlhe chair.
Mr. FRASER,: Would the minister explain?
Mr. MARTIN:: 
John Ritchie MacNicol: From whom does he get authority to maTe the expenditures?


Paul Joseph James Martin: He makes his report
annually, and it is presented to parliament.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Martin thereupon moved to introduce bill No. 245, to amend the Public Printing and Stationery Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



REPEAL OF PROVISION OF ACT RESPECTING DUTIES OF CLERK OF PRINTING COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of bill No. 127, to amend the Public Printing and Stationery Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Repeal.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will the Secretary of State jive us an explanation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Section 3 of the Public Printing and Stationery Act which it is intended to repeal was passed during the session of 1888. It will be seen that the
TMr. Mitchell.]
committee referred to in section 3 was therein empowered to employ a clerk independent of the authorities of the houses of parliament. The chairman of the joint committee on printing chose the job printing companies which were to handle the tvork and the clerk of the committee acting as his secretary had equal power. Section 3 of the Printing and Stationery Act is now obsolete, because the staffs of the Senate and the House of Commons have been reorganized, and their permanent officers, clerks and employees are appointed under the provisions of the Civil Service Act. Moreover, the committee has now no right to make appointments. Standing order 82 states that the Clerk has direction and control over all the officers and clerks employed in the offices subject to such orders as he may from time to time receive from Mr. Speaker or from parliament itself. According to section 3, ivliich it is proposed to repeal, the chairman of the committee can theoretically ignore the Speaker and the Clerk of the house and give whatever orders he desires. Obviously it is desirable that this conflict should not exist, and that this obsolete section should be removed. That is the purpose of the measure.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. PAUL MARTIN (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of bill No. 125, to amend the House of Commons Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Repeal.
John Ritchie MacNicol: Will the minister explain the purpose of this bill?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is to remove from the operative sections of existing statutes certain obsolete clauses. Prior to 1931 there was no provision in the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act for issuing moneys out of the consolidated revenue fund for the administrative expenditures of the House of Commons. Letters of credit signed by the Speaker and two commissioners of internal economy of the house were periodically sent to the treasury for amounts required during a certain period, usually three months. The letter of credit was issued in favour of the accountant of the house who had been duly authorized to receive it by the Speaker.

United Nations
In the revision of the Audit Act, during the session of 1931, the words "public moneys" were defined so as to include all revenue from any source whatsoever, and section 3 declares that all public moneys shall form the consolidated revenue fund of Canada. Section 27 of the revised act provides that all issue of public moneys out of the consolidated revenue fund shall be made under the direction of the comptroller by cheque. The procedure is laid out in regulations and other sections of the act. These cover the issue of moneys required for the House of Commons; and therefore sections 19 and 20 of the House of Commons Act, which it is intended to repeal under this bill, have not been used since 1931, are obsolete and useless and should be deleted from our statutes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MacKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of bill No. 126, to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act.
Angus MacInnis: As I remember, the minister did not speak on the resolution stage of this bill and I was wondering if he had a statement to make to the house on the second reading.


James Angus MacKinnon: I have a statement to make, but I could not possibly make it in the few minutes that are left and I suggest that we call it eleven o'clock.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When the minister is making his statement will he indicate what the manufacturers' association and the chambers of commerce agreed to at their last meeting, at which departmental officers were present?


James Angus MacKinnon: I shall be glad to do that.
On motion of Mr. MacKinnon the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, July 5, 1946