1954-02-16

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, February 12, 1954
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Thibaudeau Rinfret, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber on Tuesday, the 16th February, at 9.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
X have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Secretary to the Governor General, (Administrative)


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: It is not my intention, nor would it be my intention, to include my personal correspondence in an official return.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will understand that, an order having been issued by the house, I have no power to change the order that was made nor to give an order to the house myself. The order was made and the return was produced. The hon. member is perfectly right in raising the question at this time because in his view the return is not complete. However, he has the explanation from the minister. He may not agree with it, but I imagine that this is where the matter should rest.


Mr. Fulton:: It will rest there for the time being-


Some hon. Members:: Order.



PRIVILEGE


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I have to bring to your attention and to the attention of the house a matter concerning the completeness of a return which was ordered by this house on February 1. On that date the house adopted a motion of mine as follows:
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda or telephone calls, etc., exchanged between the minister or the Department of Fisheries and any person or organization outside the dominion government service, since December 5, 1952, concerning the installation of fish screens on rivers and streams in the Nicola valley or elsewhere in British Columbia.
This return was tabled yesterday but apparently there is an omission from it, in that not all the correspondence has been produced. I have here a clipping from the Kamloops paper dated January 20, which was some ten days before the return was ordered, which indicates that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) had written a letter on this matter to Mr. Kenneth W. Houghton, living in my constituency. I may say that Mr. Houghton was the defeated Liberal candidate in the last general election. That letter is not included in the return and I would be grateful if you would have a further order of the house issued to the department to make certain that all correspondence relevant to this matter is produced.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -but I should like it to be perfectly clear that the minister has stated that that was personal correspondence.


An hon. Member:: He said that.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Hon. Douglas Abboll (Minister of Finance):: I should like to make a statement with respect to the introduction of the five-day 40-hour week. I announced on December 8 last that the government had decided that the policy of readjusting the working week of the operating staffs in the post office, customs and various other operating branches of the public service to the five-day 40-hour week would be put into effect on April 1 next. This, of course, was to be done where the five-day 40-hour week was the prevailing practice in the locality.
As I mentioned a few days ago in the house, the staffs of the civil service commission and the treasury board have been examining available statistics which show the extent to which the five-day 40-hour week is in effect in business and industry throughout the country. The civil service commission has made a report based on these figures and the treasury board has approved its recommendations that the five-day 40-hour week be put into effect in the locations listed below for operating employees. In these locations

Public Service-Work Week the five-day 40-hour week is also approved for clerical employees. As local conditions change and the five-day week becomes the common practice in additional centres, it will, of course, be extended to civil servants in these localities and further announcements will be made.
I should point out to you that, although the principle followed has been to conform to the local practice with respect to hours of work, some exceptions have been made for the sake of administrative convenience and over-all efficiency and it has been decided to place the operating employees on the five-day 40-hour week wherever clerical employees are on the five-day week and vice versa.
I would like to draw to your attention, also, a further principle underlying the decision to extend the five-day 40-hour week to coincide with local practice. It has always been understood, and the civil service commission's recommendations bear out, that even where the five-day 40-hour week is a common local practice, it does not apply in certain types of employment, for example:
Hospitals, convalescent institutions, health centres and nursing stations; establishments and services maintained by departments to furnish living accommodation and/or to provide messing facilities for civil servants, military personnel, detainees or transient guests; firefighting and fire protection services; services used in the operation and maintenance of penitentiaries and the guarding of persons in detention; security and watchman services; the operating services on farms, fish hatcheries, national parks and historic sites; lightkeeping services; heating staffs.
The five-day 40-hour week, therefore, cannot be put into effect for these civil service classes. The places listed come to some 180-odd, and I assume the house will give consent that they should be printed without being read.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed this list be printed without being read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The list is as follows:



LOCATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Newfoundland
Bell Island (Wabana)	Grand Falls
Corner Brook	St. John's
Gander
Nova
Glace Bay
Halifax-Dartmouth
Inverness
New Glasgow
New Waterford
North Sydney
Pictou
fMr. Abbott.]
Scotia
Springhill
Stellarton
Sydney Mines
Sydney-Point Edward
Trenton
Truro
Prince Edward Island
Charlottetown	Summerside
	New Brunswick
Bathurst	Newcastle
Campbellton	Sackville
Chatham	Saint John-Lancaster
Edmundston	St. Stephen
Fredericton	Woodstock
Moncton	Quebec
Acton Vale	Magog
Arvida	Montreal
Asbestos	New Richmond
Beauharnois	Port Alfred
Buckingham	Quebec City
Chandler	Richmond
Chicoutimi	Riviere du Loup
Coaticook	Shawinigan Falls
Drummondville	Sherbrooke
East Angus	Sorel
Farnham	St. Hyacinthe
Granby	St. Jean
Hull	St. Jerome
Joliette	St. Joseph d'Alma
Lachute	Ste. Therese
Lacolle	Thetford Mines
La Tuque	Trois Rivieres-Cap de
Levis-Lauzon	la Madeleine
Longueuil	Valleyfield
Louiseville	Victoriaville
	Ontario
Arnprior	Oakville
Barrie	Orillia
Belleville	Oshawa
Bowmanville	Ottawa
Brampton	Owen Sound
Brantford	Parry Sound
Brockville	Pembroke
Burlington	Perth
Carleton Place	Peterborough
Chatham	Picton
Cobourg	Port Arthur
Collingwood	Port Colborne
Cornwall	Port Hope
Dunnville	Port Weller
Fort Erie	Prescott
Fort Frances	Renfrew
Fort William	Sarnia
Galt-Preston	Sault Ste. Marie
Gananoque	Simcoe
Goderich	Smiths Falls
Guelph	St. Catharines-Welland
Hamilton	St. Thomas
Hawkesbury	Stratford
Ingersoll	Sturgeon Falls
Kapuskasing	Sudbury
Kenora	Thorold
Kingston	Tillsonburg
Kitchener	Toronto
Leamington	Trenton
Lindsay	Walkerton
Listowel	Wallaceburg
London	Waterloo
Midland	Weston
Napanee	Whitby
Newmarket	Windsor
Niagara Falls North Bay	Woodstock
	Manitoba
Brandon	Selkirk
Dauphin	Winnipeg-St. Boniface
	Saskatchewan
Estevan	Regina
Prince Albert	Saskatoon

Inquiries of the Ministry
Alberta	REPORTS AND PAPERS
Blairmore
Calgary
Drumheller
Edmonton
Edson
Lethbridge
British Columbia
Chilliwack
Courtenay
Cranbrook
Duncan
Kamloops
Kelowna
Kimberley
Mission City
Nanaimo
Nelson
New Westminster Ocean Falls
Penticton
Port Alberni
Powell River
Prince George
Prince Rupert
Princeton
Revelstoke
Trail-Rossland
Vancouver
Vernon
Victoria.
[Later: ]
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) arising out of his statement as to the application to 100 communities of the five-day 40-hour week.


Douglas Charles Abbott: About 180 communities.



PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED IN TABLING RETURNS

Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as required by law, I am tabling the annual report to parliament of the civil service commission regarding the positions excluded from the operation of the Civil Service Act during the year 1953.
I am also tabling a parliamentary return in regard to cost plus contracts.


Mr. Lennard:: Whose return? Who asked
for it?
[Later: ]


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State. I noticed when he tabled a return a few moments ago that he did not follow the usual practice and say who had asked for the return. It is the usual procedure in tabling returns not only to inform hon. members of the subject matter, but also to give the name of the hon. member who asked for it. I would suggest that the usual practice be followed in this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: All right; about 180 communities. In the case of areas in which the prevailing practice is, generally speaking, the five-day 40-hour week and which have not been included within the purview of the table that was placed before the house, will the minister say how frequently it will be reviewed and what evidence would be required in order to have added as an addendum an area which is not now included in the present list?


Douglas Charles Abbott: My understanding is that the civil service commission are making a continuous inquiry. It would only be hearsay for me to tell my hon. friend what evidence they accept as to whether or not the 40-hour week is the prevailing practice. I assume they survey existing industries, offices, et cetera. My information is that the policy is that where more than 50 per cent of the industries or office workers are on the five-day 40-hour week, they then certify that area as being one in which it is the prevailing practice. The same practice would apply with respect to the civil service.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Finance, supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). Must the government always follow in this matter? Could the government not lead the way once in a while?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I understood these returns were orders of the house and I did not realize it was the duty of a minister to go behind an order of the house and give the name of the hon. member who had moved for the return; but if it is the general wish that that be done I shall certainly be glad to comply.



WATER POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is he prepared to give a statement setting forth the degree of success that has been achieved as the result of the co-operation between his officials and the health officials of the government of Alberta in connection with the pollution of the North Saskatchewan river?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has just noted, the matter he brings to my attention is receiving the consideration of the federal government in co-operation with the responsible government under the constitution in the province of Alberta. I may say, however, that our own laboratory in Ottawa and the laboratories of the department of health in Edmonton, as well as the laboratories of the industries concerned, are all

Inquiries of the Ministry participating in the current investigation with regard to the pollution of the North Saskatchewan river.
Samples are being taken regularly from 14 river points extending from above Edmonton through to The Pas in Manitoba. The industrial effluents as they flow into the river are also being analysed to detect the substances or combination of substances which are causing the objectionable taste and odour. This work is being headed up in Edmonton by a chemist from the Department of National Health and Welfare assisted by another chemist from the same department and two of our engineers, also from the department. In addition to this technical staff the chiefs of the public health engineering division and the occupational health engineering division are still in Edmonton and will remain there until their services are no longer required by the proper authorities in Alberta.
The results of the investigation by our officers, however, to date still leave a doubt as to the real underlying source of the nuisance. This is due to the extremely complex nature of the discharges and to the very real possibility of new compounds being formed after the mixture of the effluents in the river.
While this is going on, the industries themselves are doing everything they can to cooperate with the provincial and other authorities in this particular matter.
I might add that Dr. C. J. Mackenzie, latterly head of the research council in Canada, who has had some experience in these matters, happens to be in the west at the present time, and his services in a consultative capacity are also being enlisted in order to see if he can in some way give assistance.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the department as yet made an analysis of the water in the city of Prince Albert, and if so, what does that analysis reveal?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We had an analysis of the water from the city of Prince Albert at least two weeks ago, but my hon. friend would not expect me to give a technical answer. I can say, however, that the odour from the water is not what one normally would expect or hope for.


Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Battlefords):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? Has it been determined which plant in Edmonton is responsible for the pollution, because I have word today that one plant in particular is responsible?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can only say what I said a moment ago, that that has not been determined.



FEDERAL PURCHASES OF CHEMICALS FROM EDMONTON COMPANIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister a question? Is the federal government purchasing chemicals for jet fuel, or chemicals for any purpose, from any company in Edmonton, Alberta? If so, will the minister find out whether such government purchases are being made from any company which may be polluting the North Saskatchewan river?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, I can report only for the department for which I am responsible, namely the Department of Defence Production. The answer to the hon. member's question is that we buy jet fuel but we do not buy any chemicals from the plants in question. In other words, fuels are bought as a complete store or product. Regarding chemicals for any other purpose, the general purchasing division of my department has not bought any in the Edmonton area.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister relative to an advertisement which appeared in today's issue of the Toronto Globe and Mail and which was inserted by the Consumers' Gas Company. In view of the fact that Toronto cannot be served with natural gas from Alberta in less than three years, contrasted with service from-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will kindly put his question.


Carl Olof Nickle: This advertisement states-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member put his question?


Carl Olof Nickle: Will the minister advise us of his government's views on the Niagara gas transmission project, and how soon the Niagara bill may be considered by parliament?
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Acting Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, the government has no views on the subject. As far as the bill by the applicant is concerned, it is now before parliament going through the normal parliamentary procedure. I have heard nothing about it since it was introduced in the other place. However, I presume it will come here in due course, and I suggest that my hon. friend can do his own digging as to when that will be.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister received a copy of a resolution from the Retired Citizens' Association of his own city of Windsor respectfully urging the Hon. Paul Martin to speak out in parliament in favour of a national health insurance plan? If so, does the minister intend to implement this resolution at an early date?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the citizens of Windsor would be the first to tell the hon. gentleman that there is no one who speaks out more clearly than I on this particular matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not the way the resolution reads.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ambrose Holowach (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called may I ask a question of the parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in the minister's absence, notice of which I gave last Friday together with a clipping, headed "U.S. Shows No Desire to Free Igor Evidence", which was taken from the Toronto Globe and Mail dated February 9. My question is this. Owing to the considerable publicity which has been given as to the release of the Gouzenko evidence, will the parliamentary assistant make a statement to the house with respect to all of the testimony given the United States subcommittee by Igor Gouzenko several weeks ago?


Mr. Roch Pinard (Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. friend for having informed me of the nature of his question.
As hon. members will recall from previous statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), the Canadian government, following a request from the United States government, informed that government that it was prepared to make arrangements for a meeting at which Mr. Gouzenko could be interviewed by representatives of the United States government. This offer was subsequently accepted. In accordance with these arrangements a meeting was
Inquiries of the Ministry held on January 4, 1954, at which representatives of the United States government interviewed Mr. Gouzenko. The United States government was represented by the United States ambassador to Canada, Senator William E. Jenner, Senator Pat McCarran and Mr. J. G. Sourwine. I should like to emphasize that Mr. Gouzenko was interviewed by representatives of the United States government and not by a committee of the United States Senate.
After the meeting the Canadian authorities examined the transcript of the proceedings in order to determine whether there was any reference either in the questions or in the answers, publication of which in this context might jeopardize Canadian security investigations or might prejudice unfairly the reputation of individuals or organizations in Canada or might be open to question on grounds of international propriety, as relating primarily to the interests of a friendly third country. With the exception of a few words in the transcript-in fact, there were about two or three sentences comprising about 30 or 35 words-which fell within one or other of these categories, the Canadian government saw no objection from its point of view to making the transcript public if the United States government so wished. The Canadian government did not, however, consider that it would be appropriate to make the transcript public unless the United States government requested that this action be taken, since the inquiry related directly to names of persons in the United States or to the internal security of the United States.
The Canadian government therefore informed the United States government in the latter part of January that it was prepared to make public the transcript with or without any further deletions, if the United States government wished this done. Up to the present time no further word has been received from the United States government on this question.


THE CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in reply to a question asked of me by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), I said that the government was not considering reconvening at an early date the federal-provincial conference on constitutional amendment which last met, not in September, 1950, as the hon. member for Kamloops stated, but in December of 1950.

Inquiries of the Ministry
The hon. member then asked me a supplementary question which it would have been misleading for me to answer either with "yes" or "no". In this supplementary question he ignored the fact that the Canadian constitution can already be amended in Canada in purely provincial matters and in purely federal matters. There are, however, no means by which legislative authorities responsible to the people of Canada can make such amendments as may from time to time be required in the third area of the Canadian constitution, namely that part of it which is of concern to both provincial and federal authorities. This, therefore, I take it, is the point to which the hon. member's question referred. On this point the position of the government was stated in a speech delivered in Vancouver on July 9, 1953, by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in the following words:
My third subject is the Canadian constitution itself. Because of our action after the last election, the parliament of Canada now has the right to amend the constitution of Canada, by itself, in all matters which are exclusively of federal concern. But Canada today is the only important nation which does not have the power to amend its constitution in all respects. We Liberals believe that there should be a method of amending the constitution in all respects here at home, whenever amendments are desired. But such a method must be worked out in co-operation with the provincial governments. I hope the day will soon come when the authorized spokesmen of all the provinces will be able to agree on a method of amending the constitution here in Canada which will give full protection to provincial autonomy, because I do not believe any rights given to the provinces by the constitution can or should be taken from them without the consent of the appropriate provincial authorities.
And it is the policy of the Liberal party, in working out a scheme for amending the constitution here at home, to make sure the utmost legal protection is given to our sacred constitutional rights with respect to education and the use of the English and French languages.
To this statement I have nothing to add at the present time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: With reference to his answer, may I ask the Minister of Justice whether, since the conference last met in December of 1950, there have been any indications from the provincial governments or other sources that it would not be possible to arrive at a common agreement as to the method of amending the constitution in those fields to which he has referred?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I would have preferred it if my hon. friend's question had been a little bit differently worded, in which case I would answer that since that time, to the best of my knowledge, no requests have been made by any of the provincial authorities for a reconvening of the conference in


question. That does not answer my hon. friend in the precise terms in which he asks his question but I think it conveys the information that he wants.


UNEMPLOYMENT-MOTION FOR EXAMINATION BY COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, February 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Green, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Gillis.
Mr. B. R. Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that last evening I was discussing certain aspects of the unemployment situation, particularly management relations as they affect unemployment. At that time I mentioned that the purpose of plants and plant equipment is not only for management or operators to make money and make a profit but also so that people working in the particular industry can make a living.
Before I proceed with the next part of my address, I should like to make one thing perfectly clear. As a member of parliament I consider it my duty to represent all groups and no particular group to the disadvantage of some other group within an area, a province or the Dominion of Canada. I will admit that in doing so it becomes a little difficult at times to consider matters from the viewpoint of how they concern each and every individual. However, that is my stand, and this question must be dealt with fairly and squarely as it relates to everybody, whether they be workers in an industry, whether they be associated with it in some way or whether they be the managers.
As employment increases production increases, and people in the community all become better off provided there is distribution of the goods that are produced. It seems to me that so far we in Canada have not solved the problem of the distribution of the goods we produce. I hope to deal with that matter a little later, but in passing let me say that we should continue producing even if in the long run it means assisting those who are not as fortunate as ourselves and giving of our substance to those who are in need. We cannot blame workers for continually clamouring for higher wages and better conditions. The only way they have by which to increase their purchasing power is to ask for higher wages. Unfortunately, in looking back over the years and considering the fights that have been carried on for increased wages and salaries and the increases

obtained, we find that in spite of such increases purchasing power is almost exactly where it was a good number of years ago.
I can well recall that when people were getting 40 cents an hour they could buy butter for 17 or 18 cents a pound. Today we find that butter costs three times as much and that the average wage is three times as much or a little better. Therefore we have not come very far in that respect. But we find that labour, in its attempt to increase its purchasing power and its standard of living, is continually asking for higher wages, and so it must under our present financial and economic system. It is the only way in which purchasing power is brought into the hands of consumers.
It is very important that labour should have and strive toward good leadership of its unions. In that respect I should like to refer to a letter in the Prince George Citizen of February 8 which reads as follows:
While we are out hunting for subversive literature, let us not forget the subversion of the far right. Anyone opposed to unionism as a means of bringing the voice of labour to bear upon the problems of management is subversive or fascist. To say down with unionism is equal to saying down with democracy. Constructive criticism of the union's methods of achieving their desired ends is democratic and desirable. Criticism aimed at permanently destroying unionism is fascist and unhealthy.
That brings me back again to the point with which I started my speech, management-labour relations. We find that a great deal of the trouble leading to unemployment stems from labour-management relations which are not conducive to good employment. I think management can play an effective role in bringing labour and management together. Where there are unions I think management should assist and encourage those working in the plants in the obtaining of good leadership. In my opinion much can be done in that regard. In many parts of the country there is a need from time to time for recreational facilities and other projects which could be undertaken jointly by management and labour for the benefit of all concerned. If we had more vision concerning such matters and put forth greater efforts towards getting something done in this regard I think we would find a higher level of employment and increased production, and therefore a higher standard of living for all.
Many times both sides, management and labour, fail to present a true picture of their problems. I believe that heads of labour unions and those in management positions could well look into this matter from the point of view of getting people to present facts and not dodge issues. We find that in many
Proposed Committee on Unemployment cases union papers, the organs of organized labour, are blasting management, and management through the press is blasting labour and labour unions. In my view a great deal can be accomplished by union and management representatives sitting around a table and talking things over on a sound and sensible basis. I think that our efforts as members of parliament and the efforts of the government should be directed toward bringing about a realization of this responsibility.
Personally, I am opposed to the professional bargainer. I think it is wrong in principle, because the very existence of the professional bargainer depends on the animosity between the employer and the employee. I will agree that expert advice is desirable. I think we should have expert advice, but I believe it is wrong in principle for people to set themselves up in business as professional bargainers, because their livelihood depends on the animosity between the employer and employee. As soon as good will is created between the employer and the employee the professional bargainer is out of a job.
I feel that we would be better off and have a higher level of employment if bargaining were conducted on a local level as much as possible. I do not say that is always possible, but I think it is most desirable wherever it is possible. We would thereby avoid long lay-offs and unemployment due to strikes. As I said before, that is a very unhealthy situation. I do not think there ever was a strike in which labour was not caught in the squeeze. Labour is bound to be caught in the squeeze either way, whether they strike or whether they do not. The only way to avoid strikes is to get better relationships between employers and employees. I think we, as a government, could do a lot in that regard, as I shall mention a little later.
The other day we read a slogan which said, "Young Canada has a right to a job." I agree with that. I agree also that if young Canada has a right to a job, that means just what it says. I disagree heartily with the idea that people may not be allowed to work if they desire to work. If we are going to adopt the position that young Canada has a right to a job, then I think we must stay with it all the way down the line and not bar people from working if they so desire. During a strike we often find that people are barred from working, and unemployment rises continually in the strike area. I realize that the strike weapon is the only weapon labour really has, but on the other hand I
2128	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment believe that it labour overplays that weapon they will find the effectiveness of it will be reduced.
Labour must take a sane and sensible approach to strikes. The further we get away from harmony between management and labour, the more likely it is that a condition will arise which will result in a strike. Strikes always mean a loss of time, not only to those who are in the industry concerned but to those in associated' industry. It is not always true either that when a strike is over the industry starts rolling again. I should like to quote again from the Prince George Citizen, in which there appeared an article under the heading "Strike Hangover cuts Mill Output". It reads:
Fort George forest district mills cut the smallest December post-war sawlog scale on record in the first month of the present B.C. forest branch year, statistics disclosed today.
Observers in the industry blame the low December cut on a ''strike hangover" and soft market prices.
The "strike hangover" they say will likely affect production during the first three months of the present forest branch year.
When the strike is over we do not always find full employment is possible. In the case of our forest industry we know that is true. A few years ago we had a strike in that industry, but when the men were ready to go back other factors stepped in and made it impossible for them to go back to work. There are forest closures and so on. Then, during that winter, it was found that the snow was so deep on the mountain slopes that work was impossible, so it became a difficult time for the workers in that area.
Mention has been made of projects to take up the slack of unemployment. In this connection we should bear in mind that money for these projects comes out of the taxpayer's pocket. Naturally, I feel they are desirable; but there is a way that the object could be accomplished without digging too deeply into the taxpayer's pocket. Under our present system, that is where the money comes from to meet these demands. As a result of our defence program we have an enormous production of non-consumer goods, which releases purchasing power in an increased volume.
It seems as though we are now entering a period in which credit buying is at an all-time high. People are trying to stretch their dollars. I was told, and I believe it is true, that one store in this city is offering television sets, without a down payment, for as low as $2.75 per week. Business is trying to keep going with a deficiency in purchasing power. We are entering a phase now where credit buying has almost reached the
TMr. Leboe.l

point that it can no longer be continued. People are starting to pull back. This will mean lay-offs, cutting down in consumer purchasing power, and unless something is done to arrest it we will find ourselves in a depression. It is common knowledge that the new housing legislation was brought forth, primarily, not to build houses but to put more money into circulation with which people could buy goods and services. In other words, it was designed to release credit to the people. I say there is not a better method than housing to accomplish this purpose and reach the various industries throughout the country which would participate in such a scheme. But at the same time we feel that we must look farther afield and get into a position where we recognize the real root of the problem; and in my estimation that is a deficiency in purchasing power. The amount lost through this deficiency in purchasing power must reach the hands of the people through channels other than those of production. It must be supplemented. Many economists know- and this is not contradicted-that production does not release enough purchasing power to buy back that which is produced. If this is true, then it means that we must have purchasing power released into the hands of the people through means other than normal channels of production.
If our defence spending is to be curtailed, and that amount of energy is to be put into peacetime production, we are going to have a national credit of goods for which there is no purchasing power. But if we have that national credit, we also have a national debit in the form of our senior citizens, crippled children, the blind, veterans and so on. All social services constitute a national debit. If we have a national credit, then let us transfer some of that credit into the hands of those people who are struggling along on $40 a month.
If these are recognized facts in our economy-and I think they are-then let us move toward that goal by distributing purchasing power among those people, making that distribution against the national credit that we have. We could go farther and take up the slack of unemployment by going into the production, on a national scale, of highways, irrigation projects, power projects and so on.
I shall not discuss this point further, because I see the time at my disposal is slipping along. But for those who constantly refer to free enterprise as the bugbear in the present economic situation I should like to read some excerpts from Time magazine of February 15 dealing with the revolution in industry that

took place in Germany in the last few years. This undoubtedly will give our government some food for thought in respect of our problems here in Canada.
These excerpts are as follows:
West Germany throbs with its fabulous recovery while the East Germans under Soviet rule are on the brink of starvation ... In the Ruhr, bomb-shattered steel mills glow once more through the long winter nights. Germans who were once glad to sell their prized possessions for a few packs of cigarettes now have one of Europe's strongest currencies in their pockets. Shops are loaded with consumer goods and crowded with substantial-looking buyers.
Germany's rebirth is the kind of economic miracle Americans can understand. At a time when other European nations were leaning towards socialism, Germany plumped for free enterprise . . . "Turn the people and the money loose, and they will make the country strong." As a result, the free world is now blessed, on the one hand, by its strongest European bulwark against communism- and confronted, on the other, with a new trade competitor who has come up so fast that nobody knows quite what to do about it.
Believing that "labour and management must be unified into one big group that depends on the same success," Nordhoff called a meeting of his shabby work force. "I'm afraid I gave them a stiff shock," says he. "I told them their working methods and production were miserable. It was taking us 400 man-hours to produce one car. I told them we would cut this to 100 hours. They laughed at me. But today we do that."
To make the economy grow, economics minister Erhard ended rationing, removed controls, gave industry tax concessions to permit rebuilding and expansion ...
Last year gross national output hit a new high of $35 billion, 40 per cent above the 1936 figure for all of Germany. Items: Chemical output up 102 per cent over 1936; electrical equipment up 238 per cent; coal up 20 per cent; shipyards are now building 633,904 gross tons, second only to Britain's.
While West Germany has had to absorb 10 million refugees and expellees, unemployment is relatively low (1,000,000 last week), and the government has hopes of creating some 250,000 new jobs this year.
Anyone who says that free enterprise is the cause of the trouble in our economic situation should look at what has been done in Germany under a free enterprise system. Our problem here is one of distribution; and I think that as time goes on people across this country are going to wake up to the fact that there is a way out, and a way in which our goods can be distributed. They will realize there is a way to maintain our freedom as well as the distribution of our goods. And they will be looking to those of us sitting in this corner of the chamber, the Social Credit group, to lead the way.


Mr. Jean-Frangois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is very optimistic when he says that the people will look to Social Credit policies to relieve unemployment in this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member used to sit over in that corner, himself.
Proposed Committee on Unemployment


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, yes, but it was under different circumstances. It is not the place where one sits that counts; it is what is said from that seat.
Everyone has expressed his opinion about unemployment, a very sad thing and deplored by all. What is necessary is to offer the true facts as they are and to offer as well the best suggestions to improve labour conditions in this country. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) and the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) have told the house how much concerned the government is about labour problems. They have said that they missed no opportunity to see to it that all those who are capable of working and willing to work should earn their living at all times of the year in this country. There is one thing that surprised me in the remarks of the hon. member who sponsored the amendment. He based his speech upon a memorandum or joint submission on unemployment to the government of Canada by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and the Canadian Congress of Labour. The representatives of those large unions came to Ottawa to make representations to the government. If I were to express my opinion about that memorandum I would use the following biblical phrase:
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
They see the mote in their neighbour's eye, and they do not see the beam in their own. Then there is another quotation:
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
My contention is that the labour unions must assume great responsibility in matters of unemployment. Very often there are men who are unable to work because of the dictates of union leaders. There are several occurrences of this nature of which I have knowledge. Very often I have had to fight the unions in order to protect union members.
During the railway strike in 1949 or 1950 there was a meeting of the railwaymen in my home town. I said to them what I have just said here. One man came to me after and said, "That is right, Jean-Frangois; it is true; you were right." I would have preferred to be wrong, but I had to fight the union leaders for the protection of the men. I remember saying once to the former minister of labour, Mr. Mitchell, that it was often important and sometimes necessary to speak to the members of the union over the heads of their leaders because in that way we were often better understood.
2130	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment
Quite often the union leaders are most undemocratic. They do not consult the members of their unions about the course to be followed. They impose their own views upon the men and the men have to suffer because of the decisions made by a small number of men who receive large salaries and who try to exploit human credulity to its limit.
This occurred recently in Noranda, in Quebec, which offers a typical case. In August last year a strike was decided upon. I am told from a reliable source that the company was ready to deal with the men, but it was a question of check-off. The company did not want to hear any suggestions with regard to the check-off and then a strike was decided upon. It was impossible according to the labour regulations to make an offer to the men at the time, but the men knew that the company was well disposed toward them and it would have been easy for them to get what they wanted.
The union insisted on calling a strike in August. A citizens' committee was formed and it met with representatives of the company. During the week end we heard with great satisfaction that the strike had been settled and the men were to resume their work. But what happened in the meantime? The men who belonged to the union have had to spend the money they had saved over several years in order to live. They did not suffer from hunger because they had received fair wages, but they had to take from the bank the money that they used to receive in the form of cheques. It will now take them many years to build up their savings to where they were when the strike was decided upon by the union leaders.
The men gained nothing. The increase they have obtained could have been obtained in the summer. They were without salaries and wages for many months, for more than half a year. They had nothing except a small pittance from the union. I hope that as a lesson that small amount of money paid by the union to the men to help them exist will not be paid back. What is the result? The union leaders had to show their so-called usefulness to the men. The only thing they have done is to cause them trouble and make them suffer for many months.
They were unemployed but that was not the fault of the government. It was the fault of the union. In this case the unions were to blame. In my own town of Riviere du Loup there is a pulpmill employing 40 to 50 people. The men working there decided to ask for an increase of so much per hour but the company explained that they could not
fJMr. Pouliot.]

give it to them, that they had to decrease their salaries to a small extent in order to be able to sell their product at a price that would be acceptable on the world market. The company had in prospect some fine contracts in England and in other parts of Europe, and they were awaiting the decision of the men in order to start production.
However, the union decided that the men should have more instead of less and, as a result, they have been unemployed now for a long time. The two union leaders were able to obtain jobs elsewhere and they did not suffer from the strike. They were well looked after because they had jobs elsewhere, but the other poor fellows had to live on their unemployment benefits. This is very sad and those unemployment conditions were created by union leaders and the men suffer because of them. Every other week in my home town I hear of notices of meetings of the so-called union to discuss the matter, which has been discussed for many months. The men are not working now and that is what happened. Of course, all these facts have not been mentioned in the memorandum that has been sent to the government.
There is another mill in my constituency which has been closed for the winter, and this very important mill has been closed because of the exacting propositions submitted by union leaders. There they were asking for more all the time and finally the owner said: "Well, if you ask so much for your wages, then it is impossible for me to sell my products on the markets of the world. The only thing for me to do is to close the mill for the winter." He closed it and the men have unemployment benefits.
It is a very sad situation but it was created by the union leaders, some of whom come from various parts of the country. We have some visitors from Quebec city who are talking all the time and who try to influence the men in order that they may ask for more all the time so that they may demonstrate the importance of their jobs and continue to receive the salaries they get by causing trouble.
I had to discuss the question of seniority with the leaders of the labour union, and the general chairmen of the Canadian National Railways in Moncton refused to give the men the seniority rights they were entitled to. I had to fight with them; I had to put them to shame. I had to get in touch with an important officer of the union in Montreal, and with Mr. Bengough in Ottawa and Mr. George Meany in Washington, and finally I got it. I had to put to shame the general chairmen of the union in Moncton. They

wanted to protect their in-laws, their friends and relatives, at the expense of other men who had seniority rights over them. That has been my experience with the union. I had to fight with them. The trouble is, sir, that these same people never represent the mentality of the men in the union. Most of the time the men are willing to work if they are allowed to go back to their jobs, but they cannot. There is a protest from the union leaders. They encourage them to continue their strike and they promise them the moon. We cannot go on like that. The high cost of living has been created by the exacting requests of the labour unions and they are not sensible and it is impossible to discuss the matter with them. My suggestion is that we should take every opportunity to appeal to the common sense of the men by speaking over the heads of the leaders of their union.
I am not shocked at all to hear any hon. member of parliament speaking about unemployment. Other hon. members have problems in their constituencies, as I have in mine, and I sympathize with those who are unemployed. On the other hand, if the union leaders from the general chairman down were more sensible we would have less unemployment in this country.
If we figure out the total amount of unemployment in this country, we must consider that many men were engaged in lumbering operations who did not receive unemployment insurance benefits before, and it is due to representation made by the hon. members of the constituencies in which there are forestry operations, from Newfoundland, north of the St. Lawrence, eastern Quebec, northern Ontario, and northern Quebec, that these men received unemployment insurance benefits.
These hon. members made representation to the former minister of labour-the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) was at the Department of Veterans Affairs at that time-in order to have unemployment insurance benefits for these men engaged in lumbering operations. At that time there was a crisis in the sale of lumber and we succeeded with the help of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour at that time, now Mr. Justice Cote, in securing unemployment benefits for the men who had paid no dues to the commission, contrary to what is required by the law. There was an exception made for the first year, but that large body of men are now on the list of unemployed. They are securing unemployment benefits which they did not receive before. The law was changed in order to give them an opportunity similar to that accorded
Proposed Committee on Unemployment to other workers and this was done through the efforts of hon. members in the constituencies in which there are forests. They did that to help the men. That assistance was suggested by my parliamentary colleagues but it was never suggested by any union. It was done by members of parliament and was implemented by the then minister of labour in the Liberal government at that time. That was very important.
Today, if there are 500,000 unemployed, there may be a large number of men who were engaged in lumbering operations and whose names are recorded amongst those of the unemployed, because lumber operations were shorter last fall than was usual. On account of what? On account of weather conditions. We had no snow until the middle of December in our part of the country and lumbering operations were therefore much less important than they are normally.
On the other hand, we must remember the government has done everything it possibly can to give assistance to the unemployed by giving all the work it was possible to do by encouraging private and public corporations to give them that work, and also by coming to their assistance with family allowances and pensions such as are paid to the older people. Not only that, there are the invalids who are dependent on the unemployed. This year it was with joy that I heard the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) say that the government was to come to their rescue by giving them a pension.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member had been urging that for some time.


Jean-François Pouliot: I had been urging that but I was not the only one. I remember that there were motions in the names of many members for many years; there was the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Picard), the hon. member for Compton-Frontenac (Mr. Blanchette), the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand) and I do not know how many others.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor).


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes; our dean, the hon. member for Fort William. We had made representations to the government in order to obtain that result which is most satisfactory. I was delighted to hear that the provinces had agreed to the scheme.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. They have agreed in principle.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister. They have agreed in principle. But there were conferences between federal and provincial representatives here in Ottawa in order to

Proposed Committee on Unemployment bring the matter to a conclusion. This is something. We hear the unions suggest more pensions, more money, higher rates for unemployment insurance benefits. That pamphlet has several pages, and in it you do not see two words which I would have expected from well-educated men that they are, namely "Thank you". I am surprised that those gentlemen did not thank the leader of the government and all his colleagues, including the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), for what has been done for the Canadian people by this government. We have to take the situation as we find it. They blame everybody for their own mistakes. The government is asked to improve conditions which have been made worse by those very people. The situation is unfortunate.
I do not want to dwell on the matter at any length. We all share the concern which has been expressed so eloquently by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). We all know that he is sincere. He is one of the best debaters in the house and is listened to with attention when he speaks in debate. He said he was sorry when some of our fellow citizens were unemployed. We are all sorry. But the government has made things much easier for all those people. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, what conditions would be like in Canada if we had to rely on social credit coming to the help of the unemployed. What would we do if everything were nationalized and we had not the revenue with which to pay them in good money all the benefits that are now given to them by the government? What would be the condition of affairs if the hon. gentlemen of the Progressive Conservative party were in power?
I remember when Mr. Bennett was the leader of the government. Before he came to that position he himself created unemployment, and for a good reason. He and his chief organizer in 1929-the year that has been referred to by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker)-each subscribed $350,000 to the electoral funds and they invested that money in brokers' offices. The leader of the Conservative party-it was not progressive at that time-used to say "Conditions are bad; we have unemployment, but I will cure that". Every time he spoke of unemployment and said that conditions were bad in this country, the stocks were getting lower and lower and he was making more money because he was speculating on the fall in price. Finally, when he had realized an amount which was as much as his investment, he succeeded. He used that money to win the election. Afterwards he had to face the unemployment matter and he was not able to cure it. It was worse than ever. Let

my friend the hon. member for Prince Albert be careful and not mention 1929 because I was in the house then and I remember what occurred at that time. I could tell him much more. If he were here in the house I would tell him much more about the policies of his own party at that time. But now there is no question of that.
We may have some unemployment to some degree at the present time but it is far from being as bad as it was then. There are compensations, inaugurated by the Liberal government, which the workers did not have at that time. Conditions therefore are not as bad now as they were then. I do not intend to make a political speech about the matter. I just wanted to remind the union leaders that they must be extremely careful in their dealings with the men, whether they are miners or are men engaged in other occupations. If there is more co-operation from the labour unions, and if they act in accordance with the democratic principle of consulting the members of their union before making pronouncements and giving orders, we shall have much more stability in employment in this country.


Mr. W. G. Blair (Lanark):: Mr. Speaker, I am in full agreement with the necessity for a debate on unemployment. I am glad that this matter has been brought before the house by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). There is no doubt about the emergency, and I congratulate the hon. member on his action in placing this matter before the house.
I should say that this is a matter that is of vital importance to the constituency which I have the honour to represent. In my riding there are twelve textile mills and one large manufacturer of farm implements, namely Cockshutt, Frost and Wood Company at Smiths Falls. Unemployment is really bad in my riding. With two industries affected, I consider the matter one of extreme importance. I consider it to be a matter which should be discussed in this house.
Last Wednesday we had a delegation from the works men in the Canadian farm implement industry who met with the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) and the cabinet with regard to the serious situation faced by that industry. There were also present delegates representative of the farm implement industry from sections such as Toronto, Hamilton, Brantford and Smiths Falls. It may be that there are 10,000 or more people affected. The fact that so many people are unemployed at the present time makes it a serious situation in these industrial areas.
Various causes were given for the unemployment but to my mind one of the most

important was the fact that diminishing farm income was the cause of the decline of farm machinery sales. It is my belief that the present uncertain condition in the dairy industry has much to do with and is one of the main causes of this situation. As far back as April, 1952, I brought this matter to the attention of the House of Commons. At that time, speaking on the dairy industry, I made the following statement, as found at page 1594 of Hansard for April 25 of that year:
The situation today constitutes an emergency, the root causes of which are not confined to the dairy industry. If the cheese production branch is unable to market their product at a satisfactory price, then the whole industry will be affected. Something must be done to secure a market for surplus cheese at a fair price. Any loss in price will not only affect our dairy farmers but will have an effect on the whole Canadian economy. A satisfactory floor price below which prices will not be allowed to fall, thereby virtually destroying this essential industry, must be assured to producers now.
Even this is only a partial answer. There must as well be an all-out sales effort by the dairy trade and the government. Not only is a satisfactory floor price necessary, but some means must be found to dispose of surplus production. Failure to do so will give rise to a feeling of uncertainty which cannot help but spread to other related industries and in turn will reflect itself in unemployment in this country resulting from a lack of orders for farm machinery and other manufactured products.
I again point out that I gave this warning in the House of Commons in April, 1952. Now many of the things which I said then have come to pass. The dairy industry has now reached a critical position, and it is becoming more apparent that the decline in farm machinery sales on the domestic market is due to lack of buying power among the farmers. If it is true that farm incomes have declined 22 per cent in fifteen months, then, sir, it is inevitable that farmers will buy less and that fewer people will be employed in the farm machinery industry.
There is one fact that must be clearly faced by the public, the fact that while there has been a decline in farm income there has been no decline in the cost of consumer goods to the farmer. Everyone is looking for cheaper food costs, and almost every person believes that agricultural products should be bought in a cheap market-and by agricultural products I mean food-without realizing that the farmer is faced not only with higher production costs but higher costs for all the commodities which he buys.
The production of food might well be considered a manufacturing process, and it is subject to the same economic conditions as in every other industry. It is not a business in which labour can produce cheaply, buy in a high cost market, and sell at a price
Proposed Committee on Unemployment which people think they should give. It must be fully realized that any situation of falling farm prices will be reflected in farm buying.
It cannot be expected that farmers can provide cheaper food without curtailing the amount of money which they spend. In the ten-year period, 1941 to 1951, the number of Canadian farmers dropped by 110,000. Competition is becoming keen throughout the world in the production of foodstuffs. In one year, 1953, the average weekly earnings of Canadian workers in industry rose by 4 per cent in income, but there was no income gain in that year so far as farmers were concerned.
There are 455,000 dairy farmers in Canada. This means a large domestic market for manufactured goods. One in every six Canadians, or about two and a half million, are dependent upon the dairy industry for their livelihood. Over 70 per cent of Canadian farms have some form of dairy production. There is a tendency among the urban population not to realize the importance of this large industry, or to realize the importance of those engaged in the dairy industry as consumers of the products of labour. Farmers buy not only farm equipment and machines and tractors but they buy fertilizers, shoes, electrical appliances and, in fact, all the commodities which are necessary in life.
If one-sixth of our population is dependent on the dairy industry, one must fully realize that this one-sixth of our population is a large market for the products of industry manufactured and produced by the other five-sixths. The dairy industry and other manufacturing industries are closely allied, and if there should be a failure of any kind in one branch it is almost certain to be reflected in other branches of the industry.
I do not believe that anyone can say that the dairy farmer can buy the things he needs and yet sell his milk at a price below the cost of production. Now that some alarm is being shown regarding the number of men laid off in the plants manufacturing farm machinery, it is becoming very apparent that unless the gap between the cost of producing farm products and the income received by the farmer is closed the situation will tend to become worse and will continue to extend to other things besides the manufacturing of farm machinery. In a broadcast President Eisenhower made recently he stated:
We are one family made up of millions of families with the same hope for a happy life. We must not become a nation divided into factions and groups. Any real injustices in this business of living penalize all of us.
There is another threat to the dairy industry made by the pressures on our domestic market

Proposed Committee on Unemployment of imported vegetable oils. Half of this importation comes into the country free of duty. This competition has lowered the per capita consumption of butter by about eight pounds. The production of creamery butter in Canada amounted to 21 million pounds last year, more than in 1952. On the first of January of this year stocks of creamery butter totalled 71 million pounds. This amounts to 30 per cent more than on the first of January, 1953, and 58 per cent more than the stocks held two years previously. The national dairy council estimates that on the first of May, 1954, butter stocks will be 35 million pounds greater than the domestic needs, and this at the beginning of the production season of butter. The total amount of butter consumption has dropped 45 million pounds in the past five years, and no doubt a great deal of this is due to dairy substitutes such as edible oils. The per capita consumption of butter dropped 23 per cent during the same period.
Consideration of these figures will give some idea of the uncertainty existing in the dairy industry at the present time and hence some reason for the attitude of farmers towards new equipment and farm machinery. Nor is the domestic market the only cause of the present unemployment situation in the farm implement branch. While there is a decline in the amount of buying on the domestic market, yet the amount of farm machinery exported has dropped.
I was impressed by the brief presented by the Canadian farm implement workers regarding exports of farm machinery from Canada. I am not going to attempt to place on record all the figures that they gave except to point out that the Canadian farm machinery industry has lost $29 million or over 29 per cent of the export business it had in 1952. In November, 1953, farm machinery exports had barely more than a third of the value of those for a year ago. To summarize, I would say the major causes of the decline have been falling domestic farm income and the loss of export markets for implements and machinery.
When this session of parliament opened I dealt with the position of the textile industry during the debate on the speech from the throne. The textile industry was one of the first industries in the Ottawa valley. In my constituency at the present time this textile industry is going through a period in which mills are closing down or working two or three days a week. I again remind you that in my riding there are twelve textile mills.
I cannot agree with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) that the competition in the cotton branch of the industry

between the northern and southern sections of the United States is the cause of all our troubles in the textile industry. The Canadian industry is subjected to competition from such countries as Britain, Belgium and Japan. I should like to point out that this industry is responsible for the livelihood of over 100,000 Canadian citizens. It is not my intention to delve into the whole story of the textile industry, but I should like to point out that in whole areas there is marked unemployment, without any apparent hope in the future that things may be better.
The difficulty here would seem to be that the Canadian manufacturers are forced to compete with other countries with lower wage standards and cheaper production costs. Textile imports from these countries are constantly increasing, making it almost impossible for the Canadian industry to survive. In the towns in the Ottawa valley where the textile industry is one of our most important sources of employment, the situation has not improved and under present conditions shows little likelihood of becoming better. It is not sufficient to say that the people who were formerly employed in these industries can seek work in other areas and in other industries. Many people have been trained in both the industries I have mentioned, and have spent their lives in becoming skilled workmen turning out excellent products. They own their homes in the area in which they have been employed, and to attempt to shift the whole population would entail many difficulties. Workmen could not be expected to sell their homes to advantage in a depressed area, nor to attempt to begin all over again by buying a house in another area.
It might be argued that these two industries cannot meet competition, but to my mind they both are necessary to the economy of Canada. It is too much to expect that skilled workmen should change their lifework in such a situation. This unemployment cannot be classified as seasonal, certainly not in my constituency of Lanark. With living costs at their present level much distress exists in the affected area. The rise in wages of Canadian workmen is not the only cause of higher production costs. The workman is constantly being squeezed by high living costs and high taxes. You cannot blame him for asking for more money, although it is a fact that this does create a spiral. When a workman is faced with this squeeze between high living costs and taxes, the only solution which he can find is to ask for more money.
Diversification of industry might be an answer in some affected areas. The Canadian textile industry will still remain a part

Proposed Committee on Unemployment
of our defence plans, necessary in war but an important part of the Canadian economy. Canadian consumers have the right to insist on the savings made possible by fair competition, but it is doubtful whether the Canadian consumer would value the small amount he saves if he knew that such a saving meant the loss of a job of a fellow Canadian workman. Canadian textile mills are dependent on the domestic market. In 1952 they only exported $28 million worth of goods out of an $800 million output. Competition on the domestic market by cheaper foreign imports has caused a greater part of the difficulty.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has talked in optimistic terms of future high investment, and so on. I hope this is true, but the segment of our population caught in the areas of unemployment have received cold comfort. No suggestion is made except that they get out of such areas and seek employment elsewhere. The situation cannot be passed over by simply referring to these industries as "soft spots" in our economy. It is the right of these workers to live and work in the industry for which they have been trained. One purpose of this debate is to bring before the government the urgent necessity of dealing with unemployment in such areas. Today, confronted as we are with the swelling rolls of the unemployed, the government's answer as expressed by responsible ministers yesterday has been that these are merely "soft spots", and such people who are unemployed must move elsewhere. These answers are wholly inadequate. If either the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Labour feels that such an answer is adequate, I suggest he review the situation in the twelve textile mills of my area or in the farm machinery factory in the town of Smiths Falls.


Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I should like to say a few words in this debate, Mr. Speaker. First I must comment on the speech which we recently heard from the member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). I am sure that the house was surprised, and certainly we in this group were shocked to hear the anti-labour tinge of his remarks. I believe the minister or some Liberal member, at the first opportunity, should rise and say whether or not this represents new Liberal trade union policy. I hope it does not.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I believe that one of the fundamental duties of the federal government is to adopt policies which will provide reasonably full employment in this country. It seems to me that, in a nation which has so much wealth and so many natural resources, there is no
need for widespread unemployment at any time. In this debate there has been a good deal of argument as to how many people are unemployed at the moment. However, all members have agreed that the number is substantial. As for myself, I am quite prepared to take the word of the Minister of Labour when he said, as reported in Hansard for February 15, 1954, page 2085:
The number of applications for jobs listed with the national employment service offices across Canada-there are about 220 of them-on January 21, 1954, was 524,000.
I suggest that number is alarming, and should cause concern to all members in this house. I feel it is our urgent duty, today and in the future, to examine the causes of this situation and see what we, as parliamentarians, can do about it. What has caused this unemployment? I suppose all of us have different views. Some may think the reasons are seasonal; others may think it is because of competition in our export trade; and others may feel that it is because of government policies. There are, of course, a number of contributing factors. This afternoon, I should like to deal with only one of those, and that is government policies.
In my opinion one of the major factors causing unemployment today is the shortsighted, and I believe oppressive, taxation policy of this government. This year the government is going to spend approximately $5 billion, according to the estimates which were tabled in the house a short time ago. What does that mean? It means that in 1954 out of every dollar which the average Canadian earns he is going to have to pay roughly 21 cents to the federal government. It means in the second place that this year every man, woman and child in this country is going to be taxed by the federal government at the average rate of $335. Every household will be taxed at the average rate of $1,340. In my opinion the effects of such savage taxation are now being felt in our labour markets across the country.
In the first place high taxes are adversely affecting consumer purchasing power in our domestic markets. Very substantial funds, which ordinarily might be used to build houses, to buy motor cars, farm machinery or textiles, are being siphoned off by the government in the form of taxes. And that reduced demand for goods must reflect itself, as I see it, in a reduced demand for labour.
I think in the second place that even the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) would admit that the high rate of taxation in Canada today is harmful to the nation's investment program in new plant and new equipment. Our population and labour force are growing considerably each year. We must depend upon

Proposed Committee on Unemployment expanding industry and business to provide jobs lor many of those people. Yet our tax rate today is hindering individual and corporate savings at a time when vast new amounts of capital are needed lor development and replacement purposes. I think we would have been in trouble some time ago, had it not been lor the influx ol American capital. To the extent that high taxes prevent individuals and companies from expanding, in my opinion the creation of new jobs is jeopardized.
In the third place, I believe that high taxation today is discouraging initiative. I think it is blunting incentive. I have said that, I must admit, for a number of years in the house. But if an individual risks expansion today in Canada he must be a brave man, because there are so many storm warnings out. If he is successful in his expansion, then the Minister of Finance will take a good deal, if not the most substantial part, of his profits. If on the other hand a man expands his business and is not successful, his whole operation may be jeopardized.
Thus I think many businessmen today in Canada are taking this attitude: "Perhaps a recession is coming; perhaps it is time for us to consolidate; with the tax rate so high, it might be safer for us to buy bonds". I suggest that such an attitude adversely affects employment.
Finally I believe that the high tax rate in Canada today is helping to force Canadian prices up and up. We have a 10 per cent sales tax on most manufactured articles. We have a 15 per cent luxury tax on dozens of the necessities of life. We have customs duties and tariffs which are very high. Those taxes and others help to make Canadian prices among the highest in the world.
I understand that at the present time the automobile industry is having certain difficulties. I have seen figures put out by that industry, showing that on the cheapest automobile manufactured in Canada today there are federal taxes amounting to hundreds of dollars. Small wonder that so many working people are finding it difficult to buy cars.


Mr. Sluder:: It is $100 in Saskatchewan
alone.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: But $700 federally. The same is true of many other products. High taxes are contributing to high prices. High prices are contributing to decreased demand. And whether we like to admit it or not, decreased demand today is contributing to additional unemployment. Not only are high prices hurting us in the domestic market, but I suggest that they are playing havoc with our products on the export market. I would remind the house that indirectly and

directly three out of every eight of our working people depend upon export trade for their livelihood.
On the world market, nations everywhere must compete. Canadians cannot set prices on that market. We have to meet them or we do not sell. In recent years we have seen Japan and Germany experiencing a trade revival, and we have seen similar trade recoveries in other countries. As a result Canadian products are meeting ever stiffening competition. In many cases we are actually being undersold.
As I see it, one of the reasons we are being undersold is the many federal taxes imposed on the manufacturer and producer. In 1953 Canadian exports were down $363 million from 1952. Such industries as the automobile industry, the farm machinery industry and the textile industry have run into difficulty. One of the results of that difficulty has been a lay-off of employees.
For these reasons I believe that one of the first steps this government should logically take, if it is sincere in wanting to deal with the unemployment problem-and I think it is-would be to reduce the burden of taxation on the Canadian people in the coming budget. I think excise taxes, which are forcing prices up, should be reduced. I think the income tax, particularly for those in lower income groups, should be lowered in order to restore purchasing power. And I think the government should act more realistically with Canadian industry, so that business may continue to expand.
In my opinion high taxes are not inevitable; they can be lowered. But they can be lowered only if the government is prepared to cut expenditures. Perhaps the time has come for this parliament to give consideration to cutting sharply armament expenditures. Certainly the United States and Great Britain have already given us such an example.
Finally I should like to comment on an announcement made last evening at the Russian embassy to the effect that a special attache is to be posted to Canada to try to promote Russian-Canadian trade. I think the Russian ambassador mentioned his country would be prepared to buy, among other things, textiles, meat, ships, butter, wheat and other commodities. If that offer is genuine, if there are no strings attached, and if no strategic materials are involved, then I for one hope the government will do something to try to take up his offer. Aside from the fact that such trade could serve to strengthen mutual understanding and friendly relations between our two countries, it could be one more step toward helping to solve our unemployment problem.


Mr. A. W. Sluarl (Charlolle):: Mr. Speaker, so far in this debate we have heard from all sides of the house an explanation of conditions which could be found today among those employed in industry. I think the story has been pretty well told.
But, as usual, those primary producers who must look out for themselves have so far been completely ignored. I fully realize that those employed in the textile industry and in many other industries of this country are most unhappy with the unemployment situation as it exists today. I have every sympathy for those people and I only hope that conditions will improve in the near future to a point where employment may be found to take care of the entire group.
I have discussed this problem with the government officials since I came to Ottawa. I have placed before them the position of those in my own county, and I am convinced they are making every effort to improve conditions in the textile and other industries which find the going a little tough at the present time.
The subject introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) is, I believe, of great interest to every member in this chamber. Employment in Charlotte county comes from the textile industry, the woodworking industry, and to some extent the fish canning industry. The majority of the labourers affected would be employed in the three industries I have mentioned. I have every hope that conditions may improve in connection with all three. However, I have in mind at the present time a group in my county and on the Atlantic coast line who have faced several seasons which have not been too good. These men find themselves without financial assistance of any kind. The fishermen to whom I refer do not qualify for unemployment insurance benefits, and that is why I want to emphasize the conditions in this industry for just a few minutes.
Those who are employed at the present time in the textile and other industries, or who are employed part-time, have the benefit of unemployment insurance. The fishermen of whom I speak are paying indirectly into the federal fund which supports unemployment insurance with no hope of ever receiving any benefits. To me that is a situation that should be rectified. I feel that this particular group should receive the same benefits from unemployment insurance that others in Canada are receiving at the present time. I see no reason why they should be asked to make contributions without any hope of receiving any benefits.
It has been suggested by some who have spoken previously that these payments should be increased. Again I believe every member 83276-135
Proposed Committee on Unemployment in the house would have that same feeling. They would want it to be done if it were possible to do so. Unemployment insurance has been in effect for only 12 or 13 years, and I consider it one of the greatest protections the working people of this country could hope for. Of course the idea was initiated by a Liberal government and put into effect by a Liberal government. The benefits which the working people of this country are receiving today are, I believe, of great assistance, even in the present amounts.
I hope that the day will come when the primary producers of this country will be placed in the same category. When I refer to primary producers I mean that group who are self-employed, who must go out with their two hands to make a living for themselves. When the going is tough they just buckle in their belts a little tighter and continue to try to produce and sell. I feel that this group has been neglected, and I submit that it should be given some consideration. For that reason I suggest that some way must be found to include them with those who receive the benefits of unemployment insurance.
In the county of Charlotte which I have the honour to represent the time is rapidly approaching when these fishermen will be getting ready for spring fishing. There are types of fishing that are carried on the year round. There are hundreds of fishermen down there on the water trying to gain a livelihood. The necessary materials to repair the equipment needed in their fishing will have to be found within the next two or three months. In some cases it will be necessary to replace engines within that time if these men are to be able to carry on in 1954.
In so far as sardine fishing is concerned, the materials needed can be purchased during the winter months more cheaply than in the summer. Many of the men who would like to go back in the industry this year have not the necessary materials, and they have not the cash to buy those materials. Those who have always been most kind and considerate in furnishing credit have gone as far as they can. It has now reached the point where, if they are to continue, some sort of financial assistance must be provided.
I know these fishermen well because I have worked with them for over 20 years. They are not asking for a handout; they are not that type. They pay their bills when they can make the necessary money. They have had three or four poor seasons, and the reason I am particularly interested in them today is that it looks as though 1954 might be a good year in the fishing business. I say that for these reasons. We find today that the supplies of canned fish are practically depleted, and

Proposed Committee on Unemployment the demand is good. The price should be more than fair. If these men could be put in the position where they could repair their structures or buy the necessary engines and other equipment they could carry on this year and would once more be established in this industry, and would face a much brighter future.
Whatever assistance is given will have to be provided within a few weeks, or the materials that would permit them to carry on this year will not be available. I brought this matter to the attention of the government on one previous occasion since we met last November, and again I want to suggest that some way must be found. It is most necessary that this particular branch of the fishing industry, this particular group of primary producers, must be in position where they can carry on with their work, the only work they know anything about. Because of the lack of equipment which I have mentioned, these men may lose a very good season this year.
In the nine years that I have been in this House of Commons I have noticed that it has always been possible to find some way to provide assistance for other primary producers. I am not speaking in a critical sense, but I remember a couple of years ago listening to a debate in this house which went on for three or four days in connection with the wheat producers of western Canada whose wheat was out under the snow. I have every sympathy in the world for those primary producers. We listened to their story for some three or four days and it was decided that assistance must be provided. If I remember correctly an amount of $20 million was voted by the government to take care of that situation. When seeding time came the following spring it was found that only $700,000 of that enormous amount had been taken up. In other words someone had been crying before he was hurt.
There have been other cases I could refer to, and again I am not speaking in a critical way. There was the time when $65 million or more was given to the western farmers. I stood in my place and voted for that because I am one who believes that all primary producers should be placed in the same category. We cannot make fish of one and fowl of another. I believe that the primary producers to whom I have referred today have every right to expect not gifts but financial assistance in the way of loans from this government. As I said previously, they are not the type who ask for a handout. They are the type of individuals who pay their bills and, with a little assistance at this critical time, they will be able to carry on

this year. I only hope it will be the type of season I feel it will, because if it is I believe it will enable these individuals to get back on their feet once more, pay their bills, and look the whole world in the face.
I have letters daily from good friends of mine who are not complaining too much, though I feel they have every right to complain. They are not suggesting to me that these services which have been provided for others should also be provided for them. I know these services have been provided for others. I have supported them in every case and I am prepared to support them again because, in my humble opinion, the economy of our whole country is in the hands of those primary producers. There are only three places from which you can get wealth. You have got to dig it out of the sea, the land, or the forest and it is those men who dig that wealth out of the land, sea, and forest who are responsible for the standard of living we enjoy in this country of ours. I feel they are the type of people who should have first consideration.
In this debate thus far I have not heard them mentioned by any hon. member. That may simply be neglect on the part of some hon. members who have spoken. Perhaps they do not realize the conditions under which some of our primary producers live. I do, and I feel they must be assisted; and as long as I represent that particular group I am going to continue to emphasize in every possible way the importance of this group to the economy of our country and to the Atlantic provinces, because that old-established industry means much to those provinces.
We were very much encouraged by a recent statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) to the effect that once more we may be able to get our share of the West Indies trade, which has always meant so much to the maritime provinces. But before I leave this particular subject I want to emphasize once more the necessity at the present time of providing assistance for this particular group of men. I am referring not to one particular branch of this industry but to the entire industry in the Atlantic provinces. I do not know much about conditions on the Pacific coast, but I do know these men must be given some financial assistance.
This is what I would recommend be done. I see no reason why small loans through our local banks, guaranteed by this government, would not solve the problem. I believe that is the manner in which it could be solved in a very short time. But there should be very little delay. The loans could be small, because

no fisherman requires a great amount of cash, only sufficient to provide the necessities that will keep him alive during 1954. I want to see such fishermen have that assistance, and I hope the government will see fit to provide it as soon as possible in order that they may once more be established in that industry which they love, doing once more the type of work they know how to do best.
When the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) spoke in this house yesterday he suggested that we in this country might be pricing ourselves out of world markets. I wish to go on record as supporting that statement 100 per cent. I feel that is one of our great problems in this country today. The hon. member also made another statement with which I heartily agree. He suggested that the economy of this country was closely allied with the economy of the country to the south, and that whether we liked it or not, whatever might happen to that economy to the south of us will have a serious effect on the economy of this country.
We who live on the international border have known the truth in that statement for a great many years. Any disturbance that might take place in the economy of the United States will immediately affect the economy of Canada. Each and every day we read about overproduction. Many feel that overproduction might be the cause of the unemployment we are experiencing in this country. To my mind this is the greatest fairy tale that has ever been told, because in my opinion since this old world was made there has never been overproduction in anything. The only thing that is wrong is the price tag. In western Canada we have millions of bushels of wheat which we say is surplus due to overproduction. If you turn that page over you will see on the next page that 70 per cent of the people in this world are underfed. There never was overproduction of anything. The whole trouble lies in the distribution, and to a great extent the source of that trouble may be found in the price tag.
Speaking in Rome a few weeks ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) had this to say:
I do not think there is a country in the world today which can afford to buy some of our products at the prices our farmers must charge if they are to make a living.
I believe that statement would be endorsed by every hon. member in this house. That is one of our great problems. We have priced ourselves pretty much out of the domestic market and to a greater extent out of foreign markets. There is no one in this house who 83276-1351
Proposed Committee on Unemployment would rather see a high standard of living in this country than I, but I believe we have reached the point where the price tag cannot be ignored by consumers in this country, and there has to be a reduction somewhere.
When that reduction is made we shall all have to tighten our belts a little. When that proposition is put to labour it does not appeal to them. I am not criticizing them for the stand they take, but we all have to get down to earth and make up our minds that we have to export. This country of ours can never be in a position where the standard of living is such that we can say we do not require to export a good portion of what we produce, and we will never be able to export unless we can get prices down so they compare favourably with exports from other countries.
In 1953 we found markets in the United States for about 60 per cent of our exports. At a meeting in Washington in December, 1953, government and business leaders agreed that 1954 would see a drop in the level of U.S. business activity which might well result in unemployment in that country reaching a total of 3,500,000. I have read forecasts claiming that it might amount to 4 million. If that should happen in the United States the economy of this country will certainly feel the effect in a very short time.
The incomes of primary producers in Canada have been dropping steadily for the past two or three years. There is no question about that. I would say they have dropped to a greater extent on the Atlantic coast line than in the central provinces. During the same period the workers in industry increased their earnings from a previous average of $2,856 per annum to $3,117. That increase took place in 1953. It seems to me there are seeds of trouble in a situation where the primary producers are obliged to take decreases year after year and at the same time increase the wages of labour. As I have stated previously, I am one who believes that the labourer should be paid for what he does and I have every sympathy with him, as I myself have done plenty of hard work. But I believe you can get to the point where there is too much of a variation between the cut the primary producer must take and the increase the labourer insists that he have. It must be more evenly balanced if we are to have a stable economy in this country.
Exports and primary producers' incomes have been falling off. Imports and unemployment are rising. However, labour incomes have established an all-time record. I wonder

Proposed Committee on Unemployment whether many hon. members in the house have stopped to realize that in 1953, the year just past, the labour income in this country was $9,700 million. It hit a new high. It was nearly 10 per cent higher than it was in the previous year, when it was $8,800 million.
I for one am greatly disturbed by the fact that wages continue to increase while there is a decrease in the incomes of that group who, as I have said, are the very backbone of the country. That is why I feel that in this debate, as in most of these debates that take place in the House of Commons, that particular group are the forgotten people. Those are the people who produce the real wealth of your country. In nine cases out of ten they are the ones who are forgotten. If wages continue to increase-and apparently [DOT]every union is asking for increases-we shall find that we have not only priced ourselves completely out of foreign markets but that we have come to the place where people at home will refuse to buy in the domestic market.
As I stated a few moments ago, the first fairy tale we hear is that of overproduction. May I say that in the best years this country or this continent has ever seen there are thousands and thousands of Canadians who would like to own cars but who do not own them; they cannot afford to buy them. There are today thousands and thousands of Canadians who would like to have television sets but they cannot afford to buy them. The price tag just says no. There are many homes in this country in which they have not even a radio. Is it because there is overproduction of radios that they have not radios in those homes? No. The only reason that they have no radios is that they cannot afford to pay the price on the price tag that is hung on the radios.
I could go into this matter in a great deal more detail and I hope to do so at some later date, when again I shall take the time of this house to put a few prices on the record. These prices will be the authentic price in the United States of America as compared with that of exactly the same article manufactured in Canada. I collect that sort of data nearly every week, and I have quite a bit that I want to put on the record. One of the biggest problems that we have to contend with in this country is the fact that that price tag, in many cases, is 50 per cent, 60 per cent or 75 per cent higher than the price tag that hangs on the same article across the border.
That is one of the big problems we have to contend with. Some way must be found to bring these prices more into line. Sometimes

when I see such terribly great variations I wonder why the people in this country have not exploded long before this time. People living back from the border do not have the same opportunity to watch these glaring examples of robbing the people of this country. When I am home I see it every day, and it is brought to my attention every week. I refer to this discrepancy as between United States prices and the prices the Canadian people are asked to pay today. That is another subject all its own which it would take a long time to deal with. At some future time I hope to have the opportunity to bring that matter to the attention of this house.
There are many things along this line that should be discussed openly in the house in the hope that some day we may convince the manufacturers in this country that we have subsidized industry long enough. When you mention "subsidy" in the House of Commons you find that by a great many members it is looked upon with a great deal of suspicion. "Subsidy" is a word they do not like. But when I see a company in the United States, with a subsidiary in Canada under the same name, which is charging $300 in the United States for an article that costs me $600 in Canada, there is a lot of subsidy connected with it somewhere. Some may call it tariff protection. Some may have other names for it. To me, however, it is the subsidization of industry by the Canadian people.


Mr. Adamson:: Would the hon. member name the article?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Since the question
has been asked by the hon. member to my left, I shall do so. I am sorry I did not bring the documents down to my desk. Just a few weeks ago advertisements were sent to me from two papers. One is printed in Windsor, Ontario and the other is printed just across that little bridge in Detroit, Michigan. On the same day two advertisements appeared in the two papers. They are advertisements by the Westinghouse people. They have to do with an automatic washer and drier. In the United States on that particular day the price was $369.90 and in Windsor it was $689. Yet only a few days ago my friend the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdon-nell) rose in his place in the house and said he hoped that when the government was looking into this matter of dumping in Canada, they would give every consideration to those who manufactured electrical appliances.
If the hon. member would like to see the advertisement it is in my office, and I should be pleased to show it to him. It had to do with articles which were exactly the same,

manufactured by the same company and advertised on the same day. Yet the price was $369 in Detroit and $689 in Windsor. I wonder just how long the people of this country are going to stand by and see examples such as that which I have just mentioned. Day after day they see them. I wonder just when they are going to rebel.
That is the great problem we have to face in this country. The price tag is all out of reason. We have to get down to earth. We can manufacture a great deal more cheaply than we are manufacturing at present, but just so long as these industries are subsidized they will still take that amount from the Canadian people without any hesitation.
Hon. members will recall, without my bringing it to their attention, what was found in every case where the Combines Investigation Act was applied and where investigations were made. What do we And? On different occasions I stood up in this house and told about the great monopoly that we had to deal with in so far as the rubber industry was concerned. I brought that matter to the attention of this house on many occasions. To me it was a combine. To me it was a monopoly. When the matter was investigated, what did we find? We found just exactly what I knew would be found. If many more industries in this country were subjected to the same type of examination I am sure the investigators would come up with the same answer. It would be found that the combines and the monopolies are setting the prices, and that the Canadian people are paying through the nose.
In so far as unemployment is concerned, and in so far as overproduction is concerned, the whole problem lies right on their doorstep. It is the price tag and nothing else. When we in this country decide to give the citizens of Canada a break and bring prices more in line with those to the south of us we will find less unemployment and many more happy people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.


PRIVATE BILLS
Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa Wesi) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 252, respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let us have an explanation.


George James McIlraith: I thank the hon. member for drawing my attention to the fact that he
Canadian Pacific Railway would like an explanation. I am very happy to give him one. The purpose of the bill is to grant authority to the Canadian Pacific Railway to build a branch line some 15 miles in length from the divisional point at Havelock, Ontario, to Nephton, Ontario. Havelock, as hon. members know, is a divisional point about halfway between Smiths Falls and Toronto on the main line of the C.P.R. Nephton is the site of the operations of American Nepheline Limited, a mining company controlled by Ventures Limited. It employs some 150 persons at the mine at Nephton and the operation involves the production of nepheline syenite, a product described to me as being made from igneous rock somewhat resembling granite in texture, hardness and general appearance.
The product is used in the manufacture of glass and pottery. About 75 per cent of the production is exported to the United States, about 22 or 23 per cent is used in Canada, and the rest is exported to other countries. The product has been transported by truck from the mine to Lakefield, Ontario, a distance of some 24 miles over a secondary road wholly maintained by the company. The branch railway line will enable the company to do away with the truck haul and will be a more economical operation.
The proposed railway line is being financed by the company and the C.P.R. There is no question of public funds being involved in any way. There is an agreement, which can be produced in committee if any members are interested in it, as to the financing of the construction. It is estimated that the construction will cost about $1,500,000, and it would be the intention, if authority is granted by parliament to construct the line, to start construction immediately the operation can be got under way this spring. It should be wholly completed within about nine months from the start.
Reserves of ore indicated at the present time at the mine, although a survey of the reserves is not complete, would indicate sufficient ore to warrant at least 20 years production out of known reserves.
I do not know that there is much more that I can usefully add. I might say that under the Railway Act the authority of parliament is required before any branch line more than six miles in length can be constructed. If there are other questions hon. members want to ask I shall be glad to get the information for them or arrange to have it provided at the committee stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the hon. member would answer one question. I take it from his explanation that Havelock is the nearest railway point to Nephton at the present time.

Private Bills


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Mr. G. S. While (Haslings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I want so say a word or two in support of the bill. I am well acquainted with the company and the location of the mine, and I should like to add a few remarks to those of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith). He mentioned that at the present time the nepheline was being trucked over a secondary road to Lakefield, where there is a small mill. My information is that when the new 17-mile railway line is completed a new, large, modern mill will be constructed right at the mine and production and output will be greatly increased.
It may be of interest to hon. members to know that to my knowledge this particular mineral, which is used for glass and pottery clay, is only found in eastern Ontario in the county of Peterborough and behind the iron curtain in Russia, from where it is not available to the western world. I am sure all hon. members will be in favour of the bill because it will not only increase employment, a subject that is before the house today, but will assist greatly in developing another mineral industry in eastern Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are several divorce bills, Nos. 253 to 262 inclusive, to be considered. Is it agreed that they will be entertained in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. W. G. Weir (Portage-Neepawa) moved: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. 253, for the relief of Gloria Alphonsine Timmins Ferguson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 254, for the relief of Adella Alice McNeil Slobosky.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 255, for the relief of Vera Marguerite Hennigar Isenring.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 256, for the relief of Sylvia Golbas Lann.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 257, for the relief of Lucy Jane Cole Judd.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 258, for the relief of Walter Hardy Willows.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 259, for the relief of Elizabeth Temple Jamieson Grier.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 260, for the relief of Herbert William Bateman-Cooke.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 261, for the relief of Rita Ann Rennie Knight.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 262, for the relief of Mavis Josephine Green Jackson.-Mr. Hunter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before the motion
covering these ten divorce bills is carried may I draw attention to what I believe is a slight error in Hansard with respect to the last time we had divorce bills before us. On page 2046 of Hansard for February 12, 1954, the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Hunter) is indicated as having moved the second reading of the divorce bills which were before the house on that occasion. I certainly would accept correction from the hon. member if I am mistaken, but I believe he was not in the chamber at the time and if that is correct someone else must have moved second reading of the bills for him on that occasion.
Motion agreed to and bills read the second time.


CURRENCY, MINT AND EXCHANGE FUND ACT AMENDMENT TO PERMIT MINTING AND MARKETING OF GOLD COINS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Adamson for the second reading of Bill No. 173, to amend the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act.
Mr. Armand Dumas (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill No. 173, an act to amend the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act, is to allow Canadian gold to be sold freely in Canada and thereby restore gold as a prime medium of exchange within the boundaries of a country not practising exchange control or other currency restrictions, thereby establishing a price for gold which can be maintained in a free economy upon which an eventual return to a gold parity may be established. By allowing individual Canadians to hold gold freely, it provides a means by which they may protect themselves from further inflation.
Another purpose of the bill, as stated by the hon. member who introduced it, is to try to save money for the Canadian people. The precarious situation of the gold mining industry and the communities dependent upon it is well known to all hon. members in this house.
In participating in this debate it is not my intention to enumerate once again all the difficulties encountered by gold producers, or the hardships facing the people living in the gold mining communities. There will be ample opportunity for me to do so later when discussing other legislation now on the order paper. A great number of people, both here and in the United States, as well as in other parts of the world, have good reason to believe that an increase in the price of

gold is a probability in the near future. It is believed that powerful economic forces will eventually compel the United States to agree to an increase in the official price of gold, after other efforts have failed to check severe declines in prices and production and employment throughout the world. The expectation of a high price is an incentive which encourages the mines to continue operations and to prepare for the better days which it is believed are ahead.
However, such an increase in price may take longer to come about than we would like. Until such time as this increase is a reality, official assistance is essential. During the past six years the gold policy of the Canadian government has been found to be both just and fair. Most of the proposals put forward by those interested in the welfare of the industry, and of the mining communities dependent upon it, have been implemented. If all the proposals did not receive legislative sanction, it was not through any lack of sympathy on the part of the government.
Late in 1952, when it was made clear by the then secretary of the United States treasury that his government's policy was that there would be no increase in the official price of gold it was recommended by the Canadian metal mining association, by provincial associations and by the mining communities that the Canadian government should initiate action along the following lines. The marketing of fine gold should be permitted and encouraged by the following means. First, producers electing to sell on the premium market should be allowed to sell fine gold instead of the debased product. Second, fine gold should be minted in Canada for general purchase and sale in a form suitable to the market at a price to be freely determined between the buyer and seller.
In so far as the first recommendation is concerned, Mr. Speaker, we must remember that in the autumn of 1951 the Canadian government granted gold mines permission to sell on the premium market. In doing this the government of Canada was following the lead of South Africa, but with some important differences. No restriction was placed on the amount of gold which a mine could dispose of on the premium market, whereas in South Africa the gold mines restricted themselves to marketing no more than 40 per cent of their annual production in this way. In South Africa, also, the gold had to be debased to 20 carats or less. Since January 1, 1954, the Canadian gold mines have been permitted to sell fine gold on the premium market. This is in line with the first recommendation I mentioned. I am
Proposed Minting of Gold Coins told there has been no sale of fine gold in bullion form on the premium market since permission has been granted.
The second part of the recommendation that fine gold should be minted in Canada for general purchase and sale is fully covered by the proposed amendment suggested in Bill No. 173. However, even if we are anxious to have legislation adopted which we feel might be beneficial to the gold producers or the gold mining communities, it is our duty to make sure such legislation would have no adverse effects.
I must say that in listening to the remarks made by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) when he was moving the second reading of Bill No. 173, I was greatly interested in some of his arguments. I was particularly impressed by his remarks on how we would know what the price of gold would be. He asked whether the price would be greater or less than the present $35, and then went on to say that the price for which gold would be sold was unimportant.
I say, Mr. Speaker, if Canada is going to take the initiative in sponsoring another way of disposing of our newly mined gold as suggested in this bill, that is by the minting of one ounce beavers, then the price of those beavers on the open market is of prime importance to the straight gold producers. This is especially true if we are to surrender other forms of assistance such as the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act in favour of this new method of disposing of our newly mined gold. We want to be reasonably sure that the price established by this means is at least as high as that received by the mines through the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
In each and every brief presented to the Canadian government in the past by the Canadian metal mining association, provincial associations or by the Canadian municipalities, it was always mentioned that the answer to the problem confronting the industry was the price of gold. In a submission to the federal cabinet in December, 1950, by the mining association of British Columbia, the mid-west metal mining association, the western Quebec mining association and the Canadian metal mining association we read the following at page 9:
For the gold mines, the crux of the problem is the price of gold.
It is fully appreciated that this is a highly complex subject, bound up with many international and economic intricacies, and one concerning which the Canadian government is not in a position to take entirely independent action.
We would however point out that as a result of the controlled and planned fixation of currencies

Proposed Minting of Gold Coins and the price of gold, the gold producing countries of the British commonwealth have carried the major part of the burden entailed.
As the price of gold is the crux of the problem, we would urge that attention be focussed on this crucial point in the hope that the Canadian government can help to set in motion action which will result in a price for gold which is (a), more commensurate with the cost of producing it and, (b), more commensurate with the greatly increased prices of all other commodities.
In another brief submitted to the government of Canada in October of 1952 by the Canadian metal mining association we find this at page 2:
We reaffirm our belief, previously presented to the government of Canada, that an increase in the official price of gold is a necessary step towards the permanent improvement in the conditions of world trade and offers the most effective solution of the problems which confront the Canadian gold mining industry.
And in another submission to the government on November 10 by the gold mining communities of the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and British Columbia, as well as of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, we read this at page 10:
We have now come to our last suggestion,-
It will be understood that those who were representing the municipalities in those provinces had made other suggestions.
We have now come to our last suggestion, the only one which would be a permanent answer to the actual crisis: the devaluation of the dollar, or in other words the increase in the official price of gold from $35 to at least $45 per fine ounce.
If I quote at length from these briefs it is because I want to make it clear that in the opinion of those who are most interested and who, I presume, are best qualified to express an opinion, the only permanent answer to the present difficulties is a substantial increase in the price of gold.
The question asked by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) is this. Would the price be greater or less than $35? I say this question is well put. The dominating feature of the market for gold since 1934 has been the willingness of the United States government to buy it in unlimited quantities at the price of $35. Unfortunately it is too low a price for my liking. If gold were to be treated as an ordinary commodity, subject to the day to day influence of the market, I am told-and I so believe-there is a great danger that from a long-term standpoint the stable, monetary demand for it may be undermined, and that the United States and other nations may cease to look upon it as a monetary metal.
I agree with the hon. member when he says it is unlikely the United States would sell their present stock of gold at prices below $35 an ounce. But there is always

the possibility that they would refuse to accept newly mined gold, or that they might sell what stock they do have when the price starts to rise above $35. This of course would entirely destroy the premium market.
Ever since the Canadian government decided to permit the mines to sell their gold on the so-called free market the premium on such sales has steadily dwindled, so much so that there is no premium now for bar gold. It is true that there is still a premium of approximately $2.50 an ounce for gold coins. But a recent Swiss court decision and the disappearance of premium markets for gold bars will have the effect of increasing the supply of coins at a rapid rate. There is also the cost of minting these coins, which has to be taken into consideration.
So the premium paid does not altogether accrue to the original producer of the gold. It is interesting to note that the total coins put into circulation during the entire time they were minted in Canada amounted to $3,480,000 in $10 gold pieces, $1,388,000 in $5 gold pieces and $3,139,000 in sovereigns, which were figured at approximately $5 each. This total was of course issued over many years, both good and bad; and even allowing for the inflation of prices in the meantime one could expect nothing like that amount to be sold in the space of, let us say, a few months or, at the most, one year.
At the moment conditions are prosperous. Faith in our currency is strong, and there are many alternative ways of holding earning assets. There is the further problem of issuing coins-these beavers-with a face value of an ounce, I understand. But, after all, people will understand that this face value is perhaps $35, and that the price would necessarily fluctuate. I am afraid that some people may buy those beavers at $37 or $38 and want to sell them, only to find that they receive only $35. In those circumstances they may blame the Canadian government for the drop in price. Under those conditions the premiums to be obtained, if at all, either in Canada or abroad, would not compare with the $3.90 an ounce given to the mine under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. Unless there is a further outbreak of inflation or some unforeseen development in the world situation it would not appear that a free market for gold pieces would add much to the revenue of the mines. Unless the United States attitude were to change or other developments were to take place in the world gold market, I am afraid this proposal might indeed have adverse effects upon the gold mines, more particularly those with a high cost of production.

We are all very anxious to do something to help the industry. The subject is of major concern to the principal gold producing provinces, but I repeat that in a more general way the welfare of an industry which has played so great a part in opening northern Canada and building up our national economy is a matter of interest and concern to all Canadians. It would certainly be a calamity if the wealth created by gold were to disappear without economic measures being taken to protect it pending an increase in the official price.


Mr. Karl A. Eyre (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, representing as I do a constituency which produces a large quantity of Canada's gold and within which are two or three communities dependent upon the production of gold for their economic existence, directly or indirectly, to the extent of about 90 per cent of their well-being, I am naturally greatly interested in the private member's bill now under discussion.
I am well aware that this bill presents many difficulties because of existing legislation, especially the present operations of the monetary fund. However, our gold mines are now operating under the monetary fund and the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act with modifications, and I cannot see any reason why other modifications could not be implemented with the thought in mind that any new approach to our problem might bear fruit.
If the bill now before us were put into operation to allow those mines which have chosen to do so to sell their product on the semi-free market, and other mines if they desired to do so, it would help them to obtain a better price for their product. If a mine chooses to have gold coins minted and marketed there is every reason to believe that large quantities of those token coins would be purchased for a number of reasons. An interest in gold coins might be the forerunner of the gold mining industry once again being on a self-supporting basis.
Since the inauguration of the monetary fund the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and his colleagues have seen fit from time to time to press for and have modifications extended to Canada. The first was the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act, which was a good act. The second was the sale of gold on the semi-free market on a restricted basis. The third was the debasing changes in the refining of gold for sale on the semifree market.
I am sure that if the Minister of Finance and his colleagues could be convinced that the minting of gold coins would help the industry they would give every consideration
Proposed Minting of Gold Coins to requesting further concessions for Canada from the monetary fund. What makes me confused and unable to comprehend the situation is that the House of Rothschild can purchase our gold and have gold coins minted and offered for sale. It must be a profitable enterprise or they would not be in the business. Therefore I suggest that we try the experiment of minting gold coins in connection with the mines that want to use that process, and which could operate under the bill before us.


Mrs. Ann Shipley (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to crave your indulgence for a moment and take this opportunity of thanking hon. members for their kind reception. I feel that I must speak on any bill that might bring about an improvement in the conditions affecting the gold mining industry. I also have the honour of representing a riding which is almost entirely dependent upon this industry.
I think it was on November 30 that the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) made certain statements respecting this industry which I believe were quite misleading and which did not give a true picture. I intend to answer him in some considerable detail at a more opportune time, either during the budget debate or when the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act is before the house.
I should like to say a few words about the state of the gold mining industry, and I intend to quote from an analysis presented by the gold mining association to the provincial ministers of mines at Niagara Falls last September. This is a national problem, of course, but I do have some figures relating to my own province. Incidentally Ontario produces 64 per cent of the gold produced by all lode gold mines in Canada. During the period 1941 to 1951, 35 per cent of the operating gold mines in Ontario discontinued operations; 74 per cent of the profits of the industry have been wiped out, and there are 40 per cent fewer men employed. I am sure that is typical of the situation in other provinces where gold mining is carried on.
The people in the gold mining areas do not like subsidies any better than you like voting them. We are a proud people. We feel that we have earned the right to be proud. The people in the gold mining areas pioneered that part of the country and opened it up. They have had to pass through some rather tough periods, but we have created great new wealth for this country. Our prospectors did something that was invaluable for the country. In their search for gold they found almost every base metal

Proposed Minting of Gold Coins mine that has been discovered in Canada. That is something you need badly, even though at the moment gold does not seem to be such a vital metal.
Grateful as we may be for the subsidy- and do not think we are not grateful-we would prefer not to have a handout. Therefore the industry and those dependent upon it are searching constantly for some method within the national economy whereby we can get off the dole. So they present various proposals to the government from time to time, and I should like to review briefly the situation affecting gold.
Gold is different from any metal produced in Canada. It is the only commodity universally accepted as money. It is a monetary metal, and thereby is a major factor in the national economy.
In 1931 the government of Canada asked the gold producers to send all their gold to the mint, and in 1932 the Gold Export Act was passed making compliance with this regulation compulsory. This was at the time Britain went off the gold standard, and the price of gold then was just over $20 per ounce. During the period from 1930 to 1933 the average price increased each year until it reached the rate of $28.60 in 1933. In January, 1934, the United States government proclaimed the price of $35 per ounce. This was the maximum Canadian producers could obtain, regardless of supply and demand, for gold on the world market.
These measures-and I hope those of you who are not too sympathetic to our problems will note this-were taken in the national interest, and not at the request of the industry. A short time ago a limited sale of gold was permitted on the so-called premium market. The premium has disappeared, so the measure is of no further assistance.
At the time the price of gold was fixed at $35 per ounce it was adequate for the sound development of the industry and also to enable the payment of top wages, as the record will prove we did pay at that time. Today we do not receive even $35 in Canadian funds, and in the meantime everyone knows how the cost of producing anything has soared. The mining industry is certainly no exception. Gold is caught in the web of a new system of controlled currencies designed to benefit the masses, but unfortunately a relatively small group is bearing the entire load.
When I first came to Ottawa I read of various proposals made by most if not all the mining associations in Canada. I read that they were proposing such a measure as is
bWrs. Shipley.]
contained in the bill before the house today. At the earliest opportunity I discussed the proposal with some of the ministers concerned, and other officers in various departments whose knowledge on the subject is great. It appears that once again the implementation of this bill would conflict with the national interest and/or with international agreements; so that if the bill cannot be adopted in the national interest, it appears we still have to be dependent for our very existence on the good will of this government.
I do not know what is the answer to this problem. I am not an economist. But I do beseech this government to continue to explore every possible avenue with vigour and determination, so that once again the gold mining industry and the people dependent thereon may stand on their own feet and continue to explore and develop the otherwise waste lands of this great country as we have done in the past.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I waited to see if any other hon. members wished to speak in connection with this bill, but I see they do not. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches made by the mover of this bill and those who followed him. I am not going to take up the time of the house to deal with statements made by the mover concerning the genesis of the international monetary fund. I believe on reflection the hon. member will agree it was not communist-inspired. The people who were responsible for entering into the fund agreement were actuated by a desire to provide for stability in international exchanges, and also to provide a code of international conduct with respect to the prevention of such objectionable practices as the competitive depreciation of currencies.
One might argue that the methods adopted were wrong, but I hope hon. members will agree that none of those, including myself and my predecessor, who took part in the formulation of that agreement were either inspired or influenced by communists.
Incidentally, it is rather ironic that in this debate reference was made to Mr. Harry Dexter White as being one of those who inspired it. I am not going to refer to Mr. White. I shall leave that to the people in the country of which he was a citizen. But it is rather interesting to note that if Lord Keynes had had his way gold would have been pretty well out of the picture so far as the international monetary fund agreement was concerned. However, I am not going to take up the time of the house to

Proposed Minting of Gold Coins
discuss that. I merely wish to reiterate what I said the other day, that I profoundly disagree with the suggestions made by the hon. member for York West.
The purpose of this bill, I believe hon. members will agree, is to enable gold to be prepared in such a form that it will be acquired and hoarded by residents of Canada. It is for that reason that I, as Minister of Finance, and the government feel bound to oppose any such measure.
One can view gold, as did my friend the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Dumas) in his excellent and thoughtful speech, either as a commodity or as an essential monetary metal whose purpose is to serve in the settlement of international balances. The view of the Canadian government, of the government of the United Kingdom, of the United States and of every other great trading country is that the main purpose of gold is to serve as a monetary metal for the facilitating of international exchanges. It has, of course, important subsidiary uses in the arts; but if it were not for the fact that gold is acceptable to the great trading nations of the world in settlement of these international balances, I believe we would find that the market for gold would shrink rather drastically.
Historically, it has maintained its position as a monetary metal because it has had a fixed price, and because the treasuries all over the world have been willing to take it in unlimited quantities at a fixed price in settlement of trade balances. It is for that reason that the Canadian government has felt that a policy which would destroy the position of gold in that respect would be inimical to the interests of the gold mining industry itself. Canada is, of course, as we all know, a great trading country and we have a great many things which we want to export and sell. Conversely, we have to import and pay for a great many things which are necessary for the operation of our economy. We believe therefore that gold which is mined in Canada should not be kept and hoarded by individual Canadian citizens, but should be available for the settlement of Canada's international trading balances. If it is not available for that purpose, then so far as I am concerned it ceases to have any economic justification.
It is true that under international agreements we have with other countries, and according to practices which we have agreed upon with other countries, the domestic hoarding of gold is prohibited. It is prohibited in the United States, it is prohibited here, and it is prohibited in the United Kingdom.
83276-136i
The measure proposed by the hon. member would in my opinion be of no real help to the gold mining industry in Canada, and were it adopted it would obviously be quite impossible for the government to continue to assist the gold mining industry to the extent of $15 million per year, as we shall be doing this year. If a policy of this kind were adopted I do not think we could possibly justify to the taxpayers of Canada the continuance of such a policy.
I have always felt that the greatest danger to the continuance of the gold mining industry in Canada was that countries such as the United States and other great trading nations would decide that they no longer wished to exchange for gold United States automobiles, United States steel or United States what-have-you or British steel or British what-have-you. I think it is extremely important, in the interests of the Canadian economy as a whole, that we should frame our gold policy in such a way that we run no risk of incurring that highly undesirable result.
For reasons which I have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, I would have to oppose the adoption of this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Is
the house ready for the question?


Agar Rodney Adamson: No. May I call it six o'clock,
Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Go ahead. The hon. member can finish in ten minutes. He has already spoken for 40 minutes. He can finish in ten minutes, can he not?


Stanley Howard Knowles: He can speak for ten minutes now and speak further next time, if he wishes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: the hon. member speaks now he will close the debate.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to put on the record certain points showing wherein I disagree with the Minister of Finance, and I think I will deal with them in the six minutes I have left, before going on with the rest of my argument as to the usefulness of gold.
While I agree with the minister with regard to Lord Keynes and gold, I certainly do not agree with him when he said that Lord Keynes was in agreement with the policy that was adopted. I want to quote just one paragraph from Professor Harrod's book, "The

Proposed Minting of Gold Coins Life of John Maynard Keynes". The paragraph is headed "The Last Phase", and it deals with the agreement. It reads as follows:
He-
That is Lord Keynes.
-fought hard and bitterly, but it was in vain. The American view was predetermined, and this fact was the bitterest of all. It seemed clear to him that, if the voting by nations had been truly free, as befitted an international organization, he would have obtained a majority for his principal points; but at that juncture almost all the nations were prospective applicants for benefit of some kind from the United States. Rebellion was out of the question. The Americans were "railroading" their decisions through the conference.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Keynes only quarrelled with
the important role that gold was to play in the fund agreement.


Agar Rodney Adamson: So much for the agreement, Mr. Speaker. The book is full of disagreements between Keynes, White and others. May I also say that I did not suggest that those who went down to form this international monetary fund, the people sent from the various nations, were communists. What I suggested and I now repeat was that the officers in the international monetary fund and the people who wrote the policy were certainly communists.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I repeat that that is not true.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I have this evidence to give, Mr. Speaker. I wish to quote from the interim report of the United States committee on government operations, made by its Senate permanent subcommittee on investigations, subcommittee on government operations abroad, dated December 15, 1953.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Are we going into all the United States senatorial investigations?


Agar Rodney Adamson: No; there are just two paragraphs in my present evidence.


Mr. Blackmore:: Just listen to this quotation.


Agar Rodney Adamson: This is an official United States document.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The hon. member has Social Credit support.


Agar Rodney Adamson: At page 11 of this report we find the following:
It Is a matter of public infonnation that Harry Dexter White transferred from his position as assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury to the position of executive director for the United States in the international monetary fund on January 23, 1946. Shortly prior thereto, V. Frank Coe transferred from his position in the foreign economic administration, to the treasury department as director of the division of monetary research, formerly held by White. White became the first executive director for the United States of the international monetary fund and was responsible in

framing a great portion of its policies and procedures. Coe succeeded White as executive director for the United States of the international monetary fund.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Brownell gave all this in his speech.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Will the minister please contain himself?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, I shall contain myself.


Agar Rodney Adamson: To continue with the quotation:
Here was a crisscross of the operations of the Soviet espionage ring whereby both of these men were placed in new positions whereby they could become indoctrinated in other policies and procedures and carry with them the experience and information gleaned in the old. It was in effect a continued schooling and an expansion of the Soviet position of influence through its espionage ring without surrendering the old positions of advantage.
Then in the recommendations of the Senate committee, recommendation No. 2 is as follows:
It is recommended that as a precautionary measure, an appropriate committee of congress should make a study of the transactions engaged in by international monetary fund, while Harry Dexter White and Virginus Frank Coe were connected with it in influential capacities, to determine whether actions were taken injurious to the best interests of the United States which can now be corrected in view of the conspiratorial connections of these two faithless Americans.
I wanted to put that on the record as an official document of the United States Senate, an official United States government document published by the government printing office in Washington, D.C.
May I now call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: At
eight o'clock the house will resume the business interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock. SUPPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Green, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Gillis.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. According to a report in the Ottawa Citizen, the purpose of our being summoned to the other place at 9.45

tonight is mainly to receive royal assent to the bill providing increases in parliamentary indemnities. May I ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), who, I take it, is leading the house, if he would consider having that matter postponed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Can the hon. member tell me how he can see a question of privilege in what he has just stated?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is that I think it is inappropriate and unfair to the house to interrupt a debate on unemployment for a purpose such as this; and I should like to ask the Minister of Labour-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is not a question of privilege at all. I do not think that the hon. member can rise on a question of privilege and ask why we are going to the Senate when we have received notice that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General is going to be present in order to give royal assent to bills. When royal assent is to take place and we have received notice to that effect, then any bill that has been passed by this house and the other house has to be given royal assent, no matter which one it is. Royal assent is not given when the house is not in session, and when we are summoned for that purpose there must necessarily be an interruption in the debate that is taking place in the house.
Therefore I do not think I would consider establishing a precedent to the effect that whenever a similar incident takes place an hon. member can rise on a question of privilege, if he happens to consider assent to a certain bill not important enough to interrupt the debate, and ask the leader of the house to advise the cancellation or the postponement of the royal assent ceremony. I know the hon. member understands that. Therefore I would ask him not to pursue his question of privilege at this time.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, so far in this debate we have had the pleasure of hearing a great many very interesting and scholarly addresses on the subject at issue, unemployment. You have also had the advantage of hearing a great many economic theories put forward which have been attributed to prominent economists of the past and the present. In some instances I think these theories were a little oversimplified; nevertheless they have been put forward. I should like to say that I think all the views that have been presented so far are noteworthy indeed, but I cannot help feeling that a somewhat fragmentary aspect of the whole picture has been presented. In
Proposed Committee on Unemployment order to look at the problem of unemployment properly we have to approach it in a logical and orderly way.
First of all, is there unemployment in Canada? If there is, does it exist on a scale sufficient to cause concern? Is it increasing or is it decreasing? Clearly there is unemployment in Canada, and it apparently involves somewhere between 300,000 and
500.000	people, although no one seems to know exactly how many are involved. Even the figures given by the minister are apparently subject to certain reservations, as are any statistical data, and the figure of
524.000	persons seeking jobs evidently does not mean that by any means all of these people are out of work. However, the minister did say that in the same month of last year there were 338,000 people seeking jobs.
Does unemployment exist on a scale sufficient to cause concern? Again I think the answer is yes. We have heard that unemployment is always high in January, as it is seasonal; but this year it seems, to put it mildly, to be more seasonal than usual. In a country with a population of 14 million, over half a million seeking jobs is a very high percentage. I believe it works out to almost one person in seven of the available labour force. It would also appear that unemployment is on the increase. Comparing the figures for January, 1953, with those for January, 1954, there is an increase of 186,000 in the number of persons seeking jobs. There has also been a steep rise in the number of those seeking jobs from 338,000 in December, 1953, to 524,000 in January, 1954.
I might point out that in December, 1952, a year ago last December, 237,000 people were seeking jobs, and accordingly approximately 100,000 more people were seeking jobs in December, 1953, than in December, 1952. I think it can be safely said that it is fairly clear that there is unemployment, that it is on a scale sufficient to cause concern, and that it is clearly increasing.
Second, having established that the problem exists, what are we going to do about it? This again brings up several considerations. Is unemployment more prevalent in certain industries or is it general throughout the country? What is the cause? This of course is by far the most important consideration, because if you do not know the cause it is very difficult to find a cure. Having arrived at the cause or causes, are these likely to continue? If so, will the cause or causes be aggravated in the future so as to accentuate the unemployment problem, or will they automatically clear up?
In this regard it would seem that, while the government does not admit there is any

Proposed Committee on Unemployment serious unemployment at the present time, the causes that have been given so far are rather vague. It also seems to be the fond hope of the government that whatever the causes may be they will right themselves automatically.
If the causes can be determined, and if it is decided that they will not right themselves automatically, then what is the cure? In other words, what can parliament do to cure the unemployment situation that exists. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) who suggests that the government do something about unemployment right away. Unless you know what you are doing there is no point in jumping wildly in and doing a great deal. It would seem to me that the only way to find out what to do, to find out what the causes are, in what industries unemployment is more prevalent and so on, is to have the standing committee on industrial relations examine these questions at once, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), because everybody admits that if an unemployment situation exists, as it does, it must be looked after at once.
It will not do any good to ask the government to pass a lot of laws if they do not know why they are passing them. It would be like a squirrel in a cage running around on a wheel or, as the old expression goes, "I don't know where I'm going, but I'm on my way". It would be impossible to expect the government to do something unless it had some opportunity to look into all the facts and see what should be done. I should like for a moment to suggest a few things that the standing committee on industrial relations might consider if it had the opportunity of so doing.
First of all it might consider this point. While the submission on unemployment by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and the Canadian Congress of Labour indicates that unemployment is general and not confined to particular industries, nevertheless from information I have received I cannot help feeling that certain industries have been hit by unemployment more than others. I refer to the farm implement industry and the textile and shipping industries. While many textile workers are not unemployed, a great many are working on short time, and I know this is the situation in a number of textile plants in my riding.
In this regard I think it would be rather pertinent if it is found that more unemployment does exist in certain industries than in others, because I believe it would give the committee on industrial relations a possible

clue as to one of the more important causes of the present unemployment problem in Canada.
During this debate we have heard the economic doctrines of numerous economists put forward. We have been told the application of their various theories would cure the situation. We have heard about the effect of Lord Keynes' savings investment principle, we have heard about the effect of his equation MV-PT, which is the amount of money in the country times the velocity of money equals the price level times the number of transactions. We have heard some Marxist doctrine out of "Das Kapital", about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. We have heard some reference to business cycles, which I suppose is related to Mr. Hawtrey's theories on business cycles.
The standing committee should take these various theories of the economists into consideration. I think they would be very helpful. I believe the committee should bear in mind the fact that nearly all economic theories about which we have heard are predicated upon a closed economy, or in other words, a mythical kingdom or workers' state, whichever you like, that has no connection with outside countries so far as international economics are concerned. It is also assumed to start with that the country's economic policies are solely for reasons of economics.
These assumptions, as everyone here realizes, are based upon a false premise so far as the direct, practical application of these theories to human society is concerned. In our world we have the land areas divided by man-made political boundaries into various economic as well as political units. Some of these have a great many resources and some have none. Some are suited to producing wheat, and others because of natural resources are suited to be manufacturing countries. Climate, soil and resources, all influence the economics of the different countries of the world.
In this mythical country of the economists, the part of the country best suited to produce wheat produces wheat; the part best suited to manufacturing does just that. As we all know, this is popularly known as the principle of natural advantage. It would be unthinkable in this mythical economic country for someone to try to do anything as uneconomic as growing grapes in a hothouse in Iceland when they could be grown naturally in Spain. But this is not what takes place in our world. Because of fear of war, national pride, mistaken economic thinking such as the nineteenth century doctrine of mercantilism and so on, all countries produce goods that are basically uneconomic for them to produce.

Proposed Committee on Unemployment
They do so sincerely because, in our present situation will be to create in effect a large world, one has to do things however uneco- external debt which will have to be con-nomic for national protection, and so on. tended with in the future.
As a result we all know that such things as tariffs are set up, monetary restrictions develop, and the flow of goods from place to place in the world is slowed down and sometimes even halted. There are great differences in the cost of labour because some countries, like Japan, have few resources and a large population, while other countries like Canada have huge resources and few people. There is also the question of different sociological viewpoints in the various countries. For instance, in this country now we feel that everyone should have as large a share in the national income as possible. It is no longer considered "nice" to think there should be the very rich people away up at the top, and the very poor people at the bottom. This sociological thinking makes a difference in wage rates in the different countries which, of course, further complicates the whole picture of the world economy.
At this point I should like to interject that we do not know whether Adam Smith's free enterprise, Karl Marx's communism, the Fabian socialism, Keynes' or any other theories would work, because all these theories are predicated upon a closed economy and not an economy such as we have today. It may be that all these theories would work very well in a closed economy, but we do not know because we have not tried it. We have no way of trying it out under present conditions.
Accordingly I should like to suggest that the committee on industrial relations should look to the broad international economic situation when searching out the main causes of unemployment. I believe that here lies the answer to the principal causes. For example, the sterling-dollar dilemma has cut down the sale of our farm products and cut down farm income. This has prevented farmers from buying a lot of new agricultural implements. Another example would be the heavy United States investment in Canada. I do not mean purchases; I am thinking of investment such as the buying of a lot of municipal bonds and securities. This has forced the Canadian dollar up to a premium of about 3| cents. When the Canadian dollar becomes that expensive to buy, people are going to purchase goods in countries other than Canada. It is quite clear that in the long run a heavy investment of foreign capital in this country will lead to heavy exports in the future of dividends, interest and so on. These are things worth considering when the committee is looking into this question. The practical aspect of this foreign investment
For reasons of national security I think we have to have a textile industry. However, because of the differential between wage costs in Japan and wage costs in Canada, it is almost impossible for the textile industry in Canada to compete with Japan's textile industry. Some people may say that is too bad, but on the other hand it would be equally unthinkable to remove the tariffs completely and throw out of employment the two hundred thousand textile workers in Canada. It would dislocate our whole economy, so I think you will agree that we have to have a textile industry, if only from the point of view of national defence. What would we do if war broke out tomorrow and we had no textile industry?
The same principle applies in a more limited way to the shipping industry. These are but a few examples. Again I say that we should appoint a committee, because the whole problem is extremely complicated. It cannot be dealt with by asking the government to pass a law tomorrow with respect to unemployment. The whole problem has to be investigated very carefully by the standing committee on industrial relations.
If steps are taken in this regard without very careful consideration you are likely to have a further dislocation of the economy. I think you might safely compare the economy of a country to a pile of bricks; if you pull one brick out to move it you shift every brick in the pile. It is for this reason that any study of the problem on an international scale, which also results in a finding that some of the causes of unemployment are related to things within the country and are not on an international scale, must be conducted carefully. Any steps taken must be carefully considered before they are taken.
In closing there is one suggestion I should like to make to this committee which I hope will consider this subject. My suggestion is related to an alteration in the Income Tax Act. Other members have already said, and I am sure more will say it before this debate is over, that high taxation is probably one of the principal causes of pricing ourselves out of world markets. This is quite apart from anything else, such as the high price of the dollar. I suggest, and I hope the minister will listen to this, that there should be a change in the Income Tax Act to permit a farmer to increase the rate of depreciation on farm implements. At the present time most farmers use the straight-line method of depreciation, which allows a rate of 10 or 15 per
2152	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment cent a year on motor-driven vehicles. I would suggest that this be increased to 25 per cent a year for non-power-driven vehicles and up to 33 J per cent for power-driven motor vehicles.
I think there is little doubt that this would help the home market. It would stimulate this market so far as the farm implement business is concerned, and certainly that is one of the industries that have been hit hardest at the present time. I cannot see that it would make a great deal of difference to the economy of the country as a whole, and certainly I think it would help sell in the home market and help this industry along. Also, of course, since most farmers use the straight-line method of depreciation, if they could sell their old machines and make a little money on them from their depreciated value such amounts would not be taxable from the capital gains point of view.
In closing let me say that in my opinion the main cause of the present unemployment situation in Canada is international economic factors, not so much home factors at all. The only way we can deal successfully with a highly complicated problem such as this is to have a standing committee of the house on industrial relations which would carefully examine the causes, and do it as quickly as possible. But I do think it would be most unwise for the government to go off on a tangent and pass laws without a proper consideration of this matter. That is why I feel the house should support the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, as the representative in the House of Commons of the constituency of Vancouver East I am keenly interested in all that has been said in this discussion of the problem of unemployment as we now see it in Canada. I have no desire to repeat the arguments and presentations already made; but I do feel there are certain aspects that have not yet been put before the house. That is my reason for speaking.
The question of unemployment is most serious to all the people of Canada, but in particular to those who are unemployed. I feel that at times the viewpoint of a member can best be put forward in a word picture. In the last two days I have been trying to find the ways and means of putting before members of this honourable house a word picture of the unemployment situation. I did not find that word picture until yesterday. Indeed I did not find it until the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) spoke. But immediately he had finished I had the word picture. I regret very much that the Acting Prime Minister, because of pressure of other


business, is unable to be in his seat at this time. However, I want to give that word picture.
In order to do so I have to go back to June of 1924. In that month I graduated from high school. I did not have the funds to go to university and so, for two months, I served as a hod carrier for a bricklayer. Let me say that that bricklayer was one of the best in Canada, my own father. After that two months I became an apprentice in the trade of an inside wireman electrician. In the following five years, with the exception of about three jobs, I worked on the electrical construction connected with the building of wheat elevators. When I heard the Acting Prime Minister yesterday it suddenly came to my mind that on nearly every job on which I worked in the five years after 1924 the blueprints were signed by C. D. Howe, the consulting engineer in charge of the drafting and construction of a majority of the wheat elevators in British Columbia.
That brought to my mind an experience. I do not know exactly how many members understand the method of construction of a wheat elevator. I might explain that when you start pouring the concrete on the bins the concrete is poured continuously, and the forms are movable. Those forms are only about four or five feet long, and are operated by jacks. Once you start to pour you must keep right on going, 24 hours each day, until you hit the top of the bins, which is known as the bin floor.
I was working on one of the largest elevators in British Columbia. Again the consulting engineer was this man named C. D. Howe. On this particular job we had reached the bin floor. When you have reached that point you had to pour the bin floor slab, and this was still on a 24-hour basis. I was on the graveyard shift on the night the bin floor was poured. I believe there were about 50 of us on shift that night, including carpenters, electricians, labourers and rodmen. At about 12.30 in the morning, as the bin floor was being poured, the central bin began to collapse. We had warning because we saw the concrete on the central bin starting to sag. As it collapsed other bins started collapsing. As I say, the 50 workers on that graveyard shift had a warning. I leaped for the side and got hold of the jacks and the movable form.
We were very fortunate that night. Had it collapsed all of a sudden the 50 of us would have died. If we had not taken heed of the warning when the first bin started to collapse we would have died. Had the whole floor gone down, there would have been

Proposed Committee on Unemployment
the same result. Those 50 construction workers took the warning when they saw the first sign of collapse. What happened after that? Well, the entire floor did not go. Did the engineer in charge of the job go down a couple of hundred feet and start to work up? No; he took the solid foundation on the side, put heavy beams across from the top and brought the slab timber back into position.
I think that is a perfect analogy to the present unemployment situation in Canada; and the man who was the consulting engineer on that job back in the twenties is the Acting Prime Minister of Canada in the House of Commons today. What I am asking is that he and the government learn a lesson from that job. Today in Canada it is not a case of a floor collapsing on a wheat elevator construction job. We have evidence from all sides of this house that the security floor is collapsing under over 500,000 of the working people of the Dominion of Canada.
In the collapse of that centre bin the workers were reaching for security. The unemployed today are reaching out because the security floor has collapsed. If they are eligible they get unemployment insurance, but at a rate that will permit no family to live on a respectable scale. It is just like that jack which I reached for over 20 years ago. But there are those under whom the security floor has collapsed who have absolutely nowhere to turn, because Liberal governments have failed to keep the promises made in August, 1945. I shall come to that in a few minutes.
There is one point I should like to make, and if I could not make any other I would be satisfied. Can we take a warning when we see it and do something about it, or do we have a government which wants to see the entire security floor collapse before they will do anything about it? I have been absolutely amazed at the speeches I have heard from the government side of the house. They have refused to take any notice of this warning of collapse and do anything about it. I am not any prophet of gloom-
An hen. Member: Oh, no.


Harold Edward Winch: -but I say that when the government sees and recognizes the fact, according to the figures of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), that there are 524,000 applying for employment, that should be a warning. Mr. Speaker, when you have a warning it is time to act. We should not take a chance on a major collapse. Put the beams across from the top as they did on the job I spoke about a few moments ago.
I do not think any one of us wants to see a return of the hungry 1930's; but I do say to
the government that having been given the warning which it has now of over half a million unemployed, if the government does not move and the trend continues, then its callous indifference to the situation will be an indication that it has not learned the lesson of 1929 to 1939. I know something about it.
I have listened to members of the government and have heard the way they approach this problem of unemployment. I think the best thing that could happen would be for members of the government to have to live on unemployment insurance, or to have to live for a period of time as those who are not eligible for unemployment insurance and cannot get jobs have to live. They should have lived during the depression from 1929 to 1939.
In that time we had Liberal and Conservative governments. The people of Canada were anxious and willing to work. Their only desire was to be productive and respected members of the community. But they were condemned by the free enterprise governments to a life of too little to live on and too much to die on. The youth of this country were condemned to travel back and forth across the country, not wanted and not needed. They were the derelicts of the economic system and the maladministration of the government. Because the government of those days would not take any warning as to unemployment, what was the result? We saw in our Canadian democracy the use of tear gas and police batons, and we heard Liberal mayors reading the riot act. I know. I was there.
I do not think it is right in discussing this question of unemployment that we should hear government speakers, and in particular cabinet ministers, tell the house and thereby the people of Canada that 524,000 people asking for jobs at this time is only seasonal. We are being told something which really sticks in my craw. It is unpleasant. It is not unpleasant for the government, it is not unpleasant for the cabinet ministers, it is not unpleasant for any one of us who after tonight will be receiving $10,000 a year less expenses, but it is very unpleasant, even if it amounts to only 2 per cent of our working population, for the more than 500,000 unemployed in Canada. They represent not just 500,000 unemployed; there are also their wives and kiddies. If we have any sense of responsibility whatsoever we will place ourselves in the unpleasant position of those half million unemployed and their families.
The government very definitely has a responsibility which in my mind goes back to August of 1945, at least. In August, 1945, a dominion-provincial conference was held

Proposed Committee on Unemployment here in Ottawa which was called because the federal government of that day desired to rent from the provinces certain taxation fields, in return for which they would be given an annual subsidy on a certain basis. Although that conference was called for the nominal purpose of reaching a dominion-provincial agreement on the rental of provincial taxational rights, as far as the provinces of Canada were concerned they met the government in August, 1945, on the government's own proposals to the effect that they had plans for full employment and high standards of living in the Dominion of Canada.
I want to refer to the report of the plenary conference discussions held between August 6 and 10, 1945, in order to demonstrate to hon. members and to you, Mr. Speaker, that the provinces did come here with the thought that the government in 1945 had a plan for full employment, and that the government itself admitted that that was the primary purpose of the conference, not taxation agreements. In the report of the plenary conference discussions we find on page 30 a statement by Hon. John Hart, the premier of British Columbia. He made the point very clear, and I would like to quote a passage from his remarks:
We believe that all Canadians are looking to this conference with expectancy. Events, since the frustrating days of the last depression, have greatly influenced opinions previously held on the proper role of government in the national economy. The success which has attended the management of Canada's war economy has, we believe, persuaded thoughtful citizens everywhere that much can be done in times of peace to control the effects of a disturbed business cycle; to banish the fear of unemployment and social insecurity; to maintain a high level of employment and income; and to achieve an ever-rising standard of living.
That was presented at the first plenary session by the Liberal premier of British Columbia, and I agree with his opening remarks. That was not only the viewpoint of the premier of British Columbia, but also of the premiers of the other provinces. The questions before that conference were those concerning plans for stabilization of full employment and a high standard of living, and these plans were uppermost in the minds of the federal government itself. On page 83 of the same report the Minister of Trade and Commerce had this to say:
The dominion further proposes to pay a specific grant of 20 per cent of the cost of provincial and municipal public investment projects if
(a)	they have been accepted and registered by the dominion authority as fully planned projects prior to the time of execution;
(b)	they are executed in a period designated by the dominion authority.

Further on he said:
In the timing of projects the dominion would concern itself only with employment considerations . . .
I would like to give one more quotation from this report, from a statement made by the then minister of labour, the late Mr. Humphrey Mitchell. He said this, as reported at page 102 of the same report:
The dominion government in its statement on employment and income announced that the maintenance of a high level of employment and income was "a primary object of policy". The people of Canada and the provincial and municipal governments are thus assured of an active dominion policy to avoid and combat unemployment.
May I just repeat that last sentence from this statement at the plenary session of the conference between the federal government and the provinces of Canada in regard to the purpose of the conference, and what the federal government would do. I quote again:
The people of Canada and the provincial and municipal governments are thus assured of an active dominion policy to avoid and combat unemployment.
These words were uttered, Mr. Speaker, between the 6th and 10th of August, 1945. Today we have 524,000 recognized unemployed in the Dominion of Canada. The implied policies of the federal government have never been put into effect. Let me remind hon. members-and I know what I am talking about because I was a member of the provincial legislature at that time-that when the Liberal premier came back and introduced a bill on the taxation rental agreement his speech indicated, although it was not in the contract before the legislature, that these policies enunciated by the then prime minister, the late Mr. Mackenzie King, the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) and the late Mr. Humphrey Mitchell, on behalf of the federal government, would be implemented.
Today, sir, the federal government has not yet put forward any plan or assumed any responsibility for the care of the employable unemployed, outside of the regulations on unemployment insurance. If I am incorrect I hope I shall be corrected, but I have yet to hear of the government having made an attempt to carry through its own proposals in co-operation with the provincial governments for laying out plans which could be used in times of unemployment, and on a timing established by the federal government, upon which they would pay 20 per cent of the capital cost.
Due to the failure of the government since 1945, this parliament now finds itself unprepared to deal with a serious situation. It is

serious. We have heard some rather remarkable statements on the floor of this house in regard to the situation. I was amazed to hear the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) condemning the leaders of the trade union movement and placing on their shoulders the responsibility for the present situation in Canada.
We have read in the newspapers and heard on the floor of this house statements by the Acting Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) to the effect that some employees are pricing themselves out of the market, and that they had better start looking elsewhere for jobs. From the cabinet benches we have heard statements to the effect that the unemployment problem is only seasonal. Mr. Speaker, the unemployment problem is not "only seasonal". I am not going to repeat the statements already made in this debate which conclusively throw back into the teeth of the cabinet ministers the statements they have made and prove that it is not seasonal. The industries they named are not seasonal industries. There is therefore something more to the problem than the seasonal factor with respect to unemployment.
The government express the pious hope that things may pick up in the spring. Mr. Speaker, a pious hope that things may pick up in the spring does not feed the stomachs of those who are unemployed today; not at all. Moreover, I do not think the government themselves really believe that statement. If so, they are more naive than I ever thought any of them were, especially a hard-headed engineer and businessman like the one who is Acting Prime Minister at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, it is no answer to say that the trade unions are to blame and that they, because of their wages and wage demands, are pricing themselves out of the market. It is no answer for the employers to say that taxes and the trade unions are pricing them out of the market. It is no answer to the unemployment situation when the government, for reasons known only to themselves, refuse to face the facts; and, Mr. Speaker, in the speeches they have made so far yesterday and today, the government are completely refusing to face the facts.
In British Columbia, within the last twelve months, the British Columbia Electric Railway Company had occasion to call for tenders for a major high-tension power line and for the supplying of the towers. Canadian companies and companies throughout the world put in bids on the supplying of these towers. The lowest Canadian tender was in the neighbourhood of $1,600,000. The
Proposed Committee on Unemployment contract went to Italy at a price well below $1 million. No one can say that it is the cost of wages that did that, because if the Canadian workers had given their services entirely free of charge no Canadian company could have touched that Italian tender.
That is not the only example that can be given. It is a situation that is increasing in frequency. Some three weeks ago I had the opportunity of speaking for about an hour with the president of a big manufacturing concern in Ontario. His firm employs over
12.000	workers. The president of this firm told me that recently he bid on a Canadian contract and that the firm had lost it. It went to a company in England. I understand the need for trade. But, Mr. Speaker, the president of this firm which employs over
12.000	workers told me this about that contract. He said, "If our firm had given completely free the use of our factory and machinery, the costs of administration and the raw material required, we could not have matched the price of the English firm, who are up against a 20 per cent tariff when they come into Canada on that contract". He said, "We could not have matched it". That job meant approximately 300,000 man-hours of work. If they threw in the material, the machinery and the administration they still could not touch the price quoted by the English firm.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Why not? What does the rest of the expense consist of?


Harold Edward Winch: That is the very question I am asking. Why not?


Clarence Decatur Howe: What other expenses were there?


Harold Edward Winch: I mentioned the previous
experience in British Columbia. Even if they had thrown in their wages free they could not have touched the price of the Italian firm. That is the reason I am saying to the Acting Prime Minister that it is not just a matter of charging the trade unions with the responsibility because of their wages and their standards of living. It is a matter that cannot be decided by charging any single aspect of our economy, the worker, the employer or the government. It is a matter that is mighty serious. It comes into our own individual lives, our own provinces, our own industries; and it is tied up with what is happening internationally.
What is happening internationally? Are the governments outside of Canada now at a point where, in an endeavour to get Canadian dollars, they are doing something with which we cannot compete? They must be doing something to be able to bid on tenders

Proposed Committee on Unemployment in Canada at prices that could not even be touched, in one case if the workers made no charge and in the other case if the employer made no charge for his factory, raw materials, machinery or administration.
In my estimation, Mr. Speaker, it not only shows the complexity of the situation but also the seriousness of it. It also shows the need for something being done in Canada now that has never been done before, namely the placing of the cards on the table. It is no good damning the trade unions offhand in a press report if they have a delegation down here. The government has a responsibility.
I would say this to hon. members. You believe in free enterprise. Yes, all of you do, except our own group here. I do not believe you can solve this problem under your free enterprise system. But we are living under it, whether we like it or not; and we are in parliament where we have a free enterprise government, whether we like it or not. Whether or not I believe in something new and different, on the floor of this house we have a responsibility to our constituents and to our country. What is that responsibility? It is to see that every family has the ham and eggs on the table tomorrow morning.
You believe in this system and you say it can be made to work, but it is not working when there are half a million unemployed. That is your first warning; and if you are sincere, if you believe the system can be made to work, then the way to make it work is to do something which has not been done before. It is not good enough to say, as was said by the Acting Prime Minister, that one union at least has priced itself out of the market and that the workers had better find other jobs. It is not good enough for employers to say that they are priced out of the market because of government taxes and because of the standard of living of their employees. The government has a grave responsibility.
Trade unionists are sensible men and women. They know it is useless to have a union agreement providing for payment of $2, $2.50 or $3 an hour if they have not a job at which to work. The employer cannot function if he does not have workers on the job, and the government cannot get its $4J billion of revenue if the workers are not on the job in the industries of Canada. In my estimation there is only one sensible thing that can be done under this system and under this government. Cut out all the shadow-boxing, cut out all the flim-flam, cut out all the wishful thinking, face the situation as it is now with its warning, and get together and talk things over.

You may think the trade unionists are wrong, but give them an opportunity to present their case and not have them come here to meet the cabinet for just an hour and a half. Let leaders of the trade union movement, representatives of the employers and representatives of the government, which has over-all control over what is going on in the country, sit down together, consider the case, deal with facts and see what will come out of such discussion. When I began I referred to a consulting engineering job by the Acting Prime Minister on which I worked back in the twenties. When the bin floor collapsed the engineers started from the top to repair it.


Mr. Argue:: C. D. never collapses.


Harold Edward Winch: The security of over half a million people has already collapsed. Let us start from the top to lay plans and try to check the situation. What is the top in Canada? The top is the parliament of Canada, and unfortunately parliament is under the control of the government. The government should take action now from the top. Since 1945 they have never kept their promises.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to inform the hon. member that his time expired at 9.04.


Mr. Gregg:: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a question of privilege? I leave it to you to say whether it is a question of privilege. There are many things I could say about the speech that has just been made, but there is one point against which I must protest. Neither the acting leader of the government, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, nor the Minister of Labour damned the highly respected leaders of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and the Canadian Congress of Labour the other day, or the members of their unions.


Harold Edward Winch: I did not mention the Acting Prime Minister. I referred to the statement made by the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Red Deer.


Harold Edward Winch: May I finish my sentence?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has the unanimous consent of the house he may do so. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Some hon. members say no.


Harold Edward Winch: All I want, Mr. Speaker, is to finish my sentence. Let the government take-

Proposed Committee on Unemployment


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Hazen Robert Argue: Listen to the democrats
howling.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should say again that when I rose on the first occasion it was to inform the hon. member that his time had expired at 9.04. It was then past 9.06. He had already enjoyed two minutes over his 40-minute limit, and that was unanimously agreed to because no one rose on a point of order.


Harold Edward Winch: I appreciate your indulgence.


Mr. Speaker:: When the Speaker is on his feet hon. members should not rise even to address the Chair. The hon. member asked for permission to carry on. I asked hon. members if they would give their consent and the answer was no. I should like to point out that when that answer is given the hon. member is not entitled to rise and try to finish a sentence anyway. Let us have agreement on this.
Now the hon. member for Red Deer may proceed.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, for the past two days the unemployment problem in Canada has occupied the attention of members of the house. That fact would indicate that at least a good many hon. members look upon the problem as one which has taken on very serious proportions. It occurs to me, therefore, that a duty rests upon the shoulders of each and every member of the house.
I have been somewhat amazed at certain attitudes that have been expressed with respect to this current problem. I have to ask the government a question. Just how serious must a problem of this character become before the government will characterize it as a serious problem? True, the Minister of Labour did indicate that in so far as we have one unemployed person the problem is serious as far as that individual is concerned. I agree. But looking at the matter from a national point of view I ask just how serious must the problem become before the government will consider it as one of serious proportions?
Obviously when there are from 300,000 to
500,000	unemployed in Canada it does place before parliament a problem which parliament should undertake to solve. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) tells the Canadian people day after day in literature issued by his department that they should watch for first symptoms and take action. Doctors tell you that, dentists tell you that, eye specialists tell you that. I would
say that the Liberal party should do the same thing with respect to a problem of this character involving our economic ills.
I well recall, sir, that it was February of 1950 when we last debated this problem as we have been debating it for the past few days. At that time I quoted statements from the late prime minister, Right Hon. Mackenzie King, speaking in this house in the spring of 1935, at which time Canada had only 400,000 registered unemployed. The language used by the late prime minister in describing that situation was almost out of this world. I quoted it in February of 1950, but I shall not quote it again tonight. I agreed at that time with what had been said. I stated that those arguments applied with equal force in February, 1950; and I underline my conviction that they apply with even greater force today.
During this debate we have heard spokesmen for the government categorize at least part of this unemployment as being seasonal. I was rather interested in the observation of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) when he said "seasonal, yes, but apparently more seasonal than usual." Some of the unemployment has been characterized as frictional. I would have to say in this case, yes, but undoubtedly more frictional than usual. The Acting Prime Minister referred to another apparent cause for this vast army of unemployed. He referred to a slowdown in the pace of business. In my opinion that is where we should be casting our eyes at this time.
It is true that certain seasonal unemployment is normal and to be expected. It is true also that a certain amount of what we call frictional unemployment is normal and to be expected, that is at certain times of the year. But when the minister referred to an apparent slowdown in the pace of business, then I began to do some thinking. Is that slowdown in the pace of business temporary? Is it seasonal? I should like to have answers to those questions. Is it taking on certain permanent aspects which may be extremely dangerous? I have read numerous reports of late which referred to statements of men who operate or manage secondary industries in Canada. Some of their assertions have not been too encouraging. To what extent have their inventories been built up as a consequence, in part, of the Canadian people being unable to buy, thanks to heavy taxation and thanks to the heavy cost of just normal living?
I should like to see a survey of business inventories across this country. It was only two or three days ago that I was told of a certain individual who was discharged from his employment after having been with a firm
2158	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Proposed Committee on Unemployment for 15 years. The firm manufactured stoves. He was not fired because of incompetency. He was not fired because of unwillingness to work. He was let out-perhaps that is a better term-because the firm had a supply of stoves which it was estimated would meet all the demands at the present rate for a period of five or six years. I wonder to what extent that sort of thing is happening across this country.
The situation today, Mr. Speaker, is to a degree parallel to the situation we had in 1950, although not in its entirety. In 1950 we faced a situation which had developed five years after the cessation of hostilities. By 1950 people's wartime savings were largely depleted. There was a very marked decline in United States purchases in Canada under the Marshall plan. There were extremely high taxes, the highest the people of this nation had ever encountered. Business had already met, in the main, the backlog of effective consumer demand for those commodities which the consumers had not been able to purchase during the war years. By February of 1950 inventories had been built up to the point where manufacturers were definitely beginning to worry.
The problem of unemployment in February, 1950, was not, in my estimation, as serious as it is today. One of the ministers, I believe it was the Acting Prime Minister, stated in this house yesterday that in March, 1950, we had 308,000 unemployed. I cannot just say offhand whether or not those were registered unemployed, but I believe that is what they would be. Three months later that figure had fallen to 129,000. I presume the Acting Prime Minister was trying to read a moral or a lesson into what happened then. Let me remind hon. members of this house that a very unusual situation developed during the late spring months of 1950. Developments in the Far East, in Korea to be specific, occurred and by June of that year war-I know some hate to call it war-broke out in Korea. Immediately the wheels of industry began to hum, particularly industry engaged-


Mr. Philpotf:: Will the hon. member permit a question? The figures he has just given show that the decline in registered unemployed was from 308,000 in March to
139,000	in June, one month before the Korean war broke out.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I realize that. It was 129,000, not 139,000-


Elmore Philpott: No, it was 139,000.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Well, it does not matter, but that was three months later. By June, 1950,

it became completely obvious to all thinking persons as to what was going to happen the next day, two days later, a week later, or a month later.


Elmore Philpott: It was a surprise to President Truman.


Frederick Davis Shaw: The fact is this. We did become involved in what I am pleased to call a war. Some others call it a police action. We did become involved in an armed conflict as a part of the United Nations. The wheels of industry began to hum. Men were invited to join the armed services, and their wages became an effective demand on consumer goods. The wages of those who were engaged in war industry became an effective demand on consumer goods. Once more our economy began to move on a more stable, yet I would argue very uncertain, basis.
We are faced with a situation today more serious economically than it was in February of 1950. I hope no one is thinking or has been compelled to think in terms of the only solution being the solution that faced us in June of 1950. Heaven forbid. But I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house that it is quite conceivable nothing short of that sort of tragedy will restore equilibrium to the economy of this country.
Sometimes I am amazed at the way some persons toy with the expression "stable economy of today". In my estimation the facts prove only one thing, and that is that it is a most unstable one. Today the situation is not entirely parallel with that of 1950. However, the attitude of the government is similar; and I am fearful that unless there is a change in that attitude, difficulties of an extremely serious nature may confront the nation within a reasonably short period of time. I am not one who becomes unduly pessimistic, yet I cannot be one who is foolishly optimistic. Naturally we hope for the best, but we must face up to the issues realistically.
Very recently the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) referred to a feeling of optimism based upon what he called investment plans in Canada. Well, it is true that so far as can be ascertained investment plans for the coming year are on a par with those of 1953. But let us not forget that those are nothing more than plans. Any serious economic slip, a move in the direction of recession, could almost automatically cause a change in those plans. Let us not forget that. This may not be necessarily so in respect of government investment, but it is most certainly true so far as private investment is concerned.

Proposed Committee on Unemployment
It is true that we have our Unemployment Insurance Act. It is also true one of the ministers has said that last year $148 million was paid out in benefits to the employable unemployed. Later on in the season I understand it also applied to the unemployable unemployed. But no one would argue, I am confident, that payments made under the Unemployment Insurance Act offer any solution to the major problem, nor would they argue that those payments did more than offer an extremely low standard of existence to the recipients.
But even more important than that, let us not forget that there were thousands who became unemployed who, for one reason or another, could not qualify for a single, solitary cent of benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act. It occurs to me that probably the time has come when the government should give consideration to extending the coverage under that act. It also occurs to me that probably the time has come to increase the benefits payable under the act and to ease conditions of eligibility. I readily recognize the fact that in a prolonged period of unemployment the fund that has been built up under the act would become exhausted. I understand, subject always to correction, that the amount in the fund stands at about $900 million. But I am sure the Minister of Labour would be one of the first to agree that no unemployment fund could stand up over a long period of time with a heavy demand being made upon it from month to month.
I am not criticizing the Unemployment Insurance Act. I have supported it. I say it has brought help to a great many people, but it does not constitute a solution to the unemployment problem. Reference was made by the minister to the $349 million paid out last year in family allowances. True, we have supported family allowances; but no one would suggest for a moment that the amount received by the average family would even buy the bread and butter for the household, if the head of the home became unemployed. It helps, but it is not a solution. Unemployment insurance and family allowances are certainly not in themselves guarantees against recession or against serious unemployment. Many of the unemployed do not receive family allowances. Many of them have dependents. As I said a moment ago, with few exceptions the amounts paid out through family allowances are very small.
During the debate repeated references have been made to industry. I have always looked upon industry as having one specific function, namely the production of goods of the best
quality it is able to produce. In my estimation industry bears no responsibility or-and perhaps I should put it this way-is not under a duty to employ people. The trend over the years both in secondary and primary industry is to utilize the most modern types of machinery, and this has had the result of causing unemployment. Industry does employ; but industry must be able to sell its product before it can employ, or if it is going to continue to employ.
Sometimes I develop a hostile frame of mind when someone undertakes to create the impression that it is the duty of industry to solve the unemployment problem. I am sure no one here would say, for example, that a farmer should be compelled to go back to the old threshing machine, or go back to the stooking of his grain, or get rid of his combine, even though the combine has displaced many men in agriculture. Industry will continue to produce, industry will continue to employ and industry will continue to sell only so long as an effective demand exists for its products.
It has been said on the one hand that a decline in trade has reduced the effective demand for our production. Let us assume that it has. Perhaps that has been as a result of the trade policies and practices of this government. Let us assume for a moment that we cannot devise a trade policy which is going to create a sufficiently effective demand to enable us to sell our real surpluses. When that situation develops employment is going to fall off, as it is doing; effective demand for production is going to decline, and a vicious cycle will have been started. I ask the government, if you cannot, through the establishment of the best trade policies which you can devise; if you cannot through the starting of national projects take up the employable unemployed and put them to work, then what are you going to do?
If the situation arises again that in the midst of the vast production of this country and our staggering productive potentiality we have several hundred thousand unemployed, then I say that trouble is going to develop. If we allow that strange paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty to prevail in this country, as it did during the 1930's, then I warn you we will be faced with a serious problem. If we are going to allow that situation to develop we may just as well throw our doors wide open and say to the communists, "Here it is; come and take it." That is just the type of invitation which in effect will be issued.
As far as I am concerned much of the responsibility rests squarely upon the shoulders of this government. After all, the

Proposed Committee on Unemployment problem should not be beyond their ability to solve, because it was only last summer that they assured the Canadian people that their safety-yes, their security; yes, their happiness-could be assured only with a Liberal government in office in Ottawa. I say to you, "You led them to believe that; the responsibility therefore is yours to deliver the goods." We realize that there is a problem. You knew there was a problem last year when you told the Canadian public what you did. As I say, we the Canadian people expect you to deliver the goods.
I should like to make brief reference to the amendment and the subamendment. The amendment calls for the convening of the standing committee on industrial relations for the purpose of examining into and reporting upon the actual unemployment situation throughout Canada, and for the purpose of making recommendations to this house as to short-term and long-term methods for dealing effectively with this problem.
I take no strong exception to that amendment, although I think it fails to deal with the problem before us and to deal with it right now. We know how long it will more than likely take a committee to act. If I were indicating a long-term plan I would say, "Yes, by all means let us call the industrial relations committee; let us place this problem before it; let them go ahead and study it, call witnesses, call members of the cabinet, call representatives of labour, and go into this problem."
At the same time it is not difficult to agree with the subamendment which states that there is a serious and mounting unemployment situation now facing this country which calls for immediate action by the federal government to prevent further economic distress. We are able to support that subamendment because we agree that it expresses the fact. When that is disposed of, if it is defeated then certainly we would support the setting up of a committee. In fact if it were possible I would not mind seeing the two carried at one and the same time. Let us have the committee, but let us also let the government assume its full responsibility and meet this problem now, even though their solution may not necessarily be a longterm solution. We might get that from the committee.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, this debate has certainly served to show, if any proof were needed, the concern shared by members of the government and by all members of this house in the matter of maintaining the highest possible level of employment and a high level of industrial

and economic activity in Canada. The spectre of unemployment is not a pleasant thought, not only to members of this house but to Canadians generally. The memory of that period which has come to be known as the hungry 1930's is too vivid to permit anyone to underestimate or talk down the seriousness of unemployment. There is a saying that time heals all wounds, but the memories of those years are still sufficiently green in the minds of the people of this country to make "unemployment" and "depression" terms of great seriousness.
It is therefore not unreasonable to realize that the appearance of unemployment in our economy over the last few months should create concern in this house, among labour unions and throughout the public generally. However, there is another cause for our surprise and consternation. For the past few years we have been accustomed to an unbroken rise in all indices of industrial activity in this country; and when one of those indices, the employment index, seems to falter a bit it is so unusual that we are inclined to give it more importance than would otherwise be the case.
The position today has been carefully considered in the speeches that have been made during this debate by members on both sides of the house. There is a recognition that the first essential in considering a problem of this kind is to get the facts. Without the facts it is impossible to make a reasoned and clear judgment of the problem. There has been some dispute both inside and outside the house as to the exact extent of unemployment in Canada at the present time.
I submit that a very capable and thorough summary of the facts was given in this debate by the Minister of Labour in his speech yesterday afternoon, and also by the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce in his contributions to the debate later in the day. These summaries constitute what I believe to be an accurate picture of the situation as it actually exists. They are the result of a study of the situation not made hurriedly but as a matter of routine by government agencies set up to make these studies continuously, and to report from time to time. The dominion bureau of statistics keeps a continuous check on conditions of employment in Canada.
I have not heard anyone during this debate suggest that in the past these figures have been proven to be materially wrong, and the figures that have been prepared on the same basis as that of past surveys, which experience has proven to have been right, indicate that there are some 280,000 unemployed persons in this country today. The

facilities of the Department of Labour have been used to look into the situation, and the minister has reported on this situation as it is viewed by that department.
The figure of 280,000 unemployed is, however, Mr. Speaker, an important figure and is one that no hon. member of this house would wish for a moment to minimize or underestimate. Many hon. members, including the Minister of Labour, speaking in this debate have properly called attention to the fact that the figure of the number of unemployed is not merely a statistic, but that it may represent real hardship and difficulty. That is fully appreciated and is a matter which is recognized by all hon. members in this house.
However, the figure itself must be placed in perspective. As was pointed out yesterday, it is very close to the percentage of the working force recognized by the labour unions and by economists as the percentage of unemployed that can be accepted as normally "frictional" unemployment.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member to interrupt his speech at the moment, because we are about to receive a message from the Senate.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of curiosity may I ask why the business of the house has been suspended when there has been no knock as yet on the door of the House of Commons?


An hon. Member:: There will be.


Mr. Speaker:: I should perhaps explain to the hon. member that at times we delay the messenger, and at other times, the messenger delays us.


THE ROYAL ASSENT
[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy-Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act for the relief of Catherine Miller Mary Harris Dawson Coutts.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth Ann Hunter Daykin.
An act for the relief of Martha Anne Sutherland Clarke.
The Royal Assent
An act for the relief of Phyllis Best Childs.
An act for the relief of Marilyn Clerk Merlin Clarke.
An act for the relief of Kenneth Urban Lunny.
An act for the relief of Florence Bella Davis Baines.
An act for the relief of Claude Arlington Root.
An act for the relief of Lizzy Weiss Nomberg.
An act for the relief of Mildred Elizabeth Sears Leighton.
An act for the relief of Margot Landwirth Steinbach.
An act for the relief of Pauline Noel Lapointe.
An act for the relief of Joseph Philippe Marc Andre Fortier.
An act for the relief of Nancy Rachel Bonnar Barclay.
An act for the relief of Marusia Zozula Hempseed.
An act for the relief of James Alexander Stevenson.
An act for the relief of Vyvyan Holcombe Hervey.
An act for the relief of Gilberte Drouyn Serres.
An act for the relief of Margaret Alice May Plinn Cote.
An act for the relief of Stanislas Anthony Placzek.
An act for the relief of Rose Enkin Carriere.
An act for the relief of Lottie Levine Lubotsky, otherwise known as Lottie Levine Kuzniclci.
An act for the relief of Solanges Laperle Desjardins.
An act for the relief of Jack Kaufman.
An act for the relief of Selma Sara Schachter Lande.
An act for the relief of Paul Joseph Simard.
An act for the relief of John McCullough Gasken.
An act for the relief of Joseph Louis de Gonzague Giguere.
An act for the relief of Jean Hunter Bercovitz.
An act for the relief of Diane Lorraine Cleveland Morgan Stewart Patterson.
An act for the relief of Elsie Eleanor Bennett Kirkcaldy.
An act for the relief of Bernice Margaret Vizzutti Charters.
An act for the relief of Archibald Christopher Mottley.
An act for the relief of Bessita Asaria Farchi Lotenberg, otherwise known as Bessita Asaria Farchi Lotey.
An act for the relief of George William Bonfield.
An act for the relief of Marjorie Joan LeRiche Dunphy.
An act for the relief of Geraldine Donovan Wilcox.
An act for the relief of Norma Mary MacKenzie Benton.
An act for the relief of Anna Smilovitch King.
An act for the relief of Kathleen Dempsey Robertson.
An act for the relief of Joyce Delia Pierce Korenberg.
An act for the relief of Alfonsas Jankus.
An act for the relief of Michael Lansky.
An act for the relief of Wilma Elizabeth Dalglish Rochon.
An act for the relief of John Cromkie Niccl.
An act for the relief of Tyrus Raymond Markham.
[Stage Direction]
The Royal Assent
An act for the relief of Thelma Louise Heinz Finlay.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Joan Glegg Statham.
An act for the relief of Mary Laura Olive Coote Laflamme.
An act for the relief of Sadie Denenberg Rock-man.
An act for the relief of Yukiko Takeuchi Zusko.
An act for the relief of Joan Gooderham Wyman.
An act for the relief of Guy Favreau.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth Stewart Hughes Koren.
An act for the relief of Esther Wray Carpenter Batt.
An act for the relief of Shirley Mary Davis Robertson.
An act for the relief of Carlo Castelli.
An act for the relief of Eveline Shaheen Sauvageau.
An act for the relief of George William Swin-wood.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Marguerite Frances
Wiggins MacKay.
An act for the relief of Marie Jeannine Bisson Lecuyer.
An act for the relief of George Joseph John Louis Gustav Brisebois.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Ivy Isabel Brown
Wilkinson.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Eileen Sybil Fels
Goldstein.
An act for the relief of Liliane Bernier L'Heureux.
An act for the relief of Andrew Warden Clark.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Frances Herscovitz
Hershon.
An act for the relief of Mary Frances Beatrice Lord Tomkinson.
An act for the relief of Roslyn Belkin Cohen.
An act for the relief of Phyllis Mildred Brohart Stephens Mowat.
An act for the relief of Anna Lillian Montague Maye.
An act for the relief of Gerald Fry.
An act for the relief of Gordon Amos Finlay.
An act for the relief of Eleanor Mary Hastie Moon.
An act for the relief of Jean de Tonancour
Racette.
An act for the relief of Pauline Frances Elizabeth Appleton Powell.
An act for the relief of Joseph Anthony Albert Britt.
An act for the relief of Violette (Labeebe) Zakaib Kenemy.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth Josephine Grant Drummond.
An act for the relief of Joseph Georges Roger Dufort.
An act for the relief of Max Wulfovitch.
An act for the relief of Jessie Moffat Luce.
An act for the relief of Julia McKenzie Clarke
Smith.
An act for the relief of Phyllis Matthews Cloutier.
An act for the relief of Rose White Bishop.
An act for the relief of Victor Della Porta, otherwise known as Jack William Taylor.

An act for the relief of Edith Hersh Beck.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Amelia Hockley Burne.
An act for the relief of Dora Garoff Bernstein.
An act for the relief of Phyllis Weiss Cohen.
An act for the relief of Rose Lillian Budd Cooke.
An act for the relief of Jeanne Delattre Toubeix.
An act for the relief of Esther Smilovitch Benjamin.
An act for the relief of Shirley Ann Slayton Dubuc.
An act for the relief of Grace Mary Harrison Laycock.
An act for the relief of Lawrence Druxerman.
An act for the relief of Shirley Catherine Bradley Boyd.
An act for the relief of Ferdinand Nunes, otherwise known as Ferdinand Numes.
An act for the relief of Sarah Estephanie Debon-naire Johnson.
An act for the relief of Sarah Ida Rishikof Neidik.
An act for the relief of Harold Goldstein.
An act for the relief of Mary Kathleen Hayes MacDonald.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Elizabeth Brewin Lovegrove.
An act for the relief of Barbara Jean White Simpson.
An act for the relief of Donald George Kirk.
An act for the relief of Joseph Wilmott Albert Parmenter.
An act for the relief of Margaret Agnes Dupont Legault.
An act for the relief of Jack Merson.
An act for the relief of Philip George Ralph Anley.
An act for the relief of Rebecca Joyce Isobel Hahn Vengroff.
An act for the relief of Mary Szabowska Skowron, otherwise known as Marie Szabowska Skowron.
An act for the relief of George Arthur Crittenden.
An act for the relief of Evangeline Emma Bonner Dancsak.
An act for the relief of Reginald George Silver-sides.
An act for the relief of John Partridge.
An act for the relief of Jacques Labonte.
An act for the relief of Laura Solow Schwartz.
An act for the relief of Leona Kuprasz Veremchuk.
An act for the relief of Mary Bernice Patricia Mullins Coristine.
An act for the relief of Evelyn Saxe Harris.
An act for the relief of Catharina Elizabeth van de Casteel Fortune.
An act for the relief of Hazel Viola Christena Darey Moore.
An act for the relief of Leontine Pelletier Lamothe.
An act for the relief of Lillian Hazel Welch Alexander.
An act for the relief of Therese Perrier Langlois.
An act for the relief of Anita Eleanor London Lewy.
An act for the relief of Norma Patricia Cooke Campbell.

An act for the relief of Alexandra Morgoci Cucu.
An act for the relief of Daisy Helen Dean Harpes.
An act for the relief of Gerald Gaudet.
An act for the relief of Genevieve Mary Emily McGuire Carragher.
An act for the relief of Sydney Silverman.
An act for the relief of Joseph Lucien Nadon.
An act for the relief of Patricia Louise Noseworthy St. Laurent.
An act for the relief of Joseph Octave Leopold Richer.
An act for the relief of George Gerald Patterson.
An act for the relief of Marcel Berube.
An act for the relief of Gertrude MacDonald Watt.
An act for the relief of Claire Pierrette Desrochers Dixon.
An act for the relief of Fernand Laurin.
An act to approve the financial agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom, signed on the thirteenth day of August, 1953.
An act to amend the acts respecting the Northwest Territories.
Business of the House
An act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act.
An act respecting the boundary between the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba.

Mr. Chevrier:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall continue with this debate, and if it is concluded we shall go on to take the amendments to the Salaries Act; amendments to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act; and the resolution concerning the Export Credits Insurance Act.


Mr. Green:: Have you the plans for Thursday or Friday?


Lionel Chevrier: I have not, at this stage.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday. February 17, 1954