1954-02-23

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement with respect to interprovincial and international highway transport.
In view of the decision of the privy council in the case of Winner v. S.M.T. (Eastern) Limited et al., it appears that an interprovincial or international undertaking within the meaning of section 92, head 10(a) of the British North America Act, is not subject to the provincial law relating to public carriers.
In our view it would not be in the public interest to have a divided jurisdiction, with the provincial boards controlling the traffic within the provinces, and a federal board controlling the traffic moving between the provinces or between a province and the United States, and for this amongst other reasons we are reluctant to enter this field and thereby bring about divided jurisdiction.
In view of this situation I propose to call a conference of provincial ministers having jurisdiction over highways to discuss the problems arising herein and to endeavour to find a common ground on the best way to regulate and control highway transport, whether intraprovincial, interprovincial or international.
Among ten provinces, all interested in the control of the traffic using their highways, there may be different views expressed on this subject. I am hopeful that a common understanding may be reached to the end that the provinces will be able to regulate and control all motor transport using provincial highways.


Mr. Green:: May I ask the minister a question. I take it that it is the hope of the government that the board of transport commissioners will not be called upon to exercise any jurisdiction over highways, and that no other dominion government body will be called upon to exercise such jurisdiction either.


Lionel Chevrier: The statement has been carefully prepared and speaks for itself. I would not like either to add to or subtract from it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Brooke Claxton (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked a question concerning the proposed Korean political conference to be held in Geneva on April 26. I should add to what I said yesterday that during the Berlin conference we were kept informed of the progress of the talks and the proposals being put forward by the western powers. Further, as nationalist China was not one of the nations participating in the United Nations action in Korea, she was not present at the meeting in Washington to which I referred.


ALLEGED STATEMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Is he now ready to answer the question which I asked yesterday and which he said he would accept as notice.


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) will return to Ottawa tomorrow. I have not yet been able to get in touch with him to find out what he did say, and until then I cannot answer the question.



INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question, or questions, of the Acting Prime Minister, of which I have given notice. Since this matter involves the responsibilities of three departments of government it seemed proper to ask the questions of the Acting Prime Minister. However, there are several questions, and I shall be guided by his wishes as

Inquiries of the Ministry to whether he would like me to read them all at once, or would prefer to answer them one at a time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, there are eight questions here, all referring to 'matters outside my own department. I would urge that my hon. friend place them on the order paper.


George Alexander Drew: No, no.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not see the
urgency of the questions.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am quite willing to
handle this in a manner that will be most convenient, but I cannot agree to put them on the order paper, because some urgency attaches to them. If Your Honour wishes to pass upon that, I shall be glad to read the questions at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would ask the first question, and then we would see about the urgency of it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In that regard I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if, following reports of court proceedings in Montreal, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) or his officials took steps to inform themselves regarding the background of Mr. Harold C. Banks, at the time of his appointment as Canadian representative-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: As there are eight questions, perhaps we should let the hon. member read the first one in full.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: And perhaps I had better start over again.


An hon. Member:: Dispense.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Following press reports of court proceedings in Montreal, did the Minister of Labour or his officials take steps to inform themselves regarding Mr. Harold C. Banks, at the time his appointment as Canadian representative to the conference at Geneva was approved?


Mr. Speaker:: I would not wish to prejudge the other questions the hon. member said she wishes to ask; but if the others are in the same vein, in view of the fact that a question was asked by the same member yesterday, to which the Minister of Labour has attempted to reply, I would imagine that better satisfaction could be given to the hon. member if these questions were put on the order paper. I have no knowledge of my own in the matter but, like all other hon. members, I read the newspapers, and I understand that this gentleman has already

gone to attend the conference. So whatever is being done now is not going to change the situation.


An hon. Member:: He can be recalled.


Mr. Speaker:: I imagine that if the questions are put on the order paper they could be answered properly. Of course the hon. member realizes my difficulty. According to our practice it is not required that an hon. member send notice to the Speaker concerning his questions. But I cannot judge as to the urgency or the nature of a question unless I have heard it.
As I say, in all fairness to all hon. members, I do not think a member should prepare a list of seven or eight questions to be asked when the orders of the day are called, especially when they relate to the same subject matter. It is not the spirit of the practice we now follow in connection with asking questions on the orders of the day. They should be short questions, and such as can be answered briefly. If they are long, and relate to the same subject matter, then they should be on the order paper.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I quite understand the
nature of the questions which should be asked. And I might say I am doing this in the most expeditious manner. I could have asked questions of each of the various ministers, which probably would have amounted to the same number of questions, but it seemed to me that because of the interlocking nature-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: -it was better to do it in
this way. I would be glad-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is giving an excellent reason why these questions should be put on the order paper, namely, precisely the fact that several departments are concerned. The hon. member could not expect to ask these questions of the ministry and have each cabinet minister interested, without having the chance to consult with one another, answer these questions one after the other. My ruling would be that these questions should be put on the order paper.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I read one more question?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member will allow the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) to ask his question, and then ask another question. The house does not have to know that it is exactly one of these same questions.


George Alexander Drew: There has been some measure of flexibility in this practice.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: Too much.


Some hon. Members:: Too much.


George Alexander Drew: I hear the comment from several points "too much", and I recognize that there are many who think that any discussion is too much. But I was going to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is not only the question of the rather useful and helpful procedure that has been adopted but also the fact that urgency may be a matter of very great importance in a question of this kind. In this instance the questions are directed to the possibility that the Canadian government would disavow this man immediately, if the information in their possession were disclosed. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reconsider the proposal that has been made, and, rather than have questions intervene, to permit this first question that is clear to be answered, because I know the question can be answered, and by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe).


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should like to refer hon. members to citation 297 of Beauchesne's third edition:
A certain number of oral questions are permitted in practice by members, without notice, before the orders of the day are called; but these are merely allowed by courtesy in connection with the business of the house or with very urgent and important matters of public concern. They are always brief, no debate being permitted, and the replies are as concise as possible. The minister interrogated may reply at once or may direct that the usual notice be given. Such questions are governed by the same rules of order as questions of which notice has been given.
I realize the interest that the hon. member has in these questions; but in view of the practice that has always been followed, hon. members will be somewhat agreeable with what I say, that it is not the practice on orders of the day for one member to rise in his place and say:	"I have eight questions
to ask." There are several members who are anxious to ask questions of a similar nature. In their view their questions may be just as important as the eight questions the hon. member for Hamilton West wishes to ask of the ministry at this moment. That is why I suggested that the hon. member for Broadview ask his question, and then an hon. member of the C.C.F. party or of the Social Credit party may ask a question. Then the hon. member may get another try at some of these questions that she has. But I do not think it is normal practice for an hon. member to rise and say, "I have eight questions, and I want to monopolize the time for those eight questions until my answers are given." That
Inquiries of the Ministry is the position, and that is exactly the reason why I asked the hon. member to let other hon. members proceed with their questions, and perhaps later she may ask another question, and if the question is in order I am sure the cabinet ministers will be anxious to reply.
Hon. members will realize as well that it is my duty to decide whether the questions being asked are urgent. My judgment may not be a hundred per cent correct at all times, but that is the penalty which hon. members must pay at times for having a Speaker who is perhaps unable to render his decisions properly. That is my decision. I rule that the first question that I heard is of the type that could be put on the order paper; and I have advised the hon. member to do so.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Would the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration care to advise the house if his department is going to admit Mr. Harold C. Banks, a United States citizen with a record of court convictions in Canada and the United States, into Canada when he returns from filling his present government appointment as representative of the Canadian people at the international labour organization conference in Geneva?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, there are two comments I have to make. First, I would repeat what you said a moment ago, that questions are for the purpose of eliciting information and not giving it. Second, if my hon. friend would like to wait for two or three days I may be able to answer his question.


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: May I ask
a supplementary question. Does the minister not know the record of Mr. Banks so that he could give us this information at the present time? Has the government given any thought to the matter?


Walter Edward Harris: I can only repeat what I said, that if these questions are put on the order paper or if I obtain reasonable notice of them I shall be in a position to answer.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Are we to assume that the minister has not-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Are we to assume from the minister's answer that he does not have the necessary information now?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is very quick at assuming many things in this

Inquiries of the Ministry house. He can assume anything he likes from my remarks but he cannot assume that he will not get an answer as quickly as I can possibly give it to him.


William McLean Hamilton: Can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tell the house whether he will be able to give an answer to my previous question before Mr. Banks has returned to Canada?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Answer.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Did the minister himself consider, or did his officials convey to the Minister of Labour, information regarding the court record of Mr. Harold C. Banks?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I must object to the hon. member's question on the ground that it was answered yesterday by the Minister of Labour.


George Alexander Drew: It certainly was not.


Mr. Rowe:: That is why it is being asked today.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour of which I have given him notice. My question is:	Would the Minister of
Labour care to comment on the statement of the Hon. William Goodfellow, minister of welfare in the Ontario government, as reported in the Globe and Mail this morning, as follows:
Full responsibility for able-bodied unemployed in Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The purpose of
asking questions on the orders of the day is not to supply information but to obtain information. The hon. member's question is based on a statement that was made elsewhere. He will kindly put his question.


George Harris Hees: Does the Minister of Labour
agree with the minister of welfare in Ontario that the full responsibility for able-bodied unemployed in Canada should be accepted by the federal government as the major taxing authority in Canada and receiver of the greatest revenue?


Mr. Lesage:: No urgency.


Mr. Speaker:: It is not even a question
which could properly be placed on the order paper. The hon. member is asking the minister in effect if he shares the views of another minister in a different jurisdiction on a certain subject. I recall having read not very long ago that Mr. Speaker Black had a similar problem. It was in 1933, I think. It had to do with an opinion given, in the legislature of Ontario precisely. The question was asked by Mr. Heenan, and is reported at page 3805 of Hansard of April 7, 1933, as follows:


Mr.   Heenan@: This report states that the legislature is going to investigate and I want it to investigate the figures I gave on the floor of the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: The figures the hon. member gave are properly quoted in Hansard. This house has no control over the Ontario legislature as to what investigation it shall make.
The discussion then carries on in the same vein and the then Speaker went on to say:
I call the hon. member to order. I want the hon. member to understand that there is nothing personal in my remarks with regard to this matter but when the Speaker rises to address the house it is the duty of any hon. member to take his seat.
Then later on:


Mr.   Heenan@: On a question of privilege: Surely if I am misquoted in the press or in the legislature, I am entitled to make a correction.
That was denied by the Speaker of the day. We have no jurisdiction over what takes place in another legislature or over an opinion given by ministers who are autonomous in their own jurisdiction. I do not think that we ought to bring into this house matters which are foreign to our own jurisdiction. Perhaps I can take advantage of the question which has been asked by the hon. member for Broadview to say that matters pertaining to provincial legislatures should not be brought up in this house.


George Harris Hees: May I phrase my question in a slightly different way. The Minister of Labour has had considerable time to think this over. May I ask: Is it the opinion of the government that full responsibility for the able-bodied unemployed in Canada should be accepted by the federal government as the major taxing authority in Canada and the receiver of the greatest revenue? Is it the opinion of the government that that is so or is not so?


Mr. Speaker:: Questions on matters of policy are being asked. Questions are asked of the government, "Is it government policy that this or that be done?" Hon. members know that inevitably the answer is that that is a question of government policy which will be announced in due course. I think it was

back in 1792 when the rule about this matter was being approved in the house of Lower Canada and it was definitely stated that questions of policy should not be asked of a minister. We have gone a long way since then. If the minister wishes to make any comment I have no objection.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: The hon. member sent me a copy of his original question and the press clipping that has been discussed. As I am sure he knows, the topic referred to there is related to government policy. At the present I am unable to make a statement.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Labour prepared to comment on Reginald Hardy's report that an increase in unemployment insurance benefits may be expected soon?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I think I answered that the other day in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough). I stated that the Unemployment Insurance Act had been constantly under study this winter but no decision had been reached and I have made no recommendations to the government in regard to it.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Ferguson (Simcoe North):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if it was on his authority that the crown has been taken from the badge of the Royal Canadian Air Force and replaced with an eagle?


Brooke Claxton: The badges of the R.C.A.F. are
matters for the chief of air staff. In this case my recollection is that the cap badge worn by officers and warrant officers of the R.C.A.F. consisted of a crown and eagle. Up to recently other ranks have worn a different type of badge. For purposes of uniformity other ranks now wear on the wedge cap an eagle without the crown, which is worn only by officers and warrant officers.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: In my opinion-
Inquiries o/ the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Standing order 40
reads:
A member addressing the house, if called to order either by Mr. Speaker or on a point raised by another member, shall sit down while the point is being stated, after which he may explain.
As soon as the hon. member received a reply to his question he stood up again and began to speak, saying "in my opinion." Therefore I judged that he was not going to ask a supplementary question and I rose to call him to order. Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member could have seen me standing up he carried on, putting on Hansard remarks which I could not hear because of the tumult in the house. I think having due respect to the rules the hon. member will not object if I direct Hansard to expunge from the record all the remarks he made from the moment I stood up and called him to order.
If the hon. member wishes to ask a supplementary question, he is entitled to do so, but he is not entitled to debate an answer which he has received.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I contend that no minister of the crown has the right to remove the crown from our uniforms.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: He has no right to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must inform the hon. member that the question he has stated is not one of privilege; it is one of debate, and he may debate the matter whenever the proper opportunity presents itself.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister of defence if he is able yet to reply to the question asked a week ago Monday in the house relating to the subject raised today by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson).


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to give the reply.



EQUALIZATION OF PRICES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Have representations been received from grain exporters in Vancouver urging the rescission of the policy announced on February 18 having as
2350	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry its purpose the equalization of prices for wheat at its destination in the United Kingdom, and if so will the minister comment on these representations?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, since the announcement of this policy no representations have been received from grain exporters. The only representation that has been received was from Mr. H. F. Martin, president of the grain workers union, local 333, referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) in the question he asked yesterday as reported at page 2302 of Hansard.



DUMPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Could the minister give us his reply to the question I asked yesterday concerning the application by his department of the amendment to the Customs Act?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to give a reply immediately. The matter has been brought to the attention of the officials and as soon as the information is supplied to me I will pass it on to the hon. gentleman and to the house.



POST OFFICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Has there been any change in the plans which have been announced for the hiring of casual labour in the Vancouver post office on Saturdays after April 1?


Hon. Alcide Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for calling my office this morning to inform me of the nature of this question, and also the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott), who called my office yesterday on the same subject. As I stated during the recent debate, I am considering this whole question and I hope to make a statement within the next day or two.
fMr. Green.]



MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Carl Olof Nickle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. I see by the press that the minister has been justifiably annoyed by a rash of impersonal calls-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will not be surprised if I treat him as I do other hon. members. He will have to ask his question and not read a statement.


Carl Olof Nickle: My question, sir, is this. Might not the annoyance caused the minister be quickly ended if some program listeners would send in as their answer "The career of C. D. Howe"?


Mr. Speaker:: This question, of course, will not be taken notice of. Any other questions?



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the official badge of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police been changed recently? If so, what are the changes?



SALARIES ACT


Clarence Decatur Howe: the third reading of Bill No. 172, to amend the Salaries Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that this motion be agreed to?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, February 22, 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. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, before we adjourned last night I was delving into the history of Canada and this house

Proposed Committee on Unemployment
with regard to unemployment and dealing with the situation in 1930 and 1931. Today I want to bring the matter a little further up to date.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member for Nanaimo please resume his seat for a few moments so that hon. members who wish to converse with their colleagues may leave the house and do so in the lobbies provided for that purpose.


Colin Cameron: This afternoon I would like to bring the history of the discussion on unemployment up a little closer to our own time and quote from some of the proceedings in this house relating to the year 1935. At that time our representatives here in parliament were having a debate on unemployment and the leader of the opposition of that day, Mr. William Lyon Mackenzie King, was speaking on the state of affairs in Canada as the result of five years of Conservative administration. He told us in this speech, as reported at page 59 of Hansard of 1935, that there were at that time over one million people on direct relief. He added that the total was not as great as it had been two years previously when 1,240,000 were unemployed, but that there were still over one million on relief, which was being paid from dominion, provincial and the other sources concerned.
I should like to remind hon. members that this was stated in the house after five years of Conservative administration, after five years in office by a government which had come into office on the promise that it would cure this problem of unemployment. But before our Liberal friends become too excited we will move on to 1936, when they were back in office again. In this connection I should like to quote from a speech delivered by my friend Mr. C. G. MacNeil, at that time the member for Vancouver North. He said then that in December last there were in Canada 1,206,429 persons in receipt of some form of relief. In February, 1935, there were 1,054,821, and in February, 1934, there were 1,154,822 persons receiving some form of relief. He suggested at that time that this number included some 400,000 wholly unemployed wage earners.
The point I wish to stress is this. I have no wish to throw stones at past administrations. I realize that those who were in charge of the government at that time were facing a situation which had no precedent in human history and that they grappled with it presumably to the best of their ability. In fact, it is to their credit, Mr. Speaker, that they apparently took the symptoms and signs of economic decay much more seriously than their counterpart of the present day.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, we must remember that at that time we did not have in the seats of office the intellectual giants we have today. But even such minor political figures as the late Mr. Mackenzie King, the late Viscount Bennett and their colleagues-and they had a certain measure of political standing were unable to do anything about this problem, although at least they admitted that there was a problem. Today we have government spokesmen-and the leading one among them is the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe)- refusing to admit that there is any serious situation at all in the country.
Last night I quoted some figures from Messrs. Dun and Bradstreet. This afternoon I should like to quote some figures from the dominion bureau of statistics. In fact, I would recommend these to the Acting Prime Minister as desirable reading at the present time. Here we have a table of commercial failures in Canada, showing the assets and liabilities for the third quarter of 1953, with comparisons with the third quarters of other years. These are extremely interesting figures because, by the comparisons they draw, they show us precisely what is happening in our economy. They go back as far as the year 1929. In the third quarter of that year the total liabilities of commercial failures had been $9,300,000. Then we move up to 1932, when we find that the situation had improved a little bit and that we had only $8,791,000. Then in 1939 when, of course, we were beginning to get into the war, when by the help of war expenditures we were rapidly coming out of the depression, we had failures amounting to only $3,789,000. Five years later, in 1944, just towards the end of the war, we had a mere three-quarters of a million dollars of liabilities in our commercial failures. But from that date on the figures got steadily worse. In 1947 the liabilities were $2,500,000; in 1948, they were $4,139,000; in 1950, $5,798,000; in 1951, $6,469,000; in 1952, $6,750,000; and in the third quarter of 1953, last year, $8,074,000.
I think we have here, without any doubt, plain evidence in front of us that there is something radically wrong with our economy, something that will not be cured by mere glad cries of optimism, and something that I think should be studied by all responsible people today, particularly those who are in the seats of office.
2352	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment
I have been particularly struck by the comments of the Acting Prime Minister because-and I say this in all sincerity-they come from a man of most outstanding ability.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Colin Cameron: Oh yes; you people
opposite do well to pound your desks because, Mr. Speaker, there were a lot of mediocrities, nonentities and plain political knotheads who came into power on the coattails of the extremely able Acting Prime Minister. I am very much afraid that when he goes the way of all flesh, some of them will also go the way of all flesh. However, as I say, this optimistic spirit coming from a man of the capacity of the Acting Prime Minister gives one pause. If he were a stupid or an ignorant man or if he were a man with no experience, we could dismiss his statements with a shrug of the shoulders. But when we know what kind of man he is; when we know the job he did during the war when, as a result in no small measure of his vigour and his activities, and his ability to organize, we came out of the depression as revealed by the figures I have just quoted, I think we have the right to expect that now, when we are facing another serious problem, the right hon. gentleman will consent to apply his mind to that problem and to seek a solution for it rather than seek to persuade us that no problem exists. In fact, Mr. Speaker, when I hear the right hon. gentleman giving voice to these optimistic predictions, I am reminded of a famous gentleman of some years ago-some hon. members of my age will remember him;
I refer to Dr. Coue-who was going to solve all our problems by the simple little formula of saying over and over again to himself and everybody around him, "Every day, in every way, things are getting better and better". Of course they did not get better. Dr. Coue flourished during the darkest days of the depression. Since then he has disappeared from view unless indeed, Mr. Speaker, we have now discovered what became of Dr. Coue, and find that he has become the Acting Prime Minister of Canada.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, when I see this man to whom Canada owes a most tremendous debt-and I hope he realizes I am saying this in all sincerity-I wonder why it is that we cannot call on him today to face this extremely serious problem that confronts us.
The other day when my colleague the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) was speaking, some comments were made from the right of us here with regard to the curtailment of wages or the fixing of wages.
I have here today some figures to show that


that perhaps is not the area in our economy that we should be worrying too much about and that perhaps we would be better advised to turn to some of the other areas in the economy. For instance, we might turn to the report presented to us by the superintendent of insurance for Canada, who gives us some very interesting information on page 7 of his preparatory index. He tells us that out of every $100 income of the life insurance companies, there was expended in disbursements under contracts, $36.88; for general expenses, $16.65; taxes, $1.52; other disbursements including dividends, $10.44, making a total of $65.49. There was left to be carried to reserves an amount of $35.51 out of every $100 collected.
As the superintendent of insurance also tells us, the total income of life insurance companies in Canada in the year 1951 was $839,500,000. We can assume that nearly $300 million was taken from the pockets of the Canadian people by the life insurance companies and placed in their reserves. I know, of course, that many people will say that these vast sums have to be invested in order to ensure the safety of the policyholders. I regret to say, however, that that is a complete delusion. Here we have to deal not with an ordinary type of business but really with what is after all merely a legalized form of gambling. Let us take one particular company which is reported at page 408 of the report of the superintendent of insurance. This particular company reports $19 J million for premium income and investment income of $5,500,000. It also reports that its disbursements in insurance and annuity contracts amounted to $8J million. The interesting point about this is that, in spite of all its investments, this company is obliged to rely on its continuing stream of premium income in order to fulfil its obligations to its policyholders. Having done that, and having paid all its other costs of $7,110,000, it had a surplus of some $12 million. This is the point that I have been coming to.
In connection with this question of unemployment we cannot overlook the government's policy with regard to the investment of the surplus savings of the Canadian people. Here is a large pool of these savings which we are permitting to fall into the hands of a comparatively small group of corporations and over which, as we have seen only too painfully in recent weeks, the government has little or no control. All its efforts to induce investment of these funds in the areas in which the government considers they should be invested appear to be falling on deaf ears.
The figures that I have quoted are .merely symptoms of the underlying disease of our

society which was plain to be seen in the 1930's and which was not cured by this government or its predecessors but was cured entirely by force of circumstances. It was cured because of the necessity of turning from our unplanned dog-eat-dog economy to a planned economy fixed on certain goals. I would point out that although it was popular to say throughout the debates from 1930 to 1935, as it is today, that the depressed condition of the world was the result of world-wide circumstances over which no government had any control, nevertheless the measures which were taken under the extremely capable and vigorous leadership of the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) were in final essence purely domestic measures completely within the competence of the government of Canada.
I would point out that, although vast quantities of materials were shipped abroad to Canada's allies, vast quantities of materials and machines of destruction were sent to our own forces in the field and large loans were made to our allies, in the final analysis the Canadian people paid for every cent of those expenditures and it was entirely the domestic measures that were taken which, incidental to helping to win the war, solved the economic problems of Canada of that day. These problems are now coming home again to us, and I think the Canadian people have the right to ask this government, which assumed power with such a fanfare of trumpets last August, what it proposes to do now in the present circumstances.
I must confess that I have been bitterly disappointed at the statements of government spokesmen in this regard, and particularly disappointed with statements of the Acting Prime Minister because, as I have said before, he is a man of outstanding capacity, vigour and attainments. The only conclusion I can come to is that perhaps the situation is like that of an old French woman I heard of once who, after peering out the window for six weeks at incessant rain, gave it as her considered opinion that ce bon Dieu was getting too old for His job. I wonder if we are perhaps in the same circumstances today and whether we have to have a complete change of administration before we can hope to have these problems tackled with the same vigour with which they were tackled in the 1930's.


Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to follow in any detail the arguments we have just heard from the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron). However, I should like to take exception to certain remarks he made at the beginning of his speech last night. The hon. member at
Proposed Committee on Unemployment that time was referring to the situation in 1929 and the fact that the government of the day had claimed that everything was very rosy and that there was then prosperity in the country. The hon. member for Nanaimo went on to say, as found at page 2343 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, one might almost have imagined that the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) was speaking. Yes; and then, as my Conservative friend says, "came the deluge". But the deluge was in the form of a Conservative government, which arrived in 1930.
We have heard that statement made in varying forms over a long period of years. I am not surprised when I hear it made by some people outside the house, perhaps in back country districts where they have not had much opportunity to study history, but I must say that I am very much surprised to hear it made by a member of parliament, one of our so-called $10,000 a year men. I should like to call his attention to the fact that the deluge also came in the United States, and it came under the Republican government of Mr. Hoover, who I suppose is one of the greatest men produced in the United States in the last thirty-five or forty years.
I should now like to call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that in Great Britain in 1929 none other than Ramsay MacDonald, the Labour leader, headed the government of that country, and the deluge to which the hon. member referred as coming about in Canada under a Conservative government happened to just as great an extent in Great Britain under Ramsay MacDonald, the Labour leader. I could go on and refer to France. I can come nearer home and refer to the situation that existed in Newfoundland, which at that time was not a part of Canada. We remember that the situation became so bad there that a commission of government was formed and the affairs of the country were conducted under a commission for quite a number of years.
These wisecracks, if I may call them that, and they are nothing more or less than cheap wisecracks to anyone who knows anything about the situation in Canada and other countries in the past twenty-five years, have no place today in arguments in the House of Commons. The fact of the matter is that from 1929 to 1940 almost no country in the world was in a position to repair its economic situation any better than we did in Canada.
I think it is about time that that sort of argument was relegated to the past.
I wish to say a few words about the unemployment situation in Canada today. We have had a very interesting debate, although it is perhaps unfortunate that a debate of
2354	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment this kind is necessary at the present time. There has been some disagreement as to the amount of unemployment in Canada. The labour leaders of the country claim that there are something like 530,000 out of work. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) states that the number is nearer 280,000 or 300,000. Be that as it may, I do not think this is the time to either exaggerate or minimize the situation in any way. I know something about conditions in my own province and the maritime provinces generally. Possibly I may be pardoned if I confine my remarks to that part of Canada particularly.
I should like to point out, because it is a known fact, that when a recession hits this country it always seems to strike the maritime provinces first and always seems to hit them the hardest. That there is in the mari-times a situation which is not good is not merely my opinion but that of some of the outstanding men in that part of the country. I should like to refer to the remarks made by Dr. Coady of St. Francis Xavier University when only a few weeks ago he was speaking to a convention of fishermen in the town of Amherst. He had this to say about conditions:
Our present recession in the maritime provinces, amounting almost to a depression, is embarrassing and saddening.
That was Dr. Coady's opinion. And I might point out-although perhaps it is not necessary-that Dr. Coady is one of the outstanding economists and students of economics in this country. He is also one of the most practical economists in the Dominion of Canada.
I would also like to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Moncton Times a short time ago under the heading "Shocks to Economic Stability of New Brunswick." I am not going to quote the whole editorial. It speaks about the situation in general in our province, and concludes in this way:
These shocks to the economic stability of New Brunswick are definitely a cause for serious concern. Indeed, the situation which has developed to adversely affect a growing number of the workers in this province clearly calls for immediate and direct intervention by the federal administration to activate any of the work projects claimed to be in readiness to counteract the trends towards a recession at the outset.
I shall not quote any further articles or newspaper editorials. What are these shocks to the economic stability of the maritime provinces, and to New Brunswick in particular? Well, I might point out first of all the textile industry in our province. Mention has already been made of this industry. In the textile mill in the town of Marysville, very near the city of Fredericton, the home of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), 550


men have been let out of employment. But that is not the worst feature. The factory itself has been closed down, and closed down permanently. This is a factory which has been operating in that part of the country for three-quarters of a century or more. This does not mean only that the people employed in the mill are being laid off; it means that this industry, around which the town has been built and the whole life of the community developed, is now out of business. Not only are the men who worked in the factory affected, but also it has affected the merchants, the businessmen, the taxi men- all these people. And you must add to the 550 in the town of Marysville who are out of employment all these others who depend indirectly upon the factory for their work.
These people have been trained to do a definite kind of work. They cannot very easily go out and find employment in other jobs, because they are textile workers. Their fathers before them were textile workers. Their grandfathers were textile workers. Their children are textile workers. Through the generations all these people have been working in this industry, and when the industry is closed down it means far more than would appear on the surface.
Not only is the town of Marysville affected, but the town of Milltown and other large textile centres are suffering similar difficulties. I do not know whether the mill at Mill-town is going to close down or not, but I do know that in the last few months 690 employees have been laid off.
Another large lay-off we have had in the maritime provinces has been in our railways, and this affects more than the maritime provinces. I know my own province and the town of Moncton perhaps better than I know the rest of the area affected, and I can tell the house that 240 men have been laid off in the last few weeks. Moncton is the Canadian National Railways centre; and I am informed that at McAdam, the Canadian Pacific Railway centre, a similar number have been discharged from employment. I am told that in Moncton alone the loss of employment suffered by these 240 to whom I have referred means a loss in payroll amounting to $600,000 in that community. One can readily understand what that means to the economic life of a city of moderate size.
We might very well ask ourselves the reason for this decline in work on our railways. Well, I have my own opinion, and it is that at least one reason is the lack of freight being shipped overseas and entering from overseas. As we know, almost 60 per cent of our trade in recent years has been with the United States. This means that the

Proposed Committee on Unemployment
railway companies are not receiving the amount of freight they otherwise would have. Of necessity our freight is moving north and south instead of east and west. The economy of this country was built up for trade to move from the centre of the country to the Pacific and Atlantic ports. Our great ports of Vancouver, Montreal, Quebec, Halifax and Saint John were all built on an economy under which they would be fed by the east-west railways, and on the understanding that our trade would flow overseas.
In the last few years, owing perhaps to the fact that we could not get overseas trade, our trade has been flowing north and south more than it is east and west. The Moncton Times of January 30 had this to say about car loadings in Canada:
In the period from July 1 to December 31, 1953. revenue loadings were consistently below the comparable months of 1952, December recording a particularly marked drop of 13 per cent. It was the lowest figure to be registered in that month since 1949. Taking the entire year 1953 the total tonnage moved reached 119,343,000 tons, a drop of 6 million tons or 42 per cent from the 1952 total movement.
As I say, that is the reason that these men are out of work in Moncton and McAdam, and other railway centres across Canada.
The port of Saint John has found it a very dull winter. I heard the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) make reference yesterday to trade in the city of Vancouver. It appears that this year most of our wheat has been shipped through that port instead of through Atlantic ports. This is just one reason, of course; but it is one reason why the situation has been bad at Saint John and Halifax. Mr. J. G. Farquahar, special representative of the Canadian international trade fair, made a report a short time ago which appeared in a recent issue of the Loyalist, a paper published in Saint John. The article is headed:
Heavy business loss for port; cargo drops 464,000 tons.
It refers to the port of Saint John. The article goes on to say:
While 1953 showed an encouraging increase of some 50,000 tons in imports, and grain exports increased materially, the exportation of general cargo declined 464,000 tons, or about 35 per cent.
Then he makes reference to the discontinuance of the Marshall plan, which really does not have much to do with the subject, so far as the port of Saint John is concerned. But the fact of the matter is that the import and export of goods through the port of Saint John had declined to the extent of some 35 per cent which, as I am sure everyone will agree, is a very high percentage.
I could also speak about lumbering and pit props and the loss to these industries
in New Brunswick. I have spoken of it in the house before, and our party has spoken of it a number of times. We have pointed out that because of the lack of convertibility of sterling it has been almost impossible for us to sell our lumber and pit prop products in Great Britain. This also means a great loss in employment as far as our particular section of the country is concerned.
When he was speaking the other day, the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) mentioned the fishing industry, and I shall not deal with it this afternoon. The mining industry in the maritimes was dealt with fully by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). That is more or less the picture of the maritime provinces, and particularly of my own province of New Brunswick. I do not wish to paint too black a picture. I realize that there has been seasonal unemployment in our province and in our section nearly every year, but I do wish to point out that at the present time it has reached a stage that is not seasonal, and something must be done to correct the situation.
What happens when our people become unemployed? We have had unemployment during the very best times. We have had good times in Canada since the last war, but many of our people had to go to Ontario, to Quebec and to other parts of Canada to obtain employment. They have two alternatives: one is to migrate to some other part of the country and the other is to join the army.
Only last Sunday as I was walking up Elgin street I met a young man in uniform. I did not know him, but he knew me. He had been in my basic training centre in Fredericton during the war, he said. He came from Moncton. He was in uniform and on his way to Petawawa. I asked him when he joined up. He said: "I have lost my job with the Canadian National Railways in Moncton and I and four other boys are going through to Petawawa to join the army." He was a young married man, 35 years old, with two children. He told me that besides working on the railway he had spent three years before that as an apprentice with the railway. That man has had to give up practically his life's work. Now he has joined the army and gone to Petawawa. These are just natural results of the situation that I have outlined.
What does the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) say with reference to unemployment and the government's responsibility? Well, I shall quote one paragraph which is to be found at page 2089 of Hansard of February 15:
The provinces have responsibilities to help guard their people against hardship. I for one have no
2356	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment reason to believe other than that the provinces are effectively helping this winter if and where they find it necessary.
I agree that the provinces have some responsibilities. There is no question about that. But these instances of unemployment in the country that I have mentioned are all due to the policies of the federal government and not in any way due to any action of the provincial government. I contend that the full responsibility for the unemployment in the country at the present time is the federal government's. It is all very well to say that the provincial governments have responsibility. The people who are living in the provinces cannot get away, and the provinces must of necessity help in some way. So far as the basic responsibility is concerned, I contend it is entirely the federal government's.
Let us take Marysville, a mill town. So far as the provincial government is concerned, it has no responsibility there for what has happened. I know that the provincial government, probably in co-operation with the Minister of Labour, is doing all it can. It is trying to encourage some other industry to come to that town. I am afraid the provincial government will have a difficult time in that regard. I would say the Department of Defence Production has a responsibility there. I have said this time and time again. At Marysville we have a factory that employed some 550 men. We are putting out hundreds of millions of dollars for defence production in this country. If some private concern does not take over the operation of some industry in that town, here is an opportunity for the federal government to do some work there in connection with defence production. The town has the men; it has the mill; and the federal government owes it to our province.
The last issue of the defence production report that I read showed that out of millions spent in this country on defence production only $50,000 was spent in New Brunswick and nearly half of that went to the Swift Company of Moncton for meat which is brought in from other parts of Canada. This matter should be thoroughly investigated. There is a great responsibility on the federal government which they could and should assume. I am also satisfied that the local government can and will do all that is within its power.
I now come to the amendment of the opposition, and I should like to read the last paragraph:
Now, therefore, be it resolved that this house is of the opinion that a select committee should be appointed immediately 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 might point out that when he spoke the other day the minister said that we have unemployment insurance. We had unemployment insurance before this mass unemployment occurred. The minister also mentioned family allowances and old age pensions. We had family allowances and old age pensions when there was a hundred per cent employment in this country. As far as old age pensions are concerned, they have nothing to do with employment. They are paid only to people 70 years of age and over, people who are not in the unemployment ranks at all.
Let me take our amendment, which I consider is divided into three parts. First, it has to do with the unemployment situation and the number of unemployed in the country. As I said, there has been considerable doubt as to the number. The minister's department contends that it is around 300,000. The heads of the labour unions claim that it is over 500,000, and we have had figures even higher than that. A committee such as is recommended by our amendment would find out definitely what the unemployment situation is in this country. I think that is the first thing that should be found out. We want to get the facts. We do not want to see the situation exaggerated, and certainly by no means do we want to see it minimized.
The second recommendation in the amendment is that there should be some short-term method of looking after unemployment. That seems to me to be a recommendation that we more or less speed up certain public works programs in order to look after the situation at the present time. There are possibly men and women who are hungry today, a situation which should not be allowed to continue. The short-term method which is recommended would be something that could be put into force at once, so that in these times, when there is plenty in this country, there would be no one going hungry.
The third recommendation is that a longterm method be adopted. I think that this is the most important. We should do something in order to see that this condition does not recur to any great extent. There are a great many people in this country who think there should not be any unemployment at all. We are a great rich country; we have everything in abundance. If proper steps are taken there is no reason why there should not be employment for every man or woman who wants employment in this dominion of Canada.
We are considered, and rightly so, to be the most fortunate people in the world today. I would point out that Canada was not

devastated in any way during the last war. European countries and countries in other parts ot the world were devastated. People lost their homes, cities were destroyed and factories were ruined. When the war was over it was impossible for those countries to carry on manufacturing or other normal pursuits. We had none of that in this country. In addition there was a ready market for practically everything that we could manufacture after the war.
Today the situation is changing. Those countries which were devastated during the war have now built up their factories, and their people are back to work. They are producing in competition with our Canadian people. Our trouble seems to be that our economy has been carried on in such a way that we cannot compete with these people who have built up their factories and gone back to work. Today they are taking overseas markets from us which in the past were so necessary to our economy.
So I say that the third part of this amendment moved by the opposition is the most important. It may be that we have been carrying on the wrong type of businesses in this country. I do not know whether all of them should be continued. It may be that we should concentrate mostly on manufacturing the great raw materials which we have within our borders. These are all things that could be studied by a committee.
I have pointed out before that it is not right for us to concentrate most of our industry in the central parts of this country. There should be a policy of decentralization so that people in the maritimes and in western Canada would have an opportunity to get employment without having to leave their homes and go to other parts of the country. It may be that our channels of trade are changing, that instead of moving across the country from the east and west, as the economy of this country was set up, they are moving north and south. We have lost those overseas markets which were so precious to us in the past. We have been concentrating on one market, a market which I am sorry to say could be closed against us at any time at the whim or pleasure of the people with whom we trade. Then there is the matter of tariffs. I am not an authority on tariffs and I do not intend to discuss them at this time.
I was quite impressed by the remarks of the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) the other day when he spoke of taxes and wondered if we were not taxing ourselves, not only out of the foreign market but also out of the domestic markets. Foreign 83276-150
Proposed Committee on Unemployment countries are able to produce much more cheaply than we can here in Canada. The hon. member claimed, and I think rightly, that taxes are so heavy today in this country that the individual cannot buy the goods manufactured in his own country. The taxes paid by the manufacturer are so high that he cannot compete with manufacturers in countries like Japan and Germany and numerous others in other parts of the world.
I think there is a lot in that argument. All these things could and should be studied by the committee which our party has recommended should be set up. We may be told that this is a function which the cabinet should perform. I am not going to discredit the cabinet, nor do I agree with the hon. member for Halifax or the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), that the ministers are as capable as they say they are. I am no hero worshipper, when it comes to this cabinet. I agree that it contains some able men, but I am inclined to agree also with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) when he says that most of them are just run of the mine. I have sat across from them here for 18 or 19 years. Some of them are indeed able men and the service they have given to this country is incalculable. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway says, the majority of them could be replaced by the backbenchers at any time and from most any place in the house. Not from the C.C.F., as was suggested by an hon. member who spoke; but I think I could go to any cross-section of this house and pick just as good men, yes, dozens of them, as sit in the cabinet today.


Mr. Mclvor:: You are a good picker.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Yes, I would be a good picker. We know that geography plays a great part in the selection of the cabinet. We know that you do not get the best men when you are confined to certain sections of the country. Religion, race and all these things come into the picture. I am not questioning the system, as I think probably it is the most proper and the best system, but you certainly do not get the best man.
This is not what I intended to say. What I started out to say was that it may be claimed that this work suggested by the amendment is the prerogative of the government. If our government were made up entirely of men who were thoroughly acquainted with business, that might be true. As an hon. member who spoke the other day said, if you took their staffs away from them most of them would be lost. But the civil servants are not specialists as far as business
2358	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment is concerned. They are good men as far as assisting in administration is concerned, but if we had a committee as suggested in the amendment we could call in businessmen, we could call in heads of labour, we could call in the heads of banks-most of them come from the maritime provinces-and the heads of our transportation systems. Surely with a group of men of that kind we would get the best advice it was possible to get.
I am one of those who believe that Canada is passing through an economic change. Years ago we had what was known as a national policy, and it may be that we need another national policy in Canada today. I believe the best way it can be done is by getting the best brains of this country together, such as the heads of businesses, and discussing this matter and outlining the path to the future.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I just wish to add that I am entirely in accord with the amendment which has been moved by the official opposition and I intend to support it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise mainly to challenge the government to take at least one step in connection with this matter right away. When I say "right away" I mean that the government might well hold a cabinet meeting yet today, or certainly before the house meets tomorrow, with a view to bringing in a bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
That has already been suggested by delegations which have waited upon the government, and it has been suggested a number of times during the course of this debate that the time has come for the benefit rates paid under the Unemployment Insurance Act to be increased, and for the length of time for which unemployment insurance benefits can be paid to be extended.
I remind the government that on a former occasion, when the unemployment situation was regarded as serious, even though the number of unemployed was not as great as it is today, action of this kind was taken in a commendably short period of time by the government on the other side of the house.
I refer to the situation in the winter of 194950. Hon. members will recall that at that time the unemployment figures were worse than they had been at any time following the end of world war II. We came down here for the 1950 session of parliament on the 16th of February. In the speech from the throne which was read at the opening of that session on February 16, 1950, as reported at page 2 of Hansard for that date, a bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, to widen the


scope and extend the benefits of unemployment insurance, was forecast. The then minister of labour, the late Hon. Humphrey Mitchell, was away from the house because of illness and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) was the acting minister of labour. I am sure he will recall, no doubt with pride, that it was only eight days from the time of that announcement on February 16, 1950, until the bill amending the Unemployment Insurance Act, and extending its scope, had been given third reading by this house. That third reading was given on the 24th of February, 1950. Incidentally, it did not take very long for the other place to pass the bill. They can pass bills they regard as urgent in record time, as we well know. Indeed, royal assent had been given to that bill on February 28.
Let me summarize that schedule once again. We met on February 16. On that day there was an announcement that something was going to be done about unemployment insurance, and within 12 days the amending bill was law.
In this instance, the situation is far worse. On that occasion the Minister of National Health and Welfare, as acting minister of labour, gave on page 157 of Hansard for February 23, 1950, the number who were looking for employment as 375,600. The comparable figure today, according to the Minister of Labour, is over 500,000. On that occasion that action was taken, as I say, in a total time of 12 days from the day when the house met until the bill amending the Unemployment Insurance Act became law.


Mr. Dickey:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) says, "hear, hear". I knew they would be proud on that side of the house to have this reminder of the speed with which they acted on that occasion. But what has gone wrong with the hon. member for Halifax and the rest of the people on that side of the house? On this occasion when the situation is considerably worse nothing is being done. It is in fact 15 days since I first asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) a question similar to the one I asked today as to whether consideration was being given to increasing the benefits payable under the Unemployment Insurance Act. The Minister of Labour gave me on February 8 the same answer which he gave to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) last Friday, and which he gave me again today, namely that this matter is being studied continuously by the officials of the unemployment insurance commission.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if they are studying the situation, if they remember the

speed with which action was taken by parliament in 1950, and if they realize that the situation is much more serious today than it was then, surely the logical conclusion of that study and that understanding should be the immediate introduction of a bill to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I do not know on which day of the week the cabinet meets, though I believe they meet more than once a week, but certainly it would not be difficult for ministers to get together so that they can discuss this matter and as a result bring a bill in this week to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act so as to increase the benefits to be paid under the provisions of that act.
I contend also that where the recipients of unemployment insurance benefits have exhausted the benefits to which they are entitled under the act those benefits should be continued. I agree with the contention made by the labour congresses that that payment, pending an actuarial adjustment, might well be made out of the consolidated revenue fund, and if it is necessary to do so the government could provide for that in a legislative way by putting an item in the supplementary estimates.
This government knows that where there is a will there is a way and if they want to do it there is no problem. They can do it fast, and I do mean fast, when they want to. I would again remind hon. members that once a matter has been taken care of in this house it does not take very long for the other place to deal with it. We had that drawn to our attention recently.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have stressed this recommendation fully conscious of the fact that unemployment insurance is not a solution to the unemployment problem. It is only one of the ways of preventing further economic distress, to which reference was made in the subamendment moved on behalf of this group by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). It does seem to me that this is the kind of specific step that could be taken immediately and I would submit to the government that there is no excuse for failing to take that step right away.
As the house is aware, the Minister of Labour has answered questions on this subject on several occasions, and I referred to his answer a moment ago, namely that the matter is continually under study. Nevertheless, I was interested in an article by Reginald Hardy which appeared in last Saturday's issue of the Ottawa Citizen and in an issue of the same date of the Winnipeg Tribune in which he forecast that a change of this kind might come soon. Whether Mr. Hardy knows what is in the mind of the government, it is not of 83276-150J
Proposed Committee on Unemployment course for me to say, but I was glad to note in that article the author's satisfaction over the fact that the government was not going to yield to the pressure which is sometimes put upon it by the Canadian Manufacturers Association to reduce the amount of the daily payment by employers and employees into the unemployment insurance fund. That is one suggestion which is sometimes made by the employers when they come to face with the fact that the unemployment insurance fund now contains a sum of well over $900 million.
It seems to me quite clear that the size of that fund makes it evident that it is actuarially out of line with the actual experience that we have had and that the time has come to make the appropriate changes so that the people who have been paying for that insurance will get the protection for which they have paid. The purpose of an unemployment insurance fund is not to arrange so that the people of one generation will build up a fund to take care of unemployment in the next generation. Those who pay the premiums in an insurance fund should get the benefit. I submit that the time has come for this present generation of workers to get the benefit of the huge fund that has been built up. As I said when I rose, I call upon this government to hold a cabinet meeting right away, to take this matter seriously, and without further delay to bring in a bill amending the Unemployment Insurance Act.
There are two or three other things I wish to say while I am on my feet. We feel that the government is not appreciating the full seriousness of the unemployment situation. Indeed, in our view, even the best construction that is put upon it by the government leaves it in an unsatisfactory situation. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) tells us that if we will wait until the end of the year we shall be able to look back and see that 1954 was just as good a year as was 1953. I do not know what aspect of the two years the minister has in mind but I imagine he is thinking in terms of total production. May I say this to the minister and to the members on the government side. If at the end of 1954 the gross national product in this country is no more than it was in 1953, and if all that can be said is that it was just as good as it was in 1953, then unemployment will have been a definite reality. The technological progress that goes along from year to year creates unemployment unless we take advantage of that technological progress by increasing the total volume of the goods and services that we produce. That is the way it should be. In the past number of years that increase in the gross
2380	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment national product from year to year has been of the order of about 4 per cent. In other words, we have to increase our total production by about 4 per cent a year in order to hold our own in terms of employment figures. Hence, taking the government's picture at its best, the situation is a serious one. In our view the statements made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and by others reflect the government's failure to realize how serious it is.
Another way to look at this problem in order to realize how serious it is is to face the fact that, following the end of world war II, the unemployment figures in each of the winters 1946-47, 1947-48, 1948-49 and 1949-50 got worse.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member made this speech in each one of those years, did he not?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes. The tragedy is that the government leaves it necessary for the speech to continue to be made.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member is making it anyway.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should think the minister would be glad to obviate the necessity for making it, and I wish he would do so.


Mr. Martin:: Do you know of any man
in this country who has ever done as much-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The people over there on the opposite side are so delighted with the fact-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Does my hon. friend know
of any man in Canada who has done as much to provide employment as has the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have the greatest of respect for the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is now Acting Prime Minister. It is because we have respect for his capacity to get things done that we continue to make this appeal to the government now under the direction of the Acting Prime Minister, in the hope that he will yet do something about it, as he can, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) has just testified.
If I may, I should like to get back to these figures which the Minister of Trade and Commerce says I have referred to every year. May I draw his attention again to the fact that in each of the years between world war II and the outbreak of the war in Korea, the unemployment figures were worse than they were the winter before. The outbreak of the war in Korea checked that rise from winter to winter. But surely it should give the government cause for concern to find that now, when the situation in Korea has cleared up, the very first winter after that war is


over we start off with unemployment figures which are worse than they were in the winter just before the Korean war. Do the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of National Health and Welfare not see the ominous picture that arises from that fact? Unless something is done, it means that the next winter and the winter after that will be even worse and we will be right in the midst of the serious situation to which the government is trying to blind itself.
I know that the ministers over there on the opposite side do not like this kind of talk. They deprecate it in every possible way. They and others in the house as well as people outside the house do not like the use of the word "recession" or the word "depression"; but in my view the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Zaplitny) was perfectly correct last night when he pointed out that this is not another recession or another depression but that we are still in the same economic condition that started in 1929. It has been relieved for a few years by world war II, by the cold war and by the war in Korea, but the basic economic problems facing the Canadian economy are still with us. Until we are prepared to tackle the necessity of producing the things that people need for peaceful living in the same way as the Minister of Trade and Commerce, as minister of munitions and supply, was prepared to tackle the job of producing the necessities of war, we shall continue to have these economic dislocations which mean unemployment for hundreds of thousands of people and economic distress for a great many of our people.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the seriousness of this situation calls for more than the type of interruptions that we get from across the way and for more than speeches from the government side with regard to which set of figures is correct. I submit that it calls for real action along the lines that have been suggested from this side of the house. The one specific point on which I have urged action this week is not the whole solution to the problem by any means, but it would be one step towards relieving economic distress and it would give the country an indication that the government means business. I hope that some action along that line will be taken with the least possible delay. My main purpose in rising, Mr. Speaker, was to remind the government of the speed with which action was taken in 1950 and to call for an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act to be presented to this house by the government this week.


Mr. A. H. Hollingworih (York Centre):: 
tremendous cumulative volume of purchasing power continually being put into the hands of the Canadian purchaser through family allowances and old age pensions. Again, there are the unemployment insurance payments.
Recently we have had the new housing bill with its novel principle of the insured mortgage placing credit in the hands of the chartered banks which will expand the circulation of money. Finally, there is the realization among Canadians that we shall not tolerate conditions as in the thirties. Depressions are not acts of God. They are man-made, and I sincerely believe that we have learned enough economics since the thirties not only to arrest but to forestall such a calamity.
There are some I know who have a depression psychosis. I sometimes believe that some of my friends in the C.C.F., while certainly not hoping for a depression, are the residuary legatees of the gloom-mongers of the thirties. As I understand it, the Progressive Conservative party would turn over this problem to some committee; but it has always been my impression, with respect, that that party has never faced up to the economic facts of life. Any kind of planning to them is ipso facto bad, undemocratic and worse. They are always sniping at the moderate degree of public ownership in Canadian life, as witness the ill-conceived attempts to fight Trans-Canada Air Lines, the world's best air line, and the C.B.C. which, with all its faults, is developing, as much as anything else in Canada, a truly Canadian culture.
I feel, in short, that without the sound government policy in fiscal matters which I have just related, inflation would have been a much more serious thing and might well have impeded the development of the Canadian economy. On the other hand, private enterprise has been encouraged and on the whole has done an excellent job in helping in the development of Canada. I think the government role is best set out in a speech by the Acting Prime Minister at Dalhousie University in 1948, when he said:
1.	Canada is a free enterprise economy and the initiative for industrial expansion rests with private individuals and firms.
2.	The government will endeavour, through its policies, to create a climate within which private initiative thrives and industrial expansion is encouraged.
3.	The government will take the initiative and do what it can to co-ordinate the efforts of governmental, business and other interested groups in achieving full and effective utilization of industrial expansion in the interests of all citizens in the country.

4.	If industrial expansion and economic development is hampered by the lack of initiative, the government, where the national interest demands, will take appropriate action.
In conclusion may I say that I do not think it matters too much whether the figures used are those supplied by the dominion bureau of statistics or by some other body. As has been demonstrated in the house, the important thing is that we are all concerned about people being out of work. I am sure every member is greatly concerned about this matter of unemployment.
Sometimes when I hear speeches which leave the impression that the attitude of the government is indifferent or callous, I think they are most unfair, because every member in the house, regardless of party, is lending his best efforts to solve this problem. And my experience has been that, with a man like the Acting Prime Minister in charge of trade and commerce, the Canadian people will never have to worry, and we shall come through this thing with flying colours.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in this debate on unemployment by reason of the fact that this has been a problem in my constituency for several years. In that constituency the present situation is not seasonal. There is a large coal mining industry in the southern part of the constituency of Macleod and, by reason of circumstances, coal miners in that part of the country have been on short time for a number of years. They have been working one or two or, at the most, three days a week. In fact they are experiencing something in the nature of the hardships which were experienced in the hungry thirties. Therefore I wish to say a few words on this subject.
I do believe there is no use simply blaming governments, blaming individuals, or blaming this, that or the other for this condition. When all is said and done, and when we think the problem through to its ultimate conclusion, we will have to agree that basically it is a matter of policy, and we must decide whether the policy is right or wrong.
In order to do this, sometimes we have to review our thinking and make some adjustments in it. For instance, in a good many cases I find that some people presume that the chief purpose of industry is to give jobs to people, to give employment to the nation; and I believe we must adjust our thinking in that regard. The main purpose of industry is not to provide employment. The purpose of the coal mining industry is to produce coal. The purpose of agriculture is to produce the foodstuffs of the nation. The purpose of the factory is to produce goods. The purpose of the textile industry is to produce textiles.
Proposed Committee on Unemployment The purpose of the clothing industry is to produce clothes. The purpose of industry, therefore, is not to provide employment but to produce goods. Therefore it devolves upon the government to see that those goods are distributed, as a basic policy.
Another thing we must discover in our investigations is just how this condition of unemployment developed. How is it that many of our people are now unemployed? What is the reason? Have we come to a point where we have produced an adequate supply of goods for which there is no relative market? Must we reach that conclusion? I believe the Acting Prime Minister, who must be advised of this situation, should be able to tell us whether we have reached a point which, in general terms, might be described as overproduction. We in this corner of the house do not use that expression. Instead of saying that we have reached a point of overproduction, we say we have reached a point of underconsumption.
The Acting Prime Minister should be able to tell us whether a stockpiling of goods is now taking place in Canada, no matter what those goods may be. Is that the situation? I was informed the other day of a certain industry in Canada-I believe the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) referred to the same industry-which had produced to the point where it had a stockpile sufficient to supply the normal market requirements for the next five years, and as a result they had laid off their men. Some of these men had been with them for 18 or 20 years.
But that is the condition in only one industry. The Acting Prime Minister should know whether that is characteristic of industry generally in Canada. If it is, then the problem cannot be solved by putting these men back to work in the same industry, because that industry has reached its peak of production and has difficulty in finding markets. When we talk about markets we must think in terms of whether or not people have money with which to buy, because that is the only way we can have markets. There is no market where people have no money.
I have listened to the speeches made in this debate, many of which have been reasonably good. However, I have found something lacking in many of them. I have listened to a good deal of history and to the recitation of many figures. I have heard a lot of pulse feeling. We have heard diagnoses aplenty; we have heard about symptoms aplenty. But in reality we have not heard very much about an adequate remedy. I have listened to the speeches with a good deal of interest. If any remedies at all have been proposed
2364	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment they have been only temporary, in the end amounting to nothing more or less than palliatives.
If the liver is sluggish-I can see a doctor looking at me-we take a pill. The pill can do the trick for a little while, but after the effects of the pill have worn off the liver is in the same condition as it was before; it is still sluggish. You can keep on giving pills as long as you like, but that will not make a new liver. We must have something more than palliatives.
I should like to make another diagnosis with respect to the speeches that have been made. I am not going to blame the government for everything. We have been suggesting for a good many years that there should be a reduction in taxes. It is a good suggestion to make, but let us be realistic as well. The government must have revenue, and I am not one to rise in my place and say that the government would not reduce taxes if it felt it could. We believe it can be done, but we also believe that under present financial policy the government is unable to do it.
We have heard a good deal about foreign trade and the loss of foreign markets, and that we must regain those foreign markets. Well, it is easy to say that, but when we ask how you are going to regain them, we find that that is another problem. As I look at the government I am quite willing to suggest that they are just as anxious as anyone else to find foreign markets, and if they could find foreign markets they certainly would.
Then we talk of other matters. Am I going to stand here in this house and believe that the government is so heartless that it would not do something about the matter of unemployment if it could? The problem is there. It is all very well to say that a solution must be found, but what solutions have we proposed? That is the big question.
I know that we want to get through by five o'clock, if we can. Whether or not we can is another matter. I was going to refer to a good many of the speeches that have been made and to read from Hansard, but I shall forgo that and say this. There is a solution to this problem. It could be solved in one of three ways. It could be solved by bringing in a state of extreme socialism. That will solve the unemployment problem; it will put everybody to work, if that is what we want.
I say once again that it is not up to industry to provide jobs. That is not the purpose of industry. We have to readjust our thinking when we consider this problem in those terms. Industry is there to provide goods, to do that job. Somebody over here says that


industry is there to make profits. Well, it is all very well to say that. We go a little further than that and diagnose the situation at its roots.
I want to say this to you, Mr. Speaker. After industry has produced all the goods the nation requires, what should our position be? The worker should be able to go home; he should be able to lean back in his easy chair; he should be able to light his pipe and say well, now, we have surely done a good job. We have produced all of this nation's goods, and now the factory is going to close down; now we can rest for a while. He should be able to do that, but can he? No. And why not? Has industry failed to produce the goods? No; they have done a good job. But instead of that we find everyone running around, arguing and fighting and sending delegations, which of course under present policies they have to do, and working up a great frenzy over a problem that should be regarded as an achievement. We should be able to sit back and say we have produced so much; now, look at what we have achieved. My, we are a great country, we are a great people to be able to do that. No, that is not what we do. We fight among ourselves because our achievement has produced a terrible problem.
I go back and I say that if all we want is to solve the unemployment problem and put people to work, we can do that by bringing in a state of extreme socialism where the whole country becomes a machine and each and every individual in it becomes a cog in that machine. We can do it in that way if we want to. We may have a few barbed wire fences around; we may have a few guards there to watch us and see that we work, but that will solve the problem, if that is what we want.
There is a second way in which this problem can be solved, if all you want is to put men to work. The second way is to bring on a war. Well, now, nobody wants to do that; but a war will put every man to work. Believe me, it is a strange thing, and perhaps we should hang our heads in shame, that it takes a war to distribute the goods we produce. Sometimes it distributes them by destruction and death, nevertheless war is the great distributor.
You can have the extreme socialist state, which will put everybody to work; you can have war which will put everybody to work, but there is a third way to solve it, and that is an adjustment of financial policy that will provide enough money in the people's pockets to enable them to enjoy the vast production that has resulted from a good job done well. Yes, if you want to reduce the hours of labour, all well and good. If you want men

Proposed Committee on Unemployment
to work two, three, four or five days a week, all well and good if, as the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) said yesterday, you can provide them with incomes. But if incomes must come from a delinquent financial policy, from a financial system that is not self-liquidating, then we shall see times of booms and depressions, times of war and times of unemployment continually throughout future generations.
The problem can be solved in one of three ways, and I challenge anyone to say there is any other way to solve it, apart from these three. I will use the three. If you wish, first, sovietism, that will solve it, if all you want is employment. Second, slaughter; that will solve it, if that is what you want. Third, believe it or not, is a proper adjustment of financial policy which we in this corner of the house call Social Credit. It can be done.
I am quite aware that the members of the government want to solve this problem. We talk about old age pensions not being high enough. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is in the house. He is a human being; he is a humanitarian. Do you not think that he would like to raise pensions if he could? Certainly he would, but under our present fiscal policy it cannot be done.
The government is bound by a false financial policy which ties its hands. Let us adjust that financial policy. Let us see that our consuming power matched with money will equate our productive power. Then we will not have the problem of unemployment. We may have shorter hours for peaceful pursuits, and as long as we have our income and can consume we will reach the stage where we will have one of the highest orders of civilization known to man.


Mr. O. L. Jones (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the various speakers who have dealt with this problem and the more I have listened the more I am convinced that the problem is only beginning. I feel that we are in the first phase of a new age, a mechanical age, and our growing pains will increase still more as we develop into the atomic age. Therefore we are dealing now merely with an emergency condition.
I shall not repeat what has been said already as to the general conditions existing throughout the country, because I feel there is general agreement on the main fact that we have roughly half a million unemployed in Canada. Two speakers at least have argued that work could be made available for these half million people by a change in government policy. I look at it from this point of view. When there are half a million 83276-151
unemployed within the dominion it means that billions of precious man-hours are lost forever, man-hours of valuable labour are gone forever because of the time element. This is not so much a loss to the individual as it is to the nation. True, there is the loss to the individual of his employment and in many cases his self-respect, and his dependents are penalized through his being idle even temporarily.
During the depression I was active in municipal affairs in British Columbia. Immediately after that depression period the provincial and municipal governments of British Columbia pooled their experiences in an effort to provide a scheme whereby the conditions of the thirties could not be repeated, at least in our particular province. The result is that we have a blueprint of self-liquidating projects ready to be implemented, depending upon federal aid or the provision of funds by the federal government at a low rate of interest. With federal aid British Columbia could eliminate its present unemployment situation by starting these proposed schemes. Every scheme is a sound scheme which has been examined by the engineers of the provincial government, and every one would be a tangible asset to the province and the nation as a whole.
Possibly other provinces as well had the same experience and plans were worked out in case of another depression; therefore I shall not deal with that phase of the matter. The federal government could utilize this valuable fleeting asset of human labour. I suggest that if it wanted to it could develop our national assets without hurting anyone, and employ the maximum amount of human labour.
A total of 125,000 men could be used in reforestation and conservation schemes, for which we already have plans in Canada. Another 125,000 could be used to speed up the construction of the trans-Canada highway, which is bogging down badly throughout the dominion. Another 125,000 could be directed toward the building of homes which are so badly needed, and the construction of public buildings with which we are so far behind throughout Canada, particularly in the way of post offices. Another 125,000 could be employed under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act to develop irrigation schemes for which we have blueprints in British Columbia and for which they have blueprints on the prairies. This would include the Saskatchewan river scheme.
Instead of these half million men remaining idle they could be employed and thus constitute a valuable asset to this dominion. It would cost very little more than will be

Private Bills
spent in the way of unemployment relief and the provision of social services to the families of these people, plus the heavy administration costs for those services.


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



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 252, respecting Canadian Pacific Railway Company-Mr. Mcllraith-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-May construct line of railway.
The Deputy Chairman:: I might remind the committee that this bill comes to us after having been carefully considered by the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Mr. Macdonnell:: May we have a word of explanation?


Mr. Mcllraith:: Mr. Chairman, I do not know that there is much that I can usefully add to what I said on the second reading of this bill. The branch line proposed will be 15 miles in length extending from Havelock, a divisional point on the main line of the Canadian Pacific between Smiths Falls and Toronto, northward to the site of the American Nepheline mine operation at Nephton. At the present time the mine employs some 150 people. It produces a rock product known as nepheline syenite, which is used in the manufacture of glass and pottery. About 70 to 75 per cent of the product is exported to the United States, with most of the remainder being used in Canada, although there are some exports to other countries.
At the present time the product is transported by truck some 24 miles over a road that is part township, part county and part private, to Lakefield, Ontario, there to be shipped by rail. The maintenance of the road has been largely contributed to by the mining company.
Having a railway line come right to the mine will improve the operation for two reasons. Because of its nature, the shipment and transshipment of this product by truck is not satisfactory, as the rock is reduced to a powder-like consistency before being shipped. The other difficulty is that in addition to the maintenance of the road being an expense, shipment by truck over the road is more inconvenient because the road cannot be kept open during all seasons of the year, and

many plants require regular shipments. One week's delay in shipment may be an important matter in their manufacturing process.
The bill before the house is necessary because the Railway Act requires that any branch line of more than six miles in length can only be undertaken after authority is granted by parliament. The bill of course places no burden on the public treasury. The extension of this line will cost $1,500,000 and is being financed partly by the Canadian Pacific Railway, which will meet one-half the expenditure, and the other half will be recovered from the mining company at the rate of 80 cents per ton bonus on the freight handled until the $750,000 is repaid. Even with the payment of that bonus on the first part of these shipments, the operation will be made more economic by reason of the construction of this railway.
It is anticipated, subject to the necessary authority being granted by this parliament and the concurrence of the board of transport commissioners being obtained, that construction will be undertaken immediately and will be completed in this present summer season. Construction will commence as soon as weather permits, and the project should be completed by the fall.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the clause
carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, one factor in connection with this bill which I believe should be drawn to the attention of the committee when it is discussing this matter, and which was not mentioned by the previous speaker, is that the result of this bill will be to transfer the business of hauling this material from the Canadian National Railways to the Canadian Pacific Railway. In stating that I am in no way opposing the passage of this measure, but I believe members of the committee should be aware of that fact in view of the interest we have in the Canadian National Railways.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I believe it should be stated in all fairness that the reason this is being done is that the Canadian Pacific line is closer than the Canadian National line, and it is simply a matter of the economics of railway construction over a greater distance.


Mr. Maclnnis:: In regard to that point, what distance away is the line owned by the Canadian National Railways?


George James McIlraith: Twenty-four miles.


Donald MacInnis: And when this line is built stretching for 15 miles will it go right to the mine?


George James McIlraith: It goes right to the mine.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


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

Mr. John Hunter (Parkdale) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 296, respecting Brazilian Telephone Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Brazilian Telephone Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Brazilian Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited. The purpose of the present bill is to transfer the head office of the Brazilian Telephone Company from Toronto to the city of Sao Paulo, the capital of the state of Sao Paulo. That is the first intention of this bill.
The second point is that if the company is to do this, then it must be authorized by a bylaw sanctioned by the unanimous agreement of a special meeting of shareholders held for that purpose. A memorandum from the Brazilian Telephone Company goes on to say:
When said company is by a decree of the Brazilian government declared to be a Brazilian domestic company, then the Companies Act of Canada shall cease to apply to the company.
There is a third portion of the bill providing for the filing of the Brazilian decree with the Secretary of State. This is more a procedural section than a substantive one.
The memorandum continues:
The reasons why it is desired to transfer the head office to Brazil are mainly twofold:
1.	In order to carry out the very large expansion program, it is necessary to spend very large sums of money on services and equipment. These large sums of money are not at present available on any suitable terms either in Canada or in the United States. It is believed that these moneys will be available in the united states of Brazil if the companies raising these funds are Brazilian domestic companies.
2.	It is believed that the Brazilian people will be more satisfied with the operations of these companies if they are permitted to become shareholders in them, and participate in their profits.
It should be pointed out that the Brazilian Traction, Light and Power Company Ltd., which is at present the sole owner of the shares of Brazilian 83276-151J
Industrial Relations
Telephone Company, will, either directly or through a holding company, continue to have control of these telephone companies.
-of which this is one.
Therefore the shareholders of Brazilian Traction are in no way prejudiced, and in fact should be benefited by changing the head office to Brazil, and by making this company a Brazilian domestic company.
The loss in taxes and fees to Canada amounts to $180 per annum and is negligible.
As far as I know an act of this type, changing the head office of a Canadian company to a foreign country, and taking said company out from under the provisions of the Companies Act of Canada, has not previously been done in Canada. However, by the Rho Anglo Group Act, 1953, the imperial parliament at Westminster made provision whereby a group of companies ceased to be English companies, and became companies subject to the Companies Act of Northern Rhodesia. According to a news item in the London Times December 4, 1953, the Wankie Colliery Co. is introducing a bill into the present parliament of the United Kingdom, transferring the company to Southern Rhodesia under the latter's Companies Act.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. 4, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off).
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of Bill No. 4 I feel that I am but giving this house the opportunity to approve of a statute the principle of which was endorsed by the last parliament. I am also giving each of the parties in this house an opportunity to support a measure the principle of which has received the support and endorsation of all the major political parties in this country.
That support has been expressed by the opposition groups in this house on a number of occasions, and on several occasions there have been members of the Liberal party who have also voted for the second reading of this bill. I regret to say, however, that as yet the bill itself has not been passed by parliament. Nevertheless I dare to hope that we are getting nearer the day when the voluntary revocable check-off or some form of union security will be written into our national labour code.
May I indicate briefly what this bill proposes. It proposes that a new subsection be

Industrial Relations
written into the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, which is our national labour code. When that new subsection has been written into the national labour code it will then be possible for a trade union-provided that trade union has been recognized under the labour code-to request that the employer concerned deduct or check off the trade union dues of those members of the union who in writing express their desire that that be done, whereupon that check-off would be made. In other words, Mr. Speaker, this is what is known as the very minimum of union security.
I for one-and there are other members in the house, I know, who agree with me- would like to see a greater measure of union security written into our labour legislation. Indeed, some of those who appeared before the committee on industrial relations last year indicated that their only complaint about this legislation was that it did not go far enough. I must make it clear also, of course, that there were those who thought it went too far. But as far as the platforms of the four parties in this house are concerned, all have indicated their approval of the principle of union security; and as I say, this bill proposes the very minimum of union security.
May I take a moment to give the history of this bill, at least so far as recent years are concerned. Back in 1948 we had before us the then new national labour code, namely the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. After second reading it was referred to the committee on industrial relations. When it went to that committee it did not have in it any provision for the voluntary revocable check-off or for any other form of check-off or union security. In that committee, however, my good friend the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll)- who likes having reference made to this matter as often as possible; I am sure it does not embarrass him-proposed that the voluntary revocable check-off should be written into the labour code.
That was not an easy thing to achieve in that committee-the lines of division were fairly close-but we succeeded. The committee passed my hon. friend's amendment and it was written into the code in that committee. We dared to hope that that battle had been won; but when that bill came back to the committee of the whole house in June, 1948, another member on the government side who is no longer with us moved as an amendment that the good work of the industrial relations committee be nullified. His amendment was to the effect

that the voluntary revocable check-off provision be struck out of the bill. I regret to say that that Liberal amendment, striking out what the Liberal member for Spadina had moved in the committee, carried in this house and so we lost the day. However, on that occasion there were 35 members of the House of Commons who voted to keep the voluntary revocable check-off in the labour code.
In 1949 a bill was introduced along this line, but it did not reach the point of a vote. In 1950 this bill which is now before the house was presented in my name, and it reached a vote. When the votes were counted it was found that 45 members had voted for it. That was an improvement over 1948. In 1951 the bill was introduced again. I would point out that on each of these occasions the wording has been exactly the same as the wording that was first evolved in the committee on industrial relations back in 1948. In 1951, when the vote was taken, we found we had made still further progress; 67 members voted for it. That group of 67 included not only all members on the opposition side of the house who were present at the time, but 17 members on the Liberal side of the house. When that number of Liberals differ with their party I submit that we are really making headway. It does not often happen in this house.
The matter did not reach a vote in 1952. Talking out was the order of the day that year. In 1953, however, something else happened. After a fair amount of debate on my bill for the voluntary revocable check-off, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) moved an amendment to the motion for second reading. His amendment was the well-known proposal that the bill be not then read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the committee on industrial relations. I expressed the view that I was prepared to accept that amendment at that time. I said I would rather have seen the bill passed, but that I could see the possibility that if we could get the subject matter to a committee we might do an educational job, might make headway, and might eventually get this provision onto our statute books.
We did not get the law passed, but we made some headway. That committee in 1953 considered the matter very thoroughly and made a most interesting report to the house on Tuesday, April 28, 1953. It read as follows:
Your committee has considered the subject matter of Bill No. 2, "an act to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off) ", and has agreed to report as follows:
Your committee endorses the principle of Bill No. 2-

I think I should repeat that sentence, as the pith of the report is there: "Your committee endorses the principle of Bill No. 2". Incidentally, last year's Bill No. 2 was exactly the same as this year's Bill No. 4, which is now before us. The report goes on to say:
-and recommends that the principle of the said bill, together with the submissions included in the printed minutes of proceedings and evidence of the committee on the subject matter of this bill, be considered by the government in its review and proposed revision of the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, which the committee is informed is now under study.
As I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, that report was made to the house on April 28, 1953. On May 5, 1953, as recorded at page 4773 of Hansard, the then chairman of the standing committee on industrial relations moved that the report be concurred in, and after a very short debate the motion was passed. In other words, the report of the committee became the report of the house. The position taken by the committee that the principle of last year's Bill No. 2 should be endorsed became the stand of the House of Commons on May 5, 1953.
I recognize, although that stand was taken by the committee and the house, that the report goes on to suggest that the matter might be further studied by the government in the light of the review we were informed was being made of the whole of the labour code. Still I think it should not be lost sight of that the principle of the voluntary revocable check-off itself was clearly endorsed both by the committee and by the house.
Since that is the position with regard to this matter, I hope it will not take much longer until we have this provision written into the labour law of the country. May I point out that the voluntary revocable checkoff or some form of union security is already in a number of provincial labour codes. I know for a fact that it is in the trade union act of Saskatchewan, the Nova Scotia labour code, the British Columbia labour code, and two or three others as well.
Let it also be pointed out that during the years we have been discussing this matter in the House of Commons considerable progress has been made by those workers who come under federal labour jurisdiction in getting the check-off provision. For example, the railway workers, who constitute the largest group of employees coming under federal labour jurisdiction, now have even more than is sought by the bill. They now not only have a check-off in the voluntary revocable terms that the bill suggests, but they have the Rand formula so that the advantages gained by trade unions for workers on the
Industrial Relations
railways are being paid for by all those who enjoy those advantages. However, some of us still feel very strongly that this is a principle which should be written into our labour law at the federal level so that it will give a lead and encourage the same kind of legislation in those labour codes that do not yet have it, and also so that under the law of this country there will be full recognition of the part that labour plays in our economy.
It is somewhat strange to me that it has taken so long to win a law of this kind. After all, the check-off is something that is practised in respect of a great many other types of payment. We know that during the war there were payroll check-offs for victory bonds and that now in peacetime there are payroll check-offs for Canada savings bonds. There are payroll check-offs for income tax, and also for donations to the Red Cross and various other charitable organizations. It does seem strange that when one comes to this matter there should be the employer resistance to it that there is. It has been argued at times that it would involve a bookkeeping task of some proportions, but 1 have not heard any great complaint from the railways over the fact that they now have the check-off as the result of negotiations a year or two ago. As I say, the bill before us would have the effect of recognizing in law what a great many workers already have; it would extend that right to the few who do not have it yet; and it would also serve to recognize in law the important position that labour occupies in this country.
I have deliberately refrained from trying tq be provocative in presenting the case on this occasion, because it does seem to me that the case for this measure is stronger than it ever was. In view of the history I have already recounted, in view of the growing support for this measure across the years, in view of the fact that all parties are in favour of it, in view of the fact that the last parliament endorsed the principle of this bill almost at the end of its term, I hope that this time the measure will not be longer delayed.
I know the answers that have been made from the other side of the house on former occasions. I know what I think of some of the replies that have been made, but I shall not bother to say that now. I hope that on this occasion there will be no excuses, but that the government, which was the government last May when parliament endorsed the principle of the bill, will on this occasion agree that it is time this minimum form of union security, the voluntary revocable check-off of trade union dues, should be written into our national labour law.

Industrial Relations


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is any part of my duty this afternoon, and it is certainly not my intention, to discuss the history of the bill as the sponsor has already done, or to discuss the merits or demerits of the voluntary revocable check-off as described in the bill. Year after year this matter has been brought forward and discussed at some length. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, it was discussed last session, and when the bill came before the house on second reading it was referred on my motion to the standing committee on industrial relations. The committee gave it very careful study and received a great many representations pro and con, and all of that is duly recorded in the minutes of proceedings and evidence of that committee. Perhaps members of the house who were not here last year would like to refer to that report.
On the 28th of April last the committee made its report to the house, and that report has been read this afternoon by the sponsor of the bill. I think the house will agree that the mandatory part of the report is briefly that the principle of last year's bill be considered while the review and proposed revision of the act is under study by the government. As was stated, the report was accepted by the house on Tuesday, May 5, 1953, and the consideration indicated in the report has been going forward. My department has been carrying out what perhaps might be called a long-term but careful study of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. It has been working out a number of proposed amendments.
I should like to say a word right here about the act. It is not an old one. It is one act that has not been subject to very many amendments, and to my mind it is an act with respect to which the greatest austerity should be exercised in introducing amendments. I am confident that the simpler it can be kept the better, as long as it is a suitable instrument to carry out the tasks in hand. The federal labour relations law should never attempt, I think, to be an omnibus act with the pious hope that it will thus end all real or alleged evils associated with any group of organized employers or organizers workers, because the spirit of conciliation on the part of the bargaining parties to a dispute is of more value than all the amendments that can be attached to the act.
Therefore the officials of my department have wanted to take time in which to review these amendments based upon useful years of experience since the end of the second world war. In fact it might well be that we

should take more time in making sure that, on the one hand, all amendments that would be useful are included and, on the other, that all amendments we do include are absolutely essential. In a process such as this I do not think the committee in the department that has been working on this matter should be rushed. Because of this the group of amendments have not yet been completed by my department, and I of course have not yet recommended that group of amendments to the government.
Now, what has the House of Commons said about the matter? The committee recommended to the house last spring that the principle be considered during the review of amendments I have been talking about. The house endorsed that recommendation. We in the Department of Labour are, in our own time, carrying out that recommendation for consideration.
I am not able to say at this time when I shall be able to submit a final list of amendments to the government. I cannot undertake to give the house the exact time when this action can be taken, or to forecast the results thereof. I do not think the matter is of such great urgency that I should take this step at a time when I would like to have further study given to all the proposed amendments, and also at a time when there still exists in the public mind a very strong feeling regarding the check-off concept, due to certain disputes in which the check-off, even though not this kind of check-off, was an important factor under other jurisdictions.
Therefore I hope the sponsor of the bill will not consider it a discourtesy if, after a reasonable discussion, I should ask one of my colleagues to move that the debate be adjourned.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of talking this bill out; but I cannot understand in this day and age, with the experience we have had with the voluntary revocable check-off, why there should be opposition to this type of union security, particularly opposition from the government.
For a start, the government is pretty well committed to the principle in the bill. The government checks off income tax at the source. This is done in respect of the indemnities of members of parliament. The government also has a very excellent recreation association in Ottawa, and we know that the members of that association pay their dues by the check-off, through government payrolls.
This is not something new in this country. The government has adopted the principle.

I would just like to ask the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) how he would collect his income tax, or how many inspectors and auditors and policemen he would have to employ to gather the taxes he gathers today, if it were not for the fact that those taxes are deducted at the source, by government order.
So, you see, when we begin to argue the principle it becomes clear that that principle is very well established, so far as the federal government is concerned. Some members in the house would say, "This is pretty wide; it is pretty sweeping." Well, it is not. The type of check-off that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) advocates in the bill merely covers industry in this country that may be under federal jurisdiction. There are not many of them-the national harbours board, Polymer, Canadian Arsenals-and most of them have it already.
So there is nothing wide or sweeping about it at all. Organizations that are organized provincially come under the provincial codes, and in most provinces they have this type of check-off. Even if it is accepted and is placed in the code, it is not mandatory. It is arrived at generally by agreement. When a union, recognized through due processes prescribed by law, sits down to write an agreement, such agreement is arrived at between employers and employees, and neither the union nor the employer in this type of check-off can compel anyone engaged in the industry or standing as a member of a union to accept this type of check-off. It becomes a matter of individual selection. With the voluntary revocable check-off the individual must place a card signed by himself in the company office, authorizing the employer to make the deductions. Otherwise such deductions are not made.
On the other hand, if during the term of an agreement union officials get out of line, or a union is not functioning as it should, the employee has the right to go to the office and withdraw his card. There is no compulsion in it. When one considers the fact that throughout the country today this type of check-off is in operation, the present request does not seem unreasonable. I know that in my own province we pay for hospitalization in this way. We pay for our doctors in the same way, under a group system. The churches receive their money by the same process.
I do not see that anyone in the house has anything to fear by writing into the national labour code something that will bring a little more democracy into the industries coming under that code. It is pretty
Industrial Relations
nearly time we got around to this type of legislation, not only because the government accepts the principle but because it is implementing that principle in practically every organization coming under its control, with the exception of the national labour code.
Someone has said that he cannot understand resistance by employers. Well, I can understand it. An employer knows it is very difficult for an organization to function unless this type of dues collection is in operation. If it is not operating, then it means that union officials who wish to collect their dues have to travel continuously, thus occupying the major portion of their time. An employer knows that when a union must function through the voluntary collection of dues it is pretty badly hampered, and that is why he resists. He resists because he does not want the efficient functioning of union financial matters in or around his industry. It is a refusal to grant a little more democracy and to make things a little easier for those who are trying to look after the interests of employees. That is why he resists; make no mistake about that.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, and as the Minister of Labour well knows, we have had this kind of check-off in my end of the country for at least 60 years, and it has not caused any great revolution. The unions established it first, and it worked so effectively that other organizations followed suit, even to the federal government in the collection of income tax. In Ontario a learned judge, Mr. Justice Rand, headed a commission which made a thorough study of the whole question and recommended what has come to be known as the Rand formula. That is a little tighter form of union security, because no member is permitted to contract out of the organization during the life of the agreement. All members must pay their dues during that period.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is not even asking for that. He is asking the government to write into the code a principle that is accepted by themselves, one they have in operation, that gives the employee the right to put a card in the office saying that his employer may take his dues and pass them over to the secretary-treasurer of the organization. And, on the other hand, if he does not like what is going on in the union he has the right to withdraw that card and not support the organization financially. In my judgment there is nothing wrong with it. Those who fear it do so because of the propaganda that is put out by the employer who wants no organization of

Industrial Relations
any kind, and who realizes that this is one of the ways of stopping the union from functioning.
I could give the house a lot of instances in this country where this question has caused a great deal of upset and economic upheaval, loss of wages and all the rest of it. Fortunately in most industries in this country today, where the employer is a sensible and moderate man, it is recognized that a well-established union, with proper leadership, is one of the biggest assets of the organization. I am sure that if the management of the mining industry, the automobile industry and the Canadian National Railways were questioned as to the desirability of having a union or otherwise, they would say, "Leave it there. The best advice we can get in most of our operations is received from the union officials, because they have someone there who meets with us and goes back to the men; therefore we get a lot of things done that we would not get done otherwise".
This means of getting the dues of the employees of an organization is one thing that is necessary to give the union the stability it needs to consider problems that affect industry, rather than have the officials chasing around trying to collect dues and occupying their time in that way. I am sure the Minister of Labour realizes that as well as I do. It seems that there are some stop-blocks behind the scenes that will not give him the green light. He has the red light, and has had it for a long time. I hope that at this time the house will say, let us pass this. The trade union movement is part of the structure of this country; it is as much a part of the country as industry itself, because the ultimate objective of the organization and of the people who work in the industry is to bring it to the point where it may accept responsibility for a share of the management of industry and give us a more effective machine to produce more in this country, for our people to enjoy.
I trust at this time, without any further discussion, this bill will pass and another milestone will be passed in the establishment of industrial democracy in the country.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour has made it clear that it is not the intention of the government to permit this bill to go to a vote. He has stated that he will welcome a motion to adjourn the debate, and I am not in much doubt that he will have the opportunity of extending that welcome, and that he was sure of it before he made the suggestion.
One of the things that interest me today is the different procedure being followed by
[Mr. Gillis.l
the Minister of Labour in relation to the measure now before us. Last year when this same measure was under discussion the government moved that its subject matter be referred to the committee on industrial relations. The motion of the minister on that occasion was:
That Bill No. 2 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations.
I suppose it would have seemed peculiarly inappropriate at this particular time to introduce a motion of that nature suggesting that a select committee or a standing committee could obtain useful information, because we have heard so often in the last two weeks that the reference of any subject to a committee would be to divest hon. members of their responsibility. So it would hardly be consistent on this occasion to turn around and say well, we were quite ready to improve our own position but we are not ready to do that in the case of something that affects the general rights of labour in this country. Possibly the Minister of Labour would not admit that, but at least there is strong reason to believe that something of that kind might have suggested that the axe be used instead of the reference.
I must say that I do not believe it is good practice in regard to this or any other measure simply to rise and say we are going to have a motion introduced which will have the effect of ending this debate. The government may feel that that is a proper course, but it is one which does savour of a denial of the ordinary rights of private members to bring a matter of this kind to its conclusion. Since that position has been stated, in putting before this house certain views that I think I should put forward I am not doing so in apprehension that if I occupy the ten minutes at my disposal I shall be avoiding the possibility of a vote. It has been made quite clear that it is not the intention of the government to permit a vote on this measure.


Walter Edward Harris: Now.


George Alexander Drew: The interjection was not sufficiently clear. If the minister wishes to make a statement in clear words I shall be very happy to sit down. I could not hear what the interjection was.


Walter Edward Harris: At the end of the hon. gentleman's sentence I said, "Now".


George Alexander Drew: Oh, I see; no vote now. That ties it to the statement of the Minister of Labour when he said: "I do not think that the committee in the department should be rushed." This committee in the department has been working for years, and

when the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris) says the time is not now, then we know that it is to be at some distant date in the future when the committee will finally be ready to make some proposals.
Last year, as on earlier occasions, this same plea was made. We were to wait for the appropriate time. Since we are not going to have a vote now, according to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, then the best we can do on this occasion is to avail ourselves of this opportunity to put forward certain views which have a direct bearing on this subject, particularly on the statement of the Minister of Labour that he does not think the committee in the department should be rushed. Just when this committee would not consider that it was being rushed is something that would really be a matter of interest to some of us. We heard these same discussions on this same bill on earlier occasions.
Since this bill has been up before, and since this does afford us an opportunity to present our views, may I repeat the arguments I presented last year, which were presented on earlier occasions and which I hope may receive the support of the government, because this is an important subject.
I must say that we do not need to be told by any hon. member that the trade union movement is now part of the social and economic structure of our country. That is recognized by every person who has the slightest knowledge of the essential requirements of the relationship between management and labour. However, what is not as readily accepted is the fact that the basic requirement of union security is collective bargaining and the assurance that the duly certified bargaining agents in any industry or occupation will be able to carry forward the work that they are set up to undertake under laws which have as their purpose a balanced relationship among workers, management and the public, who have a very direct interest in the end result of that relationship.
Due consideration must also be given to the inevitable and important relationship between governments and their agencies which have so constant an association with labour and management. The field is divided between national and provincial responsibility. That is something which always must be borne in mind.
We have contended on earlier occasions that this act should not be amended piecemeal, that what is greatly required is a review of the whole act and that an opportunity be provided for organized labour, for management and for representatives of the public generally to place their views before
Industrial Relations
some competent body which will in turn be able to make recommendations which can be the basis of legislation.
Do not let any member of this government or any supporter of this government get up at this time and say this is simply another suggestion to pass over the responsibility of parliament to some outside body. After all, it was this same government that appointed the McTague commission more than eleven years ago. That was the last time a comprehensive survey was made in Canada of possible labour legislation. True, there have been references to the standing committee on industrial relations; true, there have been discussions in this house from time to time on individual measures, but those who have had the responsibility for the administration of legislation of this kind-at one time I also shared some measure of responsibility for the administration of labour legislation- know that piecemeal amendments without due regard to the impact of any amendment on other parts of the act can sometimes defeat the very purpose for which the amendments are made.
At the time the McTague commission made its report after very extensive inquiry the government acted under the wide emergency powers then available to it, and which it was prepared to use. It has just as wide emergency powers today and we are very glad it does not use them, for the present at any rate, or not now, to use the words the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration prefers.
At that time they employed the wide powers of the emergency legislation then available to them and introduced what amounted to a labour code. We came nearer to having uniformity of labour legislation at that time than ever before in Canadian history. Some of the provinces adopted the labour code outright as the provincial code, and as a result there were some provinces in which there was uniform labour legislation, which is highly desirable if it can be reached by agreement.
Eleven years have passed, during which time this country has expanded as an industrial producer beyond the expectations of anyone in those days. That expansion has brought new problems; that expansion has brought new pressures on the legislation we now have before us. If it was wise for this same government to appoint a public inquiry of three under the chairmanship of a distinguished jurist of that time, then I submit it is equally wise that the same course be followed today.
It should not be said that this is divesting us of responsibility, nor should it be said
2374	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment that a judge, or in this case one who has been a judge, is not a suitable person to head such a commission. Without in any way expecting that the government will accept my suggestion in a case of this kind, I may say that I for one would welcome their decision to appoint the same man as chairman of another commission. I think most members of the unions in Canada approved of the appointment at that time of Mr. Justice McTague, and would approve today the appointment of Mr. McTague as chairman of a commission to conduct an inquiry with similarly wide terms of reference.
Since this government has already demonstrated its belief in that method; since they were able to act so satisfactorily on the recommendations then presented to them, and since they incorporated most of the provisions of the order in council resulting from those recommendations into subsequent legislation which is still on the statute books, I repeat my request that a similar committee be set up because the government is not ready to act now, and I underline the word "now".
Since they are not ready to act now, then will they follow the same course they followed before and appoint a competent body, including someone with a wide knowledge of labour relations, including at least one representative of organized labour and one representative of management? If they were going to appoint a committee of three that would seem to be a well-balanced body. On that basis we might then have recommendations before us which would make it possible for us to have as fine labour legislation as would be available anywhere, and next year we would not be faced once again with the statement that the government is not ready to act now.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will resume consideration at eight o'clock of the business which was 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.
Owen Lewis Jones: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I tried to point out the serious loss unemployment meant to our economy. Half a million idle men means billions of man-hours of labour lost, especially when the idleness is prolonged. Idleness means billions of dollars to our economy. I outlined briefly the plans drawn up some years ago by the British Columbia government in co-operation with the various municipalities affected, and in view of the fact that these plans could be put into operation if the government would assist them I think the matter should now be considered.
The government, I feel, should perhaps consider giving to the towns and provinces which are prepared to co-operate once again some assistance by means of low interest long-term loans, especially for self-liquidating projects and those things in which the money could be safely invested in the form of mortgage finance, if necessary. During the thirties the government did actually assist the municipalities to tide over a very embarrassing period of unemployment by outright money gifts, financial help, and by making other funds available. I remember when I was on the Kelowna council we received quite a substantial grant from the federal government to assist us in putting numerous men to work on a sewer project.
I always look back to those days and feel that instead of keeping those men on relief- there was no unemployment insurance in those days-we saved the social services money and produced real, valuable assets of a permanent nature which were necessary to the town's development with labour which otherwise would have been lost forever, instead of subsidizing the social services which in turn would permit men to remain idle.
I listened last evening to the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) reiterating the statement that what is physically possible could be financially possible. I agree with him. That statement is quite correct. But I do not agree with his method of printing money to make it possible. To my mind that is straight inflation. I would suggest a logical and proper way of bringing these two factors together and making financially possible what is physically possible, and that is by the government making loans through the Bank of Canada to municipalities for investment in self-liquidating projects where possible. The cost of the operation and the service charge for bookkeeping and other expenses in connection with the issuance of that money at no more than 2 per cent could be borne by the municipalities. I am satisfied it could be done. I am not suggesting even then that this is a permanent solution, but it might

meet the present emergency and grant us time to really meet the problem which arises out of machine age development.
To my mind the day is not far distant when we shall be compelled to adjust our whole economy to meet the challenge of machine-produced abundance, because we know that today it embarrasses us, and will embarrass us to a greater degree when the atom is fully harnessed, to produce commodities that will create such abundance that human labour will become absolutely redundant. The present unemployment problem is simply an advance warning of the trouble to come from that source, and it is for the government to advance policies which will immediately take care of the displaced human labour today.
Some years ago I remember reading in a western paper about a wealthy easterner, I think he lived in Toronto, who had a habit of throwing his money out of hotel windows with a prodigal disregard for his own security. Probably some hon. members will remember the incident. At that time his sanity was questioned, and possibly rightly so; nevertheless that was what happened. I feel the government today is doing just that. We are throwing away billions of precious man-hours of labour which are being wasted and becoming an embarrassment instead of an asset through being channelled into productive work.
I realize that we are living in an age when human labour is becoming more redundant every day. With the advance of science and technology today we are witnessing the need for labour in industry receding accordingly. Private enterprise has no solution for our present problem. It has no solution for the displaced labour at this time except in terms of a hot or cold war, neither of which is acceptable to the Canadian people.
This condition to my mind calls for skilful direction by the government to protect the victims of the modern industrial process. Private enterprise will not do it. It is their failure in this respect that we have been discussing in the last few days. They naturally prefer the machine, where possible, to human labour. The machine operates 24 hours a day, does not strike for better conditions and produces more profits at a quicker pace than human labour. But such a policy will inevitably lead to chaos and distress even for the industrialists themselves.
Long-range planning should therefore be undertaken by a government which should be prepared to study even social credit and socialistic proposals to find a possible solution. Immediately, however, the government should set up a committee, or instruct the Department of Labour in co-operation with the provinces and municipalities, to study
Proposed Committee on Unemployment and produce a program of development which would be of permanent value to the nation. Why fritter away millions in supporting enforced idleness when such labour could be utilized to increase our national wealth? The unemployed are themselves chafing at the bit for work to do, and the government must give the lead.
We in the opposition will gladly co-operate in any way we can to make it possible for the government itself to bring order out of what may possibly become extreme chaos and hardship for our workers here in Canada.


Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambion West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just a few minutes of the time of the house to comment on this subject, and I make no apology for explaining my position in this connection.
I have just listened, as did other hon. members, to the last speaker. I hold no brief for the government, but when I hear someone in this house get up and say private enterprise has no solution to this problem except a hot or cold war, then I am rather surprised. I can understand the socialists saying that private enterprise has no solution, because that is the basis of their philosophy. They and they alone have a solution. But though I have listened to a great many speeches by members of the C.C.F. party, thus far I have not detected their solution. I do not think the government obtains any information of value from that particular section of this house.
The hon. member who has just spoken, at the tail end of his remarks, said we were discussing the failure of private enterprise, and that in this country we preferred machines to human labour. Well, I wonder how far this country, the United States, or any other progressive country would have developed if it had not been for the technological research and the evident skill and ability which private enterprise produced, which is manifest in the economic situation prevailing in this country and in the United States today. We do have machines in this country. We have an automobile industry in Windsor and Oshawa which could compete with any other in the world today except for taxes.
Machines create employment for labour, as the record of history will prove, and no socialist inside this house or out will ever convince me that machines replace human labour. We are told they are chaos and distress machines. I do not think anyone outside that party will agree with that. True enough we all admit-the members on both sides of the house-that we have an unemployment situation. We have yet to find anything in the socialist doctrine that is going to solve that problem.
2376	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment
I must say first that over the last several years we have heard the government justifiably boast that they are going to maintain full employment. What is meant by unemployment? Is it half a million people out of work? Or is it seasonal unemployment? I want to be fair, and I think every hon. member in this house wants to be fair. No one can tell me or anyone else in this house that we have not seasonal unemployment. We have other unemployment as well. The other day I think a suggestion was made by one hon. member-I am sorry I have forgotten his name-who said it should be the responsibility of government to devise, maybe through advisory boards, some way by which these seasonal employees could be employed for a longer time. I think the idea is well worth consideration. I have no doubt that the government advisers are considering such ideas with that as an objective.
I want to be quite frank and say here that while I am sympathetic to labour, I do not quite agree with their idea expressed here and there that industry has the responsibility of maintaining full employment by the year or, in other words, paying a yearly wage. That will come in time. It may come sooner than many of us expect, but at the moment I cannot see it, in this changing economy, with the competition facing us today, when industry would naturally be placed at a disadvantage if it should overproduce. Today in this country and in the United States we are in the position where we have overproduced. True enough that is a better position to be in than to be underproducing, whether it be wheat, automobiles or socks.
In the course of this debate we have heard about the unemployment in the textile industry and the farm implement industry.
I was amazed, as I think many people were, the other day when a delegation met some of the members of the cabinet. When this situation was being discussed by the cabinet members and the representatives of labour the Acting Prime Minister told this particular delegation representing those who were out of work in either the farm implement industry or the textile industry that they should go somewhere else to seek employment. I rather think it was one of those statements made on impulse.
Of course what strikes me is this. That is a rather impossible position for those people to face. In the first place, where would they go? In the second place, the town or the city to which they went might also have unemployment. After all is said and done,
I do not think there are many places in the Dominion of Canada today which have not unemployment. If these people were to


migrate from one town to another and were to almost vacate some particular town or small city, there would be a bankrupt municipality.
I think the federal government must accept some responsibility. I am not saying that this philosophy of ignoring the almighty dollar, the value of that dollar, its purchasing power, and the necessity for conserving it, is not worthy of great consideration. I never did like the philosophy of "What's a million?" or "What's three million?" Nor do I subscribe to the theory that building, say, a $6 million national film board building is going to alleviate unemployment, especially when there is some doubt in the minds of many people as to the necessity for that particular building.
With respect to public spending, I am going to say here that I think the federal government should be the first agency in this country to endeavour to alleviate present conditions and get the wheels of industry turning so the dinner-bucket man can take home his weekly pay cheque. In that connection I am going to say this, and it is something which has been supported recently by press editorials. We in this country have been enjoying an export trade as well as taking care of our own requirements and competing against foreign imports into our country to replace those things we manufacture. I think what we must keep in mind in this country is that we have excessive taxes including the sales tax, the excise tax and other hidden taxes which go into the costs of the product which we hope to export in competition with foreign products, and with which we hope to supply our domestic market in spite of foreign competition.
I am rather afraid that many of us in this country will have to agree that these excessive taxes are pricing us out of the export market, and are also pricing us out of the local market as against foreign competitors. We in this country have become an industrial nation during and since the war. Prior to that time, of course, we were an agricultural country. In order to maintain a healthy economy I think we must enjoy a fair export market. Otherwise these men who depend on weekly pay cheques are going to find those pay cheques smaller, and that later on they will cease to come.
I would say that the responsibility today is on the federal government to take the initiative in this country, as was done on the other side of the border some few weeks ago by curtailing expenses as far as they possibly could. I think they appreciate the situation their country is in. In all fairness to any

government that is in power I am going to say that what happens in the country to the south of us, whether it is good times or bad times, is bound to be reflected in this country. We just cannot get away from that nearness and the fact that they produce much the same things as we do, especially those products that we export and that they export to this country.
When we see people out of jobs it reminds me of something I heard on the radio a few weeks ago-and probably many other hon. members heard it-when they were talking about "recession" and "depression" which we heard a great deal about in the thirties. A recession is when the other fellow is out of a job, and a depression is when you are out of a job. I think that is quite true. You do not realize how hard up you are, what position you are in or what you have to face until the ordinary man with the dinner bucket finds himself on the short end of a pay envelope.
We are faced with that situation. We must acknowledge that fact. I will say that governments must realize that they are in somewhat the same position as that of housewives. There are some things they cannot afford; and if they cannot afford them, they cannot spend themselves into a recovery. I believe in public spending-I am one of those in this house who do believe in it, and I think I have many associated with me- but I believe there is a long-term view as well as a short-term view of this particular situation.
The government has taken the stand that this is a temporary situation. That may be right. By the end of another month we may reach the turning point. I hope we do. In any event it would appear that the budget is not going to be brought down until sometime in April, and that will give the government an opportunity to homestead for another six weeks before doing anything about the matter.
I think my interpretation of public spending should be acceptable to many people, and I hope to members of the cabinet. I make no apology for saying that the construction of public buildings, the filling of the backlog of orders so to speak, in case we ever run into a recession, which we discussed some years ago when municipalities were urged to put forward their ideas as to what should be done, would afford but temporary relief to the unemployed. I agree with an hon. member from Nova Scotia who spoke a few nights ago, who said that in so many of these projects in this country and elsewhere the
Proposed Committee on Unemployment amount of labour involved is so small compared with the total capital investment as to cast doubt on the wisdom of certain types of public spending even in times like the present.
I do not think we can spend ourselves out of a recession. My idea of public spending at a time like this would be along the lines of that held by private industries who see a future expanding market and want to enlarge, and who would invest $1 million, $2 million or $5 million, as the case may be, to expand their particular industries in order to take care of business two, four, five, ten or twenty-five years from now.
With the technological advances that have taken place today I think even some of our most modern industries will not be modern four or five years from now. The point I have in mind with respect to the idea I have been trying to convey is simply this. To my mind there are projects in this country that we could undertake which would be beneficial in this respect, namely if the government would do as industry does and spend $2 million, $4 million, $5 million, $50 million or even $100 million it would help to alleviate present conditions and at the same time would have long-range benefits.
For instance, there is the Passamaquoddy power project in the maritimes, which would be a federal matter and would mean a great deal to that particular part of the country. I could go on and recite others such as a power and conservation development on the Fraser river at the other end of Canada, as a result of which acreage under production would be increased in the course of time and the yield would be many times what it is today. I would call such projects developments of productive capacity which would appeal to the imagination of every Canadian. I cannot see, for instance, why the Saskatchewan river project could not be undertaken at the present time as a federal matter. Here we have a power project that in the years to come will benefit thousands, hundreds of thousands and possibly even millions of Canadian people. It may take 10, 15 or 25 years to achieve the benefits, but let us look ahead.
We are going to get over the hump. Let there be no mistake about it. Canadians will remain Canadians and will face any difficulty. All we want is good leadership, and we need not worry about what is going to happen tomorrow or the next day. Let us take a long-range view. These are the types of projects which the government should undertake because they are self-liquidating.
2378	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment
With respect to hidden taxes, I think the time has come when the government must realize that if we are going to have a sound economy, keep our industries growing and reopen the ones that have been closed, we must remove some of these nuisance taxes, the sales tax, the excise tax and other excessive hidden taxes, because we are pricing ourselves out of the market. I say quite frankly, and I will say so to any labour organization in Canada, that labour as well as management has a responsibility to cooperate. If they are true Canadians then they must accept the responsibility that is theirs. The necessity for endeavour on the part of every Canadian was never more apparent since the thirties than it is today. No one party, no one government, no one province, no one municipality can solve the problem. It requires the co-operation of everybody.
I say it is the responsibility of the federal government to give leadership. So far as hidden taxes are concerned, we had an illustration a few years ago of the result of excessive taxes on cigarettes. Since I first entered the house these taxes have been increased, and the government were told that their revenue would be decreased. I am not going to discuss the necessity for the reduction of taxes on cigarettes, but the point I make is simply that when taxes were increased on this particular product the revenue decreased. We urged that the taxes be reduced. I am sure the government will admit in all fairness, because the records are there to prove what I say, that they are very pleased with what has happened during the last year as a result of the reduction of these taxes. If the taxes had not been reduced we would not have had the same consumption, and as a result would not have had the revenue.
Because we have these excessive taxes we are bound to encourage smuggling. We are actually subsidizing foreign manufacturers by our excessive taxes. That applies without any question to cigarettes and to many other products. In this country we have a great acreage of tobacco and should have much more. By reducing taxes we increased revenue. I say the same principle should apply to the taxes on so many things we buy. I repeat, and I do not mind doing so because if an idea is worth uttering it is worth repeating, that I think the public realize today as never before that hidden taxes, the sales tax and so on, are so oppressive that the workingman is losing his job. Why? I think he realizes today as never before that he is being taxed out of his job by the policies of the present government.
'Mr. Murphy (Lambton West).]

I could give several quotations but I do not intend to. However, here is one that substantiates what I said about the construction industry. Representatives of the Canadian construction association presented a brief to members of the cabinet the other day. I have here an article from the Ottawa Journal of February 22 dealing with that meeting, from which I intend to quote only a paragraph, as follows:
It said construction is desirable in times of general decline in business activity, but this year Canada will have a high volume of construction anyway. "It is very doubtful", the brief said, "that a substantial increase in the public works program would affect the present seasonal unemployment . .	. or help the textile, marine, agricultural
implement and other industries currently beset with serious unemployment problems".
That is in line with what I said a few moments ago. While we are bound to have a construction program this year of no mean amount, as I endeavoured to emphasize a few moments ago, in my conception public spending during this period on a works program of buildings and so on would provide only temporary relief. I would much prefer to see that coupled with a long-range program involving projects such as I have put forward. I refer to the Fraser valley, the Passamaquoddy, the South Saskatchewan and many other projects in which the federal government could participate.
I want to say something else related to this particular subject with which I do not think anybody will disagree. We have in this country the greatest potential tourist industry on the continent per capita, and we are not getting our fair share. While the tourist industry affects every section of our economy, and everyone in business, we seem to disregard it. I would say that this is one industry in Canada from which everyone benefits, when our American friends come here and when in return we export good will. I think the government should take the lead in this matter, but it never has. It cannot make the claim that it has done anything to promote the tourist industry. Instead of obtaining something more than $300 million from the tourist industry, I say we should be obtaining a billion dollars, and I said that ten years ago. The tourist industry has actually decreased in dollar value in the last few years.
I believe that under an aggressive program initiated by the government we could bring in that amount of money. This would mean a great deal to people in Canada from coast to coast, not only those operating tourist services and resorts, but people in all sorts of businesses.

Proposed Committee on Unemployment
I hope the government will consider at this time the plight in which the municipalities find themselves. My own conviction is that many of those municipalities are going to find themselves under a very severe strain because of this unemployment, the necessity of supplying relief, and also because of the high taxation policy of the government. For many years now they have not received their fair share of tax revenues. I am inclined to think that if this matter goes much further the government will have to appreciate the position in which the municipalities are finding themselves. I am sure no hon. member would like to see his own municipality suffer and not be able to meet its obligations, or to take care of relief measures, or fulfil those other requirements which, as municipalities, they must fulfil.
I would express the hope that before too long this government will realize that governments at lower levels have responsibilities. This applies to provinces as well as to municipalities, and affects all the people. In my opinion it is about time these lower levels of government secured some kind of agreement under which they would be placed in a respectable and responsible position, so they could meet their obligations and not feel called upon to be under any obligation to any other government.


Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I make no apology for speaking on the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). In my opinion the very serious unemployment problem now under debate demands the utmost attention from those in responsible positions. As a representative of the people of Canada I wish to express my opinion as to what should be done, and to make some comments concerning the whole situation.
It has been established, and I believe accepted on the government side of the house, that the figure of about 525,000 unemployed is accurate. This represents about 7 per cent of the total labour force in Canada. So no one can underestimate the serious situation facing our country unless something can be done to rectify the situation and to put those people back to work under some program.
I listened with keen interest to the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) who attempted to castigate the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Jones) for his references to the capitalist system. I refer to it as a capitalist system, not a so-called free enterprise system, because certainly there is nothing free and there is nothing
very enterprising about the system under which we operate. It is a capitalist system; and I quite agree with the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary and other members of the C.C.F. who have expressed little or no faith in capitalism as a means of obtaining security in peacetime for our Canadian people. Looking back as far as I can recall, over a period of years we have gone the full cycle of employment, recession, nonemployment and then back to full employment, when our people had jobs and a decent standard of living.
When he reflects upon what he has said I believe the hon. member for Lambton West will realize the truth of what I am saying, and that he was mistaken when he applauded the capitalist system which has done nothing but bring unrest, unemployment and insecurity to the world. Today when we have such great opportunities through technological advances we should be able to use our natural resources in order to get jobs for everyone, so that all people may have a decent standard of living, and security.
I was interested before the dinner recess to listen to the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) who tried, as he said, to indicate three methods by which the situation could be corrected. One of those methods he said would be a very clear socialist policy. I do not know what he meant by that; he did not go to any length to indicate his meaning. In any case I want to take issue with him, and to correct his statement that industry does not operate to give employment. Let me tell the hon. member that if in Canada we have investors and if we have people in control of multimillion dollar companies, then it is their responsibility to give employment to our people. They have a responsibility to keep the factories open to give our people jobs.
It is true that the giving of jobs is not the primary endeavour of industry; nor is it as he suggested, the production of goods. The production of goods in industry, I say, is only secondary to the profit motive. The production of goods is only incidental to the making of profits. It is clear that on those occasions when they cannot sell their goods and make profits, neither goods are produced nor people employed. And that is pretty well what we are finding in the Canadian economy today.
Therefore I suggest that we must give consideration to ways and means by which our people can share equitably in the economy of this country. Today we have in Canada, even under the system now operating, a condition under which we are
2380	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment using about $2 billion of our Canadian gross product for war preparedness, or defence production. Our total gross product in Canada in 1953 amounted to about $24 billion. If we take that figure of $24 billion and take also the population of Canada which, roughly, can be placed at 15 million people, and allow a certain amount-perhaps a third-for capital investment, we still have a figure under which every family of four would enjoy an income of $6,400. When we make allowance for depreciation in capital investment to the extent of one-third of our national product, and make an equitable division, we still have a family income of $4,500. We know for certain that it is not possible to divide it equally. Perhaps we would not be justified in dividing it equally, but it does show that in Canada we are producing a gross national product which could take care of any hardship in the country.
That is not being done. I hold in my hand a sessional paper dated January 29, which I received some time ago. This sessional paper gives the number of people making income tax returns for 1951-52 in certain salary ranges. It shows that 452,427 people earned less than $500 a year; 443,140 earned between $500 and $999; 601,655 earned between $1,000 and $1,499; 690,792 earned between $1,500 and $1,999; 750,889 earned between 2,000 and $2,499 and 476,134 earned between $2,500 and $2,999. This sessional paper shows that today our people are not enjoying what might be called a decent income.
This government has a definite responsibility to see to it that our people are protected in their jobs. We can pick up almost any paper today and see the large profits that are being made by our large industries, particularly those in a monopoly position or with such control over the market that they can demand from the consumer practically any price for the commodities they have to sell. From that we can see why our Canadian products are being priced out of the picture in so far as international trade is concerned.
I know some hon. members will say that labour itself has so increased the cost of Canadian products that our goods are no longer able to compete in the foreign market. That is not true. For proof of this statement all we have to do is to look at the farm implement industry. That is one of the industries that sent delegates to Ottawa to interview the cabinet and ask that something be done. We find that despite the increases in wages from 1946 the profits of


the machinery companies per dollar of product produced have increased to a far greater extent than have wages.
Therefore we find ourselves in a situation similar to that of the 1930's. Sufficient money is not going back into the pockets of the people who produce the goods to buy back that which they produce. Great technological strides have been made in the production of commodities, and the Canadian people should be able to buy those products for use in their homes to enable them to maintain a better standard of living. Our government should take the responsibility of seeing to it that more money goes back into the pockets of the people to buy back what is produced. If that is not done, exactly the same thing will happen as happened in the 1930's, when we had unemployed men riding the box cars throughout the country. Our factories were shut down, and that may happen again.
I do not think it is to the credit of any system that we have to have war or threats of war in order to keep our people employed, or to give them a high standard of living. The cruel irony of it, Mr. Speaker, is that our people have never had a higher standard of living or fuller employment than when we were at war, when almost half of our national product and our resources of manpower were engaged in war production. Surely it does not take too much common sense to be able to make the point that when we are coming back to a peacetime position we should be able to organize our economy and use technological improvements to increase the standard of living of our people.
Here is the position in which we find ourselves, in spite of the fact that certain people are willing to start new enterprises. The figures I am about to give the house do not in themselves indicate that it is of necessity a good thing, but in the last quarter of 1953 there was an increase in the total number of established commercial enterprises. In the third quarter of 1953 the number increased from 2,554 enterprises to 3,131. In the month of September there was an acceleration of commercial failure. The total number of commercial enterprises operating at the end of September was in excess of those operating at the end of July, but that is not the point. The point is that in dollars the total volume of money invested in those enterprises had declined.
I think hon. members will be interested in the figures I am about to give. They indicate the grand total amount of money in such commercial enterprises. We find that until

1929, up to the time we had the crash, we were enjoying a period of pretty good prosperity. Then the crash come. From then until 1939 there were a very large number of commercial failures. The situation began to get better; the amount of money invested in such commercial enterprises began to go up until the war came, when there was great investment in commercial enterprises. Then we find in 1953, after the period of the cold war, an increase in commercial failures.
I have tried to outline some of the reasons why the government should take immediate action in this held. I would suggest that some of the measures the government has taken in the last two or three years are not going to be effective to stave off a calamity for any long period unless something else is done.
I recall that in 1951 the government took off practically all credit controls, and we found that instalment and credit buying increased very rapidly. We found that by September 30, 1953, an appalling situation existed in connection with outstanding instalment debt. At that time there was $225 outstanding in instalment debt for every Canadian. This has almost tripled in the last 18 months. The total instalment debt, charge accounts and personal loans up to date stand at $500 per family. The debt situation of the Canadian family is increasing to an alarming extent. I think the government should find ways and means of dealing with that sort of situation.
There are some things the government could do in order to restore the purchasing power of the Canadian people and put many of our people back to work. First, I would suggest that farm purchasing power be restored. Someone will hasten to his feet to say that in 1953 we had an all-time record farm income, but when we take the farm income for 1953 and the figures of farm purchasing power in connection with the things the farmer has to buy, we find that the farmer is in a very bad position in that relationship.
I ask the government to consider putting adequate floor prices under farm commodities and taking over immediately, through the wheat board, 500 million bushels of wheat. I feel that the Canadian farmer, along with every other Canadian, is willing to do his share in seeing to it that the hungry people of the world are fed. I think that would be a tremendous gesture on the part of a democratic world to help alleviate hunger as well as win support for democracy. In addition, I submit that the government should increase the old age pensions. The present payments
Proposed Committee on Unemployment to our older citizens in the form of old age pensions are a disgrace. This would give our older people a more decent income so they could enjoy some of the amenities of life and buy some of the goods now on the shelves that Canadians have produced, and thereby help the situation. I suggest to the government that it abolish the 10 per cent sales tax which today has the effect of increasing the cost of farm machinery and reducing the effective demand of the farmer for such machinery, as well as increasing the prices of commodities to the general consumer.
In addition I think the government should undertake a very comprehensive and imaginative program in respect to public works projects. I recall that when I was here from 1945 to 1949 we as members of parliament understood that the government had a shelf of public projects which it was prepared to utilize in case unemployment ever struck the Canadian scene. If that is true then I think it is high time they pulled out of the dark any secrets they may have in this regard. The Canadian people are asking that something be done.
Then, I feel that the government should take steps to reduce the interest rate so farmers and others may be able to obtain credit at lower rates. It is nothing short of usury the interest which people have to pay, whether on farm improvement loans or when they get a loan from the bank. Certainly those people who through force of circumstance have to go to these finance corporation people in order to get short-term credit at 24 per cent interest are paying rates which are a disgrace to the country.
I just want to close by saying that this is a serious problem, but a solution can be found if the government has the will to do it. Just as we won the war so we can win the peace. The veterans and all our people generally are placing the responsibility at this time on the people right here in this government, namely the Liberal government. The delegation representing the unemployed people in the farm implement industry who came here were not at all satisfied with the answer they got from the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe). A statement appeared in the press to the effect that the Acting Prime Minister had told them that they must find other jobs. The headline read:
Must find other jobs, Howe bluntly advises farm implement men.
I want to say to the right hon. minister and to the government that these workers are victims of circumstances beyond their control. All they can do is come to their elected representatives and ask them to do
2382	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment something. Under our complex society most of the jobs are governed by industrial employment, and the wheels of the factories must turn. If it is a matter of public investment, then it has to come from the people in charge of the public treasury, namely the dominion government. On these two counts I would ask the government to do something.
It is not sufficient to tell these labour people to leave their former places of employment, to leave their homes and families and go to hunt other jobs. These people are not Dick Whittingtons who can put their little bags on their backs and strike out to find work. If they think the streets of Ottawa are paved with gold because of the money talk there has been around the house these last few weeks, they will find otherwise. These people want work, and they want it now.
These 500,000 unemployed represent potential wealth. After all, wealth is only that which is produced by the working people applied to the natural resources. If we consider the daily output of each of these people when fully employed to be worth $10 to the nation, it would mean that these 500,000 men could in 200 days produce $1,000 million of wealth a year. If we consider that in terms of $10,000 homes, we find that 100,000 homes could be built for people who need them.
So I ask the government to consider this matter seriously. The people want an answer. The motion of the hon. member for Cape Breton South indicates that we want action now.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: -I presume it is my privilege to speak despite the protests from my hon. friends on the other side of the house.


George James McIlraith: Your hon. friends did not protest. The hon. member has no right to make that remark.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: We shall let that go for the moment.


George James McIlraith: You had better.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Let me remind my hon. friend that I am responsible for what I say in this house. If someone on the other side groans I have the privilege of saying that I shall speak in spite of the groans of my hon. friends.


George James McIlraith: You have no right to say what is not true.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I was intrigued by the wishful thinking on the part of the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) when he 

indicated that he expected that the industrialists of this country might use the benevolent despotism which it was the custom of the early industrialists to use. I think we have reached a situation where we have a corporate industry which has very little human sympathy. Indeed we cannot expect that human sympathy will be exercised.
I can remember what has happened even within as short a period as my own lifetime. I am thinking of a factory owner in my native Northern Ireland who produced linen. When unemployment came along he used his assets and the profits which he had plowed back into business in order to keep what he called "my people" in employment, and he did that until he had used up all the resources he had in his possession. I would suggest that now he would be considered as a man not quite right in his mind.
I was intrigued by something said by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), and particularly by his three S's, sovietism, slaughter and social credit. It was a neat piece of alliteration, and I suppose my hon. friend would not like me to suggest that these things are three of a kind. I shall not do so. But I would like to point out to my hon. friend that if his solution of handing out purchasing power is correct, then there are only two ways in which to do it. You can take this purchasing power and say to a man, "Now, here is what you need. When you need more come back and we will give you some more." That is the first method. The second method would be simply to hand out this scrip or money indiscriminately-


An hon. Member:: You know that is wrong.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I would like to ask my hon. friend who is to take charge of this public purse, because whoever has charge of it will have a regimenting and dictatorial power greater than any power any democratic socialist ever dreamed of, and one to which I am sure no one here has ever aspired.
On the question of unemployment, we in the prairie country are perhaps more fortunate than people in industrial areas. We have not very many industries, and such industries as we do have are largely connected with the construction business. It is admitted, though, that when the temperature is 30 or 40 degrees below zero there must be some seasonal unemployment, and I would point out that that seasonal unemployment is serious to the people who are concerned. I would like to see some way of overcoming the difficulty.
I have a good deal of sympathy with the government in their difficulties in dealing with

this situation, because they have come around to what my hon. friend from Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) has described as the difficult stage in an inevitable cycle, which during my lifetime has cropped up on several occasions. We have always been faced with the three conditions of depression, followed by war, followed by depression and then back again, and we have reached a definite place in that cycle which has occurred for the third time in my lifetime.
Many people here have said, and I expect there are many others who agree with them, that war seems to be the thing which does away with unemployment and depression. I am very interested in young people and in the education of young people, as some of my friends know, and I think one of the most serious aspects of this situation is that these young people are faced with this alternative, whether to choose war or choose depression. The danger is that they may make the decision in favour of war. As a matter of fact, I noticed in a United States magazine the other day that a survey had been conducted among some colleges in that country and the young people there had been asked, "What has war done for you?" Nearly all of them, I was horrified to observe, agreed that "War is the thing to which I owe my chance for an education."
That, Mr. Speaker, is a terrible condition of affairs, and I am worried lest the young people may come to believe that the only way they can avoid a depression, or the only way in which they can get a job or an education, is by means of war, or lest they conclude that that is the lesser of the two evils. As a matter of fact one of these young men said, "Yes, a few of us kids may get killed, but there will be lots of us left and it will be a lot better for those who are left." That is not a dream. That is an actual fact, and it is something we have to be prepared to face.
I have already mentioned the unemployment situation in my own city. There is considerable unemployment there, though I believe it is mostly seasonal. The condition, of course, is worse in those cities where we have industries which are making consumer goods, and here again we run into that same cycle at a time when the shelves have become full. That is true in the textile and agricultural machinery industries; most of these industries which are producing consumer goods are now, in the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, piling up a backlog, so much so that he was forced to say to a labour
Proposed Committee on Unemployment delegation, in my hearing, that that was the sort of trouble they had to expect in times of peace-


Clarence Decatur Howe: He said no such thing.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: -and that they had better find themselves jobs in another industry. But I would suggest that if these men do go and find themselves jobs in another industry they will overproduce that industry until again we have the condition of full shelves, in which the wages earned by the workers in these plants do not enable them to purchase back the goods they are producing. When the shelves are full then those in modern Canadian industry-and we could not call them benevolent despots-cannot afford to keep men in employment, and they shut the mills down so that unless we have a Korea or war or some other crisis there is a long period of attrition during which these shelves are being emptied of their goods, and the men are out of work. They have fulfilled their function for the time being and filled the shelves, and they can go on unemployment relief. It takes money to purchase goods, and the result is that in peacetime it takes a lengthy period before conditions are brought about again in which there is a demand for those goods and the men can be put back to work.
That condition has been aggravated by the process of mechanization, and I would suggest in that regard that the situation is liable to become worse in time rather than better. It is an old story. We have had it since the time of the industrial revolution, when men burned the looms because they believed they were depriving them of employment. I suggest the time has come when we must accept these problems and arrange to meet this process of mechanization. It is the government's responsibility-I am glad it is not mine-to take these bumps out of business so we can have an economy which will work. The problem, then, seems to be to get the goods off the shelf.
There is one other word I wish to add, namely that in the meantime I believe some of the recommendations we have heard here are going to be of some help. The problem concerns that fabulous or fabled shelf of public works of which we heard in 1945 or 1946. If some of these suggested solutions were put into operation they would, I believe, provide some alleviation, but I do think the main problem has never been answered. So I would be pleased if I could hear from some of my friends on the government side who would be prepared to answer this simple question. What is the government's solution?
2384	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment When we have overproduction, when the shelves have been filled with goods, what is your solution short ot war for getting rid of those goods in order that you may put the men who made those goods back to work again?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) a short time ago, I was pleased to note that I found myself in complete agreement with one rather weighty observation he made. That observation was to the effect that it was the responsibility of government to give leadership. Prior to that I had been thinking that possibly he and I might be able to get together in a mutual admiration society in reverse in respect of the contributions which our political groups were making to this debate.
As far as I have been able to understand the remarks coming from that section of the house, I can briefly sum up their contribution by suggesting that they are advocating that we set up a committee to call before it certain people who will give us the statistics on unemployment which have already been given to us by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg). Had they suggested that the government and the Minister of Labour should consider revising their methods of gathering and tabulating figures so they might possibly be more accurate and more complete in detail than they are at the present time, there might have been some point to their argument.
In the course of this debate some of my colleagues have discussed some of the broader aspects of unemployment as a symptom of an economic disease in our society. I shall therefore attempt to confine myself for a short time to some of the aspects of this matter within the terms of reference which have been set by the government itself. I recall that earlier in this debate the Acting Prime Minister made note of the fact that plans have been laid for an investment of something over $5 billion in Canada in the coming year. He suggested that this investment would be a means of eliminating, in large part, the present unemployment that everyone agrees exists, even though we may have varying ideas as to its proportions. In passing I should like to point out that while $5 billion sounds like quite a lot of money to most of us, a quick calculation shows that if it were all spent in wages it would provide $1,000 to each of the 500,000 unemployed that some people have suggested there are in this country today. However, as I say, I mention that matter simply in passing.
I would agree that some of that $5 billion about which the Acting Prime Minister was


talking is going to be spent in that great nation-building tradition of this country which was set when the Canadian parliament quite some time ago launched the building of the first national transcontinental railway in this country. I would suggest that such things as the oil pipe line and the St. Lawrence seaway are in that nation-building tradition. I wish the Acting Prime Minister had elaborated a little bit more on just how and by whom this $5 billion was going to be spent. I have a feeling that the largest part of it will be spent by a relatively few large corporations. I should like to give one example of what actually can happen when these large corporations are investing capital in new plant and equipment.
I call to mind an investment which was made last year by one of the largest and, in my opinion on the basis of its record, one of the most efficiently and intelligently managed corporations operating within the province of British Columbia. They made additional capital investment in their plywood industry. It is perfectly true that for a period during the summer months there was a great humming of activity, and that jobs were provided for a large number of men in the construction trade. As a matter of fact they were being called upon to work a good deal of overtime in order that the project might be completed and brought into production. Of course quite a large number of people flocked in to secure jobs in the production line in that enlarged plant.
The actual situation, as it developed, was that before that new plant had been run in to the point of its maximum output, that company found itself in the position where it was laying off some of these recently-hired employees, some of the people who had come there in good faith expecting to find continuous employment. Not only were the workers who had been engaged in the construction of that plant out of work; people who had the expectation of normally steady employment in the production line were also out of work.
I use that example to show that large capital investment in itself is not necessarily any guarantee of continuous and stable employment. I would further suggest that when you find large investments being made by a few perhaps competing corporations simply to improve their own position and secure for themselves a larger share of an existing market, the result of that investment is simply going to be instability and insecurity of employment.
In my opinion the real solution to this problem, as has been suggested by some of the other hon. members who have spoken,

Proposed Committee on Unemployment
lies in the adoption of investment, trade and industrial management policies which this government have indicated they are not prepared to adopt. Of course the fact that these people are sitting in the seats of government is, as far as I am concerned, an indication that the majority of the Canadian people have not as yet seen the necessity for adopting those policies either. But there is one policy and one principle which I submit this government has accepted as being valid and proper. I refer to the insurance principle.
We have a national unemployment insurance plan. I would say there is no question that the majority of the members of this house have accepted that plan as basically a good idea, and also that the majority of the Canadian people have accepted it as a good idea. The only criticism that arises in respect of it is as to its inadequacies, as many people see them.
What does this plan of unemployment insurance that we have today do? I think that subject was fairly well outlined by the Minister of Labour when he suggested that it provided some protection against what he called frictional unemployment, and against seasonal unemployment. That is perfectly true. While many of us might point out that the amounts payable are in many respects inadequate, we would not deny that it does offer at least some measure of protection to those who become unemployed and who have been contributors to the fund. But I do not think anyone in the house would argue that it is not correct to say there are wide gaps in the coverage provided by the present plan.
There is the question of having to have the required number of contribution days. In the case of the lay-off that took place last summer, to which I referred a few minutes ago, I know that a large percentage of the people caught in that lay-off were recent immigrants to this country who did not have the required number of contribution days under the plan in order to qualify for unemployment insurance. Consequently people whom we had welcomed to this country, people to whom we had opened our doors, in many cases found themselves suffering severe hardship, with no prospect of gainful employment throughout the winter and no prospect of being able to draw unemployment insurance benefits.
I remember quite well an incident that occurred on an airplane trip I made last summer, and I think this is a rather good illustration of what happens to some people who follow the advice given by the Acting Prime Minister and go other places to look for jobs. I was travelling on the plane
over a rather rugged section of the west coast of Vancouver island. My seatmate turned to me and said, "See those poor chaps sitting over there on the other side of the plane." I said, "Yes". To me they were obviously people who had come from one of the eastern sections of Canada. He said, "Those four men are going to land in Vancouver within the next half hour, and they are going to land there broke."
These young chaps had followed the dictum of the Acting Prime Minister, and in line with his and another such dictum has gone west, as far west in this country as they could go. They had landed in a logging camp, and had been given jobs. About a week later they were laid off because of the fire season. They had paid their fare there and their fare out. They had paid for their logging boots and other necessary heavy clothing. But they were going to land in Vancouver broke through no fault of their own but rather as the result of their initiative in going to that rather remote part of our country. I doubt very much if those men would receive any help under our present unemployment insurance plan.
If the insurance principle is valid, and if the government is prepared to admit that it is, then I suggest that the time has come to bring the unemployment insurance plan in line with what is the generally accepted concept of insurance coverage. If I take out a life insurance policy this evening and through some misfortune I am not living tomorrow morning, I expect that my wife will be covered by the benefits provided by that plan. I suggest to the Minister of Labour and the government that the time has come when there should be no question in the house and in the minds of the people of Canada about the acceptance of the principle that unemployment insurance should provide such coverage that if a man goes to work and makes only one contribution, he will have become insured and will be able to enjoy the protection of the plan if through no fault of his own he no longer has a job. That is the kind of change in our present unemployment insurance scheme which, while not offering a solution to the unemployment problem, undoubtedly would alleviate much of the distress existing in the country today concerning which the amendment proposed by this group suggests that there should be some action.
I respect the concern of the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for the administration of the unemployment insurance fund, that the fund should be maintained in a sound position. I think there can be no
2386	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment quarrel with that, but I suggest that the amount of between $900 million and $1 billion now in the fund represents a sufficient cushion to enable the government to make the necessary adjustments and establish a basis which will give greater coverage under an actuarially sound plan. If the predictions of the Acting Prime Minister prove to be correct and the various things he has outlined do produce relatively full employment during the coming year, I suggest that is all the more reason why such a change should be made in the unemployment insurance plan at the present time. If his predictions do not prove to be correct, then I would suggest that again is all the more reason the government should make haste to make adjustments which will provide the proper kind of protection for all people who become unemployed. People who are not covered and people whose benefits are running out need, more than any others, to be brought under the umbrella of a comprehensive insurance plan.
However, even if that kind of change is made in our unemployment insurance scheme it still will not cover much of the unemployment existing in the country today. The plan will still leave protection against unemployment and the problems arising therefrom unprovided in many respects. It will cover seasonal unemployment, frictional unemployment, any unemployment of a relatively temporary nature, but will still leave uncovered all those who become unemployed on a more permanent basis through changes in market demands.
According to statements made from the government benches, the textile and farm implement industries are good examples of industries faced with such a situation. As the Acting Prime Minister said, he sees no prospect of all the people who were employed in the farm implement industry being reemployed. The plan will still leave uncovered people who become unemployed through various technological advances. In this respect I suggest that the situation of the coal miners of the country is a good illustration of what is happening. It still leaves uncovered those who become unemployed through depletion of our natural resources, such as our mines and forests.
I remember a number of years ago a friend telling me that he had walked out of a certain community in British Columbia leaving twelve houses and a steam laundry. He was at that time a man in his middle years, and had to walk away and leave what represented half a lifetime of industry and thrift on his part. Following that, in his middle years he was engaged as a labourer, with no possibility of


ever again accumulating the sort of protection for his old age which he had thought he was building up. And if he had been living today-he is not-I am quite sure he would be having to subsist on $40 or $50 a month from an old age pension.
All-wise captains of private industry move in and establish industries. People come flocking to them in good faith, expecting to be able to fill jobs. They build homes and establish communities. In their financial calculations these industries make provision for the depreciation of plant and the depletion of resources, all of which are deductible for income tax purposes. In many cases these plants during a period of adverse market conditions can be placed on a caretaker basis for an indefinite period of time, or can be operated on a restricted scale.
I know that in the section of the country in which I live, for the last number of years industrial plants have been operating to capacity on a two or three shift basis. Overnight that picture could change to a point where half that community would be cut off, simply by a decision that it was necessary to reduce the operation to a single shift basis.
In all of this no provision is made for the protection of the workingman's only capital asset, which is his labour. I would suggest that that is a capital asset which cannot be put in mothballs, like a navy waiting for another war. When a man's labour ceases to bring in returns, everything depending upon it must go by the board. People have simply to walk away from a lifetime of work, leaving everything to rot or in the hands of financial wolves who are only too ready to move in when circumstances of that kind develop.
I suggest it is time to do something more than review our unemployment insurance plan. It is time for the government, in line with its acceptance of the validity of the insurance principle, to launch a new insurance plan, one which I would call re-establishment insurance. This plan would cover those people the Acting Prime Minister has advised to go elsewhere to seek work. It would insure them against the loss of their homes, and against having to walk away and simply leave behind everything they have accumulated over a period of years. It would be a plan which would cover retraining these people in another industry, so they might continue to enjoy a level of income comparable with that which they had in the industry from which they had been squeezed out. It would also cover those workers who have reached advanced years. While they might not yet have reached the point where they were eligible for old

age pensions or benefits of that kind, it would cover their enforced retirement so they could continue living on a decent scale.
A short time ago the government had no hesitation in introducing a provision in a bill to insure mortgages. I suggest there are circumstances in which things more important than mortgages should be insured. To my mind it would be more important to provide insurance which would act as a guarantee of stability for the individual worker, so that he would not have to sacrifice all that he had spent years working for.
If the government agrees with the insurance principle, then I say here is a field into which it could enter at the present time. There is very little quarrel in Canada over the fact that plans which in effect were a form of insurance were made for the re-establishment of veterans returning from the last war. Generally speaking that procedure was acceptable to the people of Canada. It was considered sound and valid, and all across the country we have seen beneficial results flowing from it.
I see no reason why some expert study should not make it possible to work out a plan on an actuarially sound basis which would provide a similar kind of insurance for people who have been displaced in industry because of technological change, changes in trade policies of the government, activities of competitive industries in other countries, or any of those other things which are certainly far beyond the control of the individual working man. Without trying to go into detail as to how it could be worked out actuarially, I suggest such a plan could be financed at least in part by a depletion allowance taken from industries when they are created, such sums to be paid into a public reserve fund instead of a private fund, in the manner in which funds for the depreciation of plant and the depletion of natural resources are allocated.
What I have been saying is in line with the one point upon which I was pleased to note the hon. member for Cape Breton South, the Acting Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance seemed to be in complete agreement, and that was that unemployment was important even to one unemployed person, in so far as that individual himself was concerned. In the light of statements made by various ministers in which they have set forth in general terms the manner in which they are willing to act, I suggest the matters I have brought to the attention of the house are such as to merit serious consideration by the government at this time.
If nothing else is accomplished in this debate, I would hope that it would result in
Proposed Committee on Unemployment the government bringing forward some con-	
Crete proposals which	at least would insure
the people against	unemployment, even
though it would appear that the government is not prepared to do anything to prevent this situation developing.	
The house divided	on the amendment to
the amendment (Mr. Gillis) which was negatived on the following division:	
YEAS	
Messrs:	
Adamson	Jones
Aitken, Miss	Knight
Argue	Knowles
Balcer	Leboe
Barnett	Lennard
Bell	Macdonnell
Blackmore	Maclnnis
Blair	MacLean
Brooks	McCullough (Moose
Bryson	Mountain)
Cameron (Nanaimo)	McGregor
Campbell	McLeod
Cardiff	Michener
Castleden	Murphy (Lambton West)
Charlton	Nesbitt
Churchill	Nicholson
Dinsdale	Nowlan
Drew	Pearkes
Fair	Perron
Fairclough, Mrs.	Poulin
Ferguson	Quelch
Fraser (Peterborough)	Regier
Gagnon	Robinson (Bruce)
Gillis	Rowe
Girard	Shaw
Hahn	Small
Hamilton Hansell Harkness Hees Hodgson Holowach Howe (Wellington-Huron)	Stewart (Winnipeg North) Trainor Tustin White (Hastings-Frontenac) White (Middlesex East) Winch
Johnson (Kindersley)	Yuill
Johnston (Bow River)	Zaplitny-68.
NAYS	
Messrs:	
Anderson	Caron
Applewhaite	Carter
Arsenault	Cauchon
Ashbourne	Cavers
Balcom	Chevrier
Batten	Cloutier
Benidickson	Conacher
Boisvert	Cote
Boivin	Croll
Bonnier	Dechene
Boucher (Chateauguay-	Denis
Huntingdon-Laprairie)	Deschatelets
Bourget	Deslieres
Bourque	Dickey
Breton	Dumas
Brisson	Dupuis
Brown (Brantford)
Brown (Essex West)
Bruneau
Buchanan
Byrne
Cameron (High Park)
Campney
Cannon
Enfield
Eyre
Fairey
Follwell
Fontaine
Forgie
Fraser (St. John's East) Garson

Proposed Committee on Unemployment
Gauthier (Lake St. John)
Gauthier (Nickel Belt) Gauthier (Portneui) Gingras Gour (Russell)
Gourd (Chapleau)
Gregg
Habel
Hanna
Hardie
Harris
Harrison
Healy
Henderson
Henry
Hollingworth
Houck
Howe (Port Arthur)
Huffman
Hunter
James
Jutras
Kickham
Kirk (Antigonish-Guyshorough)
Kirk (Shelbume-Yarmouth-Clare) Laiontaine Langlois (Gaspe) Leduc Lefrangois
Legare
Lesage
Lusby
MacDougall
MacEachen
MacKenzie
MacNaught
McCann
McCubbin
McCulloch (Pictou)
McDonald
Mcllraith
Mclvor
McMillan
Mang
Martin
Meunier
Mitchell (Sudbury)
Monette
Nixon
Philpott
Pickersgill
Pinard
Pommer
Pouliot
Power (Quebec South)
Power (St. John's West)
Proudfoot
Purdy
Ratelle
Reinke
Richard (Ottawa East)
Richard (St. Maurice-Lafleche)
Robichaud
Robinson (Simcoe East)
Ross
Rouleau
Schneider
Shipley, Mrs.
Simmons
Smith
Stick
Stuart (Charlotte)
Thibault
Tucker
Valois
Viau
Villeneuve
Weir
Weselak
White (Waterloo South)
Winters
Wood-129.


Mr. Wylie:: I was paired with the hon. member for Burnaby-Riehmond (Mr. Goode). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment to the amendment.
On motion of Mr. Macdonnell the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall take the second reading of the amendment to the Export Credits Insurance Act and then the Criminal Code.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 24, 1954