1954-02-17

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 263, for the relief of Henriette Duffy Cote.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 264, for the relief of Jaroslav Jandera.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 265, for the relief of Robert Alfred Denman Stencel.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 266, for the relief of Madeleine Forcier Midock.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 267, for the relief of Annie Bray Hodgson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 268, for the relief of Joseph Kovec-ses.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 269, for the relief of Winifred Margery Taken Dillen.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 270, for the relief of Hilda Foster Mills Henderson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 271, for the relief of Evelyn Beatrice Diggon Ferguson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 272, for the relief of Hellon May Dreany English.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 273, for the relief of lone Larson Morris.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 274, for the relief of Marie Laurette Carmen Gamache Desmarais.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 275, for the relief of Dorothy Agnes Louise Grant Walker.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 276, for the relief of Evelyn Maud Nash Wyse.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 277, for the relief of Anita Felton Corbeil.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 278, for the relief of Sonia Lippman Cohen.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 279, for the relief of Margaret Stuart Peniston Rex.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 280, for the relief of Phyllis Adair Barker Smith.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 281, for the relief of Elizabeth Louise Emmett Lightbody.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 282, for the relief of Madeleine Victoria Coussement Rolland.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 283, for the relief of Julia Frances Finn Radcliffe.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 284, for the relief of Eileen Theresa Burgess Cowan.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 285, for the relief of Christina Emmanuel Papadakis Banks.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 286, for the relief of Grace Connolly Houde.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 287, for the relief of Marion Elizabeth Davis Esson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 288, for the relief of Morris Goldsmith.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 289, for the relief of Edith Marie Treleaven Younkie.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 290, for the relief of Irene Dorothy Haselden Munn.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 291, for the relief of Margaret Hosie Black Kirk.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 292, for the relief of Irene Bertha Kirkpatrick Faubert dit Masson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 293, for the relief of Marie Charlotte Yvonne Gisele Giguere Larocque.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 294, for the relief of Albert Pigeon. -Mr. Hunter.


Mr. Yuill:: 1.	What steps are being taken to proceed with the construction of the public building at Edson, Alberta, for which an appropriation of $150,000 was voted in the 1953 session?
2.	Have tenders been called for this work?
3.	If so, has a contract been let?
4.	If not, how soon is it anticipated that a contract will be let?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1 to 4. It is anticipated that tenders will be called and a contract awarded for the construction of the public building at Edson, Alberta, early in the next fiscal year.


GRAIN ELEVATORS, ALBERTA
Mr. Hansell:: 1.	How many grain elevators are in each of the following Alberta towns: Vulcan, Champion, Milo, Three Hills, Innisfail?
2.	What is the total elevator space in each town?
3.	How many box cars were delivered to each of these towns in August, September and October, 1953, inclusive?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Numbers of grain elevators in each of the Alberta towns shown below are as follows: Vulcan, eleven (ten of which are
216S

Questions
licensed and one is not operating); Champion, six; Milo, six; Three Hills, eight; Innisfail, eight.
2.	Storage capacity in bushels is as follows: Vulcan, 1,518,000 (47,000 bushels of which is in building which is not operating); Champion, 903,500; Milo, 440,000; Three Hills, 836,000; Innisfail, 741,500.
3.
Vulcan
August	 102
September	 39
October	 37
Champion
August	   88
September	 21
October	 21
Milo
August	 36
September	 19
October	 9
Three Hills
August	 32
September	 31
October	 92
Innisfail
August	 46
September	 43
October	 50


NO. 1 NORTHERN WHEAT PRICES
Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	According to the government's information, at which price was No. 1 northern wheat sold on the Liverpool grain exchange last February 1?
2.	On the same date, what price was the Canadian wheat board offering to sell No. 1 northern wheat f.o.b. Fort William.
3.	What is the total per bushel cost of shipping wheat from Fort William to Liverpool?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	According to the best information of the Canadian wheat board, no No. 1 Manitoba northern wheat was traded on the Liverpool futures market on February 1, 1954.

2.	On February 1,	1954, the Canadian
wheat board was offering No. 1 Manitoba northern wheat at $1.88 per bushel basis in store Fort William/Port Arthur.
3.	The cost of shipping wheat to Liverpool from in store Fort William/Port Arthur via lake and rail through eastern Canadian seaboard ports (basis currently quoted ocean freight rates) exclusive of exporter's margin, insurance costs and financing charges, is 41-547 cents per bushel.


WHEAT DRIED, 1952-53
Mr. Argue:: 1.	How many bushels of wheat in each grade from No. 1 northern to feed, both tough and damp, were artificially dried in the crop year 1952-53?
2.	What was the total gross weight of the above grain before drying?
3.	What were the total net bushels as shown by adjusted warehouse receipts after drying?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	The following number of bushels of wheat grading from tough No. 1 Manitoba northern to feed, and from damp No. 1 Manitoba northern to feed, were dried artificially during
1952-53 crop year:
Grade	Bushels
Tf.	No.	1	Nor	
nilTf.	No.	2	Nor	
nilTf.	No.	3	Nor	
1,415,643Tf.	No.	4	Nor	
647,457Tf. No. 5	
274,442Tf. No. 6	
nilTf. Feed	
nilTf. No. 3 Nor. heating	
34,990Tf. No. 4 Nor. heating	
2,614Tf. No. 5 heating	
4,202Tf. No. 6 heating	
2,387Damp No. 1 Nor	
nilDamp No. 2 Nor	
7,345Damp No. 3 Nor	
14,993Damp No. 4 Nor	
32,243Damp No. 5	
57,117Damp No. 6	
30,375Damp Feed	
8,687Damp No. 3 Nor. heating	1,4742.	152,038,140 pounds.3.	2,478,909 bushels.



NOVA SCOTIA COAL


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	For the year ending March 31, 1953, at which ports on the St. Lawrence river was Nova Scotia coal landed, on which subvention assistance was paid?
2.	What tonnage was landed at each port and how much subvention assistance was paid in each case?
3.	How much Nova Scotia coal was moved by rail to the provinces of Quebec and Ontario under subvention assistance and how much was paid on rail-borne coal?

4.	Was further subvention assistance paid on water-borne 'coal for transshipment to other points? If so, what were the total payments in respect of this assistance?


Mr. Prudham:: 1.	Montreal, Quebec, Three Rivers, Port Alfred, Chicoutimi, Chandler.
2.	Subvention
Tons	paid
Montreal	
735,201	$1,859,001Quebec )	___ 367,406	887,972
Three Rivers f Port Alfred]
Chicoutimi J-	 255,228	637,658
Chandler j
Questions
IMPORTS OF TOMATO PRODUCTS Mr. Lennard:
1.	How many pounds of tomato products were imported into Canada during the year 1953 from (a) the United States of America; (b) Italy?
2.	What was the value of such imports from each of the countries mentioned?


Mr. Dickey:: 1 and 2. There is no breakdown of tomato products in external trade statistics. The Canadian imports by countries of canned tomatoes during the period January 1 to November 30, 1953, were as follows;
Country	Lbs.	ValueItaly	
3,842,840	$ 538,537United States ..	3,735,525	462,4461,357,835	$3,384,631	Totals7,578,365	$1,000,983
Note; Due to delay in receiving monthly accounts, the subvention assistance paid does not quite relate to the tonnage landed at each port.
3.	Subvention
Tons	paid
Quebec	
281,352	$601,412Ontario	
2,128	4,915283,480	$606,3274.	Yes, and total subvention payments on the transshipped water-borne coal amounted to $361,124.


Mr. Robertson:: 
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has consideration been given, at any time since June 18, 1952, to the placing of all government printing in shops entitled to the use of the union label?
2.	If so, what is the result of such consideration?
3.	Has consideration been given, at any time since June 18, 1952, to the use of the union label on government printing when such printing is done in union shops?
4.	If so, what is the result of such consideration?
1.	Yes.
2.	It is the view that no properly equipped printing shop having the demonstrated skill required for the work in hand should be excluded from tendering on government work.
3 and 4. Yes. As indicated in answer given in the House of Commons on June 18, 1952.

Questions



WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES

Mr. Cavers:: 1.	What is the amount of war savings certificates which remains unclaimed at the present time?
2.	Has the office of the inspector of war savings certificates a list of the holders thereof?
3.	What attempts are being made to call in the certificates which are passed due and have not been cashed?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	The amount of unpaid matured war savings certificates outstanding on February 14, 1954, was $16,360,080.
2.	The registrar of war savings certificates has a record of the registered owners of all war savings certificates.
3.	As the last maturity date of war savings certificates is April 15, 1954, no action has been taken as yet to advise the holders of unredeemed certificates that they should present their certificates for redemption. As a large proportion of the certificates was sold on the payroll deduction plan the registrar has no record of the addresses of the registered
holders of certificates purchased in this manner. Consideration will be given shortly after April 15, 1954, to some method of informing holders that all certificates have matured and should be presented for redemption.



WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE

Mr. Balcom:: 1.	What is the number of veterans in each province who are in receipt of war veterans allowance?
2.	What is the number of widows in each province who are in receipt of war veterans allowance?
3.	What is the annual liability of veterans allowance, by provinces?
4.	What is the annual liability of widows' allowance, by provinces?


Mr. Bennett:: Return at December 31, 1953:
Statistics are maintained by districts of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The following table shows the location of the 18 district offices in Canada.
1, 2, 3 and 4.
	Veterans		Widows	
Number	Annual Liability	Number	Annual LiabilitySt. John's, Newfoundland	618	$ 541,322	125	$ 86,468Charlottetown,, Prince Edward Island	431	318,940	72	49,742Halifax, Nova Scotia	2,041	1,513,521	565	347,445Saint John, New Brunswick	1,459	1,129,648	359	209,453Quebec, Quebec	445	333.091	142	94,119Montreal, Quebec	
Ottawa, Ontario	2,465	1,652,512	1,191	657,768896	587,451	360	198,205Kingston, Ontario	798	569,283	287	149,586Toronto, Ontario	4,297	2,638,756	2,212	1,101,457Hamilton, Ontario	1,247	805,773	667	325,394London, Ontario	1,518	981,634	709	380,954North Bay, Ontario	833	542,718	204	121,729Winnipeg, Manitoba	2,468	1,537,423	841	439,574Regina, Saskatchewan	722	469,398	162	88,057Saskatoon, Saskatchewan	794	525,499	168	88,929Calgary, Alberta	947	586,145	303	152,172Edmonton, Alberta	1,054	672,840	262	146,681Vancouver, British Columbia	7,408	4,756,679	1,808	949,465Total	30,439	20,162,633	10,438	5,587,198
FARM LOANS-MARKET GARDENERS Mr. Knowles:
1.	Are market gardeners eligible to obtain loans from the Canadian farm loan board?
2.	If so, under what conditions, and to what extent?
3.	If not, for what reason?

4.	Has consideration been given to amending the legislation to make such loans possible?
5.	If so, what is the result of such consideration? Mr. Benidickson:
1.	Yes.
2.	Under the conditions and to the extent set out in the Canadian Farm Loan Act.
3.	4 and 5, Answered by No. 1.



BUTTER HELD BY GOVERNMENT

Mr. Fraser (Pelerborough):: What was the total poundage of 1952 butter held by the government on January 30, 1954?


Mr. McCubbin:: 9,140,792 pounds.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD VACANCY

Mr. Argue:: 1.	Have any farm organizations or officials been asked to recommend a person or persons to fill the vacancy existing on the Canadian wheat board?
2.	If so, what was the nature of such recommendations?
3.	When will the vacancy be filled?
Motions for Papers Mr. Dickey:
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Government policy will be announced at an appropriate time.



TAX RENTAL AGREEMENT, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

Mr. Kickham:: How much money was paid by the federal government to the province of Prince Edward Island in connection with the federal provincial tax rental agreement, each year since the coming into force of the agreement?


Mr. Benidickson:: Payments to Prince Edward Island under-
Tax Rental Agreements Tax Rental
Act [DOT]
Fiscal year
1946-	47 (Jan. 1	

Mar. 31, 1947)	 350,767.00
1947-	48	
1,226,392.081948-	49	
1,769,705.511949-	50	
1,746,287.651950-	51	
2,076,004.121951-	52	
2,156,095.491952-	53	
688,759.881953-54 (To Dec. 31, 1953)

1947	Agreements
Section 7	Act - 1952	Total
	   350,767.00
	   1,226,392.08
	   1,769,705.51
400.00	  1,746,687.65
13,331.07	  2,089,335.19
19.109.00	  2,175,204.49
22.738.00	3,262,630.92	3,974,128.80
	 2,749,692.73	2,749,692.73
$55,578.07	$6,012,323.65	$16,081,913.45



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Murphy (Lambion West):: 1.	What amount of money, if any, was paid for advertising by (a) the Bank of Canada; (b) Trans-Canada Air Lines; (e) the Canadian National Railways, during each of the years 1950, 1951, 1952 and 1953?
2.	What advertising firms handled same?
3.	What amount was paid to each firm for each of the above-mentioned years?


Mr. Pickersgill:: Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a copy of all letters and telegrams which have passed between the provincial governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan and the dominion government, since the 1st day of January, 1954, regarding federal contribution or assistance in the building and completion of the highway between Flin Flon, Manitoba and Nipawin, Saskatchewan.


Mr. Lesage:: Mr. Speaker, there has been
no correspondence nor have there been any telegrams since that date.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion be dropped?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS, MANITOBA Mr. Zaplitny:
For a copy of all letters, memoranda, telegrams and other communications exchanged between the government of Manitoba and the government of Canada, concerning: (a) the Prairie Farm Assistance Act; (b) emergency assistance to farmers who suffered flood losses, from June 1, 1953 to date.


Mr. Gardiner:: Subject to our receiving the consent of the government of Manitoba, the motion is agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed to, subject to the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture.



REFERENCE TO NEGOTIATIONS SUGGESTED BY RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Egiinion):: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the statement made in this city yesterday by the Russian ambassador, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) what comment the government is prepared to make as to its

Inquiries of the Ministry own position in relation to his suggestion that negotiations take place between Canada and Russia for closer trade relations?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Trade between Canada and any country behind the iron curtain is carried on subject to permit. In other words, a permit must be issued by my department for any transaction concerning exports to those countries. There has never been any prohibition against trade in certain commodities, while there is a definite prohibition against trade in commodities that are on the restricted list. I refer to strategic materials. Subject to that reservation, if any Canadian merchant can arrange trade with Soviet Russia, his application will be considered by the department.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then from what the minister has said am I to take it that the government as such has no particular interest in the suggestion made by the Russian ambassador but will leave the matter to Canadian merchants?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Fulton:: May I ask the minister a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member for Eglinton wish to ask a supplementary question?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Speaker; because my question was not answered.


An hon. Member:: There was no question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I was asking the minister as to the government's position in this matter in relation to the Russian ambassador's suggestion of expanding trade between the two countries. Is it the decision of the government, in the light of what the minister said, to leave this matter to the merchants?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister wishes to answer, all right.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government is interested in the expansion of any trade provided it does not conflict with government policy, but the government does not enter into trade directly. As I say, if there are facilities for carrying on the trade and if private Canadians wish to develop trade with Russia, the government will be glad to consider the nature of the transaction and either to issue a permit or not do so, as the circumstances warrant.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask, as a supplementary question, whether the facilities of the export

credits insurance corporation will be made available for the purpose of expanding trade with Russia?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That depends on the view of the insurance company in the particular transaction. It usually requires security from the government of the country receiving the goods. Whether it would approve a request for insurance is a matter for decision based on a particular application.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The government would not issue any over-all directive to them in that connection?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the government does not tell the insurance company what to do. The insurance company has its own board of directors. It is supposed to operate as a self-contained unit. While the insurance company tells the government what it will or will not do, the government does not attempt to tell the insurance company what it should do.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean-Francois Poulioi (Temiscouaia):: Mr. Speaker, I have to rise on a double question of privilege, and I will do so in the mildest possible manner. In the first place, the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher), at the opening of his remarks yesterday said this, as reported at page 2135 of Hansard:
First I must comment on the speech which we recently heard from the member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). I am sure that the house was surprised, and certainly we in this group were shocked to hear the anti-labour tinge of his remarks.
Et cetera. I will tell my honourable and capitalist friend that there was no anti-labour tinge in my remarks because I have been pro-labour.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is most unfair to make an insinuation of that kind just as it is unfair to growl when I protest against it. In the second place, what I am extremely sorry for is that the words of the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre were taken seriously by another gentleman who in his remarks, as reported at page 2156 of Hansard, said this:
It is no good damning the trade unions offhand in a press report if they have a delegation down here. The government has a responsibility.
This so far did not apply to the member for Temiscouata; and after the legitimate

protest of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) in his behalf, as well as in behalf of the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe), the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) spoke as follows:
I did not mention the Acting Prime Minister. I referred to the statement made by the hon. member for Temiscouata.
There is no correlation between the first sentence and the second. On the other hand I will tell the hon. member that I have never been damning the trade unions, and when I have a legitimate ground for complaint against the union leaders, I take the opportunity to make it. The hon. member, who is just as brilliant as a meteor, should realize that it is very dangerous sometimes because one may vanish like a flying saucer.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Winch:: The hon. member ought to read his whole speech in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members sometimes rise on questions of privilege which in Beauchesne's third edition are termed "so-called questions of privilege". I do not want to address my remarks to the hon. member for Temiscouata particularly because I think that the rule in this respect is violated by members on both sides of the house.
Whenever a member feels that his remarks have been misinterpreted to the extent that it is necessary to give long explanations in order to re-establish the facts, and particularly when the debate that is going on is to be on the same subject as that on which he has already spoken and when there are amendments moved to the main motion and he may therefore find perhaps another opportunity of making another speech, I would suggest that he might perhaps wait for that opportunity and speak at length on the matter. When an hon. member is explaining a point which has been misinterpreted in one speech, it is always difficult for the Speaker to assess where the question of privilege starts and where it ends. Especially if it is a so-called question of privilege, an hon. member is not supposed to add anything to what he considers to be necessary to make his correction.
I would therefore ask hon. members not to abuse the rules by rising on what I consider to be so-called questions of privilege.


Jean-François Pouliot: If you will permit me to say so, Mr. Speaker, it was not my fault if the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver East was winding and tortuous.
Inquiries of the Ministry DRUGS



VITAMIN PREPARATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. What assurance is there that vitamin preparations on the market are up to labelled strength?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The hon. gentleman was kind enough to give me notice of this question. I am not now in a position to give a reply. I wonder if I might give one tomorrow.



SUGGESTED CONSTRUCTION OF DAMS ON THAMES RIVER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, or in his absence to his parliamentary assistant. I regret that I was not able to give the minister notice of this question as I received the information just before coming into the house. The question is as follows. In view of the severe flooding conditions in the city of Woodstock on the Thames river, has the Minister of Public Works taken into consideration the question of whether or not the building of projected dams on the upper Thames river and Cedar creek should be proceeded with as soon as possible?


Maurice Bourget: I am
not aware of the situation. I am taking notice of my hon. friend's question.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister received the annual report of the board of grain commissioners, and when will it be tabled in the house?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The answer to the first part of the question is yes. The answer to the second part is when it is printed.


Hazen Robert Argue: When will that be?


Mr. Abbott:: Ask the queen's printer.

Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC SERVICE



FORT WILLIAM AND PORT ARTHUR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: On a
question of real privilege, I wish to thank the Minister of Finance for including Fort William and Port Arthur in the preferred list of places where the 40-hour week will be in operation. I should like to ask the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member now asking a question?


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: 
Mr. Rowe:: What privilege is that of yours?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I noticed that, Mr. Speaker.



CUSTOMS TARIFF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance? Perhaps it should be addressed to the Minister of National Revenue, but in his absence I shall put it to the Minister of Finance. It is based on a press report by Victor Mackie in the Winnipeg Free Press.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have departmental officials decided that mixed fruit is peaches for purposes of the customs tariff and thereby raised the tariff on the importation of tins of mixed fruit? If so, by what authority was this done?


Douglas Charles Abbott: If I may say so, I think this is a question which most certainly should be put on the order paper. It requires examining the tariff schedule, it is not urgent, and I suggest that it be put on the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest that when it is brought to the attention of members that the Department of National Revenue has altered the effect of the tariff schedule by a departmental ruling, we have a right to get an explanation.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: He is making a speech.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have the right to get an explanation of that on the floor of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not hear the hon. member's remarks. How can I decide if I cannot hear what is said?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The point I was trying to make was-


Mr. Speaker:: I heard the first part.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -that when changes are made by departmental rulings affecting decisions that have been made by parliament we have a right to have an explanation from the responsible minister on the floor of the house.


Mr. Chevrier:: You should not abuse the privileges of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may ask a question, but if it is of such a technical character or involves such a lengthy reply that the minister cannot give an answer on the spur of the moment, the minister has the right not to give an answer immediately. Who is to decide? The hon. member says that it is an urgent question and should be answered immediately because a department has issued directives, but I do not think that should be taken as a barometer for deciding as to urgency. Urgency may exist in the mind of the hon. member but may not exist in the mind of the minister who has to answer the question.


Lionel Chevrier: All his questions are urgent.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has advanced various reasons on the point of urgency, but I do not think the public interest will suffer if the hon. member puts his question on the order paper.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall do that, Mr. Speaker, but I shall put an asterisk beside the question.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 16, 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.
John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, when this debate was interrupted

last evening I had been trying to show the dangers of underestimating or minimizing the extent of unemployment which is facing this country at the present time. I said that even though it appeared on the figures prepared by the departments concerned that the extent of unemployment was very close to the proportion of the working force that has been put forward in the submission of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and the Canadian Congress of Labour as a percentage which might be regarded as normal frictional unemployment.
In pointing out the danger of minimizing this problem, I think it is also fair to point out the equal danger of exaggerating the extent of the problem. Exaggeration of this situation can, I believe, contribute materially to a worsening of it. The question of confidence in the state of our economy is one which not only affects business but affects consumers and many other aspects of our economic life. Not only are investors cautious in making their decisions about investment in the future of this country, as was pointed out by several speakers in the debate last evening, but also the working people, the consumers of the country, are inclined to look to the future in making their plans about purchasing the things that they may need.
If the people of Canada have confidence in the future of the economy, if they believe that they have a reasonable chance of continuing to earn decent wages and continuing to have money to pay their bills, they are going to plan to buy the things that they need, the things that other people in this country are paid to produce. So talk of depression and economic difficulties which is not justified not only undermines business confidence but undermines the confidence of consumers and has a contracting effect upon the economy as a whole.
I believe that one of the great elements in the progress that Canada has made since the war has been the confidence that not only our own investors and investors outside of the country have had in our progress and our future but also the underlying confidence that ordinary Canadians have had in their ability within this economy to make a living and to better their lot. I think that anything that is said in the house that would undermine that confidence unnecessarily does a disservice to the advancement and progress of the nation.
This debate has arisen on an amendment to the motion to go into supply moved by the official opposition and amended by the C.C.F. group. By their amendment the official opposition call for examination of the 83276-138
Proposed Committee on Unemployment present situation by a parliamentary committee. This suggestion certainly has not been welcomed by their neighbours on their left, the C.C.F. group. While I would not agree with some of the statements that have been made by members of the C.C.F. group regarding the appropriateness of a parliamentary committee to deal with this sort of subject, I do think that in the present circumstances it is obviously not a practical or immediate solution to any problem that may exist. After all, Mr. Speaker, the job a parliamentary committee would do would be a fact-finding job. On the basis of the facts established, the committee would make certain recommendations.
If the unemployment situation which gives rise to this suggestion of study by a parliamentary committee is as serious as hon. members opposite have suggested, if there are 530,000 Canadians unemployed, ready for work and willing to work but unable to find work, then I think if they are satisfied those are the facts, we do not need a parliamentary committee but the situation calls for specific suggestions from them as to what the government should do immediately about it. If the facts are, as submitted from this side of the house, that the problem is one of 280,000 unemployed from our labour force, then I think all a committee would succeed in doing would be to prove the opposition was wrong. I do not think on those figures a parliamentary committee would be justified or would be likely to bring in a recommendation that the government should panic at this situation and introduce extreme measures to remedy the position. In other words, I submit that the suggestion that has been made by the official opposition is either too little or it is not needed at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Horace Dickey: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What harm could there be in having this problem studied by a committee of this house?


John Horace Dickey: That is exactly the point, no harm at all. I am submitting that the situation is either one which calls for particular action or it is one that does not require study by a parliamentary committee. These committees have other things to do which would be more valuable and would bring a better result.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If the hon. member will permit, what other things has this committee to do at present? It has never been called to meet at this session.

Proposed Committee on Unemployment


John Horace Dickey: It has not been called, I think, for the very reasons which I have been stating. I admit that the hon. member does not agree because he is one of those who are supporting the suggestion, and that is simply the disagreement between him and those who do not agree with him.	.
So far as finding the facts is concerned, Mr. Speaker, as I submitted last night, I believe that the facts put before the house by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) and by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) are very close to an accurate summary of the situation. In addition to that, I would be rather inclined to depend upon the members of this house, who after all represent constituencies right across this country, to give the facts during this debate as they have received them from their own constituencies. A number of members from various parts of the country have spoken, but with the exception of the members who, quite properly, have brought before the house the particular difficulties being faced now by two or three specific industries, I have yet to hear a member rise and say that in his own constituency there is a general, over-all situation of unemployment that is giving him special and particular concern.
I feel that if we were faced with a general problem of unemployment there would be at least some members who would have already risen in their places and stated that as a fact.


Mr. Murphy (Lambton West):: Where did the 500,000 come from?


John Horace Dickey: The fact is that the hon. members who are interrupting at the moment have had the opportunity of bringing this situation before the government. Those members who have spoken with respect to the farm implement industry, the textile industry and the coal mining industry have brought specific problems before the house. There has not yet been any suggestion that those specific problems are not receiving attention and consideration by parliament. So far as the textile industry is concerned, the first business to which this house addressed itself at the opening of this session was legislation which had been requested to meet that particular situation.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, there has been no substantiation from their own experience in their own constituencies by hon. members opposite of the kind of figures they have been putting forward. I believe that if these situations exist they would have been brought before the house. I would hope that no members are keeping information of this kind back in order to give it to a parliamentary committee.

The subamendment proposed by the C.C.F. group does take a more practical approach to the problem. It calls for action on the part of the government to meet this situation. The amendment and the speeches that have been made by members of that group are not very specific about the particular kinds of action they wish to have taken. I was particularly impressed with the speech of the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) yesterday afternoon. The hon. member opened his remarks by a reference to the speech that had been made by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), and that reference has been dealt with by the hon. member for Temiscouata earlier today. The hon. member asked the government whether or not the member for Temiscouata was expressing government policy in what he had said. Well, I should like to ask the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre if he was expressing the policy of the C.C.F. group in the remarks he made on this subamendment.
The hon. member started out by suggesting that there was a responsibility on the government to provide full employment. He put forward his own view as to how that should be done. I recall a speech made some years ago, as a matter of fact it was made at the university of Dalhousie in 1948 by the Right Hon. C. D. Howe, who was then minister of reconstruction and development. I believe in that speech he expressed, as succinctly and as completely as I have ever heard it expressed, the responsibility of government with respect to economic problems and the principles which have guided this government and the Liberal party in facing the economic problems of this country. I should like to put on the record what the minister said at that time. He said:
Canada is a free enterprise economy, and the initiative for industrial expansion rests with private individuals and firms. The government will endeavour, through its policies, to create a climate within which private initiative thrives and industrial expansion is encouraged. The government will take the initiative and do what it can to coordinate 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. If industrial expansion and economic development is hampered by the lack of initiative the government, where the national interest demands, will take appropriate action.
I submit that that is a statement of principle and policy that is very much more in keeping with the wishes of the majority of the people of this country than some of the things that were said in this debate by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre and other members of his group.

Proposed Committee on Unemployment
Then the hon. member left the question of full employment and turned his attention to a subject that we all realize is dear to his heart. That is the subject of high taxation. He made the point that high expenditures mean high taxation; and he made what I thought was a rather extraordinary statement, that all these taxes-I think he said it was 21 cents out of every dollar earned by Canadians-were being siphoned off, and left the impression that by some mysterious means those funds disappeared, and left the economy altogether. Because he said that all this money goes out of consumption, that it is taken out of the hands of the people who would use it; and he left the impression that this was a net loss to the economy.
Well, of course, the fact that a person who earns an income has to pay some to the government means that he does not himself spend that money on consumer goods, on investments or some other purpose he might have in mind. But the point the hon. member apparently wishes either to ignore or to forget is that the money that goes to any government-federal, provincial or municipal-in taxes, and which is withdrawn from the taxpayer for governmental purposes, does not disappear. It does not go out of the economy. It has got to be used by the government that gets the money to meet its expenditures. And those expenditures are the buying of supplies, the paying of wages, and the paying of the bills for all the things governments require. And certainly in the case of the federal government many hundreds of millions of dollars of that tax money go directly back to the consumers in the form of pensions, family allowances, unemployment insurance and all that sort of thing. It goes into the ordinary stream of the economy, just as if it had never left the hands of private individuals.
My point is simply this, that when the hon. member complains about high taxation, and the fact that people who have high incomes have to pay high taxes, he is offering a perfectly valid argument, because nobody would defend high taxes as such. Certainly the government and its supporters would be the last people to want to maintain high taxes or to maintain taxation at any level higher than required.


Donald Methuen Fleming: But that is what they have done.


John Horace Dickey: But to try to argue that the money collected in taxes somehow or another mysteriously disappears, and does not have the effect of continuing demand in the country, and that it is completely lost, is, I suggest, absolutely incorrect. It is not a
matter that has any relevancy in this debate or to the underlying causes of the unemployment situation with which we are faced.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he, in effect, advocating high taxes as a cure for unemployment?


John Horace Dickey: No; I was just coming to that. I was dealing with a particular argument, one which I presume the hon. member who has just asked the question heard, and with which he either agrees or disagrees. But the point the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre was trying to make was that high expenditures requiring high taxation were bad for us at this time, and that they were contributing to unemployment.
The question of high expenditures was dealt with by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) the other evening.


William Earl Rowe: Before the hon. member leaves that part of his speech would he permit me a question?


John Horace Dickey: Yes, certainly.


William Earl Rowe: Does the hon. member imply that the government can spend money they take from the people as efficiently as private individuals can spend it?


John Horace Dickey: Well, Mr. Speaker, it depends upon the individual.


William Earl Rowe: And it depends upon the government, too.


John Horace Dickey: And the government, yes. And I think the hon. member will admit that the government's record in expenditures has been-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Profligate.


John Horace Dickey: -exceptionally good. The hon. member does not support expenditures on family allowances for example, as we do; but we believe in them.
Then the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) asked me if I thought high taxation was the answer to unemployment. I certainly would not for one moment try to suggest that it is. But I do think that government expenditures are and can be a partial palliative to unemployment; and if the hon. member does not agree that government expenditures are useful in that regard, then I presume he would suggest that the way to meet unemployment would be to reduce government expenditures. Well, that of course was the solution that was tried early in the thirties by the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, and I think we all know the extraordinary success that it met with at that time!
2176	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: I don't interrupt very often.


John Horace Dickey: Is it a question?


William Earl Rowe: A question of privilege; and I do not interrupt very much. But when you do not answer my question I do not propose to let you put my question. I did not suggest that you cut down all these expenditures that you are talking about. I only asked if you thought the government could spend the money more efficiently than private individuals.


John Horace Dickey: And I answered it. I answered the hon. member's question. And then I turned to the question that had been asked by the hon. member for Greenwood-but apparently the hon. member for Dutferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) was not listening at that time.


William Earl Rowe: I was listening. I would not have missed much if I had not, though.


John Horace Dickey: The question is as to what action should and can be taken by a government to meet a situation of this kind. The action being taken by the government has been indicated clearly by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) and the Acting Prime Minister. They pointed out the steps under way. For example, in the recommendations made by the Trades and Labour Congress and the Canadian Congress of Labour they say that a greater encouragement to home building would provide a considerable number of new jobs. That is an excellent suggestion. The fact is, as hon. members know, that early in this session the government brought in legislation designed to encourage house building. We had a long debate in this house on it. We heard a great deal of criticism of it; but when it came to a vote very few hon. members did not support it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


John Horace Dickey: The two congresses of labour should be congratulated on the constructive suggestions that they made in their recommendations as to what should be done. They dealt first of all with the Unemployment Insurance Act. That was approved and extended in 1950 when we were faced with a situation similar to the one we are faced with now. Since that time it has been further extended. If the facts of the situation indicate to the government that further amendments are required, I am sure there will be no hesitation in taking such action.
Then they asked for a nation-wide program of public assistance. In his remarks in this


debate the other night the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) pointed out that in considering the estimates for this year the government thought that this was a time when a little more money should be spent on civilian projects, and the evidence of that is in the estimates which are before hon. members, and which they can read.
Then they asked that the public works program be speeded up, which is in the same field. They asked for an encouragement of house building. I have already indicated how that is being attended to.
Then they make a far-reaching and statesmanlike suggestion when they say that consideration should be given to increasing aid to underdeveloped countries. Some hon. members may not agree that that is a direct way in which to try to meet economic difficulties and solve any unemployment problems we may have in this country. But the fact is that that kind of assistance which creates better economic conditions in other parts of the world creates new consumers who will not only be purchasers of goods and farm products produced in Canada but who will also in return send to us the kind of things that they can best produce. These expenditures are definitely the kind of expanding expenditures that are being undertaken at this time and will bring about good results.
In accordance with the principles that this government has been following, the basic solution of this problem is the expansion of trade, both internal and external.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does the hon. member know of the cure for unemployment in depression times that was found and practised by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his own office when he told his own workers to come in although there was no work for them and none in sight. He told them that their salaries would be paid as usual. Does the hon. member not think that that is a good cure?


William Earl Rowe: It is a good question, anyway.


John Horace Dickey: I think it is an excellent cure. As I was saying, the fundamental cure for these problems is an expanding economy, bigger and better external trade, better internal trade and a high level of investment. The policies of this government have been designed to bring about all those three things. Perfect success cannot be expected, and nobody would consider it impossible for some reverses to be experienced; but that is the program and that is the way in which this government believes that these problems can and should be solved.

Proposed Committee on Unemployment
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should simply like to refer to the analogy that was employed last evening by the hon. member for Vancouver East when he referred to the manner in which the present Minister of Trade and Commerce had solved particular difficulties that had arisen at one time in construction work. He paid what I thought was a very fine tribute to the abilities and the skill of the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe), as an engineer, and then he said he hoped that the Acting Prime Minister would apply those lessons that he has learned to the solution of the problems that we have facing us today. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that it is my impression that few people have learned the lessons of their experience and know better how to apply them than the Acting Prime Minister in this house. I can assure the hon. member that it does not require his suggestion to have the Minister of Trade and Commerce and his colleagues apply to the solution of this problem and the other serious problems that from time to time face the people of Canada and the government of Canada the experiences and the knowledge and the abilities that they have found from their long and useful life in this country in many fields, and not the least their contribution to the public life of this country as members of the government.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped this afternoon when the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) rose that it was for the purpose of explaining that he had been gravely in the wrong yesterday and that he was asking to have expunged from the record the statement which should never have been made by any hon. member at any time in this house. The hon. member for Temiscouata rose on a question of privilege, and objected to a statement that had been made in this house which represented nothing more than a debatable point of view but left untouched and still on the record the most shameless, unjustified and improper statement that has been made in this house since confederation. Let me read what the hon. member said, as reported at page 2132 of Hansard:
I remember when Mr. Bennett was the leader of the government. Before he came to that position he himself created unemployment, and for a good reason. He and his chief organizer in 1929-the year that has been referred to by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker)-each subscribed $350,000 to the electoral funds and they invested that money in brokers' offices. The leader of the Conservative party-it was not progressive at that time-used to say: "Conditions are bad; we have unemployment, but I will cure that." Every time he spoke of unemployment and said that conditions were bad in this country, the stocks were
getting lower and lower and he was making more money because he was speculating on the fall in price. Finally, when he had realized an amount which was as much as his investment, he succeeded. He used that money to win the election.


William Earl Rowe: Shame!


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult
within moderate terms to refer to a statement of that kind reflecting on an earlier prime minister of Canada. That is a gross, untrue and malicious suggestion, without an atom of foundation, against a former prime minister and an associate of his who was a member of the other house of the Canadian parliament.
It is one of the great, cherished and priceless possessions of this democracy of ours that we can disagree in political affairs and yet respect the position of prime minister, which is the highest office in the gift of the people of Canada. If there was an inappropriate time for those malicious, unfounded and untrue remarks to be made, it was at a time when we have so recently been reminded of the extent to which the members of this house are prepared to go in wholehearted sincerity in paying their tribute, without any difference of party, to the office of prime minister, which is an office occupied by a man chosen by the people of Canada in a free vote.
Here in this very chamber, within recent days, we have seen an expression of that uniform respect for the high office of prime minister by which we not only indicated our respect for the institution, but also sought to extend to other countries a clearer understanding of our concept of a decent democracy.
Certainly there were disagreements with the views held by the prime minister of that time, as there are differences and very great differences of opinion as to the views held by the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). But, Mr. Speaker, it has been customary to have some regard to the fact that allegations that would not have been made while a person is alive will not be made when that person is no longer here to answer them and deal with them. If the hon. member had displayed the courtesy and the courage to make statements of that kind when these men were alive and to leave the implication which he left, then I am not in any doubt about the way in which that would have been dealt with if the man against whom these allegations were made had been here in this house to deal with them. Nor am I in any doubt about the way they would have been dealt with by the member of the other house of this parliament if those statements had been made outside, where they were not under the protection of this House of Commons.
2178	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment
The implication contained in these words is an implication that the prime minister of Canada and a close associate of his were deliberately affecting the Canadian stock market for the purpose of making money. There was the implication that he used his high office without reference to the agony which was being suffered by so many people in this country, and that he was making personal profits for his own advantage out of that agony and through the use of his high office in reference to it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I was not here, but a friend of mine told me the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) was making a great speech. I do not know to whom he is referring but he is looking at me with a great frown, and I wonder if he is addressing me through the Chair.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, I am sure, is well aware that I am referring to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), whose words I quoted a few moments ago.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, now, sir, I rise on a question of privilege. 1 have known Mr. Bennett much better than his successor has ever known him and-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on this occasion I must insist that the hon. member's remarks be directed to a question of privilege and not an interjection of something that is only interfering with what I am saying on this occasion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: I
have risen to hear a question of privilege. Will the hon. member please state his question of privilege as briefly as possible so it may be dealt with.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have two facts to put to you, sir. In the first place, when I said I had known Mr. Bennett better than the present leader of the Progressive Conservative party ever did-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker,-


Jean-François Pouliot: Just a minute. Please sit down.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on this occasion I must insist on the hon. member's remarks being-


Jean-François Pouliot: But Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: would like the house to assist the Chair in deciding whether a question of privilege has been raised. I have not yet been able to


hear the hon. member complete his first sentence. I shall do my best within my limited powers to hold him to his question of privilege, but I would like him to be given the opportunity to state it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you, sir. You are acting in accordance with the finest British traditions which you and I know, and which are ignored by some people of great importance. Now, Mr. Speaker, history is the science of the past and in order to refer to some historical facts, one must necessarily turn -back to the past.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Order. I am sorry, but I am not of the opinion that a review of historical facts, or even the accuracy of arguments which may be advanced from either side of this house, constitute a question of privilege and I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to continue his remarks.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, sir, excuse me. I rise on a question of privilege and I am explaining it to you. What I am referring to, sir,-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: have given the hon. member two opportunities to state his question of privilege.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have not had a chance to say anything, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: In my opinion the hon. member's remarks do not refer to a question of privilege and I am asking the Leader of the Opposition to continue his remarks.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, it is most unfair.


William Earl Rowe: So were you.


George Alexander Drew: I am unaware of any occasion when the hon. member for Temiscouata has made the allegations he made here yesterday while Mr. Bennett was in this house, and I am unable to find any occasion where he made the same allegations in regard to either of these two men whose names he mentioned in the speech from which I have quoted this afternoon.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have said it in his lifetime here in this house.


William Earl Rowe: No, you did not. I have been here during that time and you never said it in your life. You were afraid.


Jean-François Pouliot: You were never here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Order.


George Alexander Drew: I would point out that Lord Bennett had not only sat in this house as prime minister of Canada, but had held other positions, and continued to serve in many capacities until the time of his death in 1947.
Senator McRae was a member of the other house of parliament until 1946 when he also died. This is an extremely late occasion to be making allegations of this kind. There is, however, something more that should be remembered when allegations of this kind are made. Only within the past few days we were told how important it was in these difficult days, when our democratic system is under challenge, that respect for our institutions be preserved by everything we do. The present Prime Minister, who was here then, used that argument in dealing with certain matters then before the house. He pointed out how careful we should be to do nothing that would reflect upon the members of the house, the dignity of the institution of parliament or the manner in which the affairs of either house of parliament might be conducted.
This is a statement that two men, sitting as members of parliament, one in each house and both in this parliament at the time, played upon the public feelings, created fear by speaking of unemployment and, in doing so, affected the stock market for their own personal advantage. There was a place where statements of that kind were made in the lifetime of those two gentlemen who are no longer with us. They were made by the communists in 1930. The communists made those statements reflecting on the integrity of the man who was leader of the opposition and then prime minister of Canada. They made those statements about Senator McRae. They are not expected to have any regard for the truth. Above all, they were not sitting as members of this house, with some direct sense of responsibility for what takes place in this house.
I have already expressed my regret that when the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot)-with whom I have had such cordial relations and whose genial personality sometimes excuses his irrelevancies-rose on a question of privilege at the beginning of the sitting this afternoon, he did not ask to have these offensive remarks expunged from the record but instead of that, on a question of privilege, sought to justify these untrue and improper remarks.
This statement was made yesterday in the House of Commons with regard to a man who was a former prime minister of Canada. Here in this house we have recently been emphasizing our own respect for our traditions and for the office of prime minister.
Proposed, Committee on Unemployment I ask the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) here now to show some measure of consistency with regard to what was said so short a time ago and to dissociate himself and the government from these improper, offensive and disgraceful remarks that now stand on the record.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And they are untrue.


George Alexander Drew: They are untrue. They are an offence to parliament. They are an offence to the memory of two great men. Whatever difference of opinion there may be with regard to the political views of the man who was then prime minister of this country during extremely difficult years, let us make it perfectly clear that he did not create the depression. Even if anyone must stray so far from the facts as to make statements of this kind, let him at least keep the surrounding facts in some sort of proportion. The charge is not only improper. It is fantastically ridiculous. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, the full implications of the unintentional tribute that has been paid by the member for Temiscouata to the man who was prime minister of Canada. According to the member for Temiscouata, so great was the impact of his words that, the moment he spoke, the stock exchange of New York responded to the effect of what he said, apparently long before he said it. No, Mr. Speaker, it was not in 1930 that the depression came. When the member for Temiscouata today rises and tries to leave the impression that there was even some colour of accuracy to the remarks he made, and when we are reminded that this suggestion is being made once again that Mr. Bennett brought on the depression, may I quote a man who has not usually been regarded as an extreme Tory. I refer to Mr. Bruce Hutchison. I am quoting from page 149 of "The Incredible Canadian". I might say it is under the heading "A Spell of Blindness". I quote from page 149:
King maintained his former policies and floated with the golden tide. He was deceived by the general deception. It is perhaps the most incredible fact of his life that he accepted the mythology of the great boom. The student of history and economics, the rebel against capitalism, the Liberal heretic who had long foreseen where his law of competing standards would lead went temporarily blind. The Conservative prediction of disaster had proved so absurd, the "whispers of death" had been so drowned in the rattle of the tickers that, for the moment, King seemed to imagine that the good society of his dream already was coming to life . . .


William Earl Rowe: They are following the same blindness today.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, since these inaccurate statements are made may I remind you that the words I have quoted are the

Proposed Committee on Unemployment words of a man who wrote the life of Mr. King and who, whatever disagreement there may be with some of his statements, has certainly not been guilty of being too critical of the Liberal party. Those are his words, not mine.
The economic disaster that preceded worldwide unemployment came to this country while a Liberal government was in power. The stock market crash came in October of 1929. That was not the beginning of the economic storm. That storm began in this country three years previously, with the accumulation in western Canada of the surplus which had not been disposed of. This was a progressive problem which had been examined and discussed, and those who were so critical in those days of the warnings that were given were the men who right up to the break on the stock market in October of 1929 were talking of unending prosperity in this country. No, Mr. Speaker, I leave that statement of the hon. member for Temiscou-ata (Mr. Pouliot) there, but I leave it there in the hope that he will reconsider his position, that he will recall the number of occasions on which he has indicated his respect for the institution of parliament, and that he will on second thought decide to ask unanimous consent to expunge from the record words that can only be a reflection on his own place here in parliament and which certainly should be disavowed without any hesitation by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) in view of the uniform respect we all demonstrated so short a time ago for the great office of prime minister of Canada, whoever may occupy it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, while the Acting Prime Minister is temporarily absent from the house, there are other ministers here. Whether or not they care to take the course open to them, they can at least convey these remarks to the Acting Prime Minister.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. gentleman if he is through with that part of his speech?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, it will be quite clear when I have concluded the remarks I propose to make.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise on a question of
privilege. According to the British parliamentary tradition, no member of parliament is supposed to be abused by anyone else. I was not here when the hon. member started his speech and a friend of mine told me that he was lecturing me about what I said yesterday. Sir, I must not make a long speech-


George Alexander Drew: You are not allowed to make a speech at all.


Jean-François Pouliot: -but I must defend my position. The hon. gentleman challenged me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


William Earl Rowe: He is making a speech.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has not chosen the right time to defend his position. The Leader of the Opposition now has the floor. If the hon. member wishes to ask him a question and he agrees he shows his agreement by resuming his seat. Then the hon. member may ask his question. The hon. member for Temiscouata proceeded to ask the Leader of the Opposition a question. The Leader of the Opposition did not give his consent, and then the hon. member for Temiscouata rose on a question of privilege. From what he has said so far I gather that what the hon. member wants to do is to defend his position, and this the hon. member must do later. If by defending his position the hon. member means that he wants to correct a misinterpretation by the Leader of the Opposition of certain statements that the hon. member made when speaking yesterday, I am afraid he will have to wait until the Leader of the Opposition has concluded his remarks or until the amendment to the amendment is disposed of. He can then take advantage of his right to speak on the amendment, or perhaps later on the main motion, whenever he wishes, but at the moment he cannot interrupt the speech of the Leader of the Opposition on a question of privilege so as to defend his position. He will have to do that at a later stage.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the hon. member was in the house earlier and that if he was absent during any part of my remarks it is most certainly not my responsibility. He has been in the house during the major part of my remarks and is fully informed as to the import of what I have been saying.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is why I want to answer you right away by telling the truth.


Mr. Brooks:: That will be an experience for you.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have always spoken the truth.


An hon. Member:: Dirty Tories.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, Progressive Conservatives.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Since the hon. member was not allowed to intervene in the debate at this time may I suggest that no reference should be made to the fact that he was not able to do so.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, it must be remembered that the remarks to which I have taken exception were directed to a situation in

this country which is causing a great deal of concern in the minds of many of our people, no matter what the attitude of members of the government and its supporters may be. One of the very disturbing aspects of the kind of statement made by the hon. member for Temiscouata is the extent to which it demonstrated an hon. member may be prepared to go to divert attention from the real subject that is before us for consideration. Only this morning I heard a report over the radio from a station in the United States as to the great concern that is now felt there as a result of the fact that more than 3 million people are unemployed. They regard that as a serious situation. I must say there is no evidence that their government is brushing the matter aside and trying to dismiss it as something that does not exist.
On the contrary, the president of the United States appointed a commission to inquire into the situation and to make recommendations both for a short-term and longterm solution of these difficulties as well as to recommend any immediate steps that should be taken. It was not suggested there that this was a means of shelving the issue. The commission was welcomed as evidence of the fact that they were really tackling the problem, and already certain recommendations have been made. I would point out, however, that on a proportionate basis 3 million unemployed in the United States would mean less than 300,000 here. From the earlier figures of the Department of Labour we already know that our figures of unemployment are much higher than that, so that even on the last figures presented to us by the government unemployment in Canada is substantially higher proportionately than in the United States. If there is cause for concern in the United States, there is still greater cause for concern here.


John Horace Dickey: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he aware that the figure given in the house as the number of unemployed in Canada at the present time is 280,000?


George Alexander Drew: I am well aware that during
the course of this debate members of the house for the first time heard a figure of 524,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not unemployed.


George Alexander Drew: Members of the house were told that there were 524,000 applications with the government agencies.


William Earl Rowe: There are 528,000 now. They have gone up by 4,000.
Proposed Committee on Unemployment


George Alexander Drew: If it is 528,000, that is accepting the upward correction, this government needs to correct itself every day. Apparently there has been an increase in the last few days. We are indebted to the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) for the information. The figure is now 528,000, according to the Secretary of State.
It is not sufficient, Mr. Speaker, to make a general statement such as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) has made, to suggest that the figure really does not represent unemployed. The minister knows quite well that there are many unemployed whose names are not included in the 528,000. The minister is well aware that some of those people who until recently were working in the textile mills in his constituency probably will not be found on the list at the employment agency in Fredericton. The reason for that is obvious. Many people, when they become unemployed, start out on their own to seek employment in a way that people in this country can do. No; if we had no reason for asking for an inquiry that would give us the facts, it has been furnished to us by the production of these figures during the course of this debate.
These are not the only figures which cannot be lightly dismissed'. They serve to confirm in substantial measure the figures given by representatives of the Trades and Labour Congress and the Canadian Congress of Labour in Ottawa last week. Our position is one which should be acceptable to the government. We say to the government, and to the supporters of the government, your figures are at variance with those presented by the representatives of the two largest groups of organized labour in Canada. We want to know what the facts are. While the debate on this motion is under way the Minister of Labour confirms the fact that we have a great deal of information to obtain, because he tells us that the figure is in excess of 500,000. This afternoon the Secretary of State told us the figure was 528,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I made no such statement whatever.


George Alexander Drew: That voice, Mr. Speaker, had a strange similarity to the voice which so often interjects remarks delivered by a man who does not yet seem to realize that he is down on the floor of the house and' not in the gallery.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Toujours la politique.
2182	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment


George Alexander Drew: We certainly heard the interjection from one of the front row seats or close to the front row seats, giving the figure of 528,000. If that is not correct, then all the more reason we should have this inquiry to find out what the figure is. At any rate, apart from the argument as to who made the statement, the fact remains that the Minister of Labour has told us there are over 500,000 applications.
Unfortunately we have found we cannot rely entirely on all the statements that are made. For that reason the examination by a committee would be highly desirable. We find, for instance, that in this debate on February 15 the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) said, at page 2105 of Hansard for that day:
The next important factor is the prospect for exports. There again I believe we can look for another good year. The final figures for 1953 show a decrease of 3 per cent in value of exports but, as a matter of fact, in volume the last year was a record year for exports, being even greater than 1952.
Just a few days ago we received the annual report of the Bank of Canada, and page 15 shows the figure for both price and volume was down not 3 per cent but 2 per cent to 98. The Minister of Trade and Commerce could have turned to another statistical report prepared by his own department. We find in a report of the dominion bureau of statistics dated February 5 the statement that lower average prices and reduced volume both contributed to the decline in value of 1953 exports.
I point out that the Acting Prime Minister naturally might make a mistake of that kind. It does not substantially affect some parts of his argument, but since we find this inconsistency between his statements and those of the Bank of Canada and the dominion bureau of statistics, it does indicate why there should be an inquiry under the ordinary parliamentary practices to ascertain what the facts actually are.
One of the difficulties with which we are all confronted is the similarity of the appeals that are now being made not to discuss these facts because they might disturb the public mind. The fact is that the government supporters do not want to have the facts really disclosed to the public. We want the facts out in the open. I submit, Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of members to get those facts before them, and not try to brush off this situation or dispose of it in any way. Will the Minister of Labour tell us that unemployment is unreal in Fredericton today? Will the Minister of Labour go to Fredericton and tell the people who no longer have employment in the textile


plants that they had better move to places other than Fredericton to get work? That is the answer the textile workers have received when this question has been brought up.
We do not ask that anyone jump to any conclusions. We simply ask that a well-established procedure be followed to obtain the facts. What we are concerned about is the state of mind represented by the speech made here this afternoon by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Dickey). Everything in the garden is lovely, according to him. Apparently people who are out of employment are only imagining it. Apparently the difficulties some industries are now encountering are really nothing but a passing inconvenience. Apparently the impact of surpluses of wheat and other foodstuffs is really not something that should be talked about, except of course when the Acting Prime Minister goes to Winnipeg. It is improper for anyone else to talk about it, because somebody might get concerned. That was the attitude of the Liberal government that was in power when economic disaster hit this country.
As a matter of interest, because it illustrates so clearly that state of mind we do not wish to see perpetuated, may 1 read a few words from the speech from the throne delivered on February 20, 1930, while a Liberal government was in power. These were the words spoken by the governor general of that day; and remember, this was after the economic storm had broken. This was after that great depression, as we have heard it described, had actually begun, and during the time a Liberal government was in power. Let me read those words of the governor general on February 20, 1930. This is what he said:
It affords me much pleasure to greet you at the commencement of another session of parliament, and to be able to congratulate you upon the continued prosperity of the country. The year 1929 was the most productive year In the history of Canada. In industries, other than agriculture, employment reached the highest point on record; new construction was the largest known. Mining production was of unequalled value. Manufacturing production surpassed all previous records. There was vast increase in the development of hydroelectric power. The products of our fields and our herds reached higher standards of excellence and quality than at any previous time. The dominion is already recovering from the seasonal slackness evident at the end of the year, and it is not to be forgotten that the bulk of the 1929 wheat crop still remains in Canadian hands for final disposition.
Now, Mr. Speaker, these words are not taken from any recent speech; these were words prepared by the Liberal government of that day, to be read by the governor general.


William Earl Rowe: They must have copied it this year.


George Alexander Drew: I had not been previously aware of the place from which some of the words we have been hearing recently had been taken. Remember, these words were put in the mouth of the governor general at the time the economic storm had already hit this country.


William Earl Rowe: There had been several suicides, too.


George Alexander Drew: But again we have the appropriate words of Bruce Hutchison: "There was a spell of blindness". All we are trying to do is take off the blinkers. All we are trying to do is use a parliamentary device which can be used by the government, if the government wants it to work; that is, to set up a committee which will really get the facts. And I submit that every member in this house should insist that we get those facts. The trouble is that the government, instead of facing the facts, is trying to make a little molehill out of a mountain. We are anxious simply to get-


Douglas Charles Abbott: Well, I can't figure that one out.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We will explain it later.


George Alexander Drew: When, as he says, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) cannot figure it out, I am sure it is entirely consistent with his approach to public affairs in the House of Commons that he would not be able to do so.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think you have something there; I agree with you.


George Alexander Drew: We have before us an amendment presented by the C.C.F. party. Mr. Speaker, that amendment to the amendment deals with the problem without specifically indicating the manner in which anything is to be done. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) and seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) strikes out all the early words of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) and substitutes therefor these words: the serious and mounting unemployment situation now facing this country calls for immediate action by the federal government to prevent further economic distress.
Mr. Speaker, it is apparent from some of the statements which have been made that views as to the manner in which immediate action should be taken may differ. But so far as this amendment to the amendment is concerned, I welcome this evidence that the C.C.F. party is now supporting us in the demand for immediate action that we have been making for the last two years.
We have introduced resolution after resolution calling for immediate action to bring about increased employment by reopening 83276-139i
Proposed Committee on Unemployment markets in Great Britain, the commonwealth and the sterling area. The government has been extremely dilatory in that respect; and the first evidence we received that they recognize the correctness of our position was a few days ago when the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) indicated that, in a limited measure, the government had exercised its good offices in the sale of some of the salmon pack to be disposed of this year to Great Britain.
We have been urging immediate action. Whatever doctrinaire point of view may have been expressed by any member of the C.C.F. party as to what immediate action is, we welcome any demand for such immediate action; therefore I have no hesitation in voting for the subamendment calling for immediate action.
But, Mr. Speaker, when that has been disposed of we will then have another amendment calling for an inquiry by a committee, to get the facts. I hope every member who has followed the varying figures presented to us by the government before this debate opened, and since it began, will join with us in asking that this useful mechanism of parliament be employed, so we may have a chance to find out what the facts actually are, and so short-term and long-term plans may be adopted without any delay, on the sound foundation of reality.


Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker,
in speaking on a problem of this kind I think we should not forget the fact that any time we have had unemployment in Canada it has been a symptom of serious trouble in the Canadian economy. One can scarcely blame the Canadian people for being concerned when they remember the experiences of unemployment periods which they have gone through in the past, at times when Canada was not on a wartime footing and not preparing for war. And even beyond the confines of Canada, turning to the international field, those who are aware of trends in the world today know that the enemies of western democracies are not all of a military character. They would like to see Canadians unemployed.
Today, as never before, therefore, unemployment is tragic. It is like a cancer, growing and feeding upon itself. And, like cancer, it must have two things, the first of which is an early diagnosis, and the second, effective treatment. It is because we believe the government thus far has neither made the diagnosis nor applied effective treatment that we urge parliament, and particularly the government, to realize the seriousness of the situation and take effective action.
2184	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment
Symptoms of the problem are apparent in every province of Canada. Anyone who read the speeches delivered in the debate on the speech from the throne could not help being struck by the similarity of the stories told by members coming from different parts of Canada. We heard from the fishermen of Newfoundland and the fishermen of the maritime provinces both east and west, as well as the agriculturists in New Brunswick. We heard about the unemployment among the pulp workers and the textile workers in Quebec and Ontario, and the implement and machinery workers in Ontario. From implement machinery in Ontario to the vast surpluses of farm products that existed in western Canada the story was the same. The same problem existed in the coal and lumber industries. From coast to coast there were signs of serious trouble.
These were indications that should have been noted earlier by the government and I believe should have been referred to with more emphasis in the speech from the throne. The government itself made sort of casual references that there were soft spots appearing here and there, and that there were some dollar shortages that were causing some concern to Canadian exporters. It is only because we see that today Canada is heading into something very serious that we urge the government to take immediate action, something more immediate and more effective than they have presented so far.
These are symptoms of real trouble. Worst of all is the fact that we are having difficulties with trade. It was reported in the press the other day that in talking to a group of unemployed from the farm machinery and implement industry the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) reminded them of the fact that they had helped to price themselves out of the market, and that their demands for increased wages were one of the main contributing causes. He ended by suggesting to these men that he saw very little hope for them in that industry at the present time, and that they had better seek work elsewhere. I wonder whether it occurred to the minister at that time that the demand for higher wages comes about because people find it difficult to buy the things they need for a decent living; because there is difficulty in buying food and clothing and paying high rentals. I think the cost of living was the main contributing factor, and it was because of these costs that the workers demanded higher wages.
It would have been a good thing for Canada if there had not been an increase in the cost of production and in the cost of living. Then Canadian goods could have
IMr. Castleden.l

gone into competition with those of other countries on the world markets. We in this party urged in this house five or six years ago that the line be held on the cost of living and that wages and prices be controlled so that Canadian commodities could continue to compete. Even the government will admit that the lifeblood of a nation is mainly its trade.
I was pleased this afternoon to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) talk about the seriousness of this situation and see his awareness of the problem, also his warning to the government that what they did prior to the last trouble in Canada, when unemployment appeared, would not be sufficient this time. The fact is that apparently the government was not aware at that time of the seriousness of the situation. I am not going to say that I think the Conservative party presented a much better solution to the problem, because I can remember that the government of this country was turned out of office largely because of the unemployment issue. The people returned the Conservative party to power because the leader of that party at that time told the Canadian people that he would blast his way into the markets of the world.


An hon. Member:: And he tried.


George Hugh Castleden: And they tried, but you do
not blast your way into markets; you put your goods down in competition with the commodities of other countries.
We have a particularly big problem in Canada today because we cannot get our goods in a position where they will compete with the high cost of living in the country. Drastic measures will have to be taken. The Canadian people in large measure have given this government their confidence. We urge that the government take action today to prevent further economic distress. Half a million unemployed are in desperate circumstances though not yet as desperate as they were in the late 1920's and 1930's. Thank heavens we have almost a billion dollars in unemployment insurance funds. But in the storm that appears to be coming to Canada that amount will be wiped out in a very short period of time if unemployment increases. You cannot get markets back in a month or two.
In the matter of trade we have a serious problem. The Canadian government should recognize the basic rights of the Canadian people. Canadian people should not be unemployed so long as there is in this land a need for food, clothing and housing. The rights of people who know how to work, manufacture and develop the resources of this

great land should be recognized. It is part of the basic rights of a human being today that he have the opportunity to work. I am going to remind this house again of article 23 of the declaration of human rights which was endorsed and adopted by the United Nations general assembly about five years ago. It reads:
(1)	Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2)	Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3)	Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration, ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4)	Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Surely that declaration of right should be part of the rights of the Canadian people. Surely that is not too far off the definition of 1953 Liberalism. The hard fact remains that Canadian goods have been priced out of the world markets. The Canadian government had an opportunity to prevent this increase in the cost of Canadian goods by holding the line. They failed to do so. Canadian goods have to get into the position where they will be at a price level in the markets of the world which will make them competitive. Trade and foreign markets can be held.
The government in power in Canada today must accept its responsibility, and the Canadian people are looking to the government to solve this problem. They are responsible in the first place. Canada has to meet this challenge somehow. Import and export trade have to be restored if there is going to be any long-term solution to the problem facing us today, and that problem is not going to be overcome until we restore our trade. The mere fact that trade is being endangered and our goods cannot be sold is a sign that more trouble is brewing.
This I believe is the biggest problem that has faced this government in its whole term of office. Our economic industries must be maintained in production. It is only through continued employment, when the people are taking home pay envelopes, that you maintain prosperity. Only when the primary producers, the farmers, the fishermen, the coal miners and the lumbermen are working will there be prosperity in Canada.
This problem is going to require drastic action on the part of Canada. The fate of this government depends upon a solution- not only the fate of this government but that of the Canadian people, who today are looking to this parliament for action. If they do not get action not only will the government
Proposed Committee on Unemployment suffer, the Canadian people will suffer as well. The situation is so serious that I suggest the government ought to declare war on poverty, unemployment and want in Canada. I do not believe their proposal to undertake expenditures on public works will solve the problem, though it might be a temporary, partial palliative.
I would like to pay a compliment to the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen), who in a very scholarly speech the other evening presented some facts to the government, most of which concerned the public works program and were most significant. During his speech the hon. member referred to the expenditure of some $21 million on the building of the Canso causeway linking Cape Breton island with the mainland of Nova Scotia. He told us that this expenditure meant employment for only some 150 to 200 men.
It is surely a sign of progress that due to mechanization only about that number of men were required in the building of that causeway. Of course that is not the entire number of men who are employed there, because there are other jobs to be done in connection with the project such as the construction of machinery in factories, and so on. However, it does point to this very important fact, that $21 million in public works does not solve the problem of unemployment for a very large number of people. If the government were to attempt to create employment for about 520,000 people they would have to make an expenditure of about $67 billion in such projects.
As it is now, as soon as the causeway is completed there will be an additional 200 to 400 men unemployed. These men who are now earning a living because of the operations of the ferry at Port Hawkesbury will also be looking for work elsewhere.
A public works program is not enough. Basically we have got to get down to the question of trade, and we have to get back to that position where we can manufacture goods which will be exchanged for the goods of other countries, which will keep our construction projects and factories working. If this government will declare war on poverty, want and unemployment, they will find that the Canadian people will not permit the things which happen in a military war, such as cost plus contracts; and the people will be mighty watchful in regard to profiteering. The cost of living has to be lowered in this country in order to put Canadian goods in a comparable position with goods from other countries.
The immediate program will have to be one which will take regard of the position
2186	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment of the 500,000 people who are today unemployed, and something more will have to be done for these people than is being done now. We will have to have something more to say to them than, "Well, you had better go and look elsewhere for work." These people have established homes in their own little corners. In any community which is built around one industry these are mostly people who have gone into home building under government housing. It is not going to be very much of an encouragement to those who want to buy houses if they feel their plant may be closed down and they may be informed, "You had better look somewhere else for work." That will not encourage housing in Canada.
There should be established in Canada that type of government which will say to the old and disabled who cannot work, "There shall be assistance," and to every person who is willing and able to work, "There is a job for you." I do not believe we should be responsible for those who are able yet unwilling to work. But for those who are able and willing to work the Canadian people should be able to say that there is employment.
If we are to do this we shall have to do it now, because even a year from now the problem will have grown like a rolling snowball, to such an extent that it will be almost impossible for any government to deal with it. We have to gear Canadian production into a program which will provide gainful and useful employment for Canada's people and supply commodities that will meet competition in the world markets. That is the biggest order ever thrown to the government. I do not know whether they will be able to meet the challenge.
I believe that at the present time the Canadian people are willing to work. They are willing to go where there is work. I would say to the government that the Canadian people know we live in a land where there is an abundance of goods. We know the Canadian people are all trained or can be trained in the know-how. They will not stand very long for any administration which will permit unemployment and want.
The experience of the Canadian people with provincial and federal governments in the past has not been happy. There has been a change in my own province, the province of Saskatchewan. We lived and worked with the people who went through those sad days of unemployment and want in the west. So tightly were the government's hands bound during that period women and children hungered for bread in a land where the elevators were bursting with wheat. I want to
IMr. Castleden.l

emphasize that so long as the present government in Saskatchewan remains in power there will be no hunger while elevators are filled with wheat.
If this government solves the problem that faces it this time, it will gain the confidence and respect of the Canadian people. If it does not it will be replaced by a government which will. But it will be a sad day for the Canadian people if they do not meet and overcome the present situation.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I can be charged with monopolizing the time of this house; therefore I feel I am not imposing on hon. members by rising to take part in this debate.
Recently we have been discussing, and rightly so, some of the responsibilities we have to the people of other nations. Our world, which used to be so vast, has now seemingly become comparatively small. Those individuals who used to be so far away from us are now actually our next door neighbours. I recognize the fact that we have a responsibility to them and that we must discharge that responsibility.
However, since we have been debating these particular problems it has seemed to me that we must come to the point where we give serious attention to the problem that confronts us now right here in our own country. We are considering a problem of a very serious nature which faces us at the present time. It may be that some of us will try to justify the fact that a considerable percentage of the unemployment existing at the present time is more or less seasonal. We may try to delude ourselves into believing that the situation is not as serious as some may think. But I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is a serious proposition when there is one man who is unable to find employment and thereby meet the needs of himself and his family. It would be a serious matter if I were that individual. But when we multiply that by hundreds of thousands it seems to me that it becomes not only a serious matter but a tragic one. Those who are charged with the responsibility of giving leadership in government to the great Canadian people should set themselves to search out the causes of the problem and apply themselves to the task of finding a solution.
We have been listening to a great many figures. Personally I do not know which are right. I do not know whether anyone else knows, either. We have had figures given by the bureau of statistics. We have had some presented to us by the national employment service. The leaders in the field of labour

have given us their opinion concerning unemployment figures. We have had some from the Minister of Labour. Then, as they have taken part in the debate, various hon. members have given their particular interpretations.
I personally am not too greatly concerned as to whether the figure is 100,000, 300,000 or 500,000. It seems to me the thing that does and should concern us is the trend that is evidenced and the pattern of developments that is taking place in the Canadian economy. We find that the problem does present itself.
I have here a clipping taken from the Globe and Mail headed "338,066 Seeking Work, Peak Since Wartime"; another one, "See
400,000	Drawing Jobless Benefits Soon"; "Lay Off 565 in Windsor"; "Say Unemployed Total 500,000" and so on. No matter which figures we take, it would seem to be evident that the problem exists and is here presented to us.
Moreover, we find the problem affects not only one particular industry but many. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production said that individual members have not presented figures substantiating the unemployment figures in their particular riding. I do not think that is absolutely necessary. If we are thinking just of our own particular ridings that criticism may be justified. But it would seem to me that we are facing a national problem. It therefore seems to me that we should take a look at the national picture. So, I am concerned not just about those who are idle in my particular riding of Fraser Valley; I am concerned about the fact that right across Canada men are out of work and are unable to obtain the necessities of life.
I have here a clipping from the Financial Times of February 12 headed, "Figures Show Another Bad Year Canadian Cotton Mills in 1953". We have been reminded about the delegation that waited upon the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) representing the laid-off implement workers. I have here another clipping from the Globe and Mail of February 12 headed, "Lay-off of 1,500 by C.N.R. Laid to Traffic Drop". I have other quotations with respect to the textile industry and so on. I mention these to show that it is not just one particular industry that is affected but workers in every section of our country.
Mr. Stuart Armour, economic adviser to the president of the Steel Company of Canada, speaking to the Kiwanis club of Hamilton on Tuesday, January 26, 1954, said this:
What, then. Is the labour situation with which we Canadians are confronted today; and what are the economic implications of that situation? The situation appears at this juncture to be somewhat
Proposed Committee on Unemployment obscure. On the one hand, the top brass of the organized labour movement in Canada apparently foresees a gloomier 1954 than do most business and government economists. On the other hand, some important labour unions, ignoring the warnings of their national presidents, appear to be framing demands which could only be acceptable if business was to be at a far higher level this year than in 1953,
And he referred to the words of Mr. Bengough:
. .	. unemployment and underemployment are
already serious in some industries and are on the increase throughout the whole of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the picture is presented to us, and we must face the fact that in Canada today there is a serious unemployment situation. To refer again to the speech made by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production, he spoke of the danger of overemphasizing the problem because it may aggravate the situation. In other words it would seem as though we would say to the man who is hungry, "Do not tell anybody else about it, do not speak about it, because you might cause further discontent and further distress". Then the parliamentary assistant went on to say that he had listened in vain to the speeches from the opposition side for any suggestion of solutions to the problem.
I am a new member in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, or at least I was last fall. I may be misjudging the present government. Perhaps I am doing so. But so far I have not been able to see any inclination on their part to accept any suggestion from this side. Were anyone to get up and present a concrete proposal, I should just like to ask if it would be accepted and put into operation by the present government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Let us hear it
anyway.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I think possibly this is a problem for the government to take under advisement and solve. As I have said, I cannot see where they have been prone to accept any suggestions from anyone on this side of the house up to the present time.


Mr. Sluder:: Make a good one.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that we should not become hysterical over the situation that faces us. But when we have reference made to soup kitchens being established-and some members have made that reference-in order to meet emergencies, it reminds us of those years not so very long ago. I do not believe any one of us wants to see a repetition of those years, even members on the government side. We do not want to see a repetition of those past days.
2188	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment During some of those years at least I was in the grocery business. I remember mothers and fathers bringing in and placing on the counter a slip of paper authorizing us to give them $2 or $3 worth of groceries for the week. I well remember how often the clerks, when we were discussing the matter among ourselves, mentioned the fact that it was a serious situation when such conditions prevailed. Instead of asking for butter, or even for margarine, they would put down one or two pounds of beef dripping, which was to be spread on the bread for the children's lunches.
The problem exists right at the present time, and I was glad to hear the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Dickey) at least acknowledge that fact. We have been discussing it from the viewpoint of its effect on the economic structure of our country, but I suggest that there is an even greater effect upon the life, character and morale of the people of Canada when they are subjected to such conditions. The problem exists, and we may as well face it; we may as well acknowledge it.
I believe we must look at it from two aspects. First of all there must be some immediate alleviation of the condition. A few days ago I received a letter from a section of my riding with respect to a young man who is unemployed at the present time. He had been working, but because of his domestic situation and marital problems-I guess he is not the only one with those, though I am not saying that I have any-


Hazen Robert Argue: We are all employed that way.


Alexander Bell Patterson: -and because of the fact that he had to attend to business in connection with his V.L.A. holding, he had to leave his place of employment and return to that holding. Weeks went by, months went by. He made application for unemployment insurance, but he has not received it and apparently cannot. I have already written asking for a report on the case, but have not received one yet. According to the letter this young man has had to dispose of some of his furnishings in order to meet his expenses.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we must find a solution for the problem immediately. Not only must we do that; we must also, it seems to me, lay down long-range policies to eliminate the possibility of a return to such conditions in the future. It has been said that where there is no vision the people perish. I suppose we had a pretty fair example of that in the 1930's. It would seem that there has not been any fundamental change in our approach to the economic problems that confront us,


and we can only conclude that history is going to repeat itself and such conditions are going to return.
I think the following cycle is worthy of consideration. It has been said that periodic lack of purchasing power results in a lack of markets for goods produced, which causes unemployment. This brings on a depression from which international frictions arise leading to war, which inevitably causes increased borrowing, debt and inflation, and to meet these things pyramiding taxation is necessary. Then there is peace, and later a recurrence of the cycle. This has been the history of the past and, as I have already said, in spite of the fond hopes we may cherish, in spite of glib prophecies and statements to the contrary, I am afraid that history is going to repeat itself unless the government takes the steps necessary to solve the problem and see to it that adequate purchasing power is placed in the hands of the people to enable them to buy the products of factories and farms and in order to contribute to further production of the essentials of life.
The situation is there; the problem exists. I submit that something should be done immediately, and that long-term policies should be laid down in order to forestall a recurrence of these unsatisfactory conditions.


Mr. Elmore Philpott (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation whatever in taking part in this debate, although I had not intended to do so until today. The other day the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) was good enough to tell the house that he and I were very old friends. He recalled our days at university, our days of war service, and used an expression which I will use now-this is where I came in. My memory is long enough to remember the great stock market crash of 1929 and the great depression from 1930 to 1935.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Angus MacInnis: 1939 and 1940.


Elmore Philpott: Let me say that if my hon. friends opposite who moved the subamendment thought there was any chance whatever that the government would be overthrown and a Conservative government take its place they would be in a terrific state of panic. Instead of all the trade unions which support them sending a delegation to see the government they would be sending a delegation here to tell them to pipe down, because the people of this country remember very well what happened in the 1930's. I had the honour to run for parliament first in the constituency of Hamilton West, now so gracefully represented by the hon. lady opposite.

Proposed Committee on Unemployment
That was in the year 1931, when there was a Conservative government in Ontario and a Conservative government in this house.
At that time I was considered to be a great radical or red, if you please. Why? Because I was running on the terrifically radical program of a 44-hour week and, worse still, unemployment insurance. When we look back at the history of the past 20 or 23 years we can chalk up some assets and liabilities to every government we have had during that time. I am not one who indiscriminately criticizes the late Lord Bennett or any other prime minister we have ever had, because I think they did their best according to their ability. Nor would I be one who would be so ill-advised as to suggest that the Conservatives were entirely responsible for the depression of the 1930's.
As a matter of fact I have never held that view in my life and do not hold it now. I think there is a lot in this theory of the stars, astrology or whatever it may be. I do not know whether the Conservatives turn up before a depression or whether the depression turns up before the Conservatives, but you find they arrive at almost the same time in this country. Perhaps it is because the United States conservatives arrive just a little while before the Canadian Conservatives do. Our Conservatives on this side of the line are always one or two steps behind.
If we were to go back into history, it might be worth while to recall that one reason we had the great stock crash in 1929 and the depression of the thirties was the unwise and reactionary policies chiefly put in by a Conservative administration in the United States. If we were writing a brief outline of the history of this country for the past 20 or 25 years, one thing that would be unchallengeable would be the important position of labour or the increased recognition of labour in this country. I venture to say that whatever sins of omission or commission can be charged against this government, one thing that is to their eternal credit is that labour has won a position of respect in Canada which it never had before. This administration is not perfect and never has been perfect, but it happens to be the best government we have had in Canada during my lifetime, and I am pretty old.
I am not now talking only of the things for which Liberals fought for many years before they came in, and which Liberals enacted, such as unemployment insurance, family allowances, old age pensions and the long list of items which go to make up what is now called the welfare state. These things have
changed the whole economic picture in this country. I, for one, am not afraid of the gibe or the criticism of some people who might call us on this side "silk hat socialists", especially if "silk hat socialist" means the welfare state without regimentation. If that is so, then I think this government and this party should be very proud of their record.
No one can deny that the status of organized labour in this country has improved under a Liberal administration. Ordinarily the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) sits to my right. I will tell you about the first time I went to the riding of the hon. member for Kootenay East. It was in the dark days of that depression when we had another type of administration in this country. I went to give a lecture in the riding he now represents. On the night I arrived in town to give the lecture the representative of a trade union arrived to try to organize a union in that great industrial city. He arrived in a car, and 15 minutes after he got out of it his car was allowed to roll over the hill. That man was out of town almost before you could say "Jack Robinson", because in those days it was almost as much as your life was worth to try to organize a trade union in this great and free Dominion of Canada. Things are different now, Mr. Speaker, because we have, and have had for many years past, a Liberal administration that really believes in the rights of labour.
I did not intend to take any part in this debate if it simply settled down into a purely "if" question, such as the degree of unemployment we have now. Make no mistake, there is no one in this whole Dominion of Canada, and certainly no one in this House of Commons whom I have encountered yet, who does not treat with the utmost gravity the degree of unemployment there is in Canada now. It is a very grave thing, and it is of the deepest concern to this party and to this government. I submit that on its own record this government deserves the continued confidence of this house and the continued confidence of the Canadian people because of the things it has done, and its treatment of the unemployment problem is one of them.
During the debate the last few days, for instance, we have had a most loose, careless statement and misuse of facts. We have heard the numbers of unemployed quoted as varying from 200,000 to 300,000, if you please, completely ignoring the fact that according to the government's own official statement there are 280,000 registered unemployed in Canada
2190	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Proposed Committee on Unemployment today. This, of course, is very serious because it represents an increase of 93,000 over the same period in the previous year.
As the Acting Prime Minister so clearly pointed out the other night, on its own record this government is entitled to carry on its present policy, which is to wait and see what the world situation is with which we are faced. Is this purely another seasonal upset such as we had in 1950, when in the same period, January, we had 300,000 registered unemployed? By June 1, 1950, the number had been cut down to 139,000 or by something like 66 per cent. I thought the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) was most unfair and inaccurate last night in suggesting that Canada had only been pulled out of the unemployment situation that existed in 1950 because of the Korean war. As you will notice, those figures were for June 1. In other words, the number was down to 139,000 almost a month before the Korean war broke out.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that on its record; its long record of the most statesmanlike regard for the legitimate rights of labour; its record of having encouraged the legitimate operation and recognition of trade unions, this government is worthy of our confidence and our support. This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition referred to what he heard on the radio this morning, that President Eisenhower had appointed a commission to study unemployment because there were now 3 million registered unemployed in the United States. I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that this administration appointed that same kind of commission, not this year but in the year 1944-45. All the basic thinking was done then which will enable us, if the need ever arises, to grapple with a really major world dislocation which would require drastic measures on the part of this particular government.
I think members of this house are well aware-I hope they are, anyway-that for well over 20 or 25 years I have stood for the right of full employment. If a country like Canada can send her sons to fight in a world war, if she can say to her sons that it is their duty to go out and die if necessary in times of war because the interests of the country are at stake, then 1 believe it is the right of every Canadian to say to that country in a time of peace, "I demand my right to earn my living under our system of society." There is nothing whatever in the record of this government that would allow any member in the house even to imagine that, if the need ever arose for really serious and drastic measures on the part of the government, this would not be the best government we could get to face the situation.

I sometimes think that Canadians have not a good enough opinion of themselves. I often think of the difference between going to a Canadian moving picture theatre and one in the United States. When one visits a United States theatre and sees the picture of the president flashed on the screen, everyone in the theatre applauds. Then I think of those many occasions in my lifetime when I have gone to theatres in Canada, and only once in all that time have I ever seen a Canadian audience applaud when the picture of a Canadian prime minister has been shown.
We do not think highly enough of our leaders. Perhaps we do not have a high enough esteem of our own achievements. And I say to my hon. friends that there is not a single one of those sitting immediately opposite who is not well aware that the record of this Liberal administration is the finest in the entire world in dealing with the problem we are now talking about. We know perfectly well that when the nations met at San Francisco in 1945 to frame that document which came to be known as the charter of the United Nations, the Canadian delegation upon arrival in that city pointed to a great weakness in the charter, showing that it was inadequate on the economic side. All the delegates at that assembly-and I think at that time there was something like 48 national delegations-paid Canada a tremendous tribute by asking the Canadian delegation to write an entire section on economic affairs. Our delegation did this; and any hon. member who will reread the charter will see that one of the sections inserted by the Canadian delegation, representative not only of this government but of members on the other side of the house, placed at the top of the list the subject of full employment.
When we talk about full employment perhaps we are not discussing it in 100 per cent terms as did the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson), who suggested, and quite rightly, that if there is even one unemployed man in Canada, it is a misfortune for that man. Of course it is. But let us not become confused between what is a personal misfortune and what is of major national concern. In my opinion this government has every right to carry out now exactly the same policy it did in 1950; that is to wait and get the true facts of what we are faced with in the world situation today. If and when the true facts disclose that the situation is serious, one of major capacity, then I for one would want to sit behind no more competent team than that represented by the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) on the front benches today.

Proposed Committee on Unemployment
I think no finer tribute could have been paid to this side of the house than that at the close of the speech delivered last night by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), my old and good friend. He told of how, when working on one of the projects on which the present Acting Prime Minister had been the consulting engineer, following the building of a great many excellent elevators, something had gone slightly wrong with the result that some of the workers had to scramble for their lives. And then he told us -and the whole point of his story was in the last couple of paragraphs-that when the emergency came to the fore the engineers did not tackle the emergency as people less expert would have done, but chose to wait to get the facts and then took the necessary steps. The result was that the elevator was stronger than it would have been in the beginning.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimali-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, the vigour of these discussions on the amendments, even though at times they are heated, indicates that there are a great many members in all parts of the house who have a genuine sympathy for those unfortunate persons who now find themselves unemployed. I am sure the sentiments expressed by those who have taken part in the debate are shared by all hon. members, and I think it is a good thing that from time to time members in this chamber should have an opportunity to express their concern over the less fortunate in our community.
The expressions of sympathy and good will, however, will hardly be enough to remedy the problem of unemployment. It was for that reason the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra moved the amendment to have the whole matter further studied. In times of uncertainty like the present we are all inclined to accept reports that appear to support those things we are most anxious to believe and, conversely, we tend to minimize those factors pointing in the opposite direction.
I am prepared to accept the statement that the present unemployment is very largely, in the main, seasonal; and I intend to devote my remarks to the causes, as I see them, of that seasonal unemployment. I shall offer one or two suggestions as to how something may be done to remedy the situation. Perhaps it might not be done at the moment, because if helpful action is to be taken it will have to be done at once; and the government surely should have had plans to deal with any immediate action required.
Unemployment is seasonal and recurring. I think we should examine why this seasonal
unemployment recurs year after year. This phenomenon should be studied; and I can think of no better study which the committee on industrial relations could undertake than into the reasons behind seasonal unemployment.
The fact that in Canada under normal conditions there is always seasonal unemployment has been obscured in recent years by the conditions which have existed during those years; because since 1950 our economy has been supported by war expenditures, and industrial and agricultural production has been extremely high. There has been relatively little unemployment. When men, owing to changes in the seasons, have become unemployed they have had opportunities of engaging in temporary work of another nature in the off-season period.
But we are told the peak has been reached, and it is obvious why that is so. The armistice in Korea has brought about a lessening in the urgency of producing equipment for that theatre. The build-up in the forces of NATO to prevent aggression has eased the general situation so far as defence production is concerned. There is still a great number of men working at the present time, but unemployment figures are apparently increasing. This seasonal unemployment therefore is becoming noticeable.
This seasonal unemployment in those industries which are important in my constituency, namely logging and fishing, is brought about partly by excellent government regulations for the conservation of our forests and our fisheries. But the fact that government regulations of necessity have had to be introduced in order to ensure perpetual yield and that the forests are not cut down in a comparatively short time, and international regulations to conserve our fishing industries, have forced those men who are employed in those industries to work at selective seasons of the year. At other seasons of the year, partly on account of the conservation methods, partly on account of climate, partly on account of the movement of fish, the men find that they cannot have full employment. It seems to me that when this committee is considering the matter, consideration should be given to measures which could be introduced to offset seasonal unemployment.
Take for instance the forest industries of British Columbia. The cut is restricted in order to maintain the yield. As the Acting Prime Minister said a couple of days ago, modern methods such as the power saw, the bulldozer, heavy trucks and so forth have made it possible to cut down that number of trees which may be felled during any one
21S2	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment season in a much shorter time than was necessary a few years ago. Therefore we find that the camps are actually closed down.
The seasons of the year vary in different parts of the country. On Vancouver island the camps are closed down now because on the hills and mountains there is a heavy fall of snow. They will be opened again in the spring, only to be closed down in the summer when the fire hazard is high; but during the period the camps are open no great difficulty is presented in cutting sufficient logs, which can be sent down to the ocean and boomed and held ready for the mills, to maintain reasonably steady employment in the mills the season round. It is true, as the Acting Prime Minister says, that many of the men who are employed in the woods return to their homes. They have their small farms, and they are able to find some other employment during the seasons when the camps are closed.
But I should like to call attention to this fact

and it is a fact, as I know from personal experience-that it is the senior men who have those homes and who are able to find other employment. The youngster who has just gone into the woods, the young unmarried man, has not established that security which the older men have had. His wages in the woods are not as high as the experienced man's, and he has not had the opportunity to build up reserves of unemployment insurance. So frequently when the camps are shut down he finds that he is in very difficult circumstances. I do feel that special attention should be paid to these younger men who are working in the forest industries. Those are young lives that should be saved and not soured by being forced to move into queues for assistance at soup kitchens and so forth.
Then, when we come to the question of fish, conservation limits the catch. Nobody is going to quarrel with that. It is absolutely essential that there should be restrictions on the amount of British Columbia salmon which may be caught. These restrictions are the result of extensive international agreements. With them we have improvements in the equipment which the fisherman now has, equipment which in some instances helps to locate the shoals of fish, bigger vessels, and so on. When he spoke in Vancouver not very long ago the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) said, as reported in the press, that the day of the small gill netter was over. That may be correct or not, but the trend is certainly to lead the industry into bigger vessels and better equipment than have been utilized before. Up to the present the gill netter has accounted for about two-thirds of the men engaged in the salmon fishing industry.
[Mr. Pearkes.1

Fishermen do not draw any unemployment insurance. That is owing very largely to the fact that their occupation is seasonal. If you were to pay them unemployment insurance for those seasons when they were not working it would be in the nature of a subsidy to that particular industry. Whether in the future something could be worked out to provide some special form of unemployment insurance for seasonal workers such as fishermen, I do not know; but I offer that as a possible suggestion to assist in unemployment in those particular industries.
I wish to say a word regarding the services. Men are now coming back from overseas, time-expired. They may have served their three years in the army or five years, we shall say, in the navy. Press reports of the last few days indicated that two battalions will be coming back from Korea very shortly. Approximately 50 per cent of the time-expired men take their discharge. They have done their period of service. Some feel that they would like to take on army service as a permanent career. Others feel that they have done their duty by serving for the period of their contract, and they take their discharge.
I should like to throw out the suggestion that some arrangement should be made whereby men are not released during these periods when there is the greatest seasonal unemployment. It seems to me it would not be very difficult for the services to provide some system of, shall we say, vocational training, to tide over that period when a man upon release will go out only to find that owing to this seasonal unemployment there is no prospect of finding a job.
I remember in pre-war days there were schemes under which during the last six months of their army service men were conditioned prior to re-entering civilian life. I am not at all certain that if discharges were to take place at times when there was considerable unemployment, would it not be well worth while considering some such scheme whereby men may be held in the services a little longer and be conditioned, while still in the armed services, to take their place in civilian life?
As far as the present situation is concerned, I feel it is too late for any immediate action to be taken. Despite the snowstorms at Ottawa, spring is just around the corner. Terrible as it may be to tell a man who is unemployed that he must still wait a few more weeks, at the same time there is some hope because snow melts on the hills and the camps will be opened up again. Unless the government has some steps in mind which will bring immediate relief to the present

unemployment situation, then I fear it is too late. But I shall be really disappointed in my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), who I know was an excellent soldier, if he has not thought far enough ahead to have some plans ready in case there is an extension of the emergency which is now upon us in a mild form. I believe the government should have available some schemes for the immediate future to cope with the situation as it exists today.
When I commenced speaking I stressed the point, and I repeat that this is a recurring problem of seasonal unemployment. That being the case, should we not now start to consider what steps can be taken in order to meet that unemployment which is inevitable next winter? There will be some unemployment during the summer season, when the camps have to close down on account of the fire hazard, but usually that period of unemployment adjusts itself. But next winter there is no doubt we shall be faced with this same problem of seasonal unemployment again.
Earlier this session I called attention to the fact that there was a shortage of reserves for our armed forces. In my speech last December I quoted at some length statements made by' General Gruenther, supreme commander of NATO forces. I am not going to repeat his statements again except to quote a few lines from a speech made by General Gruenther at Copenhagen, when he was addressing United Nations commanders. He said:
The creation of adequate reserve forces means that a large proportion of NATO manpower will have to devote a considerable time each year to reserve training. That is inconvenient for the individual concerned and of course it tends to create economic strains.
It is inconvenient to the individual concerned if he has to do his reserve army or naval training at a time when he is fully employed, but it is not such a great inconvenience to him if his reserve training can take place at a time when he is not employed, owing to the seasonal nature of his employment.
I think it would be worth while exploring that situation. Canada, as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, has, as part of her military objectives, the provision of reserves. This is not the place to emphasize the importance of these reserve forces, as that will be done in other debates; and indeed the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and others have repeatedly emphasized it. In fact so concerned was the minister that last summer a committee of three distinguished ex-officers was appointed to consider how best they could build up the reserve forces of this country.
Proposed Committee on Unemployment
I would suggest that those men who are periodically laid off because of the seasonal nature of their employment, and who have not become established with the security of their own homes to which they can go when unemployed, might be provided with army and navy training at that time.
Take the fishing industry, for example. Might it not be worth while considering the reorganization and revitalizing of the fishermen's reserve of the navy, which used to provide opportunities for fishermen, during the off-season, to take their training with naval vessels at various stations on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts? I presume that something along the same lines existed on the Atlantic coast, where there is also seasonal unemployment. When this fishermen's reserve was active in pre-war days the fishermen, because of their familiarity with the sea, were excused certain elementary training which was given the usual reservists for the navy, and those fishermen were permitted to complete their courses in the various trades.
Today there are many more trades than there used to be, and these men have found that the instruction they received there not only qualified them as naval reserves, but also helped them become more efficient in their own particular trades. I would suggest that the extension of reserve naval training for fishermen is a line which might well be investigated by the Minister of Labour or by the committee on industrial relations when they consider this question of seasonal unemployment.
The same sort of thing applies with regard to young men who are employed in the logging camps. On several occasions in the past I have suggested that, in order to build up the reserve forces of this country, we should not insist too much upon those who are prepared to take military training having to join definite units of the reserve army. I feel that we should take advantage of the system of training which was developed during the war in the basic training camps. If we could take that as a model and take advantage of our experience in pre-war days, when schools were conducted throughout the country during the winter time; if we could also gain such information as is available, with regard to citizen training camps which were in existence in the United States in the period between the first and the second wars, there is a possibility of instituting some form of citizen training camps 'located at convenient places, with courses conducted at times of seasonal unemployment.
2194	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment
I definitely suggest that those men who volunteer to take that sort of training should naturally receive the same pay as the men in the reserve army. There should be no question of men not getting adequate pay. The pay of the reserve army and that of the regular forces is the same.
As I said, I have mentioned this idea to several people from time to time. I was rather surprised to find an editorial appearing in the Cowichan Leader, a weekly paper whose circulation is almost entirely in the forest area of the Cowichan valley. There are probably more lumber camps there than anywhere else in British Columbia. This editorial, which is dated February 4 of this year, is written with regard to two letters which correspondents had sent to the paper. It starts off in this way:
Two readers have this week contributed excellent ideas, both of which contain the seeds of progress for sowing in widely-separated fields.
There is no need for me to discuss the first question because it is not pertinent to this debate. The editorial continues:
The second idea comes from Caycuse camp, Cowichan lake, and like the first, is probably borne of the lengthy period of enforced idleness for loggers and camp staffs generally.
Then it goes on to say this:
Our correspondent suggests a system of reserve army training during the lay-off period.
This is a suggestion coming from a correspondent in a lumber camp. The editorial continues:
"Because of the type of work the men are accustomed to-falling, bucking, road and bridge construction, operating heavy machinery and vehicles-they would be best suited as Royal Canadian Engineer reserves," he writes.
The editorial continues:
He lays down several conditions for his plan. The defence department would send instructors to the camps. The course of lectures would have to be attractive enough to hold the single men in the camps. The pay for attending the course would have to exceed unemployment insurance benefits. Arrangements would be made to use company bunk-houses and cookhouses.
At present there are reported to be. some 15,000 men idle on Vancouver island alone, the great majority owing to the heavy snow.
That is snow in the hills which prevented logging operations.
There is thus certainly a golden opportunity for instruction of some kind to be given to many of these men.
I just throw out that suggestion along with others I have made in these remarks. May I repeat them. I suggest that great care should be exercised in the releasing of men from the regular forces at a time when there is considerable unemployment. If possible, steps should be taken to see that large numbers of
[Mr. Pearkes.l

men-and several hundreds are being discharged every month; in fact I think I would be safe in saying that the number runs into thousands in some months-are not discharged from the forces at such a time. When I refer to men being discharged from the forces, I refer not to men being thrown out but to men who go out voluntarily, men who have served their time and who voluntarily go out. That is my first suggestion.
My second suggestion is that consideration be given to providing some special form of unemployment insurance for fishermen, something which cannot be considered as a subsidy to these fishermen but which will take care of seasonal unemployment which is forced upon them owing to conservation measures.
My third suggestion is that consideration should be given to the possibility of reviving a fishermen's reserve in the Royal Canadian Navy, or some other form of reserve training which would appeal to the fishermen.
My fourth suggestion is that consideration should be given to providing these young men from the logging camps with an opportunity to do some military service which would be useful to them in their own profession and would also assist to build up the reserves which, if required, will need men who are well trained. There will be little time for the training of these men if we are ever faced with another war. They will be urgently required to back up our active forces. I suggest that an opportunity for that training should be given them without too much emphasis being placed upon the necessity for joining units of the reserve forces. I have made these suggestions because it is my opinion that this situation may develop and become extremely grave. I am concerned for the welfare of our young Canadians who may find themselves out of jobs. I feel that this question of trying to find a solution for the unemployment problem is one that transcends party considerations.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that we have had this opportunity to fully discuss this matter of unemployment. First of all, I am happy because it has led to a good discussion and to the smoking out, if we might call it that, of the intentions of the government if and when Canada should be faced with a period of unemployment.
As many of us have suspected for many years now, the government has no plan. It has consistently informed the people they can rest assured that when the time comes for action they will not be disappointed because they placed their confidence in the Liberal party. I think it has been made very clear over the past two days that the

people will be let down by the Liberal party in respect to unemployment in 1954 just as much as they were let down by the same party in 1929 and 1930.
I was very interested in a statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott). He referred to the Liberal government having plans with respect to the unemployed or the underprivileged of the nation. I am not sure just what he did say, but I know he said that their record was the finest in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erhart Regier: That statement can definitely be challenged. I think we have very slowly begun to adopt the lessons that have been taught us by the northern European nations in the matter of unemployment and social security. In fact I am not even sure that we have a finer record than our good neighbour to the south of us. I have reason to believe that our record compared with theirs leaves very much to be desired.


Elmore Philpott: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Erhart Regier: Yes, certainly.


Elmore Philpott: Surely the hon. member is aware that our neighbours to the south of us have no family allowances and no old age security without a means test.


Erhart Regier: If the hon. member for Vancouver South will look at the payments to old people south of the border I think he will find that they are much larger than ours, and that these larger payments were made at an earlier date. I am also not sure that it is so very sound to eliminate the means test, from the point of view of helping those who need help. I admit that it may be a good policy to eliminate the means test, but not so far as helping those who need help is concerned.
The statement was also made that the speaker was quite content to allow the government to wait to get the true facts. I can remember a prime minister of Canada speaking over the radio a number of times when I was a young man and was very much concerned about the matter of employment. He was always referring to this thing called prosperity around the corner. I used to wonder in what kind of merry circle he was leading us, and what kind of round corner it was.
When I hear repeated statements that with the warm sunshine everything will be all
Proposed Committee on Unemployment right, I begin to wonder how that is going to put food on the dinner table for the people of Canada now. I come from a riding that is especially vulnerable to unemployment. On either side are the two large industrial cities of British Columbia, and whenever these industries have reason to shut their doors the people in the municipalities in my riding are affected immediately. I should like to point out particularly at this time that if we should again have a period of unemployment I hope more definite help will be forthcoming to those who are charged with the responsibility of municipal government. When you have a municipality where 90 per cent of the people are wage earners and those people are unemployed and cannot pay their taxes, the municipality is faced with sometimes insurmountable difficulties. I hope something will be done to make sure that municipalities will not be again placed in the position in which many of them found themselves during the period of the hungry thirties.
I noticed also that a considerable attempt was made to justify the government's attitude towards unemployment by referring to so-called labour leaders supporting the government. I am going to leave unsaid the things the working people of Canada would say to former writers of labour's charter of human rights and to labour leaders who never belonged, but pretended to belong, to labour's organized political party and who are now actively supporting the government.
I had thought, and I believe most Canadian people thought, that since 1929 we had arrived at a period in Canadian history when the government of Canada had assumed a great measure of responsibility with respect to unemployment. The attitude now seems to be reversed. It would seem that the government does not assume responsibility for unemployment. In fact I think a statement made on another subject can be aptly applied here, namely that the government has no views on unemployment.
I know the people of Canada returned the government at the last election, and that they have a big majority in the house. However, I should like to remind them that the high and mighty attitude that has been so evident on their part during the past week or so, the attitude that they can do what they like in the house, has led to the downfall of many a government in Canadian history, and may well wipe out the fortunes of the Liberal party in Canada once and for all at the next election.

Business of the House On motion of Mr. Regier the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: Tomorrow we shall consider second reading of the bill to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act,
then the resolution with respect to the Export Credits Insurance Act, then the fisheries bill, then the Telegraphs Act, then the national battlefields at Quebec bill, and then the Animal Contagious Diseases Act amendments.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.