1954-03-01

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Hunter.


Mr. Argue:: 1.	What quantity of wheat has the United Kingdom purchased from Canada, during each week from August 1 to January 15, in the crop years 1950-1951, 1951-1952, 1952-1953 and 1953-1954?
2.	What was the total quantity purchased, during the period in each of the above years?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	In the crop years 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53 arrangements for the sale of Canadian wheat and flour to the United Kingdom were governed for the most part by memoranda of agreement completed by the Canadian wheat board and the United Kingdom ministry of food. These arrangements between the board and the United Kingdom ministry of food covered an extended period of time and were not specifically related to the period included in this question. Board sales to the United Kingdom in 1950-51, 1951-52 and 1952-53 were 97-0, 119-6, 122-2 million bushels respectively. With respect to the crop year 1953-54, it is not the policy of the board to divulge its sales position during a current crop year.
2.	See answer to No. 1.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	How many diesel engines are in operation on the Canadian National Railways?
2.	How many are on order for the Canadian National Railways?
3.	Will there be diesel engines available for operation in the Lindsay and Peterborough yards in 1954?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	At the end of January 1954, there were 512 diesel units in operation on the Canadian National system.
2.	At the end of January 1954, there were 31 diesel units on order.
3.	The assignment of diesel motive power, as it becomes available, is made from time
83276-160i
to time in accordance with the requirements of traffic and in the interests of operating efficiency.




Mr. Pouliot:: 1.	How many cedar pickets has the Canadian National bought in the province of Quebec during the last 12 months, and at what price?
2.	On what date were tenders invited and what was the price submitted by each tenderer, together with his address?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	(a) 87,559; (b) It is not the policy of the company to divulge the nature and details of contracts or orders between the railways and other parties for the supply of materials required for company use.
2.	See answer to No. 1(b).



GAGETOWN MILITARY CAMP

Mr. Brooks:: How many men were employed as of February 7, 1954 in construction work at the Gagetown military camp area (a) from camp area; (b) from New Brunswick (outside camp area); (c) from outside New Brunswick?


Mr. Dickey:: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer this question orally.
It is not possible to answer this question through information available from government sources. Apart from supervisory personnel employed by Defence Construction Limited, all persons employed on this project are working for private contractors who are performing the preliminary stages of construction.
These contractors meet their labour requirements, apart from key personnel, mainly through the national employment service. Instructions were issued by the Department of Labour to the national employment service to give preference in making referrals to men from the camp area and individuals who had been displaced by the expropriation. The national employment service has been operating in accordance with this directive in referring applicants to fill vacancies as requests come in from the contractors. However, there is no reliable record of those actually employed' or retaining such employment.

Questions
The most recent estimates indicate that out of some 230 employed, approximately 140 are from the camp area and over 70 from elsewhere in New Brunswick. Defence Construction Limited has 30 employees, all supervisory personnel, 6 from the camp area, 19 from elsewhere in New Brunswick and 5 from outside New Brunswick.



WHEAT-PRICE REDUCTIONS

Mr. Argue:: 1.	Has the United States price for wheat at the Atlantic coast been reduced recently? If so, by how much per bushel?
2.	Did the American reduction follow or precede the Canadian reduction?
3.	Did Canada or the United States first suggest a reduction in its eastern selling price?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Prices at which United States wheat is sold for export are not published by their government but each day the United States department of agriculture announces a per bushel subsidy covering the shipment of wheat of United States origin to be exported out of various U. S. ports. This has the effect of reducing the price by a similar amount to the foreign buyer. Subsidies announced by the United States department of agriculture covering export shipment out of U. S. east coast ports on February 15, 16, 17 and 18 were as follows:
Announced at 3.30 p.m. eastern standard time February 15 effective until 3.30 p.m. eastern standard time February 16, 57 cents per bushel.
Announced at 3.30 p.m. eastern standard time February 16 effective until 3.30 p.m. eastern standard time February 17, 63 cents per bushel.
Announced at 3.30 p.m. eastern standard time February 17 effective until 3.30 p.m. eastern standard time February 18, 64 cents per bushel.
Announced at 3.30 p.m. eastern standard time February 18 effective until 3.30 p.m. eastern standard time February 19, 64 cents per bushel.
2.	At 1.15 p.m. central standard time on each of the following days the Canadian wheat board announced its price for No. 1 Manitoba northern wheat basis in store Fort William-Port Arthur: February 15, $1.85| per bushel; February 16, $1.78| per bushel; February 17, $1.79 per bushel; February 18, $1.79 per bushel.
3.	The decision to reduce the in store Fort William-Port Arthur price of Canadian wheat on February 16, 1954 was made by the Canadian wheat board.
fMr. Dickey.]



WHEAT-PRICES AT VANCOUVER AND FORT WILLIAM

Mr. Argue:: 1.	When did the Canadian wheat board first establish the price for wheat at Vancouver on the same basis as at Fort William-Port Arthur?
2.	Has the wheat board selling price for wheat basis Vancouver exceeded the selling price basis Fort William-Port Arthur?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	September 27, 1943.
2.	Yes. Since February 16, 1954.



CUSTOMS TARIFF


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the tariff board received instructions from the Minister of Finance, or from any other person, at any time since July 1. 1953, to investigate the tariff position of so-called antifreeze compounds?
2.	If so, when were such instructions given, by whom, and what were their terms?
3.	Has any change in the tariff on antifreeze yet been made as the result of any such instructions and investigation?
4.	If so, what change has been made? If no change has been made as yet, is such a change in prospect?
5.	What is, or what will be, the net effect of any change in the tariff on the purchase price of antifreeze to consumers in Canada?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The Minister of Finance on December 28, 1953, referred to the tariff board the following tariff items, as reference No. 114, for investigation and report:
1.	Item 208h-so far as this item covers ethylene glycol, at least 97 per cent pure, for use in the manufacture of ethylene glycol antifreezing compounds.
2.	Items 711 and 220a (i)-so far as these items cover ethylene glycol less than 97 per cent pure for use in the manufacture of antifreezing compounds.
3.	Item 220a (i)-so far as this item covers antifreezing compounds having an ethylene glycol base in sealed containers, or otherwise, ready for use as antifreezing compounds in motor vehicles, etc.
Although item 208h is temporarily bound duty free and the present rates of duty under items 220a (i) and 711 are also bound against increase under the general agreement on tariffs and trade, you should conduct your investigation without taking this point into consideration.
3.	No.
4.	The tariff board has not rendered its
decision.
5.	This is a hypothetical question and cannot be answered.



FORMER MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT EMPLOYED

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Have any former members of parliament been employed by the Department of Agriculture or the P.F.R.A. since July 1, 1953?
2.	If so, what are their names and addresses, their respective salaries and their duties?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1 and 2. W. G. Bock, Eastend, Sask., agricultural supervisor, $3,300 per annum; Georges Bouchard, Ottawa, Ont., assistant deputy minister, $8,500 per annum; A. E. Dewar, Indian Head, Sask., agricultural supervisor, $3,300 per annum.



WATER POLLUTION


Mr. Harrison:: Has the Minister of National Health and Welfare any further information on the pollution of the North Saskatchewan river?


Mr. Marlin:: I should like to outline in some detail the present situation, the steps which have been taken and the proposals which are made for future action.
Before doing so however 1 am sure that the house will be glad to learn that a number of the substances in the water have been identified, and certain of these are thought by the investigators to be involved in the source of the trouble.
As a result of these findings, recommendations were made to the health authorities of the province, and the members will have already been advised by the press and the radio of the action taken by the provincial department of health in issuing instructions to one of the companies suspected of discharging wastes containing these substances, to discontinue by March 1 the discharge of such wastes into the North Saskatchewan river. It is understood that appropriate steps are being taken to pond or isolate such wastes for subsequent disposition.
It is very much hoped that this action will prove effective in bringing about some alleviation of the distress of the communities which are dependent upon the river for their domestic water supplies.
I can assure the house that my department will continue to assist in every way that it can, to co-operate with provincial authorities and with industry to seek a final solution of the problem, and to give such advice and help as it can to avoid any recurrence, once a solution is found. It may meanwhile be of interest to recapitulate briefly the events which have led up to the present situation and the efforts which have been made at the federal level to assist provincial authorities.
Questions
I have from time to time reported to the house on the developments as they have taken place, and it may be useful at this time to say something of the specific plans formulated in co-operation with provincial authorities which are presently being implemented by the technical officers, both at the federal and the provincial level.
While the problem was thought to have resulted from the discharge of industrial wastes into the river at or near the city of Edmonton, the solution to this problem was complicated by a number of factors which include climatic and geographical conditions, as well as the diversity of wastes which are being discharged into the river by a number of industries.
The identification, therefore, of the particular offending substance, as well as of the particular industry responsible for its discharge into the river, represented a scientific project of some magnitude. I think I should say that diligent inquiries were made from all possible sources in Canada, as well as in the United States where similar problems might have been encountered, but it appeared that this particular situation was without exact precedent in any of the communities in North America.
The considered opinion of the Scientific? investigators, at the federal and provincial! and the industry level, was that while an immediate solution was of course the urgent objective to be found, the over-all problem of providing safe but effective means of disposal of industrial wastes made it necessary to obtain a precise chemical answer, and this could only be found through the laborious but nevertheless necessary field work, sampling, analyses and other procedures, whereby the identification of the substance or substances and methods for treatment could be devised.
I emphasize these features because it might otherwise have appeared that the shut-down of all of the industries which could have been involved would provide the answer. This however would not be the case, as it is only through investigation of the river in its present condition that a permanent solution to the problem could be expected.
With the investigations that were made and the information that was available, it was obvious that the problem was accordingly one of great complexity, and it seemed to us that the solution would likely be found only with the full utilization of all available technical resources.
As I previously advised the house, I therefore communicated with the minister of health of Alberta, under date of February 8,

Questions
offering full co-operation and assistance of the technical officers of the department to participate in a joint study with the provincial authorities and with industries, in seeking an immediate solution with the further objective of making recommendations which would result in an over-all solution to the problem of treating such wastes in that area.
This offer was accepted by the minister of health of Alberta, and immediately technical officers of the department left for Edmonton to work out, in co-operation with provincial and industry officers, procedures which might offer the most expeditious solution.
After an intensive study of the area of industrial development downstream from Edmonton by officers from the occupational health and public health engineering divisions of this department, in company with provincial experts as well as experts from industry, certain procedures were evolved.
The objective of the study as was conceived by the federal representatives was twofold:
1.	To eliminate the offensive taste and odour from the waters of the North Saskatchewan river.
2.	To carry out a comprehensive investigation of industrial pollution to establish the basis for future control.
It was emphasized that every effort must be made to provide as quickly as possible, a solution for objective No. 1, and if a solution could not readily be found, it would be necessary to recommend drastic action.
The detailed steps which were recommended involved the following:
It was recommended that for purposes of industrial appraisal, arrangements be made to have two investigating teams set up to carry out a rapid but detailed study of the industries. Each team would be composed of an industrial hygienist and public health engineer from federal resources. These federal experts would work closely with experts in industry, the provincial government, the national and the Alberta research councils and the university authorities.
A member of this group would be responsible for the over-all co-ordination of this phase of the study.
In addition to the industrial appraisal, sampling procedures would be developed as rapidly as possible to include analyses of industrial effluents and river water. The sampling process would extend from a point above Edmonton to the various centres complaining of pollution in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, thus covering many hundreds of miles.

A third proposal involved analytical investigations to include all possible methods of analysis to determine the nature of the pollutant, as well as intensive investigation of any leads that might indicate its possible nature. It was hoped from the analytical investigations to provide leads as to the nature of the offending substance and thus to achieve objective No. 1 as rapidly as possible.
By way of illustration, one lead has been developed and is being followed at the present time. It was found that a synthetic mixture of propanol and butanol in water produced a material with an odour similar to the odour of the water samples taken from the river at points downstream from the industrial development.
A fourth phase of the investigation involved the extraction of materials from plant effluents which are known to or which might cause offence. This would be developed as part of the industrial appraisal during which time every effort would be made to have the companies remove materials that are known to or which might cause offence from their effluents.
As soon as substances causing the taste and odour nuisance have been identified, suitable procedures would of course be followed for the diversion and disposal of these materials.
The above were the specific steps which the federal officers suggested as constituting the most suitable, but at the same time, expeditious method of proceeding to study the problem and to obtain some alleviation from present distress for the affected communities.
In order to carry out these procedures and to reach the desired objectives as quickly as possible, it was emphasized that a co-ordinated and all-out approach must be adopted. The industries agreed to co-operate actively in the investigation and to make available all technical resources which they possessed. It was also thought desirable that other resources within the province, such as the Alberta research council and the facilities of the university, should be utilized as well as the assistance of the regional laboratory of the national research council at the city of Saskatoon.
In addition the environmental health centre in Cincinnati were asked to assist and their efforts will complement other aspects of the investigation.
The work which was immediately undertaken in accordance with these plans is presently proceeding and, as I mentioned at the outset of this statement, as a result a number of substances have positively been

recognized and identified in the water at Prince Albert and certain of these substances may be the ones contributing to the difficulty.
In addition to the specific action which was proposed, I thought it desirable to communicate with the minister of health respecting the measures his government proposed to initiate to rectify the present situation, as well as those involving the general problem of the overloading of the North Saskatchewan river by the discharge of industrial and other wastes.
Under date of February 22, I received from the minister of health a reply to my telegram, in which he outlined the steps which his government had originally taken to prevent the development of this situation and he indicated the progress being made through the technical assistance which had been given and of his hope for an early solution.
He moreover advised that, in default of an immediate solution, the provincial authorities would be prepared to take steps to see that all suspected wastes were diverted into a pond or ravine for subsequent disposal, when this could be done without danger of a recurrence of the present situation.
Action has accordingly been taken in this connection as was announced by the authorities of the province of Alberta on February 25.
I am sure that the house will recognize that the problem is one of great complexity, that its solution is not a simple one, and that the federal government has done everything possible to assist in finding a solution.
The government will continue to assist the responsible authorities in every way that it can, through the provision of technical personnel and facilities, until a solution is found and measures can be adopted which will provide some satisfactory basis for control to avoid further pollution of the waters and consequent distress to the communities that are dependent upon it.



CANNED POULTRY IMPORTS

Mr. MacLean:: What was the amount of canned poultry or game (tariff item 8f) imported during the last quarter of 1953 from the United States of America into (a) Prince Edward Island; (b) Nova Scotia; (c) New Brunswick; (d) all of Canada?


John Horace Dickey: Canadian imports of canned poultry and game (tariff item 8f) are not separately classified but are included in a general item which reads;-"Canned meats (except beef), poultry and game".
Questions
The imports from the United States under this general item entered for consumption in the maritime provinces and total for all Canada, during the period October 1 to December 31, 1953, were as follows:-
Province	Lbs.	ValueNova Scotia 	2,093	$ 798Prince Edward Island	-	-New Brunswick	652	309Total Canada	635,513	$260,830



R.C.M.P. BADGE AND ARMORIAL BEARINGS

Mr. Adamson:: 1.	Have the official badge and armorial bearings of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police been altered recently?
2.	If so, for what reason was the change made?
3.	Who authorized the change?
4.	Was it approved by the competent heraldic authority?
5.	If so, by whom was it approved?
6.	What is the nature and description of the alterations made?
7.	When did the new design become official?


Mr. Garson:: 1.	The official badge has been altered.
2.	To correct errors in the design.
3.	Redesign of badge arranged by the commissioner, R. C. M. Police, approval granted by order in council P.C. 1954-27/256.
4.	Yes.
5.	The Hon. Sir George Bellew, K.C.V.O., Garter Principal King of Arms.
6.	The representation of the St. Edward's crown replaced the Tudor crown. The bison was redrawn to provide a more lifelike looking head. The scroll surrounding "Maintiens le Droit" replaced the buckled garter. The maple leaves were redesigned and brought closer together.
7.	February 25, 1954.



HAROLD C. BANKS

Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Has Mr. Harold C. Banks given notice of intention to apply for Canadian citizenship?
2.	If so, when was such notice filed?
3.	Has Mr. Banks been granted Canadian citizenship?
4.	If so, when?


Mr. Harris:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.
3.	No.
4.	See answer to No. 3.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Knight:: 1. What are the numbers of unemployed persons registered at Regina, Saskatoon, Moose Jaw and Prince Albert, as at February 1, 1954?

Motions for Papers
2. How many employees have been laid off by the Canadian National Railways at Saskatoon since November 1, 1953?


DEPUTY MINISTERS AND OTHERS LEAVING PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Maclnnis:: 1.	How many deputy ministers have left the service of the government of Canada to take positions with private employers, since January 1, 1951 to date?
2.	How many civil servants, other than deputy ministers, in the salary range of $12,000 and over have left the service of the government of Canada to take positions with private employers since January 1, 1951 to date?


Mr. Pickersgill:: I spoke to the hon. member about this question and pointed out that the government would have no official record of what positions in private employment were taken by officials who had retired from the public service. He agreed to have the question read instead: "How many deputy ministers have left the service of the government of Canada except by retirement?" and to put the same phrase in the next part of the question. If that is understood, I would ask to have it made an order for return.



MARITIME PROVINCES


Mr. MacLean:: 1.	Has the attention of the Department of Agriculture been directed to the alleged importing into the maritime provinces of American canned chicken which, if it were a Canadian product, would not conform to the regulations set out under the Agricultural Products Marketing Act, relating to container size and type of label?
2.	Has any action been taken to require imported canned chicken and other agricultural products to be of the same standard as similar products produced in Canada?



CANADIAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has the attention of the government been drawn to the proposed division of Canadian Industries Limited into two companies, one to be known as Canadian Industries (1954) Limited, and the other to be known as Du Pont of Canada Limited, following a court decision in the United States?
2.	Has the government any information as to the products to be manufactured by each of the proposed new companies? If so, what are such products?
3.	Has the combines investigation branch examined the basis of the proposed division to ascertain whether either of the new companies is being given monopolistic controls over particular products contrary to the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act?
4.	If so, what findings have resulted from such examination?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a copy of the contract between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the British Empire games committee for the radio broadcasting rights

for the British Empire games to be held in Vancouver in 1954, together with a copy of any correspondence or telegrams that have passed between private broadcasting companies and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation relative to the rights of private radio stations to broadcast during the games.


Mr. McCann:: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to oppose this motion on the ground that the correspondence between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the private broadcasting stations has to do with the internal management of the corporation and is not ordinarily produced on a motion such as the present one. We have no objection, however, to producing a copy of the contract between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the British Empire games committee.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I am entitled to this information and that it is not a matter of internal management. I would ask you to call for the yeas and nays.


Mr. Wylie:: I was paired with the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Goode). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.



GARIBALDI PARK, BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. Regier:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged since January 1, 1952, between the government of Canada and the Squamish board of trade, Mr. Gordon Gibson, the government of British Columbia, and/or any other individuals or organizations, in relation to Garibaldi park.


Mr. Sinclair:: This is subject to the usual reservation as to consent of the provincial government concerning any correspondence with that government.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed to, subject to the statement by the minister.
Inquiries of the Ministry PENSION ACT



AMENDMENTS TO PROVIDE FOR ADOPTED CHILDREN, CHANGES IN ADMINISTRATION, ETC.

Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Pension Act to make provision for the payment of additional pension for legally adopted children: to extend the benefits of the act in certain other cases; to provide that the salaries of the chairman, deputy chairman and commissioners shall be fixed by the governor in council; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
India's failure to take up quota-effect on Canada's position
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister give the house any information regarding the effect on the continuance of the international wheat agreement of the announcement by India that it is not their intention to take up their quota under the agreement this year?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I believe the reason for the announcement, Mr. Speaker, is that India had an unusually large crop and they are not importers of wheat in the current year. I know they have been undecided as to whether or not they would take up the quota. An officer of the department returned from there a few days ago and said the reason that they were not signing the agreement was that they were not importers of wheat this year. There is no other implication.



REPORTED SALE OF 250,000 TONS BY RUSSIA TO BRAZIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Might I ask the minister a question along these same lines? Has the minister any comment to make on the statement in the Christian Science Monitor of Saturday last that Brazil has entered into a contract with Russia

Inquiries of the Ministry for the purchase of 250,000 tons of wheat? Does that affect any existing arrangement with Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: A week or two ago,
Mr. Speaker, Canada sold 200,000 tons of wheat to Brazil. I have no knowledge of a sale of wheat to Brazil by Russia, and I would think it doubtful whether the statement referred to by the hon. member is correct. If it is, such a sale has nothing to do with Canada.



POST OFFICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General arising out of his announcement on Friday concerning the rotation plan for letter carriers. Has it been decided to alter the long-standing practice of the annual holidays of letter carriers being arranged on the basis of seniority? In view of protests from letter carriers' associations against this decision, will it be reconsidered?


Hon. Alcide Cote (Postmaster General):: I
must thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. The answer is that seniority will still prevail, but it will have to be modified to take care of new problems brought about by rotation of carriers. We have received no protests from letter carriers' associations, but when any are received we always take them into account. However, the matter has to be settled in the interests of the public as well as the individual.



BASE METALS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: May I
ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in the light of reports from Washington that there is a movement under way in congress to raise a tariff against Canadian base metals, if the Canadian government has taken any steps to assert the view of the Canadian government through the Department of State in Washington?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Canadian government does not interfere with the work of congress. We have made our views about tariffs on metals clear to the administration, but it is not the policy of the government to interfere with the workings of congress, just as it is

not, I hope, the policy of the government at Washington to interfere with the workings of this parliament.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I asked simply if the Canadian government had communicated its views on this matter to the Department of State at Washington, which I understand is the proper place for such views to be communicated to.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The answer is yes.



INQUIRY AS TO SPREAD IN PRICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the fact that prime beef is selling at a maximum of $16.75 per hundred at the stockyards? If so, can the minister state why the price of steak in the butcher shops ranges from 59 cents to 69 cents per pound, and a T-bone steak in the dining car costs $4.25?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is not possible, of course, for the department to check all the butcher shops in Canada, but we did very recently make a check in Toronto. That check is connected with the relationship between the price of beef in Toronto and the price of cattle. The check shows both have followed very much the same course. That is, when the price of cattle has gone down, the price of beef has gone down, as a rule; and when the price of cattle has gone up the price of beef has gone up.


Mr. Fullon:: And vice versa.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Paul E. Gagnon (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works. Would he care to comment on the statement made last Friday by the premier of Quebec relating to the prospective construction of a bridge linking Pembroke, Ontario, and Allumette island, Quebec?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the only comment I can make is that, although I had not received any reply to my letters written to the appropriate ministers in the province of Quebec, asking permission to table correspondence, Mr. Du-plessis did apparently say, as reported in the press, that he had no objection to the

tabling of such correspondence. And the house will recall that earlier today my parliamentary assistant did table the correspondence.


Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works, supplementary to that of the hon. member for Chicoutimi. I wonder if the minister would care to comment on the press report which indicates that the prime minister of Quebec-


An hon. Member:: Premier.


Léon Balcer: -was reported as saying that he had not received a communication from the minister.


Robert Henry Winters: It is difficult to comment on what the premier of Quebec is reported to have said. But it is a fact that my correspondence was dispatched not to the premier of Quebec but to his appropriate ministers. And I have knowledge from Canadian National Telegraphs that the telegram I dispatched on February 16 to Mr. Lorrain was delivered.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Public Works. May we take it from the answer he has given that from now on the government will believe everything it reads in the newspapers?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is in connection with a meeting of the inter-American conference convening today at Caracas. Did Canada receive an invitation to that meeting, although not a member of the organization, and is Canada represented either officially or unofficially as an observer there?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: The answer to the first question is no. That covers the second. [Later:]


John George Diefenbaker: Through an inadvertence,
I am sure, the Secretary of State for External Affairs failed to say whether or not there was an invitation. Was there any unofficial representation at this conference, either as an observer or otherwise? I think the minister just omitted to answer that.
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Pearson: Well, I do not know of any invitation, unofficial or otherwise, for Canadian representation at the inter-American conference opening at Caracas today. However, I shall be glad to look into the matter and see if any suggestions were made.


John George Diefenbaker: Were there any observers there?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is no Canadian observer at the conference.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works a question. On February 11 I had a question passed as an order for return. I wonder when I may receive an answer to that question.


Robert Henry Winters: I will look into it.



WELCOME TO HON. MEMBERS FOR WELLINGTON SOUTH AND KOOTENAY WEST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. We have a double thrill today in welcoming back two hon. members who pretty nearly crossed the river Jordan and went on up. We welcome them back. These are the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hosking) and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). The mellowing influence of both these members is needed in their corners.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, February 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Green.
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, this is the beginning of the sixth day of this debate. I think if there had been a proper sense of urgency on the part of the government as to the importance of this debate it would not have lasted for even six minutes; because I see no reason whatsoever why the government should not have accepted the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). I
2528	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment think the only reason is that the government, in its, shall I say, arrogance, does not like to admit that any wisdom or knowledge can come from any quarter in the house except from themselves.
The attitude throughout has been, "Father knows best; leave everything to us". I want to read from the amendment to show exactly what it asks. It did not ask for any panic action. It did not suggest that it knew the answer. What it said was this:
. . . that a select committee should be appointed immediately for the purpose of examining into and reporting upon the actual unemployment situation throughout Canada and for the purpose of making recommendations to this house as to short-term and long-term methods for dealing effectively with this problem.
As I say, no blue ruin attitude was taken by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra; there was no suggestion about any "catastrophe" or any "chaos". It was a sensible suggestion that this thing should be looked into. And what have we got from the government? We have nothing but "Wait and see". I say that it did not seem to have any sense of urgency whatever; but I do suggest that there is a feeling of urgency and of great urgency on the part of those who are unemployed. They will find no counterpart to that attitude here; and I feel sure that those people would think it reasonable to examine into and report upon the actual unemployment situation.
Certainly it is not because the facts are clear that nothing needs to be inquired into. The labour people have suggested-they have stated-that there are more than 500,000 unemployed; but from the government we have nothing but a babble of voices. The figures used by the different ministers have differed, not merely by thousands, not merely even by tens of thousands, but by hundreds of thousands. We have seen what could be described as "confusion worse confounded". The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the Acting Prime Minister, was frank in the remarks he made about unemployment to the textile and agricultural implement workers. But when we come to the actual figures used by the ministers, as I say, we find confusion. There must be scores of economists in the various departments who prepare those figures; but one can only assume, because we believe they are competent men, that the government has so bedevilled the situation with a variety of views and a variety of approaches to the facts that, as I say, all kinds of figures are given to us.
Again I ask, what is the objection to this inquiry? No sensible objection that I have
tMr. Macdonnell.]

heard has been raised. On the face of it, it seems sensible. The government in effect say, "Let the situation develop; let us have time". Well, there is a standing committee available, and why on earth should it not be allowed to tackle this problem? No; to allow a committee would apparently involve a most damaging admission. It would involve the admission that the government is not omniscient, and that possible useful suggestions could arise from elsewhere. The reasoning apparently goes like this.
The government is omniscient.
To create a committee would be to admit that the government is not omniscient.
Therefore we must not have a committee.
I want to emphasize the fact that the resolution was moved in moderate terms, and that the words "doom" and "gloom", which I see they use in the United States, have not been used in our debate. I now want to look in more detail at the various complicated figures which we got from various members of the government. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), whose appetite for facts is keener than that of some of the other ministers who spoke, gave us these figures of January 23, at page 2085 of Hansard:
It is estimated that at January 23, 357,000 people worked fewer than 35 hours; another 139,000 had jobs but did no work during the survey week, owing to temporary lay-offs, illness, labour disputes, bad weather and a number of other miscellaneous reasons; while there were 280,000 persons who were, to quote the phrase of the dominion bureau of statistics, "without jobs and seeking work".
Now, the minister gave us those figures but did not seem to have very much to say as to what was to follow from them. He did not think the time had come for an excursion into public works. He suggested that fiscal and monetary policies, which would come from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), might deal with the situation, and accordingly we asked the Minister of Finance what he had to say about it, and at page 2026 of Hansard the minister said in part:
If economic activity declines, the government is in a position to take stronger action in these and other directions, but I should like to emphasize that as I and my colleagues view the present situation there is no justification for stronger action and I have a high degree of confidence that when our winter season of normally reduced activity is passed, economic activity in Canada is likely to resume its upward trend at a satisfactory rate.
Well, there is not much sense of urgency there, Mr. Speaker. We also have a reference from the Minister of Finance in an interview that he had with some of the labour

people. It is reported in the Montreal Gazette of February 12, and here are the minister's words in quotation marks:
"While we should not bury our heads in the sand and say everything is fine", Mr. Abbott declared, "we should be careful and not paint too gloomy a picture, because I do not think it is justified."
"The plans of people with regard to business can be affected by too much talk of rising unemployment and a possible recession". "I think we should be a little careful about taking too gloomy a view about the prospects."
T.L.C. president Bengough said: "I think there are 580,000 out of work. The situation is serious."
Mr. Abbott replied: "I would not say the situation is serious. I would say it is unpleasant. There certainly is higher unemployment than we would like to see."
You will see, Mr. Speaker, that he was certainly not taking it too seriously; indeed his cheerful attitude almost reminded us of the minister on budget night announcing a large unexpected surplus and referring to "buoyant" revenues.
Now we come to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), and I wish to read some comments which he made on the situation because he outlined it in what I think were very sensible terms. The minister described the business situation in what I think were well considered terms. He said, as reported at page 2104 of Hansard:
Toward the latter part of 1953 those indicators which gauged the over-all level of activity in the economy began to level off, and in a few cases have declined slightly. This change in trend reflects largely a reduction in the pressure of demand rather than any decline in over-all volume. In other words requirements, which in the past two or three years have been mounting rapidly, are now simply not expanding at the same rate. This applies to expenditures for defence and for other government requirements, . . .
And later on I read:
This levelling off in demand, taken in conjunction with the moderate decline in activity in the United States' economy, has brought a change in the tempo of business activity in Canada. This type of situation is invariably accompanied by a hesitancy on the part of business in placing orders, more hand-to-mouth buying, and a tendency to reduce inventories. This causes a temporary slow-down in the pace of business which in the present instance has coincided with the seasonally slack period in the economy.
And finally:
Such a situation admittedly gives rise to a good deal of anxiety and. I think, has been prematurely interpreted by many as the beginning of a recessionary trend.
Now, having used these words of moderation and warning, the minister rollicked off to tell us about the billions which he so loves to speak about, and of course billions are important.
His equanimity was considerably assisted by using figures that were very much below those of the Minister of Labour. The only figure which agreed with those of the Minister of Labour was 280,000 "without jobs
Proposed Committee on Unemployment and seeking work". Instead of 357,000 people who, according to the Minister of Labour, "worked fewer than 35 hours", we heard from the Acting Prime Minister that 65,000 persons were "on short time", or were "laid off for part of the week". Instead of 139,000 who, according to the Minister of Labour, "had jobs but did no work during the survey week", the Minister of Trade and Commerce mentioned 24,000 who "for the full week in question were temporarily laid off".
Moreover, after drastically reducing the numbers, the Minister of Trade and Commerce pointed out that they should not be added up. The minister is much better at subtraction than he is at addition, apparently. For the rest of his speech the minister found it convenient to refer to the 280,000, ignoring those who had worked fewer than 35 hours a week and also those who during the week of the inquiry were out of work. I suggest that it makes an awful lot of difference whether a man is working 34 hours and 59 minutes or 20 hours, or whether he is working 15 hours or 5 hours, but apparently those considerations were ignored.
Now, the minister's carelessness in that, may have been partly due to an explanation that he gave us in regard to the figure of unemployed. He told us about some of those on the list who apparently, as far as 1 can make out from the explanation of the minister, just put their names down, as you might say, just for the hell of it, or not very seriously.
I think we could call this a real star turn and I should think that it would be of great encouragement to all the poor fellows who are out of work. The reference is to people who go on the lists for special reasons, and particularly to the woods workers in the minister's area. He said, and I quote from page 2106 of Hansard of February 15:
When the cutting is finished the rr.cn return to town, and most of them go back to the little farms they have in the vicinity of Port Arthur. Before doing so, however, they stop at the employment office, register as unemployed, and request their unemployment benefits. It is quite proper that they should do so. Then when the drive comes on in the early spring, when the rivers start to open, they return to the forest and take care of the hauling and driving of the timber down the river.
And again:
That has been their program, and it has been going on for a good many years.
In that way, apparently the minister comforts himself. He then comes to the bedtime story of the man we might refer to as the rich unemployed, and I quote again from page 2106:
I recall an incident that occurred when I was there about a year ago. A man I knew from my construction days approached me and said that he
2530	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment had just arrived in town from a lumber camp. He wanted to know if I knew where he could get a job. I said, "Do you really want a job?" He said, "I will take a job." I said, "Have you registered for unemployment insurance?" He said, "No; do you think I would stand in line for $24 a week?" That was his attitude. I said, "How much money have you in your pocket?" I will not name the sum, but it was such as to lead me to believe that he was not very anxious to get employment. That situation applies in many parts of Canada. It applies to a good many jobs that are seasonal and always have been seasonal.
I am sure that that gave comfort to the minister and I suppose it will give comfort to the unemployed. I suggest to the minister that he have that part of his speech printed and sent to all the unemployed. I think it would offer great encouragement to them and stimulate them perhaps to get into the same class themselves.
While I am dealing with the question of figures I will refer to the remarks of the senior hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey). He solved the problem of the figures even more easily than the minister because he ignored all except the 280,000. He had no interest in the 357,000 who are working less than 35 hours a week and the 139,000 who apparently are out of work. His conclusions are very simple and entirely in line with my suggestion. He really just told the rest of us to be good little boys and leave everything to the government and everything will be well.
I quote what the hon. member said as reported on page 2177 of Hansard of February 17:
AH 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 should not omit to say that a little earlier in his speech he referred also to the Acting Prime Minister and to an address which he had made some years ago at Dalhousie University. I think it would be suitable also to refer to the eulogy which came also from the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor). The hon. member for Fort William does not like to let the sun set without having said something eulogistic about the Acting Prime Minister. That is very nice too, and I do not see why anyone should object. I continue reading from what the hon. member for Halifax said:
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.
I am sure that the minister welcomed what he had to say. As I listened to the debate;
[M. Macdonnell.l

as I listened to the way the numbers of unemployed were being whittled down, 10,000 here, 100,000 there; as I listened to the rising tide of eulogies on the government, and particularly on the Acting Prime Minister; it seemed to me that as I looked the unemployed faded away more and more into the distance and the figure of the Acting Prime Minister rose almost with a halo around it. It occurred to me that the title of the debate might be, "To the glory of Howe and in memory of the unemployed."


Clarence Decatur Howe: Carefully thought out.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sure the minister would not expect me to be unfair in any way, and it would be very unfair not to point out that he did make a constructive suggestion. It is to that that I wish now to refer. I think it is an original suggestion.
Far be it from me to set myself up as an economist, but I have often talked to economists and near-economists. The suggestion, to be found on page 2106 of Hansard, has the merit of originality and perhaps may have some effect upon the speech to which we will be listening in some weeks by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). It seems to suggest that there is a very simple way to deal with the unemployed, and that is to keep taxes higher and higher. I quote from page 2106 as follows:
We have been reminded that our government expenditures are high. Again they are high because the government foresaw that this would be a difficult year.
It is all there, you see, Mr. Speaker. Everything is foreseen. It is wonderful, really.
The transition from a seller's market to a buyer's market is always difficult. Certainly the worst way in which to meet a transition of that kind is to curtail government investment. That is the old theory that did not work so well back in 1931, that when things get tough the government should stop spending and start squeezing its pocketbook.
I was surprised at comparing 1954 with 1931. I thought hon. members opposite had always thought that such a comparison should not be made.
That is not the time to cut government spending. There were important investments that the government needed to make and, in the light of the general situation, it was decided that this would be a year to loosen the purse strings and step up our public works program, now that military construction is less active. That has been the policy of the government for 1954.
As I say, I had thought that if there was one thing on which there was widespread agreement it was that when there is a business slackening off the best way to stimulate or ginger it up is to reduce taxes. I thought that that was almost universally agreed. I am not overlooking the fact that the minister

used the word "investment". I am not suggesting that there is no such thing as sound government investment, but the words that are used seem to me to introduce the most extreme fallacy at a time when we are being warned on all sides that we are becoming a high-cost economy. I should like to quote briefly from one or two statements to show that the minister's view is, I think, not widely held. At the annual meeting of the Royal Bank of Canada the president had this to say:
I felt obliged last year to voice some doubts about the permanence of a prosperity built so largely on the "treacherous sands of consumer credit."
Everybody wishes to avoid the evils of recession and at the same time to avoid the risk of further inflation. It seems clear therefore that we must depend more largely on the other two methods of stimulating and sustaining demand, namely, tax reductions and price reductions.
Then there is a voice from the United States. The New York Times recently said:
The administration had two powerful antirecession weapons at its disposal, easy money and tax reduction incentives. Few will disagree either in Wall street or Main street that tax reduction probably would be the more effective at this junction.
Without entirely dismissing the idea of government investment, surely if one thing is clear beyond others it is that taxes put up costs and impede exports. There is an interesting comment on this in an article by E. C. Ertl in the current Financial Times as follows:
We have wilfully, or through default of leadership, given in to every pressure that was leading to higher costs.
And again:
We have, in fact, insisted that the foreign buyer whose need for our products was great indeed, would subsidize our high standard of living, by charging him prices he could afford to pay just that long.
To the extent to which his productive capacity has grown again, to that extent does he now refuse to buy from us.
Those are serious words which we should all ponder. It has been demonstrated in this house again and again that taxes do and indeed must put up costs. When we anxiously consider our foreign trade I rather think it will astonish the great bulk of thoughtful people in the business world that the minister should state the reason for which high taxes will remain. But I think we can all imagine that there is one place where the news will be good and where it will be well received. Can you not imagine, Mr. Speaker, when the various departments- which the Minister of Finance assures us and, I am sure, sincerely, that he is trying to keep down to the lowest penny-read these words, the joy with which they will be received. The Acting Prime Minister said, "The worst way in which to meet a transition is to curtail
Proposed Committee on Unemployment government investment" and, further down, "it was decided that this would be a year to loosen the purse strings".
I can imagine that those words would be received with great enthusiasm throughout all the departments and that the news would percolate like a great fructifying flood to all the people whose requests have been turned down by the Minister of Finance. What a fortunate thing it is for all these people that the supplementary estimates are still available. At any rate, it is nice to think that there will be some people who will be in favour of what the minister says. Incidentally, when we remember that in spite of the lowering of defence expenditures our over-all expenditures are up, we can assume that that attitude has already had its effect throughout the departments.
In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, while as I have argued there is no sense of urgency here, events outside are not standing still. There are disquieting reports, which we get in increasing numbers, of Canadian industries that are feeling the pinch here and there; of Canadian companies, controlled in the United States, which are being by-passed by the parent company which can sell its product cheaper in Canada than can the Canadian subsidiary of American companies which are excluding Canadian subsidiaries from the export trade.
As the minister said in his words that I read a while ago, it is a situation which gives rise to a good deal of anxiety. Of course, the fact that there is great anxiety in the United States undoubtedly adds to that feeling. This is the 1st of March. We are beginning a month which is supposed to be the deadline month in the United States. The President has told them that if things were not improving by March, the government would have to step in with more vigorous action.
One of the troubles is that we get optimistic opinions from two quarters that do not amount to much-of course I am referring now to people outside of this house-one group who speak out of the fulness of their ignorance, and others who are well informed but who nevertheless feel that they must not use any but optimistic words lest they actually worsen the situation. Our socialist brethren have offered us their old nostrums. I can only suggest to them that if they will study what is going on in England I think they will find that their English colleagues have turned up their noses already at some of the cure-alls that they were worshipping years ago.
I come back to our resolution, and I stress again the moderation of its terms. I suggest that it would be the most natural thing in the world to adopt it because what the government is saying is this, and 1 do not criticize
2532	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment them for saying it. They are saying, "Wait and see". That can go a little longer; not much longer but a little bit longer. What on earth would be more natural in that period of waiting and seeing than to do what this resolution calls for? I stress again that the resolution is in moderate terms. It merely suggests in effect that two heads are better than one or that three or four heads are better than one.
Any man of common sense knows that a great deal of inquiry is necessary. The only question is whether the government should make it a party matter, and no reason that appeals to me has been given for that procedure. I shall therefore vote for the amendment.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member for Greenwood with a great deal of interest. He quite naturally argued in support of the Conservative amendment that the subject of unemployment should be referred to a committee of this house. I am in favour of the amendment. But when the hon. member came to make practical suggestions as to what might be done about unemployment, he seemed to have just one and that was a reduction in taxes. I suggest that is the kind of suggestion that would get almost unanimous support from the people of Canada.


Mr. Martin:: He said the same as did the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher). They made identical speeches.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


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


Hazen Robert Argue: I am not making a speech for the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre or for the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell). I am not making one either for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). I will endeavour to make my own. I say that the idea of tax reduction may be something that would have almost unanimous support across the country. But before I myself went along with the suggestion now made that taxes should be reduced in the coming budget, I would ask "Whose taxes?" If it is a reduction of taxes of big business, if it is a repetition of reduction in taxes on the wealthy, as we had in last year's budget, then I would not be in favour of such a tax reduction. If it was a reduction in taxes for the mass of the Canadian people who will go out and spend the extra income they receive through a reduction in taxes, then of course I should support such a reduction.
IMr. Macdonnell.]

The hon. member for Greenwood quoted another statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). Speaking in this debate, as reported at page 2106 of Hansard, the minister said:
... it was decided that this would be a year to loosen the purse strings and step up our public works program, now that military construction is less active.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce said, "This is a year to loosen the purse strings". That is all he said. He did not say how the purse strings were going to be loosened. He did not say in what way government expenditures would be stepped up. The most disturbing thing that has come out of this debate, to my mind, is not really whether one set of figures about the number of unemployed is correct or whether another set of figures is correct but the fact that, as the debate has gone on, it has become more and more clear that the government has no policy with which to deal with unemployment. If unemployment should correct itself when spring comes, it is just good luck as far as the government is concerned. But if unemployment should continue-as there is every sign it will-then the government has not yet told parliament and the people of Canada what it would do as a government to alleviate such unemployment. Back in 1945 after the war a white paper was issued by the government. In it the government set forth the proposals it was making to deal with any possible unemployment that might arise. There was to be a large shelf of public works and as unemployment appeared some of those public works were to be taken off the shelf and be put into operation. This debate has continued for two full weeks and we have heard nothing of the shelf of projects to deal with unemployment that was talked of in 1945. Apparently the idea of this government proceeding with public works on a vast scale as a method of dealing with unemployment and correcting unemployment has long been abandoned.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What about the $300 million worth of public works projects contained in the estimates? Is that not a substantial sum?


Hazen Robert Argue: Canada has supported a plan for the trans-Canada highway, but I suggest that the government, now that unemployment has reached a total of 500,000, should consider assisting the municipalities by providing grants for the building of market roads. If the government would undertake such grants, I am sure that municipalities generally across this dominion would be prepared to use those grants and thus help correct the severe unemployment problem that is with us now.
Some people have always said, well it is all right to advocate spending money but where are you going to get all the money that is necessary for such a proposal? I say it is not a question of how much money it will cost; it is not a question basically of where we shall get the money. The question is this: Does Canada now have resources that are not being fully utilized? I say the answer is yes, we have a half a million unemployed and we have all the basic raw materials that are necessary for an adequate road and highway system. I suggest that the time has now come when our federal government should be giving greater leadership and more financial assistance to the building of roads. A system of road grants should be inaugurated to enable municipalities to undertake an adequate system of roads. If such were now undertaken in Canada we would be just forty years behind the United States in starting such a road program.
I believe the government should consider also the proposition that has been frequently advanced in this house by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight), namely, that there should be federal grants for education. In the brief presented by the UAW-CIO- CCL, it is stated that Canada needs thousands of elementary school classrooms. The brief points out that with Canada's rapidly growing population we now have 63 per cent more children of public school age than we had some ten years ago. I believe the federal government should promote the construction of adequate schools as a further means of dealing with the serious unemployment problem we now have.
For years now I have advocated the expansion of one field of social security, namely, an increase in the family allowances. If family allowances in Canada were increased, there would be an immediate increased demand for Canadian textiles and food, both of which are in surplus supply now. And further, I should like to see the government adopt an adequate and farsighted program to assist agriculture. In advocating such a program I do not think I could put the need for

such a program more clearly than it is set forth in the brief presented by the UAW. On page 10, it says:
The impressive and productive efforts of Canadian farmers to assure Canada abundance of food and fibre should not be rewarded by depressing the living standards of the people who work the land.
A full employment program must assure full equity to the farmer in exchanging the things he grows for the things he buys, and include national policies to restore the overseas markets that Canadian farmers have lost since the end of world war II. The 1929 depression proved beyond doubt that the prosperity of industrial workers and the prosperity of farmers are inseparably tied together. Canadian farmers need more tractors, trucks, combines and other agricultural implements which our agricultural implement industry is capable of producing, but our farmers either cannot afford or are not now buying this equipment because of their fear and uncertainty about their economic future.
Here is a document, Mr. Speaker, presented by one of Canada's largest unions, a document that I say might have been drafted by some of our foremost agricultural organizations. In Canada today the farmer and the labourer are coming closer and closer together. The worker realizes that his only chance to obtain a high wage is when the farmer is getting high prices for the commodities he has to sell. Conversely, the only way for the farmer to get high prices for the food products he produces is for the industrial worker to get high wages.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce left me absolutely cold when I heard him say, to the farm implement industry representatives, that wages in the farm implement industry had gone so high that the industry had priced itself out of the market. He said, "I suggest that you find employment elsewhere"-and he described that as being the cold-blooded fact.
I do not think it is a case of high wages pushing up farm machinery prices at all. It is a case of high profits, skyrocketing profits, pushing up farm machinery prices. I would refer the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the brief, at page 5, where it lists increases in profits in the farm implement industry in Canada from 1946 to 1951 and points out that they increased by 223-6 per cent, while the increase in wages during the same period was only 107-1 per cent. The farm implement industry profits far outdistanced the increase in wages of farm implement workers. And if we want employment in the farm implement industry, then the thing to do is not to say to the farm implement workers who are unemployed, "Go to some other place and try to get work somewhere else, so as to bring down the level of wages by competition." That is not the way to solve unemployment in the farm implement industry.
Proposed Committee on Unemployment
I say the way to solve unemployment in the farm implement industry is to give our agricultural producers a guarantee that they are going to receive reasonable prices for farm products over the next few years. Assure them that the government is not going to let the bottom drop out of farm prices. If our agricultural industry is given that assurance, then the farmers will buy farm machinery. I have not seen a farmer yet who would prefer to drive a tractor 30 years old, if he could have a new one. I have not yet seen a farmer who prefers to stand out on the side of the road and prime the vacuum tank of an old 1927 Chevrolet truck while one of his neighbours drives by at 50 miles an hour in a 1953 or 1954 model.
All the government has to do, to see that increased purchases are made of farm implements-trucks, automobiles, textiles, and every other thing produced in Canada-is to see that all Canadians have the purchasing power with which to buy those goods. If the government will undertake an adequate system of public works, a program that will stabilize farm income and will improve our social security legislation, it can deal effectively with the unemployment problem, and can at the same time raise the general standard of living of the Canadian people.
I want to point out to hon. members on the government side of the house that such a statement cannot be considered radical. Such a statement cannot be considered irresponsible, since that kind of statement was repeated over and over again by the late prime minister during the war, and immediately thereafter.
The war is now a long distance in the past. The objectives that were held out as the reason for our undertaking such terrible sacrifices apparently have now been forgotten. The great new order we were to see is being heralded in 1954 by half a million unemployed. We are waiting to hear from the government what it intends to do to solve unemployment and to prevent further disaster.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, if talk would give employment to people, then we in this chamber would certainly be doing our share to solve the problem in Canada. For two weeks the government has been trying to get into supply. The motion was first moved on February 15. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) then offered an amendment which touched off the present debate on unemployment.
2536	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment
I am the forty-sixth speaker on the list, and I believe this is the sixth day on which the debate has been proceeding. It must be obvious of course to the people of Canada that members of parliament do view with some seriousness the present unemployment situation. I feel quite sure that all hon. members, whether they be on the government or on the opposition side of the house, do look with a great many misgivings on the present very large number of Canadians who find themselves out of gainful employment.
Continued unemployment on any substantial scale in Canada unquestionably will have an adverse effect on our economy, and will strike fear into the hearts and minds of many people. As a matter of fact, ever since the apparent change in attitude on the part of Russia, and the beginning of the so-called peace talks, there has been a great deal of fear in the minds of our Canadian people. Early last summer the stock market reacted to the possibility that we might be entering a period of peace. During the election campaign last summer the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in a broadcast felt it necessary to reassure the people in this country about this whole matter. He pointed out that Canadians had been enjoying a number of years of prosperity, which he said we had enjoyed in spite of the fact that the government had been obliged to spend no less than two billions of dollars a year on defence. If, he argued at that time, it were possible to maintain prosperity while at the same time spending two billions of dollars a year on defence, then how much greater prosperity could we achieve finally if we got into a period of peace. He said the government then would no longer have to spend two billions of dollars a year on defence and would be able to use that money for the purpose of raising the general level of economic activity and wellbeing in Canada.
I am sure that there is substantial agreement with what the Prime Minister said at that time. I certainly agreed with him; and I do not think anyone in the house would differ. But it seems to me the present large and widespread unemployment in Canada is ample evidence that thus far the Liberal administration has failed in peacetime to keep the economy in a condition of wellbeing. The government minimizes the situation today and makes the claim that we should not be talking about depression. Government members claim that such talk may help to bring on a depression.
Well, of course, I hardly need remind hon. members that in 1929, just before the slump into the depression of the thirties, we were


talking about nothing but boom and prosperity. Then the crash came, and we went into what we now call the dirty thirties, and sometimes the hungry thirties. The government also makes the claim that the prosperity we have been enjoying since 1939 has come as a consequence of Liberal policy. Well, we have enjoyed prosperity since 1939; but it was not because of the virtues of Liberal policy. It has been because the Liberal government has been riding a war-horse for all it is worth. That was how we got into prosperity, the prosperity we have enjoyed since 1939; and that is how we have kept in it.
The government claims that as long as the Liberal party is in office we need not worry about unemployment and its possible consequence, depression, among other things. The government I think is again overoptimistic, because I think that such optimism is dangerous, and especially dangerous if it diverts our attention from the problems that we face.
Then, I want to say something about depression this afternoon, a depression which may result from widespread unemployment. No hon. member, certainly no one who has lived since the late 1920's, needs to be convinced that depression is a fact, and that it can come quickly once it gets started. We know, too, that depressions have occurred from time to time throughout the past as far back almost as anyone can remember. The evidence on this point is overwhelming, and all students of economics accept depressions as an established fact. They also accept that depressions result from policies of men and governments.
In recent years a great amount of statistical work has been done in an attempt to find out whether depressions occur at regular intervals, and if so, what the intervals are. The information that they have gathered together is exceedingly important, and in my judgment very valuable. Nevertheless, the tremendous emphasis which economists and students of economics have placed on what they call the periodicity-that is a big word, I know, and certainly it is not original with me-I say the emphasis that the students of economics have placed upon what they call the periodicity or booms and slumps has had a most unfortunate effect upon thinking. A hundred years ago economists denied the possibility of a general and prolonged depression such as we experienced in the 1930's throughout most of the world. They did not attempt to deny the existence of slumps, however, and consequently argued that a slump is a deflationary movement which lets the hot air

out of a preceding inflationary movement, thus of course restoring the economic balance.
1 say that when undue emphasis is placed upon the periodicity of prosperity and depression it naturally serves to nourish a state of mind in which one expects a slump always to be right on the tail of a boom. That is what they call the boom and bust kind of thinking or philosophy.
It seems easy for those people who do think in terms of the boom and bust sequence to get into the habit of thinking of each upward movement as the cause of the following downward movement, and vice versa, just as one might think of the swing of the pendulum as causing the resultant opposite swing. I think such people, in getting into that habit of thinking, ignore such questions as what set the pendulum swinging in the first place, and what kind of mainspring it is that keeps the pendulum in motion perpetually.
Some economists and others refer to this kind of sequence as a self-generating theory, and they say that our economy is given to this self-generation. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe any such tripe. I do not think it is a theory at all; it is only the standardization of ignorance. Then they try to call it a philosophy. At any rate, the habit of pendulum thinking today is quite widespread. There are those people who are talking as though they are perfectly sure that a depression will inevitably follow the period of postwar prosperity that we have had. Most people have learned a great many things since the boom days of 1929. One of the things we have learned is that no economy could possibly swing back and forth so wildly through one extreme to the other as ours has done without there being something very wrong about it. One outstanding United States economist has said:
There is indeed something very wrong with our economy. It fails to distribute mass consumer purchasing power in sufficient quantity to permit the whole product of industry to be purchased. This failure exists at all times under our system and is bad at all times.
These are the words he used. If our economy were constitutionally sound and well, the expansion which accompanies prosperity would not be unwholesome and dangerous in any way. But, Mr. Speaker, our economy is not sound. The real disease affecting it is a constitutional disease, and we have to look after it in a constitutional manner. In any period of prosperity the flow of mass consumer purchasing power fails to keep pace with the growth of industry. That fact is beginning to become very apparent throughout the whole world.
Proposed Committee on Unemployment
Throughout the 1920's there was a good deal of talk about the discovery by some wise man that high wages paid off in prosperity. Well, it was tried. I can remember the high wages that I earned as a boy; I can also remember some other things that went along with it. The flow of mass consumer purchasing power through increasing wages, however, was expanding throughout practically the whole of the 1920's; but we know now that it was not increasing anything like as fast as the national production. On the contrary, the discrepancy between mass consumer purchasing power and total productive capacity was steadily increasing all the way from 1922 to 1929. At the peak, in the early months of 1929, according to the Brookings Institution's findings, in its very interesting and most illuminating study, "America's Capacity to Produce and Consume", production was 19 per cent short of existing productive capacity. I emphasize that point because it can mean only one thing, namely, that purchasing power is not generated even in peacetime as fast as goods are produced, and that is the serious thing for our consideration.
In spite of the establishment of this fact beyond all successful contradiction, during the past seven or eight years, we have witnessed a constant struggle on the part of labour throughout the country for higher wages, when all the time they would have been infinitely better off if they had been joining in the great drive to try to increase the flow of mass consumer purchasing power, to try to keep up their own purchasing power rather than just to increase the number of dollars that they called take-home pay.
Well, the break came in October, 1929. I will not pause here to try to discuss the steps by which it had come. I think some hon. members have already done that. Let it be enough to say that a few people had already seen that a crash was inevitable, and that it was bound to come sooner or later. They said so. I remember hearing some of them, and for several years depression came and deepened, with production falling off and unemployment of men and dollars steadily increasing, until the winter of 1932-33 in the United States there was an avalanche of bank failures, which brought about real trouble.
In our Canada, right up until 1935, we gradually slumped into the depths of a depression, the like of which we had never experienced in all our days.
At this point the government of the United States-I am speaking of 1933-began a pumppriming action. At first the amount of money
2536	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment they spent was a mere trickle, but the effect of it was felt almost instantaneously. The flow of that money increased continuously, until the winter of 1936 and 1937, when the soldiers' bonus was pyramided on top of the payments made by various recovery agencies, such as W.P.A. and others, when there was a sharp upturn of prosperity in the United States that did have some effect right here in Canada. However, we had not done very much in this country and as a consequence we did not feel the upturn nearly so readily nor so sharply as they did in the United States.
Finally, in 1939, things began to take on a different complexion; but, Mr. Speaker, it was not recovery measures instituted as a consequence of Liberal policies that ended the depression. It was the war. The most bitter critics of the process of government spending our way out of depression are very insistent on this point, that it was the war that brought us out of the depression. All economists recognize that war is a colossal system of public works in a sense. In the course of war industry booms, the volume of production reaches undreamed-of heights, just as it did in Canada. And the whole thing is financed by government funds, much of which is newly created.
Only a comparatively few short months before the outbreak of the war of 1939 the Social Credit group in this house proposed to the Minister of Finance that the government create and spend into circulation in Canada $200 million to get the wheels of industry started again and to provide employment for the unemployed thousands. The Social Credit members at that time were told that they were a bunch of idiots to think of such a thing, that it would bring on the worst kind of inflation, or in the alternative would wreck our economy.
However, it was only a matter of hours after the declaration of war in the fall of 1939 that Mr. Ilsley went to the chartered banks and on his own word arranged with them a substantial expansion of credit amounting to approximately $200 million in order to get the war effort started. Since that time there have been a good many billions of dollars of new purchasing power created and poured into the bloodstream of the economy of Canada. Well, the government continued pouring the mass purchasing power into the economy all during the war and we were able to finance and prosecute a pretty creditable war effort for a small country of 13,500,000 people. And then came peace.
Now in the first year after the war ended, 1946, the governor of the Bank of Canada, reviewing the economic situation in our 

country and the trends of the time, issued a warning in the Bank of Canada report of February 8, 1946. I should like to quote briefly from page 9 where, after reviewing a table showing the national expenditure, Mr. Towers had this to say:
Trends in these components of national expenditure, taken together, will determine whether or not a satisfactory high level of employment and income can be maintained in the years ahead.
Clearly it is the first two items in the expenditure table, comprising total government outlay, which represented the main driving force behind the very high level of activity which was attained during the war period. Canada's problem now is to expand the other types of expenditure, and particularly domestic private investment and domestic consumption, in order that there will be compensating stimulus as government outlays decline to their post-war level.
It is clear that what Mr. Towers foresaw in 1946 was that the government would experience difficulty in maintaining mass consumer purchasing power at a level high enough to stimulate a high level of economic activity. That, he said, would be one of our major problems. On page 10 of the same annual report of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Towers warned the country in these terms:
Looking to the future, however, there is no room for complacency. Most of our real problems of postwar adjustment are still ahead. The backlog of demand will not be large in relation to productive capacity when industry has been fully reconverted and inventories built up to normal levels. When the time lag involved in demobilization is over, government expenditures will fall rapidly. Nor will our foreign lending to finance the purchase of Canadian goods remain indefinitely at the present level. The prevailing optimism on the North American continent is dangerous if it diverts attention from the problems which have to be faced.
Those were sober words and they should have been listened to. They should still be considered as a warning to the Canadian people. It now appears from the size of the unemployment backlog in Canada that the words of the governor of the Bank of Canada have at least gone partly unheeded. We have become complacent and we are now facing a dangerous situation as a consequence. The very fact that the government has not made a pronouncement with respect to the means that they propose to adopt in relation to the unemployment crisis is evidence that we have become complacent.
During wartime Canada built up a huge producing machine which made it possible for us to make, as I said before, a very creditable war effort for a population as small as ours. But efficient as that production machine was during the war, unless care is taken it can cause havoc in peacetime. What we need more than anything else today is a policy, a real down-to-earth policy, for adjusting our nation's purchasing power so that it can match our large

power of production and our still larger possibilities of the immediate future-what we look upon as the atomic future.
Back in the 1930's, when we were in the depths of the depression, we Social Crediters maintained that the government could induce a flow of consumer purchasing power sufficient to absorb the entire product of industry, that is to distribute it, however large the volume of production might be. We contended that there was no economic bar to doing this and that it was only good common horse sense to see that it was done. However, we were laughed at then.
But time has vindicated our contentions. Nobody with any sense or judgment today will deny that the government can induce a flow of consumer purchasing power sufficient to absorb the entire product of industry. People now know that in this respect war is quite like a great system of public works, as I have already said, except that they do not necessarily involve death and destruction.
Government projects are not limited to the production of munitions of war. On the contrary, a public works program in peacetime may produce monuments of enduring value. That is the kind of thing that we believe is possible. The best example is what happened under W.P.A. in the United States during the thirties. The United States government spent many millions of dollars of public funds and in so doing they built schools, hospitals, community halls and all that sort of thing which will stand for many years as monuments to the vision of men who declared that when unemployment begins to show itself the government should induce the flow of consumer purchasing power so as to get things started, and then make use of the purchasing power to build lasting assets that will serve this generation as well as the next and perhaps the next. I point out at once that the United States ran the country into almost hopeless debt unnecessarily in the process of carrying out public works programs.
I think that public works and housing have come almost universally to be accepted as by far the most desirable of governmental recovery measures. Many of the speakers in the present debate have stressed this point and have asked' the government to lose no time in setting up enough works and housing projects so that men who now find themselves out of work will be able to get a job and an income without further delay.
There are so many things that we could be doing. For example, I think we ought to hang our heads in shame as a nation that
1,	1954	2539
Proposed Committee on Unemployment we have grown to 87 years of age and still have not completed a trans-Canada highway. We should have had one a long while ago and it should have been built by the federal government instead of placing so much of the responsibility upon the provincial governments. This is one of the very few countries in the world which have forced the lesser governments to carry a substantial burden of the cost of a trans-nation highway.
The provinces and municipalities are so heavily laden with taxation today and their financial problems are so great that they cannot build the roads which are required if we are to have a trans-Canada highway or a system of highways throughout the country. Mr. Speaker, I think this government should take the lead and not only build the trans-Canada highway but also join with the provinces in the building of a system of secondary highways throughout the whole country. We need great irrigation projects in the west. My friend the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) has already mentioned the Red Deer diversion scheme. We have heard a great deal here about the Saskatchewan river project. These projects ought to be built, and when they are built they will stand as lasting monuments to the enterprise of a great people and a forwardlooking government.
I do not intend to weary the house with an interminable list of all the things we need, but I would be remiss in my duty to my own constituency and people if I did not mention the fact that the great Peace river country- that vast inland empire that will be so important to Canada and its strength in the future- needs a railway to the Pacific coast; and while there is a great backlog of unemployed manpower in this country is the time to get started on the building of that road.
I recall with what enthusiasm we looked forward to the post-war period. During the war this very House of Commons appointed what was called the reconstruction committee, if I remember correctly. I think it was under the able chairmanship of the gentleman who has since become Senator Turgeon. That committee studied the economic situation in Canada and the needs of the post-war years most carefully, and came up with a whole bag of suggestions and proposals which the government called its "shelf of projects" for reconstruction. Sometimes I, along with other members of the house, wonder what has happened to that shelf of projects.
I think the Turgeon committee did a good job, and because I think so I am inclined to the belief that what we ought to do now, instead of referring this whole question of unemployment, its causes and cures, to the
2540	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment standing committee on industrial relations, as has been suggested, is to set up a permanent or standing committee o 1 this house. We should charge that committee with the responsibility of a yearly investigation and report to parliament on the facts of unemployment and the general economic situation; and perhaps it should be asked to make recommendations concerning measures that might be taken to keep Canadians busy and the Canadian economy at a high level of activity and wellbeing. This committee might be called the economic research and development committee or some such thing; I do not care what the name might be. If the rules of the house did not limit to one the subamendments that can be moved to a motion of this kind, I would seriously consider moving a subamendment asking for the establishment of such a standing committee.
I am one of those who believe that we should not be spending our time castigating the government and blaming it for every single thing that goes wrong. I believe we all must take our responsibility and so must the taxpayers and the electors of this country.
It has occurred to me that a thoughtful observer who might drop in from some other planet, if he should land on the earth today, would have a hard time understanding our present widespread fear of a coming recession. While he listened to us debating here in this house and forecasting all kinds of gloomy things he would see around this country electronics in great profusion. He would see ingenious gas turbines and all kinds of marvellous new types of machinery and factories. He would see this most awe-inspiring atomic power development just about ready to be used for peacetime purposes. He would not know, nor do we, all the fine things which these resources he sees might bring to Canada. We certainly do not yet know whether working hours will decrease or increase in the future. We know, however, that the output from all our resources, when fully developed, could enrich our people beyond our fondest dreams. Continued increasing prosperity would seem to be the logical result of all the things we have at hand today.
When I think of that I have to ask myself, "What in the world is wrong? Why the fears that we are expressing at this time? Who are the culprits in this whole business of unemployment and of gloom"? I think the real trouble lies in the fact that so far we have all failed to accept our responsibilities in a real effort to gear the nation's income to its powers of production. We should not be too much concerned with placing on the government or on anybody else the blame for the present situation. It


seems to me that we should be concerned with placing the responsibility for leading the country out of it. That is the important thing. Every voter, every member of the business groups, every member of the labour unions, every member of the professional groups as well as every member of this house governs this nation through his action or his lack of action, and particularly by what he demands of his business group, his labour union and his member of parliament. Therefore I say they must take their responsibility.
As a nation we have a tremendous number of mechanical slaves, gadgets that do the dirty work for us and save us all from drudgery and physical exhaustion and the monotony that we would naturally face if we were to do all the work that we used to have to do by hand, and which kept our noses to the grindstone. These things that we have at hand, these mechanical slaves, do not necessarily mean that we can cut working hours to the vanishing point or even near it, nor need they take away from us our jobs. With these gadgets, these machines and factories, we should be making one of the greatest production and distribution efforts the world has ever seen.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, that we had figures like the ones I found in a magazine not so long ago. We do not have them, but I wish we had. Perhaps if the kind of standing committee I have suggested were to be set up they could set about gathering such figures and publishing them so our people would know them. I was much interested in figures published in 1950 in a well-known United States publication called Factory Management and Maintenance. This magazine and its editors ventured to set up an estimate of future production in the United States. They pointed out that in 1879,
2.733.000	industrial workers supplied the nation with $109 worth of goods per person. In 1939, 7,887,000 workers gave the people $434 worth of goods per person. On the basis of this trend and having in mind all available information on future mechanization, the editors of this magazine expected
11.140.000	workers in 1950 to supply $637 worth of goods per person. By 1960 it is estimated that out of a population of 150 million, 10,050,000 workers will be available and they will likely produce $717 worth of goods per person. As I say, if a standing committee of the kind I have suggested were set up, we could soon gather a great many interesting facts and figures of this kind for our use in estimating what the future is going to hold for this great country.
I see that my time is rapidly being exhausted, Mr. Speaker, and I do not want

to weary the house any further. But I do suggest in closing that my sympathies are with those who find themselves without work and without incomes. I still have very poignant memories of two years with a job but without income back in the thirties. I went through that experience. Those early thirties were days when many of us were the fattest, healthiest, nakedest people in the world. I am sure that many people suffered far worse than I did, but I went through enough so that my sympathies are with those who find themselves without incomes today. Many of them have bought homes requiring substantial monthly payments. If they cannot pay their mortgage instalments, out they will go and they will lose whatever equities they have in them. A man with no home to go to has really lost his freedom.
We do not need to have a depression, Mr. Speaker, although it is hard to tell the unemployed head of a Canadian family who is being evicted from his home that we are not in one now. I am referring to a real slump. We do not need to have one, and I do not believe we will have one. Our country has a bright future. Our country has plenty to commend it to any enterprising person who wants to live and work here. The greatest blessing that can come to any man in my judgment is to have all the work he can do all the days of his life. We have every cause for optimism, but in our optimism let us not become blind to facts that have such portent for the future.
We do need the kind of watchdog economic committee of this house which I have proposed to be constantly on guard for the Canadian people. I suggest that it be set up immediately to begin its studies. In the meantime the government should meet the present unemployment problem by doing these five particular things, amongst others:
1.	They should increase unemployment insurance benefits and provide for some sort of temporary stay of execution of mortgage foreclosures until economic activity again absorbs the unemployed.
2.	They should press forward with housing plans, with emphasis on low income and low rental schemes. If this is to be effective the interest rates must be brought down, because high interest rates today are the great stumbling block in our housing program.
3.	They should adopt realistic trade policies and conclude trade agreements with all countries willing to trade with us on a mutually satisfactory basis. In particular, Canada should cultivate greater trade with Britain and the sterling area and be prepared to settle balances by accepting some sterling.
Proposed Committee on Unemployment
4.	We should adopt a realistic Canada first policy under which as much as possible of our raw materials will be manufactured in Canada. In particular, we should make absolutely sure that the pipe and other materials that go into the trans-Canada pipe line are as far as possible fabricated in Canada; and we say that any subsidies that are paid, either directly or by way of tax remission, must be paid to Canadian companies and not United States companies. Moreover, in my judgment we must finance development in Canada to a much greater degree than ever before with Canadian capital.
5.	There should be an immediate increase in old age pensions and war veterans allowances. That would provide a greater market for the surpluses of our country and would stimulate greater employment.
I see that my time is used up, and I appreciate the indulgence of the house; but before I sit down may I once more warn all my colleagues in the house against becoming so complacent and optimistic as not to be aware of the portents and signs that face us every day if we just look around.


Mr. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my purpose to repeat the many things that have been said about unemployment already in this debate. However, the situation as it exists in my own riding does bear mentioning. It is serious, and all the fine words from the government benches about the situation improving are not relieving the actual hardship thus far. Further, it seems to me that those occupying the government benches are burying their heads in the sand like the ostrich, hoping that time will pull them out of their dilemma.
The Globe and Mail of February 22 reports the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) as having predicted in Chatham the previous Saturday that there would be a resurgence of employment in March. I am wondering which year he meant. We are into March, 1954, right now, and the only feeling prevalent in my home city of Stratford is one of fear. This feeling of fear is, I think, most pronounced amongst the men laid off at the Canadian National Railways locomotive shops, and their families. This fear also extends to those still employed. There are rumours and fears of further layoffs. The government does nothing to allay those fears.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare is further reported to have charged the Progressive Conservative opposition in parliament with sounding "the old Tory cry of blue ruin".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
2542	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment


Jay Waldo Monteith: In my opinion the Conservative opposition has every faith in the future of this Canada of ours.


An hon. Member:: Show it.


Jay Waldo Monteith: We can see wonderful prospects for the future. We believe in that ultimate future. But surely we are not preaching blue ruin when we attempt to bring to the attention of the government certain critical conditions as they exist at this moment. This fear I mentioned a moment ago is having drastic results. The merchants of Stratford, while depending on trade with the surrounding rural districts, also depend on trade with people working in Stratford. The reports I receive are that not only the people already laid off are not spending but those still working, and particularly those employed at the C.N.R. shops, fear the future and as a consequence are not spending. This lack of spending naturally brings on the sequel of the merchants not buying and the manufacturers not producing, resulting in the subsequent lay-off of more workers.
I believe it is the government's duty to put these fears at rest. They should take the lead and assure their own employees in the C.N.R. that their jobs are secure. That in itself would give confidence to the country as a whole. In a question I placed on the order paper on February 3 information was sought as to any long-term plans for the full utilization of the locomotive shops in Stratford. The answer was to the effect that while these facilities were excellent for steam locomotive maintenance their use for other railway purposes is limited, but is under study.
Let me bring to the attention of the house the fact that an addition to these shops was completed in October, 1949, at an approximate cost of $500,000. Is it possible the management would be so shortsighted as to spend that kind of money in 1949 and not have some plan for the future? They surely must be able to utilize these premises for some purpose. How about building and repairing freight and passenger equipment?
I have heard it mentioned that gas turbine engines have been considered. If so, could these be developed in Stratford?
A special committee of the Stratford Canadian National Railways federated crafts, representing more than 1,000 mechanical workers, met recently in that city. The following is part of a statement issued by them as reported in the Stratford Beacon-Herald of February 19:
The following modernization has taken place in recent years:
1.	A new annex costing over half a million dollars.
2.	New machinery at an average cost of $400,000 a year over a period of the past eight years.
[Mr. Monteith.l

3.	Modern lighting system.
4.	New boilers and compressor in the power house.
5.	Power supply control system for hydroelectric, and
6.	Heat-treating furnaces.
The Stratford shops are strategically located for the handling of repairs to any type of locomotive in the central region, and the skill and ability _ of shop employees has long been recognized as being of the highest calibre.
It just does not make sense to me to spend millions of dollars on construction and equipment and have no ultimate utilization in mind as dieselization takes place.
The government seem to be most unconcerned about getting rid of the wheat in western Canada. May I say that if they were more concerned about this problem, and also about the export of other agricultural products, we would not be too apprehensive about the immediate future. I can mention cheese factories in my riding that have been closed because of lack of markets. I can tell the house of manufacturing concerns in Perth county that have been accustomed to selling a large percentage of their output in western Canada. Their sales and eventually their employment have dropped precipitously because money is not available in western Canada to purchase these goods. Why does that condition exist? It is because the farmers have wheat instead of money.
I assert, Mr. Speaker, that the present government is manifestly unfair when it seeks to blame a previous Conservative administration for having brought on the depression of 1929 which extended into the thirties. Further, it occurs to me that the government is acting today exactly as it did in 1929, when it ignored obvious signals of economic distress. In that year the late Prime Minister Mackenzie King was in office, and in the house he denied that there was serious unemployment. He later visited Winnipeg and was shocked to be met by a throng of men demanding that he find jobs for them. Surely in 1954 the government might take the lead in alleviating fear, as I think they could well do by establishing a committee to study the situation as it exists today.
Surely such important matters as the loss of stable export markets for the primary products of our farms, our forest, our fisheries and our mines, and the ever-increasing competition both at home and abroad for our secondary industries, warrant the attention of the members of this parliament. It is upon these factors in our economy that a high level of economic activity depends. These problems determine the amount of gainful employment available to our people, because lost markets mean closed factories, lay-offs on our railway systems, and eventually

depressed prices for our farmers because the unemployed worker is unable to buy the things he wants and needs.


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: The
debate which is now in progress began on February 15, so we are now in the third week of the debate. During that time we have had admissions from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) to the effect that there is an increase in seasonal unemployment, and furthermore that seasonal factors are not the only ones which enter into the present unemployment situation. Among other factors the minister admitted to the house that keener import competition, increasing competition in world markets, improved technology and accumulation of inventories were all contributing to the situation.
Notwithstanding all that has been said by opposition members, notwithstanding all that has been said by labour delegations which have appeared before parliament during the past three weeks, the government still refuse to admit that the unemployment situation is a serious one. Instead of offering the house and the country some concrete proposals or statement of government policy regarding the unemployment situation, ministers and Liberal members generally are quite content to tell opposition members to keep quiet and wait for the spring.
This seems the only solution the government has offered to the approximately half a million unemployed in this country. Opposition members who attempt to point out the seriousness of the present situation are criticized by government speakers as being propagators of an attitude of gloom. We are assured by the government that once the warm weather arrives the unemployment situation will be alleviated and all will be well. I have on my desk here two memoranda submitted to the cabinet two years ago, one by the city council of Toronto and the other by the municipal council of the township of York. Two years ago both these municipal councils were calling upon the government to take immediate action to relieve them of the burden of caring for unemployed employables. At that time the government said, wait for spring; it is only seasonal. A year ago it was the same story.
Now for the third time we are hearing that same spring song of the Liberal party.
I suggest that instead of criticizing opposition members for calling the government's attention to the realities of this situation, the government might well counteract any gloom or tendency toward panic that may exist in this country by making some forthright
1. 1954	2543
Proposed Committee on Unemployment statement concerning the policy to be adopted in the immediate future. It is not good enough to just criticize opposition members for calling attention to these conditions and ask half a million unemployed people to tighten their belts until spring comes. The truth is that for the past number of years the so-called seasonal unemployment has been increasing each winter. The number of unemployed has been increasing winter by winter, and the number of unemployed during the summer months has been increasing. The Minister of Labour admitted that the unemployment situation today is more than seasonal in nature, and certainly is one that deserves some consideration by the government.
I am rather surprised that Liberal members coming from constituencies where thousands of people are being forced to exhaust their personal savings and fall back upon municipal relief are not having more to say in this chamber concerning that condition. It seems to me that Liberal members, even from those constituencies in which unemployment is quite serious today, are following the example of the cabinet ministers and simply trying to bury their heads still deeper in the sand, in order that they may not see the situation as it really is. I am sure it must be a great consolation to a man who has no job and nothing with which to buy food for his children to know that the Minister of Labour understands just why he is without a job! I am sure it must be quite a consolation to him to know that his lack of a job is not just seasonal, but that it is due to accumulated inventories or to international competition for trade, and that the Minister of Labour is quite conversant with all this! And I suppose the government considers it is quite all right to ask these people to live on faith until such time as something turns up.
I suggest that the people who are unemployed want something more than faith-yes, even faith in the Liberal government. It takes more than faith to feed hungry children, and that is the situation which exists in this country today. When the press begins to carry accounts of breadlines and soup-kitchens, accounts of evictions and of foreclosures and of angry unemployed, it is high time the government offered those unemployed something more than liberal doses of faith. It is high time the Liberal government made some statement and gave those people some encouragement, some hope, so they may know the government is actually doing something to counteract the rising flood of unemployment. It is the present situation in
2544	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment respect of the unemployed, as such, and not speeches by members in the opposition that is spreading gloom throughout the country.
At the end of the war, back in 1945, the Canadian people were led to believe that government economists had learned something from the thirties and the war years that followed. The predecessor of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the predecessor of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) all assured us at that time that unemployment could be prevented. They went into considerable detail to show us exactly how it could be done.
I have here on my desk what is known as the green books of government proposals, and I believe these are well known to all. We might almost call it the Liberal gospel for unemployment. It was presented with a great deal of fanfare back in August of 1945. It covers the question of trade, and sets out what the government would do in matters of trade in the event of unemployment. It discusses the matter of unemployment insurance and what would be done in that regard. It goes into the field of social security and points out how the government would increase purchasing power by increasing social services in order to offset rising unemployment. It gives well over a page of public works for which the dominion is fully responsible, and others which it is prepared to consider after assuming full responsibility. These were undertakings designed to meet the rising tide of unemployment. Housing was to be one of those projects which was to help take up the slack of unemployment. A national health program was another. This was going to help bolster the purchasing power of the Canadian people.


Paul Joseph James Martin: And has it not done so?


Joseph William Noseworthy: There are even financial arrangements discussed. I find this very interesting at page 48:
In carrying out its employment policy it will at times be necessary for large deficits to be incurred while at the same time expenditures are being increased or taxation reduced in order to aid employment. If it is to carry deficits at times when they are necessary for the maintenance of employment and income, the dominion should be in a position to recapture in periods of high employment and vigorous business activity revenue from rising incomes and profits.
The government has been in that position during the last few years. They have been in a position to build up large surpluses in periods of high employment and rising profits. It seems to me the time has now arrived where the present unemployment situation warrants the government taking a look at the financial arrangements it proposed back in 1945.


What has happened to the cabinet since 1945? Why is it that today's cabinet shows so little interest in or sympathy for the proposals which were put forth in such detail at that time as measures for curbing rising unemployment? Is it that the majority of the cabinet ministers are too young and inexperienced to realize just how serious the situation is? Is it that the older members of the cabinet who were a party to this policy in 1945 have lost their influence? Is it just because the cabinet is now under the direction of a new prime minister, one who may not have the same faith in these policies that his predecessor had?
Certainly we are entitled to ask why this different attitude is being taken by the cabinet today with respect to the serious unemployment situation, and why they do not follow the policies proposed in 1945 to meet just such a situation. If those leaders were sincere in 1945-and I do not for a moment question their sincerity; if they knew then what they were talking about, and I am taking it for granted that they did-then it is difficult to understand why the present cabinet will permit unemployment to increase year by year without doing something about it except asking the country to wait for spring and telling the opposition to shut up.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The present Prime Minister says the government is creating an atmosphere within which full employment can become possible. The unemployed in Canada want something more than atmosphere to meet their situation, something more than even Liberal government atmosphere. Atmosphere is no substitute for bread, no matter how liberal that atmosphere may be. If gloom spreads throughout this country; if fear, which is already rising in this country, becomes panic, the blame must be placed not on opposition members for calling the attention of the government to this situation, but upon the government itself for failing to give the country any assurance, any hope that they are going to be rescued from this situation.
It is now quite evident from all authentic reports, and from the statement made to the house by the Minister of Labour, that it will require more than spring to provide anything like full employment for all employable Canadians. It is quite evident also to all who choose to face realities that employment this coming summer will not reach last summer's level. It is also evident that many of those formerly employed in shipping, in textiles, in farm implement industries, in electrical equipment industries, and so on, will have to

find jobs elsewhere, even after the spring has come and gone; and not even the optimistic Acting Prime Minister was able to tell some of those delegations, when asked, just where they would be able to find other jobs.
To avoid the propagation of gloom, fear and panic, in my opinion the government should make some forthright statement of just what measures it is taking or contemplates taking in the immediate future to take up the slack of unemployment. The only hope held out is that if the unemployed will tighten their belts and keep them tightened until we reach an international agreement with the United States, then we may get the St. Lawrence seaway. My good friend the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) reminds me that the development of the St. Lawrence seaway-


Paul Joseph James Martin: He did not say a word.


Joseph William Noseworthy: -might well create a permanent unemployment situation in the maritimes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He did not say anything about that at all; he has been looking at me for the last few minutes.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I suggest that if we develop the St. Lawrence seaway, and I hope we shall, some measures must be taken or some consideration given to finding suitable employment for the maritimes to replace the employment they will be deprived of by the development of the seaway.
While I am speaking on the seaway let me say this. Not so very long ago the people of Canada were interested in the government's statement to the effect that they were now prepared to go it alone to build that seaway. Today they are asking, was the Canadian government only bluffing; were these bold government statements made simply for the consumption of the United States congress? Had the government really any intention of going it alone in the building of the St. Lawrence seaway? The government might well answer some of these questions that are being asked today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Joseph William Noseworthy: Wait until I finish.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is a very important
question.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Is there a possibility that we may get ourselves into the position where for the sake of some United States support we shall find that waterway when finished under complete or fairly complete control of
1, 1954	2545
Proposed Committee on Unemployment the United States? Are we taking safeguards to see that, providing it is a joint enterprise, the equipment used in the project will be Canadian-made? Or are we going to permit United States companies to provide us with most of the equipment and much of the machinery, particularly electrical equipment, that will be required in the building and development of that seaway and power project? If Canada is not to build it alone, if we are to enter into partnership in the building of it, then certainly safeguards must be taken to see that the project brings employment to Canadians as well as to citizens of the United States.
If, as we are told by the government, and by all the supporters of the free enterprise system, our standard of living depends upon our production, and the more we produce the more we can have to spend, then I ask you to consider for the moment the harm that we are doing to our economy and to our production by having either 300,000 or
500,000	skilled or semi-skilled workers unemployed at any time in this country.
If you take a look at the brief presented by the united automobile workers to the cabinet on February 24 you will find there a list of unfilled needs of the Canadian people. If we think today of the houses that are needed, of the educational facilities that are needed, of the hospitals that are needed, or the highways; if we think of the number of Canadian homes without telephones, without bathtubs, without showers or flush toilets, without running water or electric light, without electric or gas stoves or refrigerators; if we think for a moment of the tens of thousands of children in Canada who have no playground in summer except the streets; if we think for a moment of the need for reforestation and conservation of our soil; if we think of all these things that Canadians need, then we should ask, why should we have half a million unemployed in this country at any time? I think that is the question that should confront us.
The minister tells us, of course, that we have to divert too much money to national defence to make provision for any of these unfilled needs. Let me say that if war were declared this afternoon it is quite conceivable that before ten o'clock tonight we in this parliament would find enough money to put our unemployed to work in war plants or in the services. We are told that people will submit to taxation and regulations in wartime which they will not accept in peacetime.
Is it not true that all our national defences today are being built up for one purpose, to
2546	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Proposed Committee on Unemployment protect us against communist aggression? Is it not true that half a million unemployed workers will do more to undermine our defence against communism than all our expenditure on war material will be able to offset? Communism feeds on unemployment and distress. Half a million unemployed in Canada provide a fertile field for the communists.
Let us not forget that the provision of tanks and guns and jets and radar fences is only a part of our defence program. It just does not make sense to spend billions on these things and leave half a million Canadians unemployed when there are so many things that Canadians and our allies in other countries need, and need desperately. The maintenance of our people's morale and their standard of living is as much a part of our defence against communism as is the provision of military equipment. I suggest that it is nothing short of suicide for this government to condone in this country at this time or at any other time the amount of unemployment that exists today.
In the interests of our survival as a free people I want to urge the government in all sincerity to grapple with this problem now before it mushrooms into a full-fledged depression. That has happened before. It can happen again, but it need not happen again. The Minister of Finance, the Acting Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour all know that such a calamity can be avoided. They know how it can be done. What this country needs today is a good shot in the arm, a shot that could be given by this government in the form of assurance that direct action will be taken now to meet this situation. Let us have some declaration by the government of some policy other than just to wait until spring comes. Let us have a declaration of some policy other than war which can put Canadians back to work.


Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsloke):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that by this time the government must realize there are half a million people unemployed in Canada. That has been repeated so often that there is no excuse for ignorance of the matter any longer. It is just a question of the seriousness of the problem that we ought to consider.
Some would go so far as to tell us that this is just a seasonal state of affairs. We even have the British Columbia Times which is printed on the west coast saying that the unemployment situation is strictly seasonal. If our unemployment were found only in lumbering or other industries that might be held up by the weather, then I might be inclined to agree with that statement; but when we read that farm implement workers,

electrical workers, workers in the car and truck industries and textile workers are unemployed, then we know that the statement is incorrect. We know also that those industries should be at the peak of production right now, so there must be something wrong, something that goes much deeper than a seasonal state of affairs.
There have been many suggestions made as to how this problem can be handled. Of course in parliament such as this we retain our own individual opinions, and it is only right that such should be the case. However, as the amendment is worded, there must be two ways in which this problem could be attacked. We must have a long-range plan and we must have immediate assistance.
Whether we have 500,000 unemployed or whether we have 5,000 unemployed, the situation in so far as the person unemployed is concerned is the same. I tell you it is desperate. When a person is unemployed and he knows that his wife and family are depending on him for food, clothing and shelter it becomes pretty serious. The number of people unemployed is not so serious as the fact that we have people unemployed in a country with the wealth and resources about which we boast so loudly; yet nothing is being done.
It will be said that the unemployed can get $24 a week, but how can we expect a man and his family to even exist on that amount? We know there are many workers in cities across this country who could not even pay their rent with $24 a week. You may say that if a person is paying more than that and is unemployed he should cut down on the scale of living to which he has become accustomed. Well, if the condition is seasonal, why should he? Why should that man have to leave his home or the way of life to which he has become used and to which his ordinary employment entitles him? I do not think it is a fair state of affairs. I am going to suggest that that pitiable sum of $24 a week should be increased, and increased right now, to take care of the added cost of living with which our unemployed are faced.
So far as the seasonal end of the matter is concerned, the only way to solve the problem is to see that none of our unemployed go hungry or without the necessities of life, that is without food, clothing and shelter, during the period they are unemployed. At the present time we have over $900 million in the fund, but it is true that even at $24 a week that will not last very long. Regardless of that fact, I think it is up to the government of Canada to see that sufficient money is paid out to our unemployed so they

can at least feel secure that they will be able to supply the bare necessities of life during the period of unemployment.
What is the remedy? I do not think anything would reach into every part of our industrial life quite as much as a speed-up in housing and house construction. Such a course will, I know, affect every industry that is threatening to lay off workmen at the present time, such as the electrical industry, the hardware industry, the lumbering industry, and many of our tradesmen who are out of work. But these things are all going to take time. On all sides of the house we have heard it suggested that we must spend money. Of course this money must come through public spending.
I am now going to refer for a few moments to my own riding of Okanagan-Revelstoke. There are a few things we need there. There are some things that have been hanging fire for some little time. I am going to refer to the public building for the city of Vernon. That building was promised two years ago. Last year $100,000 was voted in order that the construction could be proceeded with, and there is on file with the boards of trade and various interested parties in the city of Vernon correspondence assuring them that the building would be started not this spring or next fall, but that it would be under construction last fall.
Now we note that the estimate for this year has been cut to $25,000. We are told that even yet they have not the plan ready. The building is being held up because they cannot agree on the type of plan or the type of building they are going to erect. That is just one thing that could be speeded up.
I am satisfied that it would certainly meet with the approval of the people of Vernon and district, and that it would assist materially in giving employment to those who are out of work at the present time. That is something that could be started now, and during the summer months of the year it would help to remedy the situation that exists there.
Having regard to the long-range field, I could not help paying close attention to the remarks made by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Jones) when he was speaking here a few nights ago and telling of the efforts that had been put forth by the municipal councils in his district. I am well aware of what took place in the city of Kelowna and in surrounding cities. The same thing could be put into operation at the present time. But we are speaking now of the situation as it affects the federal government and federal spending.
1, 1954	2547
Proposed Committee on Unemployment
It has been gratifying to hear a discussion of the real reasons behind the piling up of inventories, the piling up of goods, namely the lack of purchasing power. I like to hear that expression used, because I think it is proof that the term which I believe the Social Crediters instituted and brought into common use in this country is being adopted by various other members in this house. We have heard discussion of the necessity for purchasing power being kept in balance with the needs of the people so they can buy the production of industry. I am glad to hear that argument, because that is what we have been talking of for so many years. This extra money to buy the food and clothing that is necessary for the maintenance of life must, of course, come through spending rather than in production of consumer goods. There is nothing that will add so much to the economy, the wealth and the advancement of this country as will a sustained program of public works.
In British Columbia we have a province that is expanding more rapidly than any other province in Canada. To back up that statement I shall just quote a few figures. Of course where there is expansion and where there is business, there is naturally going to be money. I see the Minister of Finance is not in the house, but he might be interested in these figures although he certainly knows them.
In 1951-52 British Columbia's contribution to the national exchequer totalled $239,463,705, an amount which exceeded by $45 million the total collected in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and by more than $150 million the total collections from the four maritime provinces.
When we state that the province of British Columbia is entitled to a big part of government spending, we are only asking the government to put back into that province that which has been taken from us.
With regard to long-range spending, there are various things we should mention. At the present time we hear a little bit of talk about the development of the Columbia basin. This development would solve the power and irrigation problems of a large part of British Columbia. I understand that some work has been done on it. What you might perhaps call the preliminary surveys have been undertaken and the work is under way. But we do not just like that situation, that it is under way. We should like to see a little bit of action, and to feel that this was going to be a matter whose completion we could look forward to at least in our lifetime.
2548	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment Then we speak of highways. British Columbia is an expensive place in which to construct roads. When we see that the total federal allotment for the trans-Canada highway this year is in the neighbourhood of $20 million, we realize that it will not go very far even if British Columbia gets its fair share of that amount. I do not think anybody will dispute the need for this highway in British Columbia. Just to bring the matter home a little bit more, I should like to refer to a clipping I have. I do not like to embarrass the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) in any way, but I was rather amused by a clipping which I cut from the Revelstoke Review a few days ago and which reads as follows:
Many people, particularly in this area, must have been amused last week by the plight of the federal department which shipped a number of motor vehicles by transport to Vancouver by way of the United States from Edmonton.
The big truck was lost for several days. It finally turned up under peculiar circumstances in Seattle.
The point is that even military equipment has to be shipped through a foreign country because Canada doesn't possess an adequate trans-Canada highway, open twelve months of the year.
The Big Bend highway, which has been open for a considerable distance this winter, could easily have been kept open for the whole distance.
That is not a good situation. At the present time we hardly ever refer to the United States as a foreign country. But if that line were closed to us, and the need arose to get military equipment into the north or even into British Columbia, in what way would it get there? It is high time that definite and speedy action was taken to provide a highway into the province not only by way of Big Bend but also by other routes farther north which are just as necessary and should be given consideration.
We have heard a good deal about trade and about the selling of wheat. I get quite a kick out of the campaign of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) to get rid of our wheat, but it is a really serious problem to every part of our country. Let me tell you how the trade problem affects British Columbia. Last month we still had two million boxes of apples unsold. I am satisfied that a good many hundred thousand boxes of these apples would have been unloaded in the prairie provinces if the people there had been able to sell their wheat and thus obtain the purchasing power necessary to buy them. I am also satisfied that if all these apples had been sold there would have been a little more money to buy machinery, lack of the sale of which is causing lay-offs in the eastern manufacturing plants.
Our economy is so interwoven that when any part of it is slowed up by a problem every 

other part of the country is affected. Hon. members will say, how are you going to sell the wheat? We know that sales have been restricted through lack of dollars in the sterling areas and the impossibility of converting their sterling into dollars so they can buy. There is a need for all our surplus production, and the suggestion that has been made that the government should take action to speed up trade with the sterling areas certainly should not go unnoticed.
I am rather disappointed that the Minister of Finance has not made a report about what transpired at the conference of commonwealth finance ministers. Possibly we will find out in due time, but I cannot see why we should be kept in ignorance with respect to this very important matter.
Our lumber industry is also affected by the same conditions. A short time ago Mr. Anthony Benn, vice-chairman and joint managing director of Price and Pierce Limited, London, large importers and dealers in lumber, made the following statement in Vancouver, as reported in the British Columbia news letter:
There was no doubt that there was room for greater expansion in trade, but it depended on the assumption that the United Kingdom had dollars to pay for it. This was an ever-present worry, and he felt that it called for twofold action.
Of course he was pleading that we buy British products in order that they in return may be able to buy ours. But an easier solution would be to have an arrangement whereby we would accept their sterling, not necessarily with the idea that we would have to spend it in Britain but with the provision that we could spend it in any part of the commonwealth to buy the things we must import to maintain our present standard of living.
The matter of trade enters into every part of our economy. There is no part of our provinces not affected by the goods that remain unsold despite the fact that they are needed so badly elsewhere. In my own district of Okanagan-Revelstoke the mining industry is also faced with a problem. I was quite concerned a few days ago to receive a letter from the Revelstoke board of trade advising me that they are having a tough time. The letter said that during the past few months at least 300 people have been put out of work as the result of slow-downs and lay-offs in the mines. That is the way it goes. Of course we realize that the low market for base metals is a problem that is going to take a lot of study, but we believe that on the government side of the house there are men who are quite able to give the matter the study it requires. We are satisfied with

their ability, but we are certainly disappointed that they have set up what might correctly be called a curtain of silence with respect to any plans for solving the dilemma with which we are faced at the present time.
I do not believe the opposition should merely sit back and criticize. I think we should be able to offer suggestions once in a while that will perhaps shed a little bit of light or help in some way. Although I should like to commend the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green) who brought this problem before the house, I am rather surprised that no real suggestions have been made by the official opposition. After their experience in solving the unemployment problem of the early thirties, one would think they would be able to come forward with plenty of advice.
With respect to the members to my immediate right, I do not know whether or not they have a policy. We hear one man asking that taxes be cut, and we hear another suggesting that the cost of living be reduced. As to the cost of living, I wonder if it would solve the problem if we were able to reduce the cost of living so that the unemployment insurance benefit of $24 a week would provide the necessities of life. In 1930 hamburger was a nickel a pound, but still people did not have the nickel with which to buy it. I do not think that reducing the cost of living is the solution. I do not think that the reduction of taxes is the solution. The only solution is to put into circulation sufficient buying power to maintain the standard of living to which our people have become accustomed and to which they are entitled, and in that way bring back prosperity to our country.
I was glad to hear the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) refer to the shot in the arm administered by the Liberal administration in 1939 when some $200 million was put into circulation for the purpose, as the prime minister of that day said, of solving the unemployment problem, developing our natural resources and speeding up the war effort. If that was a suitable solution for those days, why is it not a solution today? If the government in 1939 was prepared to take measures to solve unemployment and speed up the war effort, why can similar action not be taken today to solve the unemployment problem and speed up the peace effort?


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, I have some facts and figures about the labour situation in the Atlantic region which I wish to put on the record. I have been pleased to see so many of the 83276-162
Proposed Committee on Unemployment maritime and Newfoundland members following this labour debate. I wonder if it is because of their usual good attendance or the fact that they are inwardly a little more worried about the situation down that way.
I do this for three reasons. I wish to show, in the first instance, that the maritimes are a soft spot in our economy in Canada, and that when these conditions come along we feel them first. Consequently, we should have aid first. Second, I do so to answer the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) who the other evening threw out half a challenge when he said, as recorded at page 2174 of Hansard for February 17, 1954:
. . . there has been no substantiation from their own experience in their own constituencies by hon. members opposite . . .
Third, I wish to support the official opposition's amendment which indicates that a special committee should be set up to study this situation in order to ascertain the true facts and offer recommendations.
There has been a definite falling off in seasonal activities down our way. Whereas a year ago the labour force was in balance, we now have a definite out of balance condition in all the areas of the Atlantic region. The argument that weather conditions have caused part of this trouble does not hold true this year because our shipping, agriculture, manufacturing and other industries which are dependent upon favourable weather conditions have had the very best of conditions. The latest figures published show that in the four-week period ending November 21, those working full time in the Atlantic region had decreased from 428,000 to 421,000.
A statistical report on the operations of the Unemployment Insurance Act, October, 1953, indicates that in Newfoundland 1,834 persons were receiving benefits as of November, 1953, whereas on October 31, 1952, there were only 909. My mental arithmetic indicates this is an increase of 100 per cent. In Prince Edward Island there were 719 receiving benefits in November, 1953, whereas there were only 322 at the end of October, 1952. This is an increase of 125 per cent. In Nova Scotia there were 7,814 receiving benefits this past year, whereas in 1952 the figure stood at 5,100. This shows an increase of 65 per cent, a little lower but nevertheless something to worry about. In New Brunswick, my own province, there were 6,671 receiving benefits as of November, 1953, whereas a year ago there were only 3,853, an increase of 74 per cent.
I place those figures on the record, Mr. Speaker, and I also wish to quote from a
2550	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment government periodical entitled "Employment and Payrolls", October, 1953. The heading is "Provincial Changes in Non-Agricultural Employment", and I read:
Industrial activity diminished in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia at October 1 as compared with a month earlier. The largest loss, of 4-7 per cent, took place in New Brunswick, where construction, transportation, storage, communications and manufacture were quieter.
From the same publication, I quote the following:
Four of the provinces, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Manitoba and Alberta, showed smaller payroll disbursements than in the week of September 1. The increases in that comparison in the remaining provinces were moderate. In the last year, the weekly wages and salaries have risen in all areas except Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.
I should like to take a minute to briefly run through the maritimes from a local standpoint. I believe we received the first indication of trouble with the lay-off of 1,200 men in Sydney last June. A similar reduction took place in New Glasgow a little later, and that situation has been commented upon. The Canadian National lay-offs then hit Moncton and out of the 1,492 who were released across Canada, the Atlantic region lost 312 employees. The Moncton shops were affected to the extent of 240 men. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that is a tremendous loss to one community, and amounts to nearly 20 per cent of the total men the Canadian National laid off in Canada.
I should like to mention also the situation in St. John's, Newfoundland, which has not been mentioned of late. I quote from the Labour Gazette for November, 1953, page 1588:
Virtually no change occurred in St. John's, Newfoundland, where demand and supply remained In balance. Skilled tradesmen such as engineers, plumbers, electricians, sheet metal workers and cement finishers were still in short supply and slight surpluses of semi-skilled and unskilled workers existed.
That was the situation in November, but I pick up the same magazine a month later, and from page 1724 I read:
The labour situation in St. John's, Newfoundland, changed abruptly during November from one of balance to one of substantial surplus. The principal reasons for the change were seasonal slackening in local construction, a sharp reduction in defence construction in the outlying areas and the early closure of a number of logging camps.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I submit that these figures I have just given on the St. John's, [Mr. Bell.l

Newfoundland, unemployment situation show one of the sharpest increases in Canada. I would be interested to hear whether in any other area there is a greater increase. The figures show that from December 11, 1952, to December 10, 1953, there was an increase of 3,347 applicants for employment.
I do not think we should pass over the situation in the constituency represented by the Minister of Labour. Mention has been made of the situation in the textile industry in Marysville, and I do not intend to review it in detail. However, I would be remiss in my duty if I did not mention it. This is a beautiful little mill town with which everyone in New Brunswick is acquainted, and it has been virtually wiped out. This town that was established by one of our fabulous figures of a hundred years ago, "Boss" Gibson, as he was known, has been relegated to the position of a derelict city.
This was called directly to my attention when, shortly after the mill was rumoured to be closed down, there appeared in the Fredericton Gleaner pictures of the textile workers bearing the caption "Textile workers still cannot quite believe that the Mill will close". There was quite a bit of naivete in that, to my mind. The thing that surprised a lot of us at the time was the fact that evidently it had been planned for some time, yet nobody in the Marysville area seemed to be aware of it.
Also in the Fredericton area we learned of trouble in the shoe manufacturing industry. This industry has been able to survive for many years in Canada, and we all have been very proud of the fine workmanship in the shoes produced in Fredericton. In recent days we have learned of a lay-off, but I understand that perhaps these men will be taken back on. However, surely it is a warning to us that something will have to be done for that industry down our way.
Then in Saint John, in my area, the people are taking this unemployment situation stoically. They are used to ups and downs in a Liberal-managed economy. But, Mr. Speaker, let there be no mistake about it; we have had a tough winter, so far as the port of Saint John is concerned. I have some more figures I want to place on the record regarding the Saint John situation. The latest unemployment insurance commission figures on the number of unplaced applicants show 3,091 for December, 1953, as compared with 2,611 for December of 1952. The November figures were 2,731 as against 2,500 of a year ago. Unofficial figures at Christmas time had showed an increase from 2,500 to 3,400 in the twelve-month period; and while there might be some comfort in the fact that

construction work could be stepped up again, this is a loss of revenue to the worker and the community that cannot be recovered.
My final figures I shall quote from the Montreal Gazette of February 17, 1954. This purports to be a report of the national harbours board which, I presume, will be available to us eventually in book form. The report is headed "Quebec Ports All Enjoyed Boosts in '53". I go down the column, and I see that in the figures for arrivals, net registered tonnage, and cargo tonnage, those of the eastern Quebec ports of Montreal, Chicoutimi, Quebec city and Three Rivers show substantial increases in 1953. I also note that Churchill, Manitoba, and Vancouver show increases. But I see, Mr. Speaker, that both Halifax and Saint John show decreases for 1953 in respect of these three categories, with the one exception that the net tonnage in Saint John was up substantially. However, as everyone knows these net registered tonnage figures do not mean very much. So we can take from these figures the fact that, of all the ports in Canada, Halifax and Saint John were the only ones which had decreases last year in tonnage figures.
I would ask consideration for the setting up of the committee recommended in the amendment offered by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). I feel that the committee might look into this situation and find out as to the truth of these figures. If the figures I have placed on record are not true, I would be pleased to hear it. But there must be some investigation of these facts and figures. In addition the committee could also consider recommendations in respect of and remedies for the situation.
Along that line I should like to offer two constructive ideas for the consideration of the committee, if and when it is set up. I think the ills of the maritime provinces and Newfoundland can definitely be cured by a realistic approach to the trade situation. In that connection I should like to quote what was said by the president of the Bank of Montreal when he spoke at its annual meeting recently. It may be that most hon. members are partial to the Royal Bank or the Canadian Bank of Commerce, but I lean toward the Bank of Montreal, with its conservative estimate of the picture as it affects Canada. The president of the Bank of Montreal had this to say:
But we must do more. We must see to it that the words "Made in Canada" continue to be, as they have become, a hallmark of good value. This is much more than a matter of government trade policy. It is a charge on Canadians in general, and on labour and management alike, to improve efficiency and to exercise moderation and restraint in wage and price demands. It is clear that in the endeavour to maintain and expand markets, both abroad and at home the test will be the price tag.
83276-162i
Proposed Committee on Unemployment
I hope hon. members will notice that I have been fairly generous in using this quotation, because it does not pin the entire blame on the government. Nevertheless we do feel that they should be taking a forward approach in this matter. We are looking to them for leadership. There are many constructive ideas which could be considered by the committee. I am thinking of one to which reference was made in Life magazine a few months ago. I shall not go into detail, because the article is lengthy, but at least it is a new idea, a new approach, that might help us in dealing with the sterling bloc that seems to be affecting us so much in our European and commonwealth trade. This article is entitled "New Daring Plan to Unshackle Trade and Enrich the Free World". There is a lot of meat in this, and I would like to see the committee consider a proposal of this kind.
I have one other suggestion to pass on to the committee in connection with the matter of government help in local projects. I do not particularly like the idea of such plans, but we do feel down our way that some help must be given for these seasonal periods that are getting worse every year. We have a plan along the bay of Fundy which commends itself to me, and there has been considerable lobbying locally in the matter.
In this connection I should like to quote the words of a person who is vitally concerned with and knows the situation down there. This gentleman was recently appointed chairman of a committee to build a new road that would link our major city of Saint John with the Fundy national park. These are his words:
This would be a very appropriate time, as I understand the federal government is spending $300 million to build the St. Lawrence seaway project and at the time when they have joined with the province of Nova Scotia to create Bar Harbor to Yarmouth ferry service. The federal government are paying 50 per cent of the cost of construction and the C.N.R. are going to operate the service. Now is the time for the federal authorities to construct the road which I feel is an essential part of the Fundy national park, which is owned by all the the people of Canada.
I would like to review the points I have made. I started out by saying that I had three reasons for entering the debate at this late stage. I offered these, and added figures which I found in government publications. If they are not true, then I would be pleased to hear it. I have offered one or two simple suggestions which I believe the committee could consider.
Perhaps I have used a few more quotations than would be desirable, but my main purpose in doing so was that I did not wish to be accused of sensationalism, or of painting a
2552	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment gloomy picture, or viewing with alarm. I have tried to pick out facts and figures in the words of competent leaders throughout the country. I leave this with you.
In closing I should like to quote some words that appeared in the Globe and Mail of February 15, 1954. These are the words of Mr. H. A. Chappell of Ottawa, president of the Canadian brotherhood of railway employees:
However, the preliminaries are just the same as in 1929.
I should like to interject here, Mr. Speaker, to say that there definitely was not a Conservative government in power in 1929. I continue:
He said Trade Minister Howe and Finance Minister Abbott "both admitted there is a bit of a problem but it is not big enough for the government to take any strong action."
"These autocratic and bureaucratic individuals tell us there is nothing to worry about and 1954 is going to be a nice year. I just wish I had the confidence in the immediate future they have."
This just about expresses my sentiments too, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldt-Melfort):: Everything seems to have been said that could possibly have been said in this debate, yet no subject, I imagine, let alone a subject as important as the unemployment question in Canada today, can be completely covered to the point where nothing remains to be said.
There is one factor, though, that I believe has been overlooked by other speakers who have taken part in this debate, and I should like to take a few minutes to deal with that factor. I believe it has a great bearing on the question of unemployment, and I believe it will continue to aggravate the situation for some time to come.
I am sure all of us in Canada are aware of the fact that a basic cause of unemployment is the position in which agriculture finds itself at the present time. Whenever our agricultural economy is threatened or becomes depressed the inevitable result is that we have a great increase in the number of unemployed in this country. That is especially true in those industries that are dependent on agriculture.
At the moment I should like to quote some facts and figures that would seem to bear out my contention that this is important. One is the fact that over the past few years a great many farms in this country have disappeared. The people who formerly occupied that land have drifted into industries in Canada. As a matter of fact, in 1947 the University of Saskatchewan carried out a survey in that province to ascertain how many people had left the business of farming and gone into other industries. They came up with some very astonishing figures, Mr. Speaker.


In the province of Saskatchewan alone some
43,000	farms had completely disappeared. I do not mean that the land had disappeared, but those farms had been absorbed into other pieces of land to make what are commonly termed economic units. Nevertheless, the fact remains that those 43,000 families left the farms and went into jobs in other industries.
I should like to speak for a moment on some of the reasons for that exodus from the farms to other industries in Canada, and I am sure that what happened in Saskatchewan has happened in a smaller way in a great many other provinces in the Dominion of Canada. Changing economic conditions of course forced these people oil the land. Some people would contend that this was a good thing. These people were farming uneconomic units and therefore were not providing food at the least cost to the consumer. Whether that is true or not, the fact remains that this has happened.
The bulk of these 43,000 farms were composed of quarter sections or less. During the war very little farm machinery was available, with the result that because of the tremendous speeding up of production farmers found at the end of the war that their tools of production were completely worn out. After the war came to an end- I will agree farmers had made considerable money-they were accused of buying machinery and spending a great deal of money unnecessarily. They had to spend this money in order to replace the tools of production that had been completely worn out during the war.
The price of farm machinery rose very rapidly at the close of the war. I am sure a great many hon. members will recall that when the steel companies asked for a 25 per cent rise in the price of steel a great deal of opposition came from this corner of the house, because we realized at that time that if steel were given this increase it would be reflected immediately in the cost of farm machinery. Because of the opposition from this corner of the house the steel companies did not get the 25 per cent increase in the price of steel, but they did manage to get a 12 J per cent increase.
The immediate result was that the cost of farm machinery increased markedly. As the farmers found themselves in the position of having machinery to pay for, the only way in which they could do it was to buy more land and produce more to pay for the machinery. So they went out and bought land, and as a result were able to make their farming operations more economical,

were able to raise more produce at a smaller cost. However, they found that they were not able to sell their production. They were not able to buy more farm machinery because they could not sell the grain they had grown. That was reflected in an unemployment situation in the farm machinery industry, the automotive industry and many other industries related to agriculture in this country. The result is that we have some half million unemployed, a great many of them having been employed in the industries I have mentioned.
This will probably get worse because 50 per cent of the farms remaining in Saskatchewan-and I said a moment ago that you will find this situation existing in other provinces-are still uneconomical. We are going to see another shift from the farms to industry because of that fact. We are going to have another fifty or sixty thousand people displaced from the land who are going to compete with employees in these other industries so far as work is concerned.
A great many things have been said during the course of this debate as to what can be done about a situation such as this. I am sure that an increase in unemployment insurance benefits would greatly help the situation. I think we all realize that is just a stopgap, and that is about all unemployment insurance was intended to be. It was intended to alleviate distress to the point where it would not be too great for the time being.
Mention has been made time and time again during this debate of the fact that we must dispose of our farm surpluses. We must introduce some forward planning into the agriculture industry to allow for the setting of some orderly production goals for farmers. Certainly I do not think the expense of such a plan should fall on the shoulders of the consumer; it should not be set up to do that. We must make a thorough examination of those industries upon which agriculture is dependent for machinery and so on, with a view to eliminating any trace or danger of monopoly or combine operations.
I think without exception every speaker has advocated the making of food available to hungry people. We are sometimes asked who is going to pay for these gifts of food to people in the underdeveloped countries of the world, because there is no doubt they would have to be heavily subsidized by the government. I would say that the people who pay for it should be the same people who are going to be asked to pay for the 50 Bristol Britannia transport aircraft which are to be built by Canadair at a cost of some $185 million to the taxpayers of this country. I say
Proposed Committee on Unemployment that those people should be the people to pay for any subsidization that may be necessary to get food into the hands of people in the underdeveloped areas of the world. It is time we had a closer look at this problem of world hunger and despair.
I am sure that we cannot delay much longer with these issues. We have to make up our minds whether we are going to be part of the cause or part of the cure of world conditions. As Canadians we must accept our responsibility. If we adopt the plan I have mentioned, of getting food into the hands of hungry people throughout the world, certainly it will be said that we were part of the cure rather than part of the cause for the conditions we see in the world today.


Hon. W. Earl Rowe (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, the issue before us is to my mind one of very great national importance, one that involves the lives and hopes of practically everybody in this dominion. I am somewhat amazed at the spectacle of the disinterest of the government in an issue which is of such paramount importance to the people of Canada. In a growing country like ours there is indeed nothing more important than the employment of our people. I know that no one can be pessimistic and view the greatness of our resources, our technical skill, the know-how of our people, their energy and all that is involved in this virile nation of ours. The progress that has been made in the last number of years gives hope and inspiration to our people.
I do not for a moment misunderstand the attitude of the government. Sometimes the seats are almost empty during this debate, and at other times cabinet ministers - are showing very little concern about the issue. They are the greatest optimists in Canada. They make me think of the old saying-


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: The hon. member for Fort William says, "Hear, hear." He is the same. They do not care as long as it does not happen to them. I think the greatest illustration of a real, extreme optimist is the fellow who does not care what happens as long as it does not happen to him.
There are many people in this country who look upon this issue as an economic problem, and they do not expect a political brush-off. It is true that we have had great growth in this country, we have had swift and spectacular development, we have seen a country formerly agricultural in character change in a few years into a vast industrial country.


An hon. Member:: By a Liberal government.
2554	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment


William Earl Rowe: Only about 13 per cent of our total national revenue is received from agriculture. We have a tremendous revenue from our industrial production. Someone says, "by Liberal policies." No Liberal policy of this country has ever-


Mr. Cardiff:: In spite of them.


William Earl Rowe: It has developed in spite of them, as the hon. member for Huron says. They have been the greatest fair-weather politicians since confederation. They have been riding the gravy train for the last ten years. If it had not been for the cold or hot wars, this country would have had difficulties because of the weaknesses of Liberal administrations.
I have been here a number of years and I have known the policies of the Liberal party down through the years. Never since confederation has the Liberal party done very much to develop industry in this country. Indeed, in 1887 they fought an election over commercial union with the United States of America, and now they pack all their eggs in one United States basket. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) laughs, but it is not a laughing matter. Canada is more dependent upon the United States of America than any country in the world is dependent on any other country. No wonder congress may often consider us an adjunct during their prosperity and a victim of their recessions.
This is an important matter for a young, growing country like Canada. I know the Minister of Finance laughs, but there are a lot of people in this country-


Mr. Abbott:: Laughing with admiration.


William Earl Rowe: I thank the minister for his compliment. I return the compliment more for his geniality than for any other reasons. I know these hon. gentlemen to your right, Mr. Speaker. I have been here for many years. I remember the same sayings that are being said now, the old hackneyed phrases about Tory blue ruin.


James Sinclair: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, "hear, hear"; and you were a Tory at that time yourself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Most of them over there still are.


William Earl Rowe: These hon. gentlemen who were talking about Tory blue ruin at that time were the very same hon. gentlemen who were printing whispers of death in their Grit newspapers in the days of Arthur Meighen. These were the same gentlemen who in 1928 and 1929 would not listen to the young workers.


Oh, no; there were no hard times when hon. members to your left and others said there was unemployment. Oh, no; they were the whispers of death, not Tory blue ruin.
Mr. Speaker, there is no one in this house -and I will even give credit for this to those to your right, Mr. Speaker, as well as those to your left; and I know something of the political intrigues of both-or within sound of my voice tonight who wants a depression in this country. There is no hon. member here who wants that. Some of my hon. friends here, and a couple who are not here, have told us of their experiences in the thirties. There are many who can recall the 1930's; and there is not an hon. member in this house who is worthy of being a member of this greatest club in Canada who wishes a recurrence, even for his political satisfaction, of any depression such as that which we had in 1930.


An hon. Member:: How about 1929?


William Earl Rowe: I am not concerned about the gibes and the heckling of these members who are just cutting their eyeteeth in politics. They do not disturb me for a moment, these men who show so much ability in their seats and so little on their feet. I have listened to them scores of times and I can spot them out all over this house. I notice that the members who throw gibes at my hon. friends to my left, and who make cracks here, are the ones who make the fewest speeches in this house. They are the men who stand on their feet the least but who talk so much when they are on their seats.
This is an economic problem, Mr. Speaker. It cannot be brushed off by a political brush-off. We are not preaching blue ruin. Surely there is no hon. member within sound of my voice who does not know that there is no well-run business which does not take warning for the future. As to these hecklers who started gibing, I would make this suggestion. If you are going to speak, get to your feet and say something rather than quack as you have been doing over the last number of years, adding nothing to the policy of your party, which has no policy in this regard.
Mr. Speaker, there are important issues in this country that should be faced. There is an important problem of unemployment at the present time. No one can watch the growth of this country and the great developments that have taken place, such as the discovery of iron ore and oil, and the great industrial expansion which has been brought about by other countries requiring our production in time of war, whether cold or hot, without being impressed. This government has brought about prosperity through

requirements for war-cold and hot-which are instruments of destruction and need no market. On the other hand, they have been packing all their eggs in one United States basket, building their prosperity chiefly on instruments of destruction that you do not need to sell, and encouraging people in construction expansion. The products that you are importing come from countries that produce more cheaply.
I say this to you. Just pause as businessmen and think, because I have noticed there are quite a large number of hon. members today in business. While the government is in business so much, I have not observed very much business in politics during the last few years around here. Surely it is not damaging to the strong economy of a young country like Canada to point to the dangers that exist. Surely it is a contribution rather than damage. By the government's attitude you would imagine that you should shout about prosperity but whisper about the dangers; do not mention those for fear you are going to cause a depression. Oh, yes, they say; if we have a depression it will be because the Tories talked blue ruin.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friend from Toronto says "hear, hear". He has not been here very long. May I point out to my hon. friend that you do not bluff yourself into prosperity or scare yourself into depression in a strong young country like Canada. Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental principle at stake here. There is an issue at stake that should be looked into. We are not suggesting for a moment that we are facing any economic graveyard but I urge this upon the members of the cabinet, and there are so few of them in the house; in fact, the most important of them are all out. As I was saying, we are not suggesting that we are facing any economic graveyard. I wonder why these gentlemen want to whistle so much when there are so many people who are worried.


Mr. Weir:: Who is whistling?


William Earl Rowe: You have been whistling for the last 20 years. You have been whistling a tune that you did not write yourself. You have been whistling about prosperity which came to you in spite of yourselves. Some people are born great, some achieve greatness and others have greatness thrust upon them. You have had greatness thrust upon you by world requirements. Mr. Speaker, there is no business or enterprise in Canada that is worth while which has not as its senior and most hungry partner the government of Canada, taking more out of the
1, 1954	2555
Proposed Committee on Unemployment industries and corporations than all the shareholders combined, and hungrily trying to get more. Never before in the history of this country have we had a government in peacetime or in war taking so much from the people of Canada, the labour men and the farmers, hounding them up and down the sidelines and the concession lines for more taxes; taking more this year than they ever took before; and spending $184 million more on civilian expenditures than were spent in any year during the war or since. Yet this government goes merrily on spending more and telling the people to spend less. When I say that the government is the senior and hungriest partner of every enterprise in Canada, I do not think I am exaggerating that point.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is time we faced economic realities and forgot political expediencies. We have half a million people unemployed. The labour unions who have been here within the last week or so say there are 584,000 unemployed. The government say, "Oh, no; it is not very bad; there are only 524,000 unemployed". It is like the fellow coming home after a big night and telling his wife that he did not spend $584 but spent only $524. There may be half a million more who are on short time. There may be another half a million who are worried about what is going to happen to them. But "Oh, no", the government say, "we do not believe it; it is only seasonal".
Let no one tell you that to point to imminent danger is to do more than point to weakness in our economy. When the government is in business more than any government since confederation, then they should look at the situation. This is the only forum that we especially in the opposition can use. As to hon. members behind this row of cabinet giants and empty seats, the only speeches they make are wisecracks in approval of government policies they do not understand. While the opposition is small, Mr. Speaker, we are about the only group-we here and those to our left-who can express the views of the people. After all, parliament is the forum to which we should bring the grievances of our people.
I am satisfied that there are plenty of grievances, Mr. Speaker. The farmers of Canada are not too well satisfied when they find that over the last two or three years their profits have been falling at least 12 to 15 per cent every year, and that in many lines of products they are now getting half the price they got before. They worry because they see the great unsold surplus of wheat, greater than in any year since confederation. This is the first year in the last

Proposed Committee on Unemployment 25 that none of the previous year's crop has been sold. They are beginning to get a little concerned. They are worried because they see that our trade balance is half a billion dollars worse than it was in 1952.
These things concern the labouring men. They concern the people who are undertaking these expensive, extravagant and luxurious construction programs, encouraged by government whispers for fear they will call a halt to their construction. Does that help employment? Does it help employment for the government to tell us to spend less, while at the same time we know they are spending more? It does not help us. Producers are growing nervous because their prices are falling and their taxes are rising. Their costs are higher and their sales are lower. Surely it is not a crime, Mr. Speaker, to bring these facts before parliament even if we have this smug complacency of the government and its supporters, three-quarters of whom are not in the house.


Mr. Chevrier:: Look behind you. Less than one-quarter of your members are sitting there.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, but look at the quality of what we have here and the quality of what you have there. Seldom in the history of the country, Mr. Speaker, have we had more people worrying about a problem outside the house and so few in the government even recognizing it at all. Seldom before have we had the people concerned about a situation and the government refusing to look. For years I listened to Mackenzie King, the great champion of Liberalism in this country, and I remember his slogan: wait and see, wait and see.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Send it to a committee.


William Earl Rowe: Even the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) laughs at that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You have the wrong statesman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You have the wrong man.


William Earl Rowe: Maybe it was Mr. King's secretary. He was inspired so much by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) that he was apt to say anything. But, Mr. Speaker, we remember that statement. I was here, too, when the new Secretary of State probably inspired him to say that he would not give a Tory province a five cent piece for unemployment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was still in school then.


William Earl Rowe: The old policy of wait and see has now been changed to one of go on but don't look. Now they even refuse to look,

let alone wait and see. I would urge the government to at least take one look. I do not think it would do our economy any harm. I do not think it would irritate our people. I do not think it would increase the discontent, dissatisfaction and worry of the hundreds of thousands of housewives who wonder where their husbands are going to get other jobs.
I know that deputations have come to Ottawa and presented their cases to deaf ears. I know that when the farm implement people came here the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) told them that if they could not manufacture farm implements they should go into something else. Even though these people had been working for 25 or 30 years at these jobs the government said, "Boys, it is simple enough; if you cannot make manure spreaders go back home and make baby shoes. It is all very simple. We can fix that up for you any time."
We have had this nonchalant, smug complacency on the part of the government. They think that any worrying is dangerous, that any suggestion of trouble is blue ruin, that any doubts about a prosperity which they think will never halt are whispers of economic death. No one can be pessimistic about the long-range pull, but surely no one is foolish enough to believe that the economic prosperity we have had and which has been based on such doubtful grounds, may I say, will not halt. We have shared in a general prosperity, not a prosperity based on any fiscal policy of the government.
It was only a short time ago that the government suggested in their trade and commerce magazines that no country in the world has lowered tariffs more than Canada. Yet we find that last year, with our small population, extensive construction programs and facilities to produce, half of the refrigerators sold in Canada-and there were 500,000 fewer sold because we had reached the saturation point-were imported from the United States of America.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What would the hon.
gentleman do about it?


William Earl Rowe: I know what you have done about it, and the responsibility is yours. I am like an outside doctor. It is time enough to prescribe when you are called in.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. member a question?


William Earl Rowe: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member says that a doctor does not prescribe until he is called in. I call him in, sir. Let him prescribe; let him tell us what he would do.


An hon. Member:: He has no prescription pad.


James Sinclair: He is a horse doctor.


William Earl Rowe: One of the ministers suggests a horse doctor. I do not want to cast the reflection that the minister who asked the question needs a horse doctor. The new Secretary of State has invited me to come in. I am not quite sure what portfolio he would give me. He was lucky to get one himself, but may I say that before he left the Conservative party we had a policy for the development of our own resources in our own country and for the industrial development of this country such as the Liberal party has never had. The initiation of industrial development in Canada came about as a result of the fiscal policies of the Conservative party which my hon. friend left a few years ago in his days of young and immature judgment.


An hon. Member:: He got on the gravy train.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now his judgment is old and immature.


William Earl Rowe: It is a dangerous type of
optimism to worry only about what might happen to yourself. It is a dangerous type of optimism when a government that has so much to do with business refuses to look at the problems of business today. Do you mean to tell me there is an hon. member here who does not know what is happening to the textile industry of Canada? Do you mean to tell me there is an hon. member here who does not know what is happening to the automobile industry in this country? Do you mean to tell me there is an hon. member who does not know what is happening to the farm implement industry in this country?
I am not saying, Mr. Speaker, that the country is going to the bow-wows. I am only saying that it is time for us to stop, look and listen. The government refuse to stop. They heckle so much that they refuse to listen, and when you show them they refuse to look. Oh, yes; never was a more smug group in power since confederation. They have ridden the gravy train so long they say, "We do not care what happens as long as it does not happen to us". Hon. G. Howard Ferguson said that was the most extreme optimism the world has ever known, that of the man who did not give a d- what happened as long as it did not happen to him.
The government of Canada could be described in these apt terms, because even though able labour representatives have come here in the last week or two at great 83276-163
Proposed, Committee on Unemployment expense they have been brushed aside as though they were just political tramps. Their recommendations were not even considered. No; they were told to go and get other jobs.
I realize it is difficult to find a solution for all these problems. I realize the burdens of government today. They are heavy. They were heavy in time of war, they were heavy during the cold war, and they are heavy in the transition period between war and peace. But, Mr. Speaker, what have this government done to prevent dumping? They rescinded the dumping regulations in 1948, and we are now experiencing dumping in many lines of industry. What have they done to enable the farmers to sell their wheat? A few years ago they had a wheat policy, but it was the most mottled socialistic type of policy anyone ever saw.
I recall pointing out to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), and I regret he is not here tonight, that no one had made more economic mistakes in a shorter time than he had. I said that a day would come when the price of wheat would be less, and he would have difficulty selling it. I am not like the old woman who says "I told you so", but I leave it to you to say whether or not he listened to me. Never since confederation have we had so much unsold wheat; yet this government sits complacently by and says that all is well. The Minister of Trade and Commerce seems to think that as long as he tells the public that next year is going to be better than last year, and 1956 may be better than that, and 1957 may be better again, all will be well.
The government encourages the building of more plants, yet we are importing the same products the plants are intended to produce. Hon. members from Quebec well know what is happening in the textile industry. The hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Cloutier) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) should go back to their constituencies and tell their friends there is nothing wrong.


Lionel Chevrier: Why did you sabotage our textile legislation when we brought it down?


William Earl Rowe: Since confederation you have never had a sound textile or fiscal policy. In fact you never had a fiscal policy that you did not get from the Conservative party, but you put it into force so clumsily it never worked.


Lionel Chevrier: Is that why you sabotaged the anti-dumping legislation?


William Earl Rowe: There are those who are now crawling for cover and wondering who sabotaged what, because they know that
2558	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment something has been sabotaged. The economy of this country has been sabotaged by a lack of policy. The industry of this country has been cramped and restricted by a government that has given no lead except to simply accept what has happened.
Down through the years our policy has been to develop our own resources within our own country to give employment to our own people. When a war or other emergency is upon us, Mr. Speaker, any policy will do. This country is powerful. No other country in the world even approaches Canada in vital natural resources, in technical skill and know-how. But, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that today in the very lines in which we thought we were going to have great prosperity we see things slipping as they are.
I suggest that we have very little in the way of an immigration policy in Canada today. I am sorry the minister is not here tonight. Just as soon as there is a scare thrown up, then we stop bringing people into Canada. Have we established a standard of living that is too high? The Minister of Agriculture said in Rome that Canadian farmers could not afford to sell their products in the open markets of the world because they could not get enough for them. If we have set up short hours and high pay-[DOT] and high taxes are as important as high pay-


Mr. Dupuis:: Should they work longer hours for no pay? You spoke of short hours and large pay.


William Earl Rowe: I do not follow you.


Hector Dupuis: I am following you all right.


William Earl Rowe: I hope you are, because then I shall not say what I was going to say.
I know that some people are overpaid. If we are going to price ourselves out of the world market, as some hon. members on the other side have been bold enough to suggest, and if we are going to let products come into this country from countries that produce them for so much less, then does it not mean that we must bring more people over here to buy in our home market? This would enable them to build homes here and help develop the country. If our standard of living is so much higher than theirs and we cannot sell in some of these countries, then if we are going to function and produce immigration might be the answer.
I realize that the Geneva agreement, wisely or unwisely entered into, will be binding on this country for another year or two. But, Mr. Speaker, the day is rapidly approaching when


Canada will have to look after her own economic affairs if she is going to maintain this standard of living about which we have been boasting and promising for the future. I believe it is just as simple as that. The government has new peacetime controls and is now in business more than it has ever been before. Yet the government refuses to face the problem we have.
I regret that the government will not accept our amendment. I do not think it would do any harm. Why do hon. members to your right, Mr. Speaker, refuse to look if everything is all right? Why are they afraid to examine conditions if there is no doubt about them? Why do they hesitate? Again I say that we may not be passing an economic graveyard, but why whistle so much? Why boast so much about the prosperity we have had and which some members think will never halt? While the government refuse to look at the situation today, we have some hon. members who look back for 25 years.
I regret that the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) is not in his seat tonight. Perhaps I may be pardoned if I say that I am probably one of the few who have sat in this parliament as long as the hon. member. I think he entered the house by means of a by-election six months before I did. I realize that over these years we have developed warm friendships. I realize that there is no name that has been more closely connected with the parliament of Canada than the name the hon. member for Temiscouata bears. His father and grandfather sat in this house for many years. But I do say his statements the other day with reference to my old chieftain, the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, were damaging to the dignity of this house, just as they were to the member himself. I regret very much that he has besmirched the pages of Hansard with such fantastic recklessness. Since the hon. member is learned in the law and has written books about parliamentary and legal procedure, no member has less excuse for violating the traditional dignity of this house and the chivalry that has existed down through the years.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that independent of any personal friendship and in fairness to my former leader, his charges that the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett sold short before 1930 to cause a depression and bring him into power are as untrue as they are unfair, uncalled for, undignified and unworthy of the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the last qualification "unworthy of the hon. member" should be modified.


William Earl Rowe: Well, Mr. Speaker, I shall withdraw that. If they are worthy of him, I am sorry for him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will realize that the hon. member for Temiscouata is not in his seat at the moment. Expressions of that kind have been withdrawn before, and I would ask the hon. member to modify it on this occasion. I do not think he needs to have that on the record to make his statement absolutely complete. It is much preferable to withdraw it than to leave it on the record.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will bow to your ruling, because you are usually fair.	I regret having used the term
"unworthy". I realize, on second thought, that you are correct, and that "unworthy" is not parliamentary. I shall not substitute any other word, because parliamentary privilege does not permit the words I might use, despite my friendship toward the hon. member. I would hope that-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member leaves on the record the statement that he would use words that would not be parliamentary. I do not think he can leave that statement on the record either. The hon. member has said that the statement was untrue, uncalled for, undignified, and then he added that it was "unworthy" of the hon. member. I would ask him to delete the expression "unworthy of the hon. member". That is all.


Mr. Claxton:: I rise to a point of order.


William Earl Rowe: I will-


Brooke Claxton: I would like to raise a point of order. The hon. member is referring to Your Honour-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member has suggested that you are "usually fair".


Mr. Speaker:: There cannot be a point of order. I am asking the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) to withdraw. The point to be discussed now is one between the hon. member and myself. If, after that, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) wishes to rise I shall listen to him. But at this moment the point is one between the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe and myself, and I think we understand the situation very well.


Brooke Claxton: But, Mr. Speaker, if I might make plain my position, and the point of order I have raised, it arises from what the hon. member said. In referring to you he said that Your Honour was "usually fair". I suggest that that is not proper.
Proposed Committee on Unemployment


Mr. Speaker:: It all depends upon how one looks at it. I should think that if the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe thinks I am usually fair, he is using an ordinary expression which is often used, and perhaps uses it because he does not wish to amplify any complimentary remarks he may wish to address to me. However, I have taken what he said in the spirit in which I think it was offered. I have taken it as a compliment.


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, first of all I bow to Your Honour's ruling. I withdraw unconditionally my reference to the effect that any hon. member has made a statement in the house that is unworthy. I do not think even the Minister of National Defence would say that you are unfair.


Brooke Claxton: That is quite right.


William Earl Rowe: I think we are probably agreed on that.


Brooke Claxton: We are in accord then.


William Earl Rowe: However, I do just wish to remind Your Honour and the Minister of National Defence-the fragment of the entire government that is in the house tonight- that Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was not in the house, either, when the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) made his statement. So I have no apology for making my statement when the hon. member is not here, and I regret his absence very much.
But in his absence, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of National Defence, who seems now to be assuming the role of spokesman for the great party to which he belongs, if the hon. member for Temiscouata refuses to have expunged from Hansard these statements that shock all sense of chivalry in this House of Commons-statements that even Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Sir Robert Borden, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, as well as Right Hon. R. B. Bennett himself, would have forced any member of any party to have expunged from Hansard. And if he refuses to expunge them from Hansard I would ask the Minister of National Defence-


Brooke Claxton: May I answer?


William Earl Rowe: I will ask you to answer in a minute. Is there a single member in the historic Liberal party, that his stalwart supporters support so hilariously, who would not have asked that they be withdrawn? I ask the minister to answer.


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member has asked me to answer. I shall be glad to do so. I
2560	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment would say that the hon. member for Temis-couata is always ready and able to speak for himself when he is here.


William Earl Rowe: Then, Mr. Speaker, I understand the minister speaks for the party and speaks for himself. And evidently-


Mr. Speaker:: May I be allowed to speak at this moment. I know the subject matter of the amendment is one which has to do with unemployment, and I know that hon. members usually make their speeches as relevant as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: "Usually".


Mr. Speaker:: I use that expression in the same vein as the one that was used a moment ago. But, notwithstanding the fact that it might be highly desirable to listen much longer to the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, I see that his time has expired. Indeed, it expired at 9.07. While I would be inclined to be lenient in certain cases with an hon. member who has been interrupted, I think he will allow me to say that in certain other cases one might not be so lenient, when perhaps interruptions are somewhat provoked. So I imagine the hon. member will now resume his seat because, as I say, his time has expired.


Hector Dupuis: May I ask the hon. member a question. Is the Mr. Bennett to whom he refers the same Mr. Bennett who was supposed to blast his way into external markets?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would imagine that question should not have been asked, because the debate is one that has to do with unemployment. It is true that quite some time ago the hon. member for Temiscouata made a speech when I was not in the chair-and I am not offering this as an excuse, because if I had been in the chair perhaps I would have let him make the speech he did referring to the depression of the thirties, but the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has given a rebuttal to that speech. I was hoping that perhaps we would not go too far back on that subject. It is not one that has so much to do with the unemployment situation at the moment.
Let us get back to a discussion of the formula proposed in the amendment, that of setting up a committee to go into the matter of unemployment as it exists today. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, it is always with some trepidation that one follows in a debate the hon. member who has just taken his seat. My reason for doing
[Mr. Claxton.l

so, however, is that I do not believe one or two facts in regard to the unemployment situation have even yet been stated in their entirety. Since I last had the pleasure of speaking on the subamendment the number of unemployed in my own home town of Woodstock, Ontario, has risen from approximately 1,000 to 1,250, and 950 of these are at present drawing unemployment insurance. This, of course, does not include the large proportion of the 2,000 textile workers in the community who are on short time.
The committee suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) should be set up to examine the various factors causing unemployment at the present time. We hope that this committee, if it is set up, will look into the possibility of curing the unemployment situation. I feel there is a very definite necessity for such a committee, and this has been shown increasingly in the speeches delivered in the last day or so of this debate. The principal matter I should like to deal with in the few minutes I shall take is that which was in part referred to by the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart). On February 16 last, at page 2140 of Hansard, the hon. member had this to say:
If wages continue to increase-and apparently every union is asking for increases-we shall find that we have not only priced ourselves completely out of foreign markets but that we have come to the place where people at home will refuse to buy in the domestic market.
A little further on on the same page he said:
Is it because there is overproduction of radios that they have not radios in those homes? No. The only reason that they have no radios is that they cannot afford to pay the price on the price tag that is hung on the radios.
Still further on the hon. member continued:
Since the question has been asked by the hon. member to my left, I shall do so. I am sorry I did not bring the documents down to my desk. Just a few weeks ago advertisements were sent to me from two papers. One is printed in Windsor, Ontario and the other is printed just across that little bridge in Detroit, Michigan. On the same day two advertisements appeared in the two papers. They are advertisements by the Westinghouse people. They have to do with an automatic washer and dryer. In the United States on that particular day the price was $369.90 and in Windsor it was $689.
The hon. member continued his remarks, but I do not need to read any more. I think they illustrate the point I wish to deal with, namely the high prices of various products in Canada such as appliances, automobiles and automobile accessories. They have become so high in price that people cannot afford to buy them, and since people cannot afford to buy them production of these things has fallen off in Canada and accordingly people are being put out of work.

In this regard, sir, some very interesting remarks were made by one Ira G. Needles, president of B. F. Goodrich Company of Canada. Mr. Needles is a very prominent Canadian industrialist and he made these remarks in Preston, Ontario on February 17 last. I should like to read a brief report of Mr. Needles' remarks which are taken from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record of February 18, 1954, as follows:
"Canadian manufacturers are being unjustly criticized for the wide price variance between identical Canadian and United States manufactured goods. The fault rests with the federal government's 10 per cent sales and 15 per cent excise taxes, and the unrealistic practice of applying these taxes at the manufacturing level rather than the retail level."
The article goes on:
He explained that Canadian suggested selling prices must include all taxes, hidden and direct, while most United States prices were tax excluded. The government policy of collecting sales and excise taxes at the manufacturing level results in a retail mark-up being taken on the tax.
"On the popular 6:00-16 tire the tax effect is more than four times the net tax amount in the United States," the speaker said.
Mr. Needles supported his argument with examples of tire prices in both countries. "A 6:00-16 four-ply top quality tire which fits popular car models to 1934 to 1947 sells in Canada at the suggested price of $26.50 including tax. In the United States the same tire is advertised at $20.60, or 22-3 per cent lower.
However, if the sales and excise taxes totalling 25 per cent of the net selling price and the tax effect of the retail mark-up were removed the Canadian tire would sell for $22 as compared to the United States price of $20.60, a difference of only 6-4 per cent," explained Mr. Needles.
That illustrates roughly the effect of excise and sales taxes on products such as appliances, automobile parts and supplies. These taxes have another effect in a purely uneconomic way. They cause a great deal of mistrust and dissension among people in Canada. You hear statements by persons, such as the hon. member for Charlotte, who apparently have not complete knowledge of the situation and who believe that manufacturers are being protected by high tariffs and are taking an unnecessarily high mark-up. You hear questions such as why are prices so much higher in Canada than in the United States; that labour is getting too much and manufacturers are getting too much. This tax, applied at the factory level rather than at the sales level, accounts for much of the difference. The ordinary person is mistaken in his view of the matter, and the result is that labour unions and manufacturers come in for a great deal of unfair criticism. This kind of tax has stirred up a lot of mistrust in the country.
I should like to deal with another matter before I resume my seat. If a committee is
Proposed Committee on Unemployment set up to look into the causes of unemployment and to make suggestions for short-term and long-term remedies, there is one other thing I should like it to consider as well as the sales and excise taxes, namely the question which many of us have heard around the corridors during the last few days. I refer to the question of Canadian companies which are wholly or substantially owned by parent companies in foreign countries, and some of the foreign countries are close at hand. It is said that because of unemployment at home some of the parent companies have been in the habit of taking orders away from Canadian companies.
We have no figures available on this at the moment, but it is a matter that should be studied by the committee if it is set up. If parent companies which have subsidiaries in Canada are taking orders away from Canadian companies, then something should certainly be done about it.
That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker. In resuming my seat I should like to support the suggestion of the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra that a committee be set up to look into the causes of unemployment and try to find a cure for the present situation.


Mr. H. P. Mang (Qu'Appelle):: I do not want to prolong this debate any longer than necessary. Because of the few times I have been on my feet I have not burdened the house for very long, and I do not intend to do so now; but there are a few factors that enter into the employment situation in Canada which have not been emphasized, and I want to mention them, if for no one else's satisfaction at least for my own.
Employment in Canada is dependent upon certain basic realities which we are concerned with. We are employed in Canada because of the kind of country in which we live. I submit that there are four main factors which we should take into consideration as a basis for considering remedies for our unemployment situation. Unless we have a basic approach to the problem we shall neither get a long-term solution nor be able to provide an immediate solution that will stick for any length of time.
Basically we are in this position in Canada. There are four factors that enter into the picture. First of all, the basis of our prosperity is our natural resources. Our standard of living has been built up and our secondary industries have been built upon the exploitation of those natural resources, which in the main are five in number. First is the land; then the fisheries; then the millions of acres of timber area, our trees and our forests; and then the rocks which yield the minerals.
2562	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment Under the rocks in Alberta we have found oil, and we are going to find oil on the prairies. That is the basis of our economy; that is the basis of all employment in Canada.
I am trying to place our employment picture in its proper perspective. I know we can sit down and do homework for five or six or ten hours, or even three or four days, and we can get statistics and gather all the figures. I have statistics piled four feet high up in my office, and if I went through them and had the ability as a parliamentarian I could make a five-hour speech on all the different factors that enter into the economy of Canada.
But that is not the important thing. Sitting down for three or four hours and getting a whole lot of figures and statistics and that sort of thing is not going to lead us to a solution. It is being able to get down to basic facts and using those basic facts as a foundation to do something, to do some high-class figuring and gather the economic factors that enter into prosperity, standards of living, markets, employment and so forth. Then and then only are we going to get anywhere.
We can get all these figures; we have had them for weeks, but they do not mean anything until we get down to the basis upon which our economy depends, upon which our employment depends, upon which our standard of living depends, upon which our exports and markets depend. Natural resources and their exploitation are the basic foundation of the economic development of this country, and provide the basis for all employment. I do not like to talk about unemployment; I like to talk about employment. Let us approach this problem of unemployment from that perspective.
The second factor which enters into this problem in Canada is the climate. We are situated on the northern part of North America. This is the second factor we have to take into consideration. We have rigorous winters. We have spring, then summer, then autumn and then our winter. Some obtuse remarks were made this afternoon about this government or hon. members on this side waiting for the balmy breezes of spring to waft us out of this unemployment era.


An hon. Member:: Some hope.


Henry Philip Mang: Climate is a very important factor. I put it as the second factor in our employment situation. We have employment in Canada at the times we have because of our climate.


Mr. Winch:: The workers have to eat in the winter, too.


Henry Philip Mang: That is right. If my hon. friend has patience I shall come to that. I do want to be brief. The third factor is geography. We talk about trading, the necessity for trade and the influence of world trade upon our employment situation. As I say, geographically Canada is situated on the northern half of the North American continent. On the east we have the Atlantic ocean; on the west we have the Pacific ocean, and to the south of us we have the United States. I have heard a few obtuse remarks pointed at the United States, but after all they are geographically our southern neighbours. Whether we like it or not, they are there. Whether they like it or not, we are here. Our geographical position does affect the flow of our trade-if the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. McCullough) can restrain his levity-and that has a definite effect upon our markets and our employment situation in Canada.
The fourth and most important of all factors is the brain, brawn and calibre of our people working in harmony with the geographical, climatic and natural endowments which we have in this particular part of the world. If we are to get a long-term solution to our employment problem we must consider these basic factors. Until we appreciate them there is no use talking about palliatives such as increasing unemployment insurance or having the government ask the taxpayers to build dams and public services of one kind and another.
We must realize what constitutes the basis of all employment in Canada, the basis of our prosperity, our standard of living. Our natural resources are the basic reason for having people employed in this country. They have enabled us to create a certain standard of living. We contend as farmers, as workers or as citizens of Canada that we cannot reduce that standard of living. We have got up to a certain level and we want to stay there.
This standard of living has been built up on the factors I have mentioned. In order to preserve that standard of living we must trade with other countries; we just must. There are many things which we cannot produce in this country, which come only from other countries. We talk about the large project at Kitimat, but while we supply the power in order to produce the aluminum we must get the bauxite from somewhere else in the southern hemisphere, and another mineral from somewhere else. They are required in order to produce the aluminum, and thus we enter the international trading phase of the employment situation in Canada.

It is upon that basis only that we can find a permanent solution. It has been pointed out here over and over again that the responsibility rests entirely upon the government and the people who support the government on this side, the ordinary Joes like myself, who have been made to appear as though we do not realize the problem. I do not think there is any group in Canada or anywhere in the world today which recognizes the problem more definitely and more sincerely than we who sit on this side.
Since 1935, because of the policies which have been enunciated from this side of the house, we have been able to widen our markets. As one example, we have sold our wheat in 67 different countries. Within the last few days I had people in my office who came to tell me what the government should do in order to expand markets and international trade. I think this government has been remiss in not telling the people of Canada in a dramatic way that at the present time we have trade representatives who are trying to sell the goods which the people of Canada produce. We have trade representatives in practically every free country of the world. They are knocking at every door.
Just last week I was down to visit this exhibit that is being sent over to Holland. Arrangements are being made for a big trade fair at which Canada will be represented, to show the things the people of Canada make and which we want to sell. That has been going on all the time. The trouble with this government is that it is too modest in publishing its accomplishments. These things are being done all the time.
The people of western Canada were surprised to find that we were selling wheat in 67 different countries of the world. It is true perhaps not so much was sold here as there or some other place, but as the Scots say, many a mickle make a muckle; and if we sell 5 million bushels here and 10 million bushels there, the first thing we know we have got rid of some of our wheat. The same thing holds true all along the line.
I do not care what government you had sitting to your right, Mr. Speaker, they could not do more than is being done today. The whole matter of employment is tied up with the international situation. If we look at our papers today, what are the two things that we find emphasized most? We find that those two things are world peace and trade. Those two questions cover the front pages of every newspaper in Canada today. Those are the things upon which the government is working. What do you think the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) is doing this very night while we
Proposed Committee on Unemployment are sitting here listening to gibes from the opposition? He is on a good-will mission trying to establish human relationships so we can work towards peace which, in its wake, will bring confidence between nations and between peoples. Especially is he trying to establish those human relationships by which the goods that we make in this country can be exchanged for the goods made by people in other countries and which we want, thereby enriching us both.
I am getting just a bit tired, Mr. Speaker- and I know I am not the last to speak-of listening to what we have been hearing. Sometimes it gets a little bit too much under my skin and I speak in spite of myself. As a matter of fact I do not like making speeches, but on the other hand I do not like to have anyone say that we are lacking in appreciation of the difficulties presented by the international and the national situation at the present time. I do not think there is anyone in this house who can take first place in that regard over the people on this side of the house.
If we are going to get anywhere I think we must have-on the part of labour and management, in all sectors and sections of our economic life-discussions between one another. By these discussions we shall be able to arrive at a solution to the employment problem. It will not be easy. You cannot do this overnight. You cannot solve the unemployment problem by having the government act as agent for the taxpayers and hiring all those people who are unemployed.
There is one thing we must remember. I tried to mention it before. The government can spend only what the people whom they govern or for whom they do public business are ready to contribute. If they want to put a great deal more into, shall I say, the kitty, then we can spend a great deal more. There is in existence a public works program running into hundreds of millions of dollars. It will be used only when, in the judgment of the people who are in control of our government, the time is right. That time may come soon.
I just want to come back to this dramatic picture of a lackadaisical government whistling and waiting for the sap to run in the trees when these unemployed people will be back at work. I know that we in western Canada are going to be able to use all the people we can get in the development of the building programs that we have, and so forth. I know these things are not popular to say. It is always difficult to make the ordinary facts of life dramatic. The people in the opposition
2564	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment are very happy, I might even say, with present conditions. It is-I do not know whether I should say it or not; it is nothing personal- the answer to a political prayer, not a personal prayer. No one in the opposition wants to see unemployment. No one wants to see distress; but politically they do.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Henry Philip Mang: I might mention something I read in the paper not so long ago. Perhaps I should not say it, but at least I saw it in the paper; I do not know whether or not it is true. One of the members in this house was in Toronto and was advising a certain political organization to see to it that handbills were handed out explaining how this terrible situation in which the people found themselves could be rectified according to the program they had outlined. I have no objection to that procedure. That is all in the deal, but that will not provide a solution.
Without holding up this house for any great length of time, what I am trying to do is emphasize that we in Canada must appreciate the basic facts with regard to our natural resources, our climate, our geography, the quality of brain and brawn of our people and their character, and the financial institutions that we have. We must harness all these, and base our thinking upon these fundamentals. Then we shall come to a long-term solution of unemployment and also be able to decide what immediate steps should be taken.
We are often told that we need a war. I am one of those, Mr. Speaker-and I think I am one of a million-who conscientiously believe that there will not be another war, for the very reason that we are today living in a different age from that in which we used to live. We are living in the Christian era of 1954, but actually we are living in the year 9 of the atomic era. The other era was ushered out with the first atomic bomb that was dropped on Japan. The new era was ushered in with the second atomic bomb that was dropped on Japan. We must now reorientate all our thinking upon the basis of this new era. I hope there will be enough brains, enough sense and enough humani-tarianism among the people who are at the head of our affairs in the world-and I see plenty of signs of it-that we are not going to have another war. This cure that is being brought forward for unemployment, with respect to getting into armaments and so forth, will not, I think, persist. But we are going to bring about a solution to our employment problem, our prosperity problem and our standard of living problem only if we assess all the basic facts and base our


thinking upon them and not so much upon these multitudinous bushels and barrels of figures that are thrown on to the floor of the House of Commons. A solution will be found only if we will get down to brass tacks, assess the world situation, see where we as Canadian people fit into it and then have some high-pressure thinking not only on the part of the government and private members but on the part of trade union leaders, trade union economists, farm organizations, business organizations, and the bankers of Canada; if we get together and discuss it.
This is the era of negotiation. As Dag Hammarskjold said the other day, this is the age of responsibility. Let each sector of the economic life of Canada shoulder its fair share of responsibility. We on this side of the house will take our share. Then we will go forward together to build a greater Canada.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to belabour the house with a discussion on unemployment, but I want to congratulate the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Mang) on taking such a short time and not reading four pages of print.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It being nearly ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, may I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Fulton the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall continue this debate.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 2, 1954