1954-02-15

Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamillon West):: Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that mention should be made today of the passing from the Canadian scene of one of Canada's most beloved and colourful individuals, one who held a unique position in public life. Agnes Campbell Macphail came into this house in 1921, the year of the first general election which extended universal adult suffrage. A candidate for the United Farmers of Ontario, her entry into parliament at the youthful age of 30 saw her well embarked upon a parliamentary career which lasted for 19 years in this house and subsequently for two terms in the legislature of the province of Ontario.
Agnes Macphail was an example and an inspiration to all women whose interest lies in public affairs, and the record which she established has paved the way undoubtedly for those women who sit in this house and in the other place. Indeed, I think it is no exaggeration to say that her example made it possible for many women to take their places in elective offices at all levels of government. Her keen wit, coupled with her sympathetic nature, made her a formidable ally of all those causes which aroused her interest. Her memory will long be green in the hearts of those who were privileged to know her, and the name of Agnes Macphail will go down in Canadian history as an honest and courageous public figure who lent colour and substance to Canadian politics.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: I
want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Hamilton West for enabling us to pay tribute to the late Agnes Macphail. The hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pou-liot) spoke to me and suggested it might be done, but I thought perhaps it might not be in accordance with our usual procedure. 1 am glad indeed that the opportunity was provided.
All I wish to say is that those of us in this house, regardless of party, who were associated with Miss Agnes Macphail came to have an affection for her and a very high regard for her sincerity of purpose. I think 83276-131
she will long be remembered as an outstanding member of this house who was largely responsible for promoting the idea of penitentiary reform. And those of us who sat with her here will always remember her keen interest in the welfare of those who were incarcerated in our prisons and penitentiaries.
In her passing, as has already been said, Canada has lost a famous woman and an outstanding citizen, one who served her country well. Often many people disagreed with her point of view, but none will withhold from her that admiration and respect which she earned by her work for the public generally and particularly for the women of Canada.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I agree that on occasion the practice and custom of the house might be departed from, and particularly when we are paying tribute to the first woman elected to the House of Commons. Miss Macphail was proud of that, not on her own account but rather because she looked upon her election to the house as the beginning of what she hoped would be reform in the public life of Canada so that women would take a more active part in political discussion and in the elective offices.
I know that on occasion she thought that perhaps she had not succeeded. Well, the fact of the matter is that even if it is only in this parliament that we have had a fair representation from the ladies, it is a fact that in all political parties there are far more women taking part today than was the case when she entered this house.
Miss Macphail was, as everyone knows, my predecessor in Southeast Grey and in Grey-Bruce. I had known her for a good many years, and had a deep admiration for her qualities of intelligence, her sincerity and her desire to speak on behalf of the person who perhaps did not have the facilities to do so himself. She was an outstanding advocate of causes which needed an advocate, and I am sure that she and many others who shared similar views are responsible for a good deal of the progress which has been made in this country in the past thirty years. I wish to pay this tribute to her not only in a public sense, because anyone who serves in the House of Commons for 19 years, and then in the legislature of Ontario for a further five years, undoubtedly has contributed much to the welfare of the Canadian

The late Miss Agnes Macphail people. But I cannot help adding what is well known in Grey-Bruce, namely, that she looked upon her public service as a means of contributing toward helping those persons who showed promise, but whose circumstances precluded the developing of that promise.
In many ways she was charitable to a degree in her private life, and this will be especially remembered in Grey-Bruce, where she will be buried tomorrow with genuine expressions of sorrow and regret at the passing of a distinguished Canadian.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


Hon. R. O. Campney (Associate Minister of National Defence):: On Friday last the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked the following question:
Is the minister aware of the fact that on Monday next, February 15, civilian employees on the R.C.A.F. station at Winnipeg will not receive their regular semi-monthly pay cheques?
I would reply to the question as follows: In the first place, the classified civilian employees at that station are and will continue to be paid on the 15th and 30th of the month as usual, so that the question as asked in regard to that class of employees is in error.
With regard to the prevailing rates employees, except in the case of messmen and cooks, such employees have always been paid on the 10th and 25th of the month. They are not therefore being paid on the 15th, so that the inference of fact in regard to them is also wrong. They are not supposed to be paid on the 15th of the month.
With regard to messmen and cooks, and this may be the root of the hon. member's question although it is not clear from the way he has worded it, these employees have heretofore been paid on the 15th and at the end of each month. As they are in fact prevailing rates employees they will hereafter be paid on the 10th and 25th in line with other prevailing rates employees. As I understand it, they are therefore being paid today, and will hereafter be paid on the 25th of this month and on the 10th and 25th of succeeding months.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. W. G. Weir (Parliamentary Assistant to the Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on January 12, 1954, as recorded on page 155 of Votes and
(Mr. Harris.]
Proceedings, it was resolved that a joint committee of both houses of parliament be appointed to inquire into and report upon the questions whether the criminal law of Canada relating to (a) capital punishment,
(b)	corporal punishment or (c) lotteries should be amended in any respect and, if so, in what manner and to what extent.
It was provided further that 17 members of the House of Commons, to be designated by the house at a later date, be members of the joint committee. Accordingly, on February 3, 1954, I presented a motion listing the members selected to act on the said committee. The motion was adopted by the house and is recorded at page 261 of Votes and Proceedings. It read in part as follows:
That the following members be appointed to act on the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons as provided in the motion of the Minister of Justice, passed by this house on January 12, 1954, having to do with a revision of the Criminal Code.
And then followed the names of the members of the committee.
The house will note that the wording of my motion describing the work of the committee is not strictly in line with the wording of the original motion.
In order to prevent ambiguity I am requesting leave of the house to have a change made in the records so that the same wording be used in both cases in respect of the work of the committee. The amended motion would then read as follows:
That the following members act on behalf of this house on the joint committee of both houses of parliament as provided in the motion of the Minister of Justice on January 12, 1954, and appointed to inquire into and report upon the questions whether the criminal law of Canada relating to (a) capital punishment, (b) corporal punishment or (c) lotteries should be amended in any respect and, if so, in what manner and to what extent:
Then the names of the members of the committee follow. This amendment affects in no way the terms of the reference to or the membership of the committee. If I may have the leave of the house in accepting this change I would request that the motion as amended be printed as a corrigendum to the Votes and Proceedings of this day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


RED DEER RIVER PROJECT


Mr. Quelch:: 1.	Is a soil survey of the land that may be irrigated under the Red Deer river diversion project being carried out at the present time?
2.	If so, is it being carried out as a joint undertaking between the government of Alberta and the federal government, or by the federal government alone?

3.	What is the name of the person in charge of this survey?
4.	How are the costs of the survey being apportioned between the two governments?
5.	What has the cost of the survey been to date?
6.	How many acres have been surveyed?
7.	When is it expected to complete the survey?


Mr. Gardiner:: 1.	Survey of areas in this district requested by joint committee of Alberta department of agriculture and the P.F.R.A. was completed in 1953.
2.	Survey carried out by federal government employees attached to the Alberta soil survey, which is a joint undertaking between the federal government, the provincial government, and the University of Alberta.
3.	Mr. W. E. Bower, chief federal soil surveyor in Alberta.
4.	The federal government provided field staff and defrayed their travelling and maintenance expenses. The University of Alberta provided office and laboratory facilities.
5.	Not available as this area was included in the soil survey projects carried out in the province of Alberta from 1950 to 1953.
6.	831,000 acres.
7.	Answered by No. 1.



INCOME TAX, CALGARY   INFORMATION REQUESTED

Mr. Harkness:: 1.	Was a letter sent out to farmers in the Calgary income tax area requiring all record books, vouchers and receipts pertaining to the income and expenses for several years back, bank pass books or ledger sheets for both current and savings accounts, and cancelled cheques, in addition to a large amount of other information?
2.	If so, to how many farmers?
3.	Were similar letters sent to any other class of income taxpayers?
4.	If so, how many of these letters were sent out in each of the provinces?
5.	If this letter was sent out, what was the purpose of same?
6.	What benefit to the farmers is envisaged?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Approximately 500.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	To arrange a meeting with each farmer, at a time and place convenient to him, at which his income tax returns for specified years could be reviewed and reference made, where necessary, to his books and records supporting the figures shown on the tax returns.
6.	An opportunity is afforded the farmers to clarify, with the aid of factual data, all
83276-131i
Questions
points in their returns requiring explanation and to discuss, in general, income tax matters of interest to them.



LOSS-LEADER ADVERTISING

Mr. Diefenbaker:: Has the government given consideration to the need of bringing in legislation at the present session of parliament, in connection with loss-leader advertising practices?


Mr. Garson:: The MacQuarrie committee, while it thought that the practice of loss-leader selling did not present any immediate danger, recommended that a study should be made of this practice with a view to determining its prevalence and effects, and recommending suitable amendment, if necessary, of the Combines Investigation Act. Also, during the debate on the resale price maintenance legislation, the Prime Minister stated that the government wished to give close and constant attention to any practices contrary to the public interest and that, in the event that a development was disclosed which could not be dealt with under existing legislation, the government would give serious consideration to what other legislative action it might be appropriate to recommend to parliament.
Accordingly, a study of loss-leader selling was undertaken by the director under the Combines Investigation Act, and I am informed that this study is well advanced. When a report reaches me, the government will be in a position to decide whether or not legislation should be introduced to deal with this practice. I am unable to say whether the report will be received and the necessary consideration given to it before the close of the present session, but every effort is being made to deal with the matter expeditiously.



NAVAL OFFICERS RELEASED, 1945-46

Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	How many officers of the Royal Canadian Navy (P.F.) were released from service between October 1, 1945 and October 1, 1946?
2.	How many so released did not have sufficient service to qualify for (a) any pension: (b) maximum pension according to rank held at the time of their release?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	42.
2.	(a) 13; (b) 25.



GRAIN STORED IN BOATS AT LAKEHEAD

Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	Are any boats loaded with grain at the head of the great lakes to facilitate storage?
2.	If so, how many and how many bushels are so stored?

Questions


Mr. Dickey:: Perhaps I could answer this question orally. The answer to the first part would be "yes". The answer to the second part is "one". Then as to the number of bushels, it would be 195,073. I understand that the purpose of this question may have been to secure information with regard to the number of boats loaded at the head of the lakes which are wintering in various ports on the lakes with their loads aboard. In order to give that information I shall pass the question as an order for return and put in the information as a supplementary return.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS LAY-OFFS

Mr. Monieith:: 1.	How many lay-offs have taken place in the Canadian National Railways system, (luring the last six months?
2.	How many employees have been involved in each lay-off?
3.	How many employees in the Stratford division have been involved in each lay-off?
4.	Are any further lay-offs contemplated in the Stratford division in the next six months?
5.	Is it contemplated that any former employees will be rehired in the next six months?
6.	Has the Canadian National Railways management any plans for the use in other capacities of employees no longer required because of the gradual dieselization of the system?
7.	Has the management of the Canadian National Railways system any long term plans for the full utilization of the locomotive shops in Stratford?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: The Canadian
National Railways advise as follows:
1.	There was a reduction in staff at main shops in October-November 1953, and another reduction in January 1954.
2.	The first reduction involved 708 employees and the second involved 784.
3.	Of the above 112 were from Stratford shop in the first reduction and 75 in the second.
4.	Staff requirements are affected by traffic conditions.
5.	See answer to No. 4.
6.	Within the provisions of wage agreements, and subject to business requirements, an endeavour is made to utilize the services of employees displaced by dieselization.
7.	The locomotive shops at Stratford consist of partly old and partly modern buildings and equipment. While excellent for steam locomotive maintenance, their use for other railway purposes is limited, but is under study.



AUTOMOBILE PARTS AND ACCESSORIES

Mr. Harkness:: 1.	Has any investigation been made under the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act to ascertain whether automobile manufacturers, oil companies, etc., exert pressure on their dealers

compelling them to purchase parts and accessories exclusively from the manufacturers or their wholesale outlets?
2.	If so, with what result?


Mr. Garson:: 1.	As the hon. member will recall, section 42 of the Combines Investigation Act, which was enacted in 1952, provides for the carrying out of general studies by the director and the restrictive trade practices commission. Pursuant to this section, a number of such studies have been undertaken by the director. Among these is one into distributive arrangements relating to what are generally described as automotive accessories and the like, but it is not possible to give any details at this time in view of its preliminary nature.
2.	See answer to No. 1.



GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	How many persons are engaged in the service of the dominion government either as government employees or in a representative capacity (but not including temporary clerical employees, manual workers or artisans, employed as such by Canadian diplomatic, trade and military establishments abroad) who (a) are not Canadian citizens, or (b) hold the nationality or citizenship of some other country in addition to Canadian citizenship?
2.	What are the names of any persons covered by (a) or (b) above respectively, indicating (i) the name of the country other than Canada of which he or she is a citizen or national, and (ii) the nature of such employment or service?
He said: If I have the consent of the house, I would ask that this question be dropped in order that it may be reworded.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Question dropped.



FROZEN AND CANNED HAMS IMPORTED

Mr. Ross:: 1.	How many pounds of frozen hams were imported into Canada in the year 1953, and what was the price paid?
2.	How many came from continental Europe and how many from Northern Ireland and Eire?
3.	How many canned hams were imported into Canada from continental Europe, Northern Ireland and Eire in 1953?
4.	How many canned hams were exported from Canada to the United States in 1953, and what was the price received?


John Horace Dickey: 1 and 2. Frozen hams are not separately classified in Canadian import trade statistics. The imports of pork, fresh, frozen or cured, from all countries during the period January 1 to November 30,	1953, amounted to
404,415 pounds valued at $185,747. Imports of these products from the United Kingdom (including Northern Ireland) amounted to 2,449 pounds valued at $1,047. Imports from

Eire amounted to 294,948 pounds valued at $150,946. There were no imports of these products from continental Europe.
3.	Canned hams are not separately classified in Canadian import trade statistics but are included in a general item of "Canned meats, n.o.p.". During the period January 1 to November 30, 1953, imports under this item from the United Kingdom (including Northern Ireland) amounted to 241,461 pounds valued at $55,459 and from continental Europe 70,513 pounds valued at $46,178. There were no imports of these products from Eire.
4.	Canadian exports of canned hams to the United States during the calendar year 1953 amounted to 16,939,209 pounds valued at $14,337,093.



TREASURY BOARD


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	With reference to the preparation of the estimates, are the discussions of treasury board confidential?
2.	Are the decisions arrived at generally available for release for general information before the estimates are tabled in the house?
3.	If in a particular case it were felt desirable to release information for publication before the estimates are presented to the house, by what process would a decision as to its release be made, who would decide the question, what general principles would govern the decision, and by whom would such information normally be released?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Each decision is judged on its merits.
3.	The minister of the department concerned would make the decision and its release would be made by him or at his direction. It is not possible to state any general reasons as to the release of information as these would vary from case to case.



TRADE WITH RUSSIA

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What restrictions are placed upon exports from Canada to the U.S.S.R.?
2.	What commodities can be traded under present regulations between Canada and the U.S.S.R.?
3.	What are the main classes of commodities which are regarded as being comprised within the term of "strategic materials"?
4.	Are (a) wheat; (b) agricultural products in general, controlled or banned commodities for export to the U.S.S.R.?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	No goods may be exported from Canada to the U.S.S.R. without an export permit.
2.	Any commodities of purely Canadian origin which are not classified as strategic material and which are not in short supply.
Questions
3.	Those types of commodities which are classified as strategic include: arms, ammunitions and implements of war and such commodities as steels, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, minerals and chemicals, and manufactured products which have a significant usage in defence industries.
4.	(a) Exports of wheat are controlled but would be licensed;
(b) Exports of agricultural products in general are controlled but would be licensed.



CANNED FRUIT IMPORTS

Mr. Lennard:: How many pounds of (a) canned peaches; (b) canned fruits other than peaches, were imported into Canada from the United States during the year 1953?


John Horace Dickey: During the period January 1 to November 30, 1953 (latest figures available), imports from the United States were as follows:- **(a) Canned peaches and apricots, 8,499,929 pounds; (b) Canned fruits other than peaches and apricots, 30,359,492 pounds.
*'Separate figures not available.



VERDUN POST OFFICE-CHEQUES

Mr. Dufresne:: 1.	Is the Postmaster General aware that students employed in a temporary capacity during the Christmas season at the Verdun post office were paid with unilingual cheques?
2.	Has the Postmaster General taken steps so that the cheques printed for his department will hereafter be printed in the two official languages of this country?


Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouih-Clare):: 1 and 2.1 am informed that some unilingual cheques were used at Christmas to get rid of a small stock on hand. This supply has now been disposed of and bilingual cheque forms will be available from now on.



T.C.A. FILM &quot;NO BARRIERS&quot;

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Did Trans-Canada Air Lines have a film produced entitled "No Barriers," since the 1st of January, 1953?
2.	If so, what company produced it?
3.	What was the cost?
4.	Why were the facilities of the national film board not utilized?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Lew Parry Film Productions of Vancouver.
3.	$24,000.
4.	In this case the national film board made the master print from the production negative. Another firm was used for the production, as T.C.A. was following its normal

Orders for Returns
practice of distributing its business geographically within Canada as widely as possible, wherever no cost penalty is involved thereby. Both the national film board and other Canadian film producers have made films for T.C.A. in the past, and it has been found that differences in technique between producing firms bring about a desirable variety in the character of the films and the treatment of the subject of civil aviation in Canada.



BUTTER PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION, QUEBEC

Mr. Boisvert:: 1.	How many pounds of butter were produced in the province of Quebec in each of the years 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953?
2.	How many pounds were consumed in the same province during each of these years?


Mr. Dickey:: 1. Butter production in the province of Quebec from 1950 to 1953 (exclusive of dairy and whey butter) was as follows:
pounds
1950		 87,488,000
1951		 91,363,000
1952		 102,346,000
1953		 112,179,000
2. Information on interprovincial shipments of butter is not sufficiently complete to calculate consumption by provinces.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Winch:: 1.	Did the department of reconstruction and supply, or any other government department, receive the sum of approximately $7,000 on or about January 6, 1947 from Boeing Aircraft of Canada Limited, of Vancouver, specifically designated as being moneys for transfer of royalty payments to Captain E. Windsor Bowen for his patented process being known as the Bengough and Stuart chromic acid anodizing proprietary process, and made mandatory by the department for certain specific purposes in aircraft construction, such process being covered by patent No. 265,968 and under authority of crown copyright specification DTD910? If so, has this money been paid to Captain E. Windsor Bowen, and if not, for what reason?
2.	Did the department of reconstruction and supply, or any other government department, receive the sum of $4,057.04, on or about January 6, 1947 from Canadian Vickers Limited of Montreal as having been received as royalties payable to Captain E. Windsor Bowen for the use in 1942 of the Bengough-Stuart process covered under a pre-war contract made with Canadian Vickers Limited and signed by its president, and under the corporate seal of the company? If so, has this money been paid to Captain E. Windsor Bowen, and if not, for what reason?
3.	Have any payments been received by any government department on Canadian patent Nos. 265,968 and 291,633 for Canadair Limited whilst it

was either owned or operated by the government of Canada, and if so, what are the amounts and to whom paid?
4.	Did the department of reconstruction and supply receive a request from Canadian Car and Foundry Company Limited of Montreal in the year 1947-48 that authorization be given for payment to Captain E. Windsor Bowen for its use of the anodizing process utilized in the installation of certain anodizing equipment built pursuant to communications that passed between Mr. D. A. Loucks, purchasing agent, and Mr. A. D. Neale, vice-president of the company, directly with Captain E. Windsor Bowen of London, England?
5.	If so, what action was taken?


John Horace Dickey: In part 3, line 2, of this question the word "for" appears after the figure "291,633". I have discussed this with the hon. member and he informs me that this word should be "from". With that amendment it will stand as an order for return.



CROWN ASSETS DISPOSAL CORPORATION


Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	Were the 3,439 Cooey rifles, which were sold for $6,018.25, according to page 24 of the ninth annual report of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, new or used?
2.	What was the original price paid by the government for these -22 rifles?
3.	For what reasons were they declared surplus?
4.	To how many companies were invitations for offers sent, in connection with the sale of these assets?




Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	Were the two six-ton Mack trucks with crane, which were sold for $2,625, according to page 22 of the ninth annual report of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, new or used?
2.	What was the original price paid by the government for these trucks?
3.	For what reasons were they declared surplus?
4.	To how many companies were invitations for offers sent, in connection with the sale of these assets?
5.	If these were used goods, on what date were they originally purchased by the department?



GRAIN STORED IN BOATS AT LAKEHEAD

Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	Are any boats loaded with grain at the head of the great lakes to facilitate storage?
2.	If so, how many and how many bushels are so stored?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Siewari (Winnipeg Norih):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged between any person or persons and the Post Office Department, since January 1, 1949, concerning sub-post offices in the federal constituency of Winnipeg North. Also a statement showing the locations of all sub-post

offices in the federal constituency of North Winnipeg at December 31, 1953, and a copy of post office regulations in connection therewith.
FLIN FLON-NIPAWIN HIGHWAY Mr. Diefenbaker:
For a copy of all letters and telegrams which have passed between the provincial governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan and the dominion government, since the first day of January 1954 regarding federal contribution or assistance in the building and completion of the highway between Flin Flon, Manitoba and Nipawin, Saskatchewan.


Mr. Prudham:: The Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is unavoidably absent and he has asked me to request that this motion be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.



VOCATIONAL TRAINING COORDINATION ACT


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act to meet present day requirements for defence and other purposes, including authority to enter into agreements with the provinces to grant assistance for rehabilitation training of disabled persons; also to provide for an increase in the number of members on the vocational training advisory council, for a per diem allowance for members of the 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]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: May I ask
the Minister of Justice whether the government is considering the reconvening at an early date of the dominion-provincial conference on the constitution, which last met in Quebec in September 1950?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Not at an early date, Mr. Speaker.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the Minister of Justice a supplementary question? Can we take it from the answer he gave a moment ago that the government has decided that
Inquiries of the Ministry the fact that our constitution cannot be amended in Canada no longer constitutes a derogation from Canadian sovereignty of such a nature as to call for early action?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, I would prefer to answer a question of that character after meditating on it for about 24 hours.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It was not necessary to meditate when you called the conference.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I understand a judgment has been rendered today in regard to an application for certain increases in rates by the Canadian Pacific Railway. Can the minister table the judgment or give some information to the house as to its scope and contents?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have the judgment here. The application with which it deals was one by the railway association of Canada, and more particularly the Canadian Pacific Railway, in which they asked for a number of things, chief of which was an increase of freight rates of 9 per cent, the fixing of 6i per cent as a fair rate of return on a rate base, and the consideration of net investment as the rate base. It is a long judgment having to do with the various aspects of determining a permissive level of earnings. It grants the application of Canadian Pacific to determine the net investment of the company in rail operations. For the application before it, the board adopts the amount-for use as one of the "end" tests, in considering the reasonableness of a permissive level of rates-as $1,140 million as at December 31, 1951.
In so far as the other matters I have referred to are concerned, the board of transport commissioners dismisses the application. In other words, it dismisses the application for the 9 per cent increase in freight rates. The board declined to make a declaration that a return of not less than 6J- per cent is a fair return on the net investment of the C.P.R., and it does not accept the rate base. The rate of return method proposed by the C.P.R., within the meaning of the application, would be the sole method of determining the rates.
The judgment is a 100-page document, copies of which I can have distributed to

Inquiries of the Ministry members, although not immediately, because copies will not be available for another week or ten days.



QUESTION AS TO FINAL PAYMENT FOR

[Stage Direction]
1952-53 crop On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister say, as a result of his recent trip to Winnipeg, whether the 1952-53 wheat account has now been closed and whether the final payment for 1952 wheat will be made by the end of this month, in accordance with a suggestion in the Leader-Post last Thursday?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of my conversations in Winnipeg, I am of the opinion that I will get a report from the wheat board shortly. I shall consider the report and make recommendations to the governor in council. If the governor in council agrees with me I shall make an announcement in the house.



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has any change been made in the R.C.A.F. wedge cap insignia? If so, what is the nature of the change and for what reason has it been made?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I shall look into the matter and let the hon. member know.



PASSAMAQUODDY PROJECT-INQUIRY AS TO PARTICIPATION IN ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY SURVEY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I intended asking the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), but I shall direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the United States government has decided to investigate the feasibility of the development of the Passamaquoddy power project, is it the intention of the government to join in that investigation?
[Mr. Chevrler.l


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to call the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to that question. I am sure he will be glad to answer it when he gets back.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: If the Secretary of State for External Affairs is to be away for ten days I suggest-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



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 (Mr. Cote) or to his parliamentary assistant (Mr. Kirk) or to the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) or to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott)? Will a list of the localities where the five-day 40-hour week will come into effect for Post Office employees be published soon?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: I am waiting impatiently myself, Mr. Speaker, and I believe it will.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will it be tabled in the house when it is published?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Undoubtedly.



THE HON. MEMBER FOR VEGREVILLE   WELCOME BACK TO HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, it comes as a great thrill when an hon. member who has been seriously ill returns to this house. On behalf of my associates I have great pleasure in welcoming back to the house the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



ONTARIO-MANITOBA BOUNDARY ACT DEFINITION OF PROVINCIAL BOUNDARIES

George Prudham: the third reading of Bill No. 79, respecting the boundary between the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when we were in committee of the whole on this bill I asked certain questions which the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys was not able

Proposed Committee on Unemployment
at that time to answer. I do not intend to take up the time of the house on this matter now, but I just wish to say I have figured the matter out for myself and even though the minister did not have the answer I can say that the line which is confirmed by this bill was the line which was actually in existence and accepted prior to the last redistribution bill. This means that although we have lost 200 acres of good Manitoba territory to the province of Ontario there is no change as to the boundary between the federal constituencies of Churchill and Kenora-Rainy River so far as this bill is concerned.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PATENT ACT


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of Slate) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 177, to amend the Patent Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN FORCES ACT


Ralph Osborne Campney: the third reading of Bill No. 80, respecting the Canadian forces.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Douglas Charles Abbott: that the house go into committee of supply.



UNEMPLOYMENT


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon it is my intention to move, on behalf of the official opposition, an amendment having to do with the question of unemployment. This is the first opportunity afforded us, since the house reconvened after the Christmas recess, to have a discussion of this particular problem. We believe that the time has now come for parliament, as distinguished from the cabinet, to take a hand in giving consideration to this important question.
For many weeks now, from many of the constituencies represented in this house, there have been reports of unemployment. Then when the Labour Gazette for the month of December, 1953, appeared we found there, dealing with this question, a statement which gave some concern. It is under the heading "Manpower Situation in Local Areas" and reads as follows:
Further declines in industrial activity during November resulted in a considerable increase in the number of idle workers.
Then further in the article we find this paragraph:
A great deal of the increase in unemployment was the usual result of the oncoming winter; but comparison with last year indicates a marked nonseasonal element in this increase. It is evident, in fact, that employment expansion in manufacturing and other industries this fall has not been sufficient to absorb the additions to the labour force during the year.
Subsequently from time to time questions were asked in the house and on January 26 the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) made quite a lengthy statement outlining the position of the government. That statement will be found commencing at page 1446 of Hansard for January 26. The minister pointed out that there are two sets of figures having to do with the extent of the unemployment problem. First of all, there are the figures kept by the national employment service showing the numbers of those who have applied for work. Then there are the figures issued by the bureau of statistics based on a survey of those without jobs and seeking work.
He gave some of the figures. For example, those without jobs and seeking work as of December 12-I think that was the date- amounted to 190,000. That figure was up from 132,000 the year previous; in other words, there was an increase from 2-5 per cent of the labour force to 3-6 per cent. He also gave the figures of those listed with the national employment service as looking for work. As of December 12, 1953, that figure was 338,000, up from December of 1952 when the figure was 237,000. In other words, there was an increase of over 100,000 in numbers and also an increase in the percentage, from 4-5 per cent to 6-4 per cent of the labour force.
The minister went on to explain that there was always a certain amount of seasonal unemployment in Canada; that is a fact which, of course, we all admit. But then

Proposed Committee on Unemployment he listed the types of industry in which unemployment was becoming a problem. For example, he said:
For some, import competition has become keener. This has been particularly true in the case of clothing, textiles and electrical appliances industries. Others, such as sawmilling, farm implements and certain base metal producers have found world markets becoming increasingly competitive. Forestry operations in eastern Canada are currently proceeding at the low levels of last winter, partly because of improved technology in forestry operations, and partly because of softer lumber and pulp markets.
He also said this:
Aside from the difficulties experienced by some industries, there has been a tightening up in many sections of the economy and, as has been the experience of other trading nations, we have gradually moved from a seller's to a buyer's market.
Then the Minister of Labour went on to deal with the action that could be taken by the government and he mentioned first the commencement of a public works program. That idea did not seem to appeal to him greatly because with regard to it he said:
At present, it seems to me that it would be unwise to embark upon a greatly expanded public works program.
He pointed out that the unemployment insurance fund was carrying the load or the burden of unemployment but he also referred to family allowances and old age pensions. Just what they had to do with it I never could quite see, but here is what the minister said:	[DOT]
Many unemployed workers are also being assisted by family allowance payments and by old age pensions. In addition, the provincial and municipal governments are making social welfare payments which benefit those in need.
By that I presume he meant that relief was being paid out to some of those Canadians who were unable to get work. He ended the statement with these words:
There is, however, a residual problem and the most effective way of solving it is through the joint efforts of the provincial and municipal governments and of the federal government.
That was on January 26. On February 9 the Canadian Congress of Labour met in my home city of Vancouver, and I believe similar action was taken in some of the other cities in this country. We find their meeting reported in the press as follows on February 10, under the heading of "Rising Unemployment Creating Concern":
The growing spectre of unemployment is causing increasing concern among Vancouver labour leaders.
A suggestion that the Union of Unemployed Workers-grim reminder of depression days-be re-activated was called for Tuesday night by the Greater Vancouver and Lower Mainland Labour Council (CCL).
"There were 100,000 more Canadians unemployed in December than the same month in 1952," said secretary-treasurer Vic Forster.

"Vancouver now has the second highest unemployment population in the country."
Council recommended holding a joint meeting with the B.C. Trade Union Congress and the B.C. Federation of Labour on the subject.
On the following day, February 10, the Bank of Canada issued their report for the year 1953 and we find the governor of the bank referring to the seriousness of this unemployment problem. At page 4 of the report he has this to say:
Employment during 1953 averaged about 2 per cent above 1952. About one-half of the increase occurred in manufacturing industries and the remainder largely in trade and services. Unemployment for most of the year was slightly lower than in 1952.
Then here are the striking words in his report:
But in the latter part of 1953 employment did not keep pace with the annual increase in the labour force and in December the number of persons without jobs and seeking work was estimated at 190,000 as compared with 132,000 in December 1952.
The governor was obviously referring there to the figures issued by the bureau of statistics and not to the numbers who had applications for work on file with the national employment service. On the same day, February 10, a delegation met members of the cabinet, and we have a press report of what happened at that meeting which is really quite striking. The heading of the article is "Warns labour pricing itself out of jobs". The first paragraph reads:
Labour this morning was firmly lectured by Acting Prime Minister Howe to face the cold economic facts of life.
Apparently the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) wound up his lecture to these labour representatives with the following statement:
Flatly, he informed them he saw no immediate improvement in the prospects of their industry or their employment and that they had better hunt jobs in other than the farm implement plants.
That seems a rather dictatorial attitude for the Acting Prime Minister of this country to take. However, there you have the lecture which was delivered by the right hon. gentleman less than a week ago. The following day, February 11, a joint submission was made to the cabinet by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and the Canadian Congress of Labour. These organizations were represented by four very distinguished Canadians, the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada by Percy R. Bengough, president, and Gordon G. Cushing, general secretary-treasurer, and the Canadian Congress of Labour by A. R. Mosher, president, and Donald MacDonald, secretary-treasurer. These men are all well known from coast to coast for their sane and reasonable approach to public problems. I have known Mr. Bengough for many years. He came here from

Vancouver some years ago to head the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, and the west coast has not had a finer citizen than Mr. Bengough. When he takes a stand he does so because he sincerely believes in the policy he is advocating and is looking toward the best interests of the nation.
In making this submission on unemployment these men represented about 955,000 Canadians. They spoke for nearly one million of our fellow Canadians. The very fact that the submission was a joint one indicates its importance, because these two great bodies have not made a joint submission for several years. I have their submission here and I propose to quote from the first part of it because I think it sets out the problem in a very clear way. It opens in this way:
The joint delegation appearing before you today represents the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and the Canadian Congress of Labour. We do so to discuss with you the serious current unemployment situation and to place before you certain recommendations and suggestions which we believe will relieve it.
Then we have the first heading: "How much unemployment is there?" The submission continues:
At the middle of December, there were 338,066 unplaced applicants at N.E.S. offices.
That of course was the approximate figure given by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) in the house on January 26. The submission continues:
These figures are now nearly two months old. What has been happening since? Between mid-December, 1952, and mid-February, 1953, the number of unplaced applicants rose by over 69 per cent. If the same thing has happened this year-and worse may have happened-the number now must be over 550,000. This means that about one worker in every seven is unemployed.
Economists generally agree that, even under conditions of full employment, when there are enough jobs to go around, at any given moment there will be from 3 to 5 per cent of the workers unemployed because they have just left one job and not yet got another. This is what the economists call "frictional" unemployment.
I emphasize these words that follow:
Plainly, however, our present unemployment in Canada is far too big to be shrugged off as merely "frictional". Nor can it be merely "seasonal". The mid-December figure was 42-5 per cent above the year before.
Then the submission goes on to explain and point out where the unemployment is to be found, and it sums up the matter in this way:
For every region, the real percentage of workers unemployed is well above normal even for this time of year.
I was interested to note that they break down the situation into metropolitan areas, major industrial areas, major agricultural
83276-132*
Proposed Committee on Unemployment areas and minor areas. Here is what the report says with respect to the different areas:
Of the metropolitan areas, three, Vancouver-New Westminster, Quebec-Levis and St. John's, Newfoundland were in "substantial surplus"-
The reference is to substantial surplus of labour.
-five, Montreal, Winnipeg, Hamilton. Calgary and Edmonton, in "moderate surplus", and only two, Toronto and Ottawa-Hull, in "approximate balance". For these areas, "substantial surplus" means over 9-9 per cent unemployed, and "moderate surplus" 5-9 to 9 9 per cent.
Of the major industrial areas, twelve, including Saint John, Moncton, Three Rivers, Lake St. John, Brantford, Cornwall and New Glasgow, were in "substantial surplus", and seventeen, including Halifax, Windsor, Oshawa, London, Sudbury, Sydney and the Niagara peninsula were in "moderate surplus". Only one, Guelph, was in "approximate balance". For these areas "substantial surplus" means over 11-9 per cent unemployed, and "moderate surplus" 6-9 to 11-9 per cent.
I would remind hon. members that these are not January or February figures but go back to December. I continue:
Of the major agricultural areas, two, Charlottetown and Riviere du Loup, were in "substantial surplus", over 13-9 per cent unemployed, seven were in "moderate surplus", 6-9 to 13-9 per cent unemployed, and five in "approximate balance".
Of the minor areas, twenty-one were in "substantial surplus", twenty-four in "moderate surplus", 6-9 to 13-9 per cent, and twelve in "approximate balance".
The submission indicates that this unemployment was not in a small group but in a wide variety of industries in Canada. Then the submission quotes from the Labour Gazette for January as follows:
During the last few months, the expansionary trend in output and employment in the Canadian economy has lost some of its momentum.
These labour leaders conclude the first part of their submission with these words:
But the number of workers hasn't. The growth of employment is not keeping pace with the growth of the labour force. The result, inevitably, is increasing unemployment. Present unemployment is far beyond "frictional" or "seasonal". It is neither localized in particular industries nor in particular geographical areas. Whatever the causes of this alarming situation, it is clear that something drastic is happening to the Canadian economy and that something must be done about it.
One would have thought that a submission of that kind made by these responsible Canadian leaders would have been taken very seriously. Mind you, some of the members of the cabinet may have treated it in that light, but we find again that even these leaders were given a lecture. This time the lecturer was not the Acting Prime Minister but the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). He undertook to show these labour leaders where
2084	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment they were off the rails. I have the press dispatch of February 11 appearing in the Montreal Gazette, as follows:
Jobless Increase Alarming-Labour.
Abbott Takes Sharp Issue With Unions' Figure of 580,000 Idle
And the dispatch goes on to say:
Spokesmen for the federal cabinet and for Canada's two largest labour congresses today came into sharp disagreement on the seriousness of the country's current unemployment.
A joint brief from the congresses described the situation as "alarming", but Finance Minister Abbott suggested the labour groups' jobless figures are wrong and said the winter unemployment picture is only "unpleasant."
Union officials claimed, in a submission to cabinet members, that unemployment now stands around 580,000, which would be a post-war peak.
Mr. Abbott held it was much lower, and he cautioned labour against taking a "too gloomy" outlook on the ground that this could slow down business expansion.
Apparently the highest post-war figure was
434,000	unemployed in 1949.
On the following day, February 12, these labour leaders issued a statement as a result of their interview with the cabinet. I received a copy and I presume every other member in the house was furnished with one. To my mind it is a most impressive document, and opens with these words:
Yesterday afternoon the enclosed joint submission on unemployment was presented to the Minister of Labour and other members of the cabinet.
It reviews the present unemployment situation in Canada as seen by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and the Canadian Congress of Labour and proposes certain remedies to relieve the present serious situation.
We regret the attitude of ministers in attendance was to regard the present high number of unemployed as not being a serious situation. It was suggested that as responsible labour leaders in Canada our organizations should not propagate an attitude of gloom which might have a retarding effect on plans for the coming year. Nevertheless we presented to the government the picture as we see it.
When reports start appearing in the daily press of soup kitchens being opened, bread lines being formed, unemployed workers rebelling at low unemployment insurance payments, families being evicted from their homes, all because of insecurity and unemployment, it is time to take this problem seriously.
On that same afternoon of Friday, February 12, the Minister of Finance was questioned in the house, and on that occasion he did not seem to take the situation any more seriously than he had done before. His statement, as reported at page 2026 of Hansard, is as follows:
These are some of the measures which the government has taken to adapt government policy to current conditions. If economic activity declines, the government is in a position to take stronger action in these and other directions, but I should
[Mr. Green.l

like to emphasize that as I and my colleagues view the present situation there is no justification for stronger action-
The following day a report was issued by the bureau of statistics showing that unemployment insurance benefits in December of 1953 totalled $16,882,000 as compared with $10,926,000 a year earlier and $10,172,000 for the month of November, 1953. It shows that compensation was paid for 5,413,000 days of idleness as against 3,586,000 in December of 1952 and that there were increases in December in the number of initial and renewal claims in all the provinces, as compared with the same time last year.
I have gone to some length in giving these figures and reading these statements because they lay the groundwork for the amendment I am going to move. We believe this problem of unemployment is important and that it is serious. We are not trying to frighten the Canadian people or to upset plans for the development of the country. But we are convinced that the unemployment question is now serious, and that it should be faced at this time, rather than weeks or months hence.
The submission of the labour leaders, in its closing paragraph, says this:
When unemployment reaches the proportions now being experienced in Canada, it has more than economic effects. It carries with it social problems and political potentials which cannot be ignored.
Unemployed workers and their families must be relieved of their hardship and suffering. But equally important, we must create and maintain a stable Canada, economically, socially and politically.
I believe there is great value in acting on this problem without delay. It is obvious that there are wide differences between the situation as portrayed by the labour leaders and the picture given by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), by the Minister of Finance and, presumably, by other members in the cabinet. Frankly, there is not very much hope in the statements of any of these ministers that this problem is going to be dealt with effectively or at an early date.
In any event we believe that parliament, as distinct from the cabinet, has a responsibility in this matter. The private member of parliament, attending here as a representative of thousands of his fellow Canadians, has a direct responsibility to do something about the question. Parliament must be supreme in this land. For too long now parliament has sat back and allowed the cabinet to do everything. Parliament has been brushed aside by the cabinet ever since war broke out in 1939. It is time that sort of thing stopped. Parliament must no longer be pushed into the background; and it is the

responsibility of private members of parliament to see that we have an accurate picture with regard to unemployment today, and that they have an opportunity to make recommendations as to what should be done to meet it.
There is only one way in which parliament can get at the problem, and that is by setting up a special committee-and setting it up at once. We believe there should be such a committee, and that its first job should be to examine the unemployment situation and find out just exactly what the figures are. Either side may be wrong: perhaps the labour leaders are too high; the cabinet is probably much too low. But let members of the House of Commons find out for themselves what the actual unemployment situation in Canada today is. And, having done this, let them recommend to the house and the government the steps which could be taken to meet the situation, both the short-term and the long-term problem. Let such a committee bring in worth-while recommendations which, I believe, would be of great help to the nation.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker):
That all the words after "that" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"whereas the facts respecting unemployment recently presented to the government by Canada's two largest labour organizations are widely at variance with the statements issued by the government,
Now, therefore, be it resolved that this house is of the opinion that a select committee should be appointed immediately for the purpose of examining into and reporting upon the actual unemployment situation throughout Canada and for the purpose of making recommendations to this house as to short-term and long-term methods for dealing effectively with this problem".


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the remarks of the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra in moving his amendment. I do not propose to refer specifically to the amendment at this time because in the course of my own remarks there may be some that will have reference to it indirectly and I hope will answer some of the questions that are in the minds of hon. members.
My reason for entering the debate at this juncture is that I felt, before it had gone too far, it would be helpful to give to hon. members information we now have available from the last labour force survey and national employment service survey for January as to the numbers about which my hon. friend spoke. The information which I will give will be contained in the regular monthly press statement which will be released very
Proposed Committee on Unemployment shortly. My reason for jumping the gun on it and giving totals here is that I felt that if this debate came up today it would be much better to have up to date totals for discussion rather than discuss figures a month old. The press statement of course will contain fuller details. Incidentally, I should like to express my thanks to some of the hard-working officials of the dominion bureau of statistics, the unemployment insurance commission, and the Department of Labour, for sacrificing some of their week end to make this possible.
I will touch first upon the survey of the dominion bureau of statistics. The total number of people estimated to be in our Canadian civilian working force during the week ended January 23, 1954, was 5,242,000 persons. This represents an increase of some
32.000	persons over the estimate of approximately the same date one year ago. Out of that total labour force of 5,242,000 persons there were 4,465,000 persons working full time during the survey week ended January 23, 1954. For purposes of this discussion and this reckoning, full-time employment is defined as 35 hours or more of work per week-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".


Howard Charles Green: Are those figures on the same basis as the figure of 190,000 which the minister gave in his statement in January?


Milton Fowler Gregg: For the previous month, at the 12th of December, 1953, yes. A year earlier, in the month of January, 1953, the estimated number working 35 hours or more was 4,533,000; the number who worked fewer than 35 hours was 321,000 in January, 1953, and those with jobs but not at work numbered
169.000.	At the same time there were 187,000 persons "without jobs and seeking work".
I will now turn to the information available from the national employment service operations of the unemployment insurance commission. The number of applications for jobs listed with the national employment service offices across Canada-there are about 220 of them-on January 21,	1954, was
524.000.	This figure represents an increase of 140,000 over the total on the corresponding date of 1953; that is January, 1953. As I indicated to the house last month, these two sets of figures-which the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra referred to-are the product of two quite different types of operations.
2086	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment They do not contradict each other, and each is, I think, valuable for its own purposes, and one supplements the other. I know that hon. members will realize that there are many complications involved in trying to find the measure of those who are unemployed.


Howard Charles Green: Before the minister goes on will he tell me whether the figure of 524,000 who applied for work is on the same basis as the figure which he gave on January 26 of 338,000 in January?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I have not that figure before me immediately, but the figure of 524,000 which I gave just now is the figure for those who applied for jobs and were listed by the national employment service on January 23, 1954. I think the figure my hon. friend has is the correct one for December 12, 1953.


Howard Charles Green: In December, 1953, it was only
338,000.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I think that is the correct figure.
One approach that may assist us to place the situation in better perspective is to try and break down those who are unemployed in two or three broad categories, and even those categories may overlap one upon the other. One group includes those workers who are idle owing to constantly occurring shifts of workers between jobs, or who are idle owing to temporary plant shut-down, resulting from break-downs or fires, labour management disputes and so on. A certain amount of this kind of unemployment is not only unavoidable but essential, since it is a necessary part of labour mobility in the kind of changing economy we have in Canada.
Now, this kind of unemployment is referred to by the economists as "frictional" unemployment, as it was referred to in the brief presented by the joint committee of the two labour congresses the other day.
The second kind of unemployment with which we are all familiar-I do not need to talk about it-is that which occurs regularly each year as a result of normal climate changes or other annual recurring changes affecting production and employment. This will be referred to as seasonal unemployment and it is usually met with during our very cold winters, with which everyone is familiar.
Frictional unemployment and seasonal unemployment make up by far the largest proportion of our current unemployment. The remainder results mainly from adjustments in production in response to such factors as shifts in consumer demand, high inventories or keener international competition. These broad distinctions of those unemployed help us to put the unemployment problem which faces Canada today into some kind


of perspective. It helps the public to consider more intelligently the kind of action needed.
My hon. friend referred to the statement which I made to the house last month. I think it is fair to say that it would be wasteful and ineffective to undertake a public works program to deal with unemployment that is frictional in nature or even largely seasonal. This is what I had in mind in my earlier statement to the house when I suggested that a special public works program would not be effective in dealing with our current unemployment problem this winter.
Of course, public works or national projects increase the sum total of employment, but I was thinking of the seasonal unemployment situation in 1954. In the case of what I have called frictional unemployment 220 local offices of the national employment service in all parts of Canada help people to make shifts between jobs as quickly and as easily as possible. During the month of December, that is two months ago, these offices made some 63,000 placements. That was made at a time when seasonal unemployment was closing in. This figure is actually not very much lower than the figure for December, 1952, during which some 73,000 placements were made.
In addition to these local placement activities our national employment service endeavours to bring workers and jobs together over great distances, either on an individual basis or through the organized movement of large numbers of workers. Some of these movements are regularly undertaken in co-operation with the provinces.
There is a minimum amount of this type of frictional unemployment always present in Canada. This is indicated by the fact that even during the high employment months of last summer, and they were high, the number of persons registered for jobs with the national employment service did not fall below 161,000. Seasonal unemployment in our Canadian economy is always high during the winter of course and it reaches a peak in the late months of the winter or during the early spring.
During the years of general manpower shortage during world war II the volume of seasonal unemployment was at a low level. During the post-war years, as economic pressures gradually eased, the volume of seasonal unemployment has increased year by year. The number employed in the country's seasonal industries has also grown year by year.
Another factor is that the woods industry which used to employ large numbers of persons in the winter months has through mechanization and an increase in its activities

during the summer reduced the number of additional workers taken on during the winter months and also has reduced the length of their period of employment.
In my statement to the house last month I pointed out that the industries which contributed most to seasonal unemployment during the winter are construction, the retail trade, fruit and vegetable preserving, water transportation, saw and planing mills, hotels and restaurants, meat and fish products and pulp and paper mills. The decline in employment on the average each winter in these industries amounts to around 300,000 persons. The total number affected by the reduction in employment in all industries reducing their activities during the winter months is a good deal higher than this total of 300,000, although many of those laid off withdraw temporarily from the labour force.
In many cases the most practical approach to reducing the extent of seasonal unemployment is constructive action taken by both management and organized labour. There are, however, in addition to what the workers and employers can do, some steps being taken by the government. In the case of the federal government the local employment offices have been encouraging both large and small employers in their areas to plan their work so that as many jobs as possible are done during the relatively slack winter months. I would like to pay a compliment in this connection to the representatives of both management and labour as well as to public-spirited citizens generally for the assistance they have given to the work of our local offices in this and other ways through the local, regional and national employment committees.
As I said earlier in the house, an inquiry is being made into seasonal unemployment by the national employment committee at the request of the national advisory council on manpower. In addition the Department of Labour has undertaken in its economics and research branch some basic studies of seasonal unemployment. These studies are directed at determining the pattern of seasonal swings in employment in each of the major seasonal industries and discovering practical ways in which seasonal variations in employment can be reduced. This work, it will be fully appreciated, cannot yield direct results overnight, but I am convinced that this type of fundamental research will in time produce, in co-operation with industry, some valuable suggestions for further action.
I might mention here that important technical developments have occurred in such industries as construction which are helping to extend employment throughout the winter months.
Proposed Committee on Unemployment
I have tried to deal with frictional and seasonal unemployment at some length. I know that the house will not want me to try to deal with each of these industries that have been discussed here, but I should like to say just a word with regard to the coal mining industry in both the maritimes and the west.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister permit a question before he proceeds? Can he indicate to the house what proportion of the present unemployment is due to piled-up inventories and the like, to which he made reference, or to changes in requirements and production? What is the proportion estimated by his officials?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I could say what I think it is, but my guess would not be any better than that of my hon. friend. I did state a little while ago that this task of producing statistics on unemployment is at best only a very good estimate. It would be impossible for me to make an estimate as to the proportions he asks for that would be any good to my hon. friend.
The decline in the coal industry has resulted from a combination of factors such as the substitution of oil for coal in domestic and industrial use, the increased efficiency of coal-burning equipment, and in the Cape Breton industry the mechanization of some of the Dominion Coal Company's mines in an effort to improve the competitive position of the product through increased output per man.
The unemployment situation has been aggravated in such areas as Minto-the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) will recognize reference to the Minto and Chipman areas-because the other main industries of lumbering and logging are operating considerably below normal levels. At the present time, however, there is every indication from the maritimes area that employment in most mines will not fall further at least over the course of the next few months. I would like to express my satisfaction in regard to the fact that my colleague the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) has not only visited the area himself with members of the coal board but has also instructed an expert in the use of coal, in the person of Professor Christie, to visit the area next week.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I would like to ask the minister a question. Could he tell me whether the reduction in the consumption of coal by the Canadian National Railways from Minto has been made in favour of coal mined in some other part of Canada?
2088	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I can only speak offhand, but in the maritime region, to which I believe my hon. Mend is referring, my opinion is that it has been reduced slightly so far owing to dieselization, but not I believe by competition from coal from other areas.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra referred to the delegations which visited Ottawa last week. Members of the government have been meeting a good many delegations during the past week or so on this matter of unemployment. The hon. member referred particularly to meetings with the joint delegation of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and the Canadian Congress of Labour which came to meet members of the government last Thursday. We discussed, in the presence of many members of this house from all parties, many of the problems connected with the present unemployment situation. Hon. members know the tenor of the discussions, and I do not think any hon. members present could say that anyone gave anyone else a lecture. I certainly did not. They did not give us a lecture and I am certain the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) did not attempt to give them a lecture. I did state, as reported, that I felt in discussing this question of statistics that while everyone was entitled to his own opinion, our national employment service estimate of this year, listed in our 220 offices across Canada, as regards the number of those seeking work was greater than those who were actually out of work. I believe some of those present did not agree with that, though I think each of us recognizes that we are all entitled to our own opinion.
The close interest which the delegates demonstrated, evidence of which is found in the brief from which the hon. member quoted, is appreciated by me as Minister of Labour and by the government. It is our desire, as it is theirs, that human hardship be lessened as much as it can possibly be.
Some of the proposals laid before the government in their joint representation at that time are already being implemented. For example, an increase in grants to countries that have not the same opportunities for development as Canada. The other representations that they made will be given careful study.
There is no doubt some of the industries I have mentioned are experiencing difficulties, but offsetting these there are many which are in excellent condition, even in midwinter. I shall not review these today because I hope some of my colleagues may wish to speak later on in this debate on these matters. I would like to say that in so far


as training can assist workers who have been laid off in industries where production has declined, the Department of Labour is prepared to make its facilities fully available. While that may only take care of a small part of the problem, it means that every unskilled worker who can be made into a skilled or semi-skilled worker is almost automatically assured of employment on a year-round basis.
Today there are very few skilled workers without work. Wherever workers are willing to enter other fields of employment, the Department of Labour in co-operation with the provincial governments is prepared to help them acquire greater skills under the Canadian vocational training program. Over the years since world war II some 408 thousand persons have been trained under this program, apart from those trained in vocational schools. It is impossible to assess how much the development of Canada, by this means, is due to the training received by nearly half a million young people, included in which figure, of course, is the great body of young men and women who came out of the services and took up vocational training. At least an equal number have received training in these vocational schools with assistance under our federal-provincial training agreement. This total includes, in a number of provinces, persons who were unemployed at the time their training commenced. Such people are given an allowance for board and lodging in addition to their training, provided jointly by the federal and provincial governments.
I might also point out that the federal government is doing a great deal to provide support to those who are unemployed. The present unemployment insurance program covers 78 per cent of our wage and salary workers at the present time. This coverage has increased since 1945, as the figures I am now about to give will demonstrate.
On November 1, 1945, the total number of wage and salary earners, in round numbers, was 3,083,000. The number covered by unemployment insurance amounted to 2,101,000; the percentage covered by unemployment insurance amounted to 68 per cent. On November 1, 1949, these figures were, 3,688,000 workers, 2,569,000 were covered by insurance, or 70 per cent. On November 1, 1953, the total number of workers amounted to 4,107,000 and the number covered by unemployment insurance was 3,219,000, or 78 per cent.
In the calendar year 1953 over $148 million was paid out in unemployment insurance benefits, as well as supplementary benefits paid to workers whose benefit rights expired between January 1 and April 15.

The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra indicated that such things as family allowances and old age security payments had nothing to do with unemployment. But, Mr. Speaker, if they did not come from the taxpayer by way of the federal government to these people, the workers of Canada, through some channel, would have to be provided with these moneys, otherwise their standard of living would be very much lower.
As my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), pointed out recently, the anticipated expenditure by the federal government for 1953-54 on family allowances will amount to $349 million, $345 million for old age security and $22 million for this government's share of old age assistance, in addition to which there are expenditures over the whole range of government activity covering every department which is helping to maintain employment for many hundreds of thousands in Canada.
I might add that one of the most important f actors at the moment is what the government is doing during this session in extending the National Housing Act in order to make available a larger amount of money for housing construction and for employment in the construction of houses. I think every hon. member will agree the government has done much to bring about a favourable climate under which employment opportunities have greatly extended in Canada throughout the past year. The high level of employment has been such that, as far as we know at any rate, there has been little call on the resources of any of the ten provincial governments. As I said when I began, Mr. Speaker, my object in speaking at this time is only to try to give the house some of the facts concerning this situation. I think it is important that we should quietly and sanely look at the facts and, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) said, maintain a sane approach to this problem and not attempt to put it on any other ground than a desire to resist hardship that may face any of our fellow Canadians.
Not in this house but outside of it I have lately heard such expressions as "a national catastrophe". What a remark for anyone to make about a nation such as ours, when we have all been talking with the greatest of gusto about our great national resources and about the great enterprise of our people; and I think we have been talking that way with truth. Such an expression is, I think, not only untrue but is one which reflects upon our faith in an economy in which we can take a good deal of justifiable pride.
I am going to admit right away that to those families whose breadwinners have been thrown out of work-and I can speak, for
Proposed Committee on Unemployment example, of my own town of Marysville-it is an extremely serious situation. I might refer also to Dominion, the town of my friend the hon. member for Cape Breton South. Those families and others like them elsewhere in Canada have our deepest sympathy. It might become much more serious for those families if nothing whatever stood between them and outright want.
The provinces have responsibilities to help guard their people against hardship. I for one have no reason to believe other than that the provinces are effectively helping this winter if and where they find it necessary.
As I have stated, the federal government has assumed responsibilities in this combined effort to guard Canadians against the hardships of unemployment. It has a duty to sponsor national policies that will encourage a high level of employment. This the federal government has done and will continue to do. The number of people in productive work in Canada today at mid-winter indicates that. There are just about 5 million now working out of our 15 million total population of men, women and children.
The federal government-in fact, my department-has a definite duty to assist in the maintenance of industrial peace in those industries which are national in scope and which come under federal jurisdiction. Industrial peace is, of course, one of the greatest defences against unemployment. A strike not only causes hardship to the families of the workers on strike, but in our closely-knit economy it often causes hardship to those engaged in dependent and related production processes. Owing to the good will and co-operation of labour and management in those industries coming under the federal labour laws, I am glad to say that there have been only three strikes with not more than
2,000	workers involved during the past year, and there are no strikes at the present time within the federal field.
The federal government has a duty, which I have defined, to help find jobs for workers who lose their jobs and to administer benefits, under the unemployment insurance principle, to workers while seeking jobs. We are carrying out those duties, as I have tried to outline. In 1953 our national employment service placed 993,000 workers. Even in the month of December 63,000 workers were placed. As to insurance benefits, at the beginning of this year over 200,000 persons were in receipt of regular insurance benefits. You will say that a good many of those benefits will run out before the winter is through. That is true, But last winter-which is the latest year for which we have the full record of supplementary benefits-between January 1 and
2090	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment April 15, supplementary benefits were paid to
136,000	workers. This year, of course, the number will be greater.
As I have noted, in the calendar year 1953 a grand total of $148 million was paid out in unemployment insurance benefits. Of that total 80 per cent came from the employers and employees but 20 per cent came from federal taxpayers.
Let me remind the house also that it is to the families of the workers in Canada both insured and non-insured that the $349 million in family allowances this year will go. The workers of Canada would have had to find some other way through private, municipal or provincial channels to provide the $367 million which went last year to the aged citizens of this country, had it not been paid by the federal government through the federal government taxpayers.
These are only some of the main items to indicate the direct action which the federal government has taken within the realm of its responsibility. An impressive story is available on the part that various federal departments play in sponsoring activities which have a vital impact upon Canadian employment opportunities, and I hope it will be discussed during this debate. Just as I have welcomed the constructive suggestions and criticisms of the great national unions and those put forward by the mover of this resolution today, so will I listen attentively to any suggestions that may be put forward as this debate proceeds this afternoon.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad I tried to raise this question last Thursday as a matter of urgency.
I at least directed the thoughts of other people to the matter, but apparently did not make any great impression. This question of unemployment is not going to find a solution in the appointment of a committee of the House of Commons. It is a question that demands action. In the experience of most members of this house, the appointment of a committee is merely a convenient way of shelving a question and one which the people who want to send it to a committee have of getting rid of it for the time being. I am therefore disappointed-


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was not the case with the old age security committee, as the hon. member himself will recall.


Clarence Gillis: I am disappointed with the approach of the official opposition.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the hon. member a question? Did he not support the setting up of a committee to inquire into the matter of old age security, and would he not agree that that committee produced useful results?


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Speaker, my learned friend apparently does not understand the matter which is before the house. The matter of social security is a long-range program; it can go on for a long time and there is no finality to it. This question is one of urgency. What I said a moment ago still stands. You are dealing here with the bread and butter of people. It is a matter that should not require much study either by the government or by the members of the house. It is a matter that we have been faced with since 1914. It is a matter of war, false prosperity, depression and another war. Most members of this house have gone through all that. It should not be difficult for us to recognize the symptoms again. Unemployment is just a symptom of a disease. Once a good doctor recognizes the early symptoms of a disease, he will go to work and do what medical science tells him he should do in order to prevent the patient from going through all the agony of the disease and then succumbing to it. In the light of conditions in the world, unemployment as we have it today is a symptom of depression. I am going to call on a couple of good doctors as witnesses on the subject, and may I say that this is not a case of the C.C.F. crying "wolf, wolf". I have in my hand a clipping from the Montreal Gazette of December 4, 1952, which reads as follows:
Fear of a world depression, perhaps within the next two years, was expressed today by the Canadian Importers and Traders Association, embracing about 400 Canadian import firms.
That view was expressed in 1952, and the prediction is that we could be in the first stages of a depression in 1954. The second clipping I have is taken from a source which should be an authority. It is from the Globe and Mail of May 7, 1953, and reads as follows:
Thomas Oakley, past president of the association, said that there are signs of slackening in defence spending among western countries. This would result in a falling off of world trade, the basic cause of depressions.
I approach this matter, as do other members of this group, not from the point of view of straight unemployment but in the light of the ultimate result of unemployment if something is not done about it. I have in my hand another newspaper clipping of recent date from an Ottawa paper. It is a report of a statement made by Monsignor Coady of St. Francis Xavier-University when speaking to the co-operative consumers' association of Kansas City in February of this year. He said, among other things:
Hot and cold wars have been brought about through the fierce competition between powerful industrial interests, with little prospect of their ever achieving finality. Indeed, it now appears that

Proposed Committee on Unemployment
a state of war, or a continuing threat of war. is a necessary prop to the economy which unbridled capitalism has built up.
That analysis is not made by the C.C.F. but by a very sane and sensible person.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Clarence Gillis: I suppose that members of the C.C.F. are not considered sane and sensible. As a matter of fact, Monsignor Coady went to the United Nations to lecture to the economic and social organizations of that body. In the face of statements from such people, and looking at the present picture in an unbiased way, I think we can agree that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) stated the matter very tamely and offered no recommendation. While the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), in so far as his office permits him, has done a fairly good job of rationalizing the problem, he has offered no solution, and let me say that it is immaterial whether the number of unemployed today amounts to 300,000 or 600,000. It is a serious matter in any case. It would be serious if only one person were involved. That is clearly emphasized in a report appearing in an Ottawa paper on Saturday. It is headed: "Happy in apartment until their bills piled up", and deals with a young man who was evicted from his home and shot his landlady. He is unemployed. Only one person was involved in that instance but it is a serious matter. It is serious whether it involves one person, 300,000 or 600,000 who have to get up in the morning not knowing where their breakfast is coming from.
In his statement the Minister of Labour indicated to us that his department is watching the problem and keeping track of it. But the problem goes much deeper than the Minister of Labour is prepared to admit or his advisers are prepared to go in putting the story on paper and pointing it up for him. I have a dispatch from Washington indicating that United States jobless now total 21 million and another one from the maritimes to the effect that about 10 per cent of the labour force are unemployed today. Someone will say: What has the United States got to do with the matter? It has a lot to do with it because whatever happens economically in that country is automatically going to spill over into our country whether or not we like it. We are geared pretty tightly to their economy today, and when ten or eleven per cent of our working force are unemployed it is serious.
When the United Nations economic committee summarized the problem last year they decided that when you have over 5 per cent of your total labour force unemployed
you have got to do something about it, not just appoint a committee or rationalize the question on the basis of figures but do something to cut down the percentage of unemployed and put purchasing power in their hands. Otherwise you are going to be in trouble before very long.
I think what most of us perhaps realize but do not like to say is that what we are now going through in Canada and the United States is the second phase of the cold war, and it is aimed directly at the North American continent. After 1945, when our former allies decided that they were not going to play ball and that world conquest was their only goal, they mapped out a program which they put into effect. Their program was to promote national revolution and lead us into a defence spending spree that would raise standards and create a lot of employment. They have succeeded in that purpose. What is the next step? It is to knock all that down, and that is being done today through the trade war with which we are confronted. Unless we are realistic we are liable to be caught napping, and I say this without fear of contradiction by those whom we look upon as employers in this country. I think it is also safe to say that it is true of the British today that they are going to sell where they can do so most easily and buy where they can buy more cheaply whether or not it means unemployment in another section of the world. I think that statement is borne out very clearly by a clipping I have which is headed, "Russia offers billion dollar sales to visiting British export group".
That particular group of thirty British businessmen, who went to Russia to find new trade channels, are not concerned about maintaining employment in Canada or the United States, or in Britain as far as that is concerned. If they can make a deal with Russia and can sell commodities on the world market and compete with others in other sections of the world they are going to do so. They are doing so.
When we look at our own unemployment problem we see what we are up against. For instance, our textile industry is pretty nearly out of business today and it is not a seasonal problem. The competition is not coming from Japan but largely from the United States, where standards are high and where wages are much higher than in Canada. Through mass production methods the commodity can be put on the market that much cheaper, with the result that our textile industry is going out of business. And it might be interesting to find out just how many of the textile operators in Canada are
20S2	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment linked up with the textile industry of the United States. I think if anyone will chase them down he will find that most of them are pretty closely linked up. The result is that they may not be very much concerned about maintaining a plant in Canada, if by folding it up they can leave the market open for the textile industry in the United States, in which they are financially interested.
That angle should be checked; and I think it is being checked by the government. So, you see, there are all kinds and types of unemployment; they can be put into all kinds of classifications. But they all add up to the same thing: unemployment. And I think members of this house are going to have to sit down and be realistic about the matter. They must realize that as soon as possible something has to be done in Canada to head off mounting unemployment.
And this unemployment is not confined to textiles. You have it in the coal mines; you have it in the steel industry; you have it in textiles, in lumber, in the fisheries. We have it all over. And we want to be prepared to take a look at it for what it really is. It is the second phase in the cold war. Russia today has put on a trade offensive right around the world. She has dumped her gold reserves on the world market. She has embarked upon that offensive, and has provided the money wherewith her goods might be bought. As a result this North American continent is the target, so far as that offensive is concerned.
We want to be realistic, and recognize the situation for what it really is. If the employers in this country are concerned about maintaining democratic institutions, then they must not sit down and force the government, or sit back and depend upon some mysterious thing coming out of all those slogans to find a solution for them. It is up to the employers of Canada to sit down together and to realize that they are the people who have the most to lose. In addition to that, they are the people who can do something about this question of unemployment. While the government can take certain measures to help, very definitely employers across this country must co-operate with the government 100 per cent if this developing unemployment situation is to be overcome.
A few days ago the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe)-and the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green) made reference to this-in talking to a delegation of workers representing the workers in implement plants told them, according to press reports, that they were pricing themselves out of the market. Well, there is something in that; but the Acting Prime Minister did not go
[Mr. Gillis.l

back far enough. I agree that perhaps the farm implement industry to some extent has priced itself out of the market; but what is the reason for that? Let us see who started this business of price increases in Canada. In so far as farm implements are concerned, we know that early in 1946, right after the close of the war, an appeal came to the House of Commons asking for an increase to the extent of $5 a ton in the price of raw steel produced by the steel manufacturers of Canada. That meant about $14 or $15 a ton increase in fabricated steel. And we know that steel is basic to the whole economy of our country: when steel goes up, everything else goes up.
We argued against and fought that increase here in the house on the ground that it was a first step toward breaking price controls and setting up the spiral of inflation. But we know the steel industry got that $5 a ton increase. Then it was only a few weeks or months later when farm implements, and everything else in this country, went up in price in proportion to the increased costs.


Mr.   Kowe@Port Arthur: May I ask my hon. friend if he is not forgetting the first stage. I think the first stage was the demand from the steel workers to break the wage ceilings.


Mr. Blackmore:: That was the second stage.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, that was the second stage. The Acting Prime Minister will recall what happened, I am sure, because we were both members of the committee on industrial relations and listened to the whole steel dispute. One of the main arguments used by representatives of the steel workers before that committee was that there was no reference to the point as to whether a certain proportion of that increase would be used to increase wages. The government allocated the increase, and how it was to be used.
The first round was when the steel industry demanded that increase. Then, on top of that came the demand for increased wages-a very modest demand in comparison with what the manufacturers were looking for. And that is where it all started. From there on it went up, up, up. We tried to hold the line in the House of Commons. Our argument was that in the aftermath of war, if price controls were ever necessary, then most certainly they were necessary for at least three or four years in that period of time when we were getting back to peacetime conditions. We know of course that a lot of exploitation takes place in a period of that kind.
Nevertheless that was when the spiral began. So that the Acting Prime Minister cannot very well contest that point. It is all

right to make the statement, but the fact is that the responsibility does not rest with those men who work for wages in plants. And further, I think the employers in steel did not play ball; a later examination of their books discloses that they did not need that increase. They wanted to gouge the people while they were still war-minded and not paying very much attention to money. It is catching up on us now.
I just wanted to say that because I know the Acting Prime Minister wants to be and generally is fair. There is no one who could carry all that stuff in his head or who would be able to meet everything that came up and be absolutely accurate about it. I say those people in the house who pressured the government to remove price controls back in 1946, 1947 and 1948 are equally responsible with the government and with others outside the house who wanted controls off. "A free economy", they said "and you will have prosperity in Canada." All I have ever seen out of that so-called theory of a free economy is that you are free to go barefooted if you do not have shoes, or free to go hungry if you cannot get something to eat.
The only time during my lifetime when the economy has worked properly was during a period of war, when the government accepts responsibility to some extent for the management of the economy, and the allocation of manpower and materials in those directions where they will make the greatest contribution in a given situation. If a certain amount of that procedure were carried on in the post-war period I do not think we would be in this situation at all today.
We might as well be frank and face up to it, that so far as the mechanics of society is concerned, there is only one alternative to depression and unemployment, and that is war. And there is nothing wrong right now that a little war would not fix up. We do not want to forget that, and we want to be honest in facing it and do those things that are necessary to prevent this business of unemployment.
Some may say that it is all right to criticize, but I would tell them that I have all kinds of facts and figures to support what I say. I would turn, for instance, to an article by Clifford Scotton, a co-operative press association representative, who has made a very good analysis and certain recommendations. I shall not take the time of the house to read it. Then I also have a factual summing up by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and the Canadian Congress of Labour, in which certain recommendations are made. I imagine we have all that sort of thing we need on the record.
Proposed Committee on Unemployment
My colleagues and I have asked several questions in an effort to get the background of the government's thinking on this question of meeting unemployment. I wanted to know, for example, whether the government was doing any thinking or planning along the lines of what they are doing in the United States today under their defence manpower policy No. 4. They have a dozen of these policies, but this one deals with surveying the country in regions, and when unemployment reaches a certain figure in a certain region the United States government declares that a special region. Only last week Detroit was declared a special region. The government then begin to put any contracts they have to do with in that region, to direct contracts there. They will look at the industrial expansion of the country, and if it is necessary to put an industry in that region to overcome unemployment they will do it.
We are not doing that in Canada. The mari-times is one place where you might try to do something. The highest percentage of unemployment in the Dominion of Canada today is found in the maritime provinces. It tops the list. That is the official position taken by the minister's department in a recent statement I saw. That is a place where something could be done, and that is something the department should think about.
The government can take steps. The first thing the government has to understand is that it must accept some responsibility for talking to the people who are managing the economy of this country today. As a start, let us take the textile industry. I do not believe that any industry located in a town such as Marysville, New Brunswick, with 520 employees, with all kinds of institutions built around that particular industry over a long period of time, should be permitted to close its doors and wipe out the whole economic future of that community. It should not be permitted by either the federal or the provincial government. It is all right for an industry like that to come into a community, set up business and entice all kinds of investments around it, and stay there so long as it is making money; but as soon as the balance sheet is affected the wrong way it takes no social responsibilities. It closes its doors and walks out. That is true also of the coal industry.
The government has to enact some kind of laws that will prevent an economic upset of a whole community without any greater justification than that they are not making enough money.
What can you do? Well, I am going to make these few recommendations. The government should first act by undertaking the

20S4
Proposed Committee on Unemployment general economic planning required to take up the slack in Canadian industrial and business activities. This can be done by a combination of altered fiscal policies, expansion of our aid to underdeveloped countries through the Colombo plan and United Nations agencies, and through direct government intervention to stimulate industrial development and raise the standards of living of the Canadian people.
My hon. friends to my right will say right away "economic planning". They will say those are terrible words. You should not be afraid1 of that. What you are afraid of is what someone has told you. That is what they are doing in the United States. This business of surveying the country and deciding that when unemployment reaches a certain figure in a region they are going to do something about it, are going to put in an industry there, are going to allocate contracts, is economic planning. Nothing is being done about it here. We did it during the last war, and that is what I mean; that is what we mean by economic planning. The minister has told us that in other fields they are doing something. There is no doubt that family allowances, unemployment insurance, veterans' pensions and all these other things are a stimulus to the economy and create purchasing power. The situation would be much worse today if we did not have them, but they do not take the place of employment.
My second recommendation is that we should take specific action to cope with the problem of seasonal unemployment. This must be joint action between government and industry to ensure that production schedules are so staggered throughout the year and that off-season work is so planned that the seasonal fluctuation in unemployment is reduced to the barest minimum. This was done successfully during wartime and there is no reason why it cannot be done again.
The minister has stated that this is the biggest drain on unemployment insurance. The former deputy minister of labour, Mr. Arthur MacNamara, who retired after many years of valuable service, said when speaking at Montreal a month or two ago that he did not think all was being done that could be done in the matter of seasonal unemployment. But there again the government cannot do anything about it unless they have the cooperation of those who control the economy of the country. The Minister of Labour and his staff cannot do anything. They are hardworking; they know what should be done, but they cannot do very much about it unless the employer will sit down with them and plan his operations so that seasonal unemployment can be overcome in the area in [Mr. Gillis.l
which he operates. Nobody else can do anything about it under present circumstances, unless the full co-operation of the employer is secured.
My third recommendation is that there should be special assistance to relieve the hardship and suffering of families hit by what the government calls regional unemployment. A special commission for exploring the possibility of establishing additional or alternative industries in the areas concerned must be appointed. If such measures give no hope of fully meeting the unemployment problems in a given community, ways and means must be provided to assist the people in the area concerned.
I think we are going through a new industrial revolution so far as the coal mines and steel are concerned. It is technological unemployment, and it is permanent. It is here to stay. Something has to be done to meet that technological upset in different parts of Canada, in the regions that are badly affected. The maritimes are affected by both coal and steel. More than 3,000 men have gone out of the coal industry in the last six or eight months. Some 1,600 went out of the steel plant because of modernization within the past couple of months. That region has been badly upset. The government should make a special study there because power is necessary to overcome the difficulties of that centre.
An expert is being sent in to look into thermal power. That is a long-range program. I was in hopes that the minister or the Acting Prime Minister, who is an engineer and very farsighted, might set up a little pilot plant on atomic energy in that region. That is the logical place to do the first experiment in Canada. I notice that in Ontario they are going to put in a pilot plant, no doubt with the co-operation of Chalk River. That is being done in a province that is spending hundreds of millions of dollars for hydroelectric power. Why not put a little pilot plant in the maritimes where the lack of power is our greatest difficulty? I suggest that the Acting Prime Minister do some thinking about it.
My fourth proposal would be that sharp increases be made in the benefit rates for unemployment insurance. The present amounts are pitifully inadequate. That is borne out by a lot of evidence. That fund has reached almost a billion dollars today. The rates are low. It is not hard to understand the feeling of a person who is making $60, $70 or $80 a week, who suddenly finds himself unemployed and having to get along on $24 a week. In some parts of this province $24 a week would just about pay the rent, and would leave nothing for food, fuel

or the other things that are necessary. I suggest that the minister should give some consideration to stepping that right up. The second thing he should do, and do immediately, is extend the unemployment insurance benefits until there is work available for those who are now unemployed because of technological and other reasons.
There are a lot of people today whose benefits have run out. The supplementary benefits have helped them and will help them until about April 15, but after April 15 there will be nothing for them. I heard many people say during the discussion of external affairs that there is a struggle in the world today for the minds of men. If that is true, what do hon. members think of the state of mind of a man who has seen two world wars, who took part in one and who sent his children to the second? Those world wars were to end war, to make a new world and all that kind of thing. All of a sudden, eight years after the last war, he finds himself without employment, he finds himself looking into the glass right back to 1939.
It is all right to give aid to countries outside of Canada. That is all to the good; but the first minds that we should take care of are the minds of the Canadian workers and the Canadian people generally. Many of these men see their unemployment insurance benefits running out. When a man is in that position his mind is not going to be too receptive to slogans about democracy and freedom. He will ask you "Where is my freedom?"
I submit that there should be an extension of these benefits to guarantee to those men, who have been displaced because of many reasons, that they are going to have something to support their families until gainful employment is found. Responsibility should be assumed for those who are eligible for unemployment insurance and have exhausted their benefits.
There are a number of people in this country who are unemployable because of handicaps of one kind or another. Many of them live in parts of the country where there is no available employment. I submit that the minister and the government should get together with the provinces in order to iron out the question of jurisdiction over these unemployables, these people who cannot be employed because of some slight handicap. I believe that if these steps were taken immediately and you advertised what you were going to do, there would be some hope for these people, who could then begin to look forward. As it is now they are pretty discouraged.
Proposed Committee on Unemployment
The official opposition has suggested setting up a committee of the House of Commons as we did in connection with price maintenance, prices and all those things, but that offers no hope. What we want is action, and we want it now. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy):
That all the words of the amendment after the words "this house is of the opinion that'' to the end of the amendment be deleted and that the following words he substituted therefor:
"the serious and mounting unemployment situation now facing this country calls for immediate action by the federal government to prevent further economic distress."
I am reasonably sure that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) will vote for this subamendment. He is always so fair and reasonable. We are very good friends and I am sure that after sober reflection he will realize that with the little time he had to think about the subject, setting up a committee is not the action that should be taken. I know that he is a man of action. He wants action. He always demands action. In this case I think he should say, "I am quite willing to let the amendment I moved go by the board, and I will back the member for Cape Breton South."
I ask the government to adopt this subamendment without further delay and get busy and show us some action in connection with this whole question of unemployment.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I read the amendment to the amendment I should like to ask the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) if he would not correct his own amendment so that instead of asking for the creation of a select committee, the standing committee on industrial relations be called upon to examine into and report upon the actual unemployment situation throughout Canada. I do not want to appear to be splitting hairs but, as hon. members know, it has been the practice to refer matters pertaining to labour, unemployment and employment to the standing committee on industrial relations. According to citation 604 of Beauchesne's second edition a standing committee is described as follows:
A committee which is appointed beforehand, for the consideration of all subjects of a particular class, arising in the course of the session, is denominated a "standing" committee.
If the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, and the seconder, the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), do not object I would suggest that the amendment should read as follows, with the preamble remaining as it is:
Now. therefore, be it resolved that this house is of the opinion that the standing committee on
2096	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment industrial relations should Immediately examine into and report upon the actual unemployment situation throughout Canada and present recommendations to this house as to short term and long term methods for dealing effectively with this problem.


Howard Charles Green: That is perfectly satisfactory.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the co-operation of the hon. member. Therefore we will consider that the amendment as moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert is corrected in the way I have indicated.
An amendment has been moved by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), as follows:
That all the words of the amendment after the words "this house is of the opinion that" to the end of the amendment be deleted and that the following words be substituted therefor:
"the serious and mounting unemployment situation now facing this country calls for immediate action by the federal government to prevent further economic distress."
The only reference I should like to read now in connection with the amendment to the amendment is citation 371 of Beauchesne's third edition. I am not making a ruling;
I simply want to submit this at the moment. The citation reads:
A subamendment which proposed an alternative to the original amendment is in order provided it is relevant to the question.


Mr. Ambrose Holowacn (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to keep my remarks brief and as much to the point as possible in dealing with the unpleasant situation which has been created by "seasonal and sectional" unemployment. I think all of us are very interested in trying to solve the problem posed by the unhealthy employment situation existing in Canada and other parts of the world, resulting from various reasons.
First, it seems to me that our first responsibility as members of parliament should be to all the Canadian people who have sent us here for the purpose of charting the course of our national life, not only to secure our nation from outside forces but to eliminate also economic injustices which endanger the well-being of our nation. I believe every member of parliament should remember that although the Canadian people have grave responsibilities which in the past they have discharged magnificently, they also have definite privileges not the least of which is the right and heritage of every Canadian to find conditions within our country which will enable him or her, if willing and able, to work and find reward for their labour or


investment in order to provide for their families and share in the abundance of this God-given land.
The unemployment situation, as far as I am concerned, is perhaps not in the full sense of the word a serious crisis; but it is closely related to the unemployment situation in the United States, as well as in the other nations of the free world. To my mind the unemployment picture in Canada is a danger signal, related very closely to the unemployment picture in every country of the western world, and it is the consequence of a slowly developing but far-reaching policy on the part of those who are determined to wreck our way of life. Let us not make any mistake about that.
The exact number of unemployed in Canada is not, I think, important in this debate; nor would it be possible, I believe, to determine the exact figures. The figures released by the government a few moments ago do not tell the whole story, because the unemployment insurance commission as well as the census bureau can give us only a partial picture. There are many jobless workers who are not covered by unemployment insurance, and many who have exhausted their unemployment benefits. The real figures, in any event, are far greater than those given to us by the government spokesman; and I think, for practical reasons, in viewing this unemployment picture in Canada we should consider the hundreds of thousands of people who are dependent upon the unemployed in this country.
The unemployment situation in Canada is very serious. Every single hon. member in this house, I am sure, will admit that unemployment is already a serious problem in his own constituency. I know it is a serious problem in the constituency of Edmonton East, which I represent. We know the agricultural industry is in distress, although the government has often stimulated the entire industry artificially. The coal industry has been in distress for many years. There has been repeated mention in the press and over the radio of large lay-offs in the textile industry, the shipping industry, and in the railway industry. I believe if an examination is made of the number of business failures it will reveal quite clearly that the unemployment situation demands the immediate attention of the government. Whatever the exact unemployment figure may be, I believe, if we view it in the light of the limited population in Canada and the total labour force we will see that it represents a very serious percentage.

I would like to get to the meat of this matter, for the people of Canada are listening very carefully to interpretations placed upon this unemployment situation by labour leaders, the government and by business, rhey are listening patiently, because it is not an easy matter for them to discern what is truth and what is Action in much of the double-talk which is going on. It is suggested we should not talk about unemployment because it may create adverse conditions and spoil plans for the future. We would like to know just what these plans for the future are, but more precisely my people are interested in knowing about the plans for the present. Perhaps if we heard af these plans from the government the people might be comforted and accept the aelief that the unemployment situation is not >erious.
If we were told there are great investments to be made in 1954 I should like to remind those who point to such predictions ;hat prophecy alone will never provide prosperity. If we are to be told of the untold opportunities which exist in Canada I should ilso like to say that the potential of our land in the economic sense means nothing anless development of that potential takes place.
The government has told us that the pres-;nt unemployment situation in Canada is in unpleasant seasonal repercussion due to idjustments in our economic life. Let us look at some of the facts as presented by people who are familiar with the situation. [ have in my hand a clipping from the 7lobe and Mail dated January 21, 1954. The reading reads "338,066 Seeking Work; Peak since Wartime." The article reads:
Canadian unemployment is the highest since the war and is still climbing.
Labour leaders, looking at post-war peak figures, predicted the jobless figure will rise to 500,000 by ;he end of this month.
Two widely varying sets of figures were issued by ;he government today in its periodic survey of [DOT]mployment. One-from the labour department-showed 338,066 persons looking for work through rational employment service at December 10. This :ompared with the previous post-war high of 312,000 n the late winter of 1950.
Then I have a little clipping here taken rom the Edmonton Journal dated February 10, which carries the heading "List 12,000 n area seeking work." The report states: The number of persons looking for work in the Edmonton district exceeded 12,000 last week, officials >f the national employment service in Edmonton said Monday.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is i serious matter. I do not know why the government dismisses it in the manner in
Proposed. Committee on Unemployment which it has done. I for one have never heard of a Are being put out by ignoring it, or a public enemy No. 1 being arrested through the indifference of those charged with the responsibility of capturing him. I believe the Canadian people at this time are calling on the government to create the freedom and conditions which will enable unemployment to be ended in Canada.
I say this because it seems to me there has been a disgracefully false accent placed on the responsibility for unemployment. We have read of the battle being waged between leaders of industry and labour leaders. Each blames the other for responsibility in this situation. While they are blaming one another, there is a third party, the political expedient, standing on the side and playing one against the other for the sole purpose of acquiring political advantage. I believe that until such time as both labour and business realize their prosperity is indivisible then so long will stoop-shouldered workers be no different from weary and stoop-shouldered businessmen.
At this point I should like to read a statement of great signiAcance which was made by Dave Beck, executive vice-president of the international brotherhood of teamsters, chauffeurs, warehousemen and helpers of America, in an address which he delivered before the Commonwealth Club of California, at San Francisco:
We of American labour believe in our free enterprise system. We do not believe in it simply because it benefits those who have money invested in business upon which they may make profits. Not at all. We believe in free enterprise because we know that it has preserved our liberty and at the same time has given us the highest standard of living and opportunity the world has ever known.
Free enterprise, as opposed to communism and socialism, is in the interests of the vast, overwhelming majority of the people who toil for their living, both here and in other countries. I believe in free enterprise because it inspires initiative within men and women. It provides them with opportunities to rise above their environment and to attain any high place which their ability and intelligence will permit them to achieve. I contend that no system in the history of the world has ever made possible such progress for the working men and women, as free enterprise has accomplished for the American people. I have travelled somewhat around over the world and I do not know of a single solitary country where the working man lives under as fine conditions as he does in this land of free enterprise.
I think that fairly well sums up the case as far as free enterprise goes. Yet certainly nobody in this parliament will condemn or not appreciate or approve the demands which labour is making. I think we would all approve a statement which was recently made by James P. Mitchell, Secretary of
2098	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment Labour, United States, delivered at the convention of the Congress of Industrial Organizations at Cleveland, Ohio, on November 18, 1953 in which he made reference to President Eisenhower's attitude toward union and labour as well. He said:
Amidst all the speculation here and at other labour meetings over what is President Eisenhower's attitude towards unions, my advice to you is to keep clearly in mind the President's own words:
"I pledge that I will support and strengthen, not weaken, the laws that protect the American worker. I will defend him against any action to destroy his union or his rights. I will enlist every resource- of private industry and of the federal government- to protect him against the awful consequences of depression and joblessness.
"I will work unceasingly to build an economy that will maintain for him a high level of wages with steady purchasing power so he and his family can share fully in the comforts of American living . . ."
I think that fairly well sums up the point of view which we as Social Crediters hold. I believe that labour and business must remain happily married for good or both will become poorer, and that fair wages are just as important as are fair profits. Any politician who endeavours to drive those two enterprises asunder is remiss in his contribution to the economic life of this nation. If both labour and business realize this fact I believe it will provide the necessary background for an improved free enterprise system, which is the only way of maintaining our people in a manner to withstand the coming onslaught on our economic life which is already being engineered in the matter of world trade.
I think it is about time both labour and business united and pointed their index finger at the real source of the trouble, namely the impotent and unenlightened fiscal policy of this government, which is endangering our private enterprise system and putting us deeper and deeper into socialistic measures. That policy is a tax policy which harasses business and workers. The credit policies of this government discourage private investment and encourage government spending.
We believe that both labour and business should make a frontal attack on those policies, for they have resulted in the dwindling purchasing power of the earned dollar. The government policies are geared for ever-increasing interference with the normal development of business, and have failed to implement steps leading to convertibility of currency in international trade. The jungle of every kind of tax conceivable has psychologically destroyed and is rapidly destroying the initiative of business for further investment. I believe that those policies are closely related to the unemployment situation in Canada.
[Mr. Holowach.l

In passing I should like to emphasize the fact that a little bit of blame should be laid on the press of this country. I believe that there exists no better instrument for defending democracy than our free press; but they have failed to draw the attention of the public of Canada to discrepancies in the matter of government fiscal policies, thereby discouraging the one force that could call a halt to this situation.
As Social Crediters, Mr. Speaker, we have always championed the cause of private enterprise, and we make no distinction between business and labour. We have repeatedly championed the removal of the ridiculous fiscal policies and agreements on international trade which have shackled our export business. We are the only ones who have a clear-cut and simple method of supplementary purchasing power without further taxation which would further cripple the incentive of our people.	We have
advanced these things not only because they are economically right but because they are morally right.
I should like to ask the government what is its policy with regard to alleviating the present scandalous situation in the matter of unemployment; what thought is being given to an immediate start on a vast public works program to absorb the growing number of unemployed; what inducement is being given for an immediate start on the St. Lawrence seaway, the trans-Canada pipe line, the building of a trans-Canada highway from Winnipeg through Saskatoon, Edmonton, Edson, Jasper and the Yellowhead route; what thought has the government given to a thorough revision of the whole Canadian taxation structure in order to eliminate all those taxes which are restrictive to productive enterprise as a further stimulus for reinvestment, and what encouragement is being given to the Canadian people to share in the home and export markets created by the products of our farms, factories and mines?
I believe that the outstanding feature at this time-and unemployment is only one of the symptoms-is a situation where we have idle merchants standing side by side with unemployed workers and, at the same time, ever-mounting inventories of goods and services which the people need and have produced but cannot acquire because they have no purchasing power.
In conclusion I say that the problem of unemployment is clearly one of an economic nature, and that the dangerous situation of this period is the taxation structure which presently exists. Unless unemployment is

immediately halted, I think there can be a chain reaction which might be even more devastating than the atom bomb.
On behalf of my constituents I should like to say to the government that their real responsibility is not only to provide work for the unemployed, but to guarantee that Canadians now and in the next generation shall enjoy the benefits of freedom also in the economic sense of the word. One of the ways this can be done is by immediately reducing the tremendous tax burden which the people of Canada have to bear at this time, for it seems to me that cancer is gnawing away at the vitals of our free democratic way of life. Unemployment is certainly only one of the symptoms.
The Canadian people, from my knowledge of them, are a very patient lot. On August 10 they gave a vote of confidence to the Liberal administration. But it seems to me that confidence is not without limits and it may be, if the government persists in its taxation policies and is unable to solve the unemployment problem, that the time is not distant when a vast change in their mentality may take place, and they will ask for new brooms to sweep clean.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the debate so far has justified the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), the purpose of which is to bring before the house and the country a situation that is becoming more serious with the passing days and deserves the attention of the house. It was in that spirit that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra was launched, to provide parliament an opportunity of placing before the government, through a committee, recommendations to meet the present situation. We are not political sadists who get any satisfaction out of the existing state of affairs, but we do believe the time has come to secure action on the part of parliament, too conveniently delayed for too long by the government.
Indeed, as one goes back over the years one can see that there was a similar situation in 1929, when conditions such as we face existed; but the government of that day failed to act, with a resulting depression within our country that took years to repair, if indeed it has ever been repaired. In 1929, when people throughout the country were asking for action, the speech from the throne read in part as follows:
The unprecedented prosperity which is apparent throughout the dominion affords cause for the deepest satisfaction. Never in the history of Canada has there been such industrial and commercial expansion as that which has taken place during
Proposed Committee on Unemployment the past twelve months. The industry and enterprise of our people have been rewarded under Providence with an abundant harvest. In the production of agricultural and other basic industries all previous records have been surpassed. New records have also been established in the volume of construction and in the volume of foreign trade. Employment has been maintained at a high level and all indications point to a continuance throughout the country of the present favourable conditions. A notable feature of industrial development has been the continued advance and prosperity of the mining industry in almost every part of the dominion.
That was in 1929, Mr. Speaker, and those are the arguments now being used under similar circumstances. We have placed our amendment before the house in order that a select committee may be set up. The amendment to the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) simply deletes a number of words and states that the serious and mounting unemployment situation now facing this country calls for immediate action by the federal government to prevent further economic distress.
There is nothing of socialism in that subamendment. I listened to my hon. friend place his plan before the house, and with the exception of an addition to the present unemployment insurance payments and the like, the purpose of everything in it would be to bring into effect a national planning scheme whereby all business in Canada would be in the strait-jacket of economic socialism.
As I listened to him asking that a law should be passed whereby when an industry finds itself losing money, when profits can no longer be made, the state should step in and cause that business to continue to operate, I thought of the government businesses established in the province of Saskatchewan within the last ten years. I thought of boots and tanneries, of woollen factories and the like. Those industries paid no taxes. They paid no interest on the moneys used by them; yet, unable to make profits, found it necessary to close down.
My hon. friend's general plan is simply *an indication that those who have an "appetite for novelty and the passion of envy" believe that everything can be achieved through state action and state control. In the province of Saskatchewan power has proven an effective antidote to the influence of sentimental propaganda regarding the operation of of business. The dreamland of theory disappeared in that province in the light of cold experience.
What we are trying to do is meet a situation that is becoming more serious with the passing days. We do not predict the oncoming of a depression. We hope the days will not again return when unemployment will be

Proposed Committee on Unemployment rampant not only in our own country but everywhere in the world, in both free enterprise and socialist countries. We realize that with conditions becoming worse and worse the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) had little to offer except the hope that what had been done under unemployment insurance and other social legislation had more or less cushioned the impact of unemployment.
But what does he admit? On the 26th of January he placed before the house certain figures indicating that in December, 1953, there were 338,000 applications for work. If I took down his figures correctly, today that figure is about 520,000, an increase from 6-4 per cent to 9-9 per cent of the labour force, an increase in one month of 50 per cent in those who come within that category. That type of statistic constitutes its own warning, and it demands action on the part of parliament.
I do not want to look back, but you will remember, Mr. Speaker, that during the election campaign only six months ago any suggestion of the probability of there being unemployment, any expression of the view that we had not sufficient markets for Canadian wheat, that agricultural markets were being lost, that our trade situation in different parts of the world was unsatisfactory in its implications, was met by ridicule. What are the conditions six months later? We of the official opposition have no desire to arouse the people in any way to apprehend that there is a hastening economic disaster, but the facts should be stated. We realize now, as we pointed out last summer, that our international trade, upon which 24 per cent of the people of Canada are dependent, is in a serious situation. Production has caught up with demand, in many businesses. Layoffs are continuing.
What of the world trade situation? Does parliament know anything about it? A few months ago, during the election campaign, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) said in effect, when we spoke of convertibility, that it could not be achieved, that it was just a fantasy and a dream on the part of the opposition. We contended that 50 per cent of the world trade within the sterling bloc was lost because this government did not see fit to call a conference in an endeavour to secure convertibility so that trade in that area could be established.
Six months ago they said it could not be done. Ten days ago the minister said in effect, "We are closer than would have been expected a matter of a year ago". Why all the silence regarding the Sydney conference? What happened there? What was decided there? Only tonight I read an editorial in


the Ottawa Journal which asks the reason for all this silence about Sydney. It mentions the communique issued at the conclusion of the conference, and quotes from the London Economist which termed that communique "a jumble of careful contradictions, in eight pages of double-talk and bad grammar". What was decided there? What is going to be done to meet the situation regarding trade? What is the hope for the future? Unemployment will necessarily continue to mount unless something is done to open the channels of trade.
And what is to be done about taxation? A few short months ago, during the election campaign, I recall again that we pointed out the dangers of the dead weight of taxation, which was squeezing Canadian trade out of world markets. What is going to be done about it? Are we being priced out of world markets in part because of taxation which is being imposed unnecessarily by this government?
Those were our views a few months ago. Those views were ridiculed. Now we find officials of great banks in our country indicating that one of the main reasons we are being priced out of trade today that previously we held is the fact that taxation and other costs are making it impossible for us to meet competition. I have before me a summary of a speech delivered by Mr. Muir, president of the Royal Bank of Canada, which says:
Some evidence of a buyer's market after years of inflationary pressure should not be regarded as an unmixed evil. The three economic stimulants available are tax reductions, price reductions and easy credit. Tax reductions are always helpful, of course.
And then in detail are set out some of the needs in the present situation. What could we find out in a committee? What attitude does the government take with regard to world trade conditions?
In a recent speech the president of the Banque Canadienne Nationale refers to the dangers inherent in loss of trade internationally. In my opinion equally serious is the present improvident trade balance as between Canada and the United States, which cannot but have a detrimental effect upon full employment in Canada. He says:
The export trade of Canada contributed to the national income to the extent of some 24 per cent. As our country increases the exploitation of its natural resources and develops its means of production, it should enlarge its markets abroad. However, far from achieving this purpose, it has suffered an appreciable decline in its exports during the past year.
Parliament sits. Does it get any information about what is going to be done by the government, or what its trade policy will be

to meet the situation? Nothing but the silence we have had since Sydney. The president continues:
Preliminary reports show that, during the first ten months of 1953, the foreign trade of Canada, up by $265 million in comparison with the corresponding period of 1952, was valued at $7,157 million. This considerable figure ranks our country third among the great trading nations of the world. But this progress results solely from the increase in our imports, which have risen by $379 million, whereas our exports decreased by $114 million. Thus, from one year to another, a favourable trade balance of $243 million has given way to an unfavourable balance of $246 million.
I quote this because it is a summary of the situation as the president of the Banque Canadienne Nationale sees it, and I adopt its content. Palliatives will not meet the situation. International trade alone can restore a large proportion of employment in this country. The bank president goes on to say:
Statistics reveal a decrease in our sales in all countries, except the United States, Japan, Holland and Switzerland, a decline reaching $97 million in the British commonwealth, $74 million of which is in the United Kingdom alone, $82 million in continental Europe and $65 million in Latin America.
Mr. Speaker, do you not remember the pilgrimage made last year, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) went down to South America? I sometimes wonder whether he was able to teach those dictators something. The success of the pilgrimage was measured by a reduction last year to the extent of $65 million in our trade in Latin American countries.
To quote further from the remarks of the bank president:
If our shipments of animals and derived products, of non-metallic minerals and of chemicals show some progress, there has been a curtailment in all the other groups: agricultural products, fibres and textiles, wood and paper, iron and its products and non-ferrous metals. The causes for this contraction in exports are many and varied.
There is a summary of our trade situation, summed up in a succinct, capsule-like form. Yet was there anything in the speech of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) to indicate that the situation would be met by some aggressive trade policy? No; nothing but an explanation that some of the unemployment figures were fictional. And then, when I asked him a question about the degree of unemployment due to a loss of markets-* the diminishing markets to which I have just referred-the answer of the minister, with all the force behind him of his department, his economists, and the like, was, in effect, "It would be impossible to hazard a guess".
What parliament has a right to know is this. What is going to be done? Certainly in the Colombo plan there is no solution of the problem of disposing of the billion bushels
Proposed Committee on Unemployment of wheat piled up in this country, or the other agricultural products. The time has come for parliament to know what is going to be done to expand trade and win back some of the trade that in considerable measure was lost last year because Canada and Canadian production, through taxation, has been priced out of the market. Taxation must be reduced. Canada will spend $5 billion this year, the largest amount in history. I realize that the election last year did not teach the government any lesson in the need for tax reduction.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It did not teach the opposition much either.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend says it did not teach the opposition. Let me say this. The level of taxation today is considerably responsible for the fact that we are losing our trade.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Inconsequential; that is not exactly pertinent to your statement.


John George Diefenbaker: It is inconsequential, the minister says. Is that the sort of attitude we should have from a responsible minister, that high taxation is inconsequential. I am going to refer in a moment to the Regina Leader-Post.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Make your own speech.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member is reading a lot of editorials lately.


John George Diefenbaker: That is all right. I have heard the minister read editorials at times when they were laudatory.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Not very often.


John George Diefenbaker: markets; the Poles are endeavouring to expand their markets. Russia has its coarse grains; Australia and the Argentine have their wheat and their meat. Surely we have a right to know what is to be done. What is the government doing to meet the farmers' plight? The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) says "nothing". If they are doing anything, no one in parliament has been given any information on it.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce was in the west the other day and made a speech in Winnipeg. Even to read the speech in cold print shows one the affability with which it was delivered. He said that western farmers can expect to market their surplus of wheat at reasonable prices despite the decline in overseas markets which has created a change for the worse in the marketing situation. Western farmers would like to hear what is being done in regard to securing markets. Is the Canadian wheat farmer in the position that at present prices Canada cannot dispose of her wheat? Are we to continue to rely on the government, as its ministers go from place to place, sir, and speak outside the house and make those optimistic statements? Now is the opportunity-this debate provides it-to show what is going to be done by the government in the days ahead to meet the present unemployment and market situation.
In 1929 the same warning beacons were in the sky. When unemployment started it was referred to as seasonal, not frictional, because they did not have frictional unemployment in those days. They said then it was merely transitory, that it would not last. No action was taken, and depression followed. Unemployment insurance payments are not enough. They are but a palliative, but do not meet the essential problem. I suggest that the ministers of this government let this country know what is to be done and what are the trade prospects.
Where are the possibilities of extending trade? What will be done to remove the tremendous surpluses of agricultural products, of wheat particularly? Our experience and that of the United States has been that whenever there are surpluses of agricultural products, because markets have been lost, a cycle begins which follows a course regular and direct. The cycle starts with reduced farm demands for manufactured commodities; and a reduction in demand for those things is followed by a reduction in the labour force, and unemployment results.
A committee set up to study and report on unemployment would' hear evidence of those who are warning this government and the country of the need for action now. It would

Proposed Committee on Unemployment
also give members of parliament an opportunity to discharge a responsibility. After all, we are $10,000 a year men and women now, and would welcome all the worth-while work we can get to do. A committee such as this would make a sphere of endeavour available to members that could not but be advantageous, that could not but bring forth suggestions which the government might find helpful to meet a situation which is becoming worse.
We are not trying to build up fears that will bring on a depression. What we are trying to do is have parliament make a contribution now, to the end that we shall be able as a nation to compete in the markets of the world and thereby assure employment to Canadians in Canada. That is the purpose of this amendment, and it was in that spirit we moved it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, now that the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has delivered his election speech we can get back to the subject of unemployment. I should like first to say that any suggestion that the government does not take the unemployment situation seriously is entirely mistaken. I agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) that one unemployed person represents a situation that is of concern to the government, and certainly when the number gets up to its present size it is a matter of great concern to the government. The problem is what should the government do to bring about opportunities for employment, and a return to a high level of employment throughout the country.
I would say that the measure of success of a government is its ability to bring about and maintain a high level of employment. As far as this government is concerned, that is its main objective. Anything it does is directed toward giving satisfactory employment to its people and stability that will encourage growth of its industry.
In assessing the problem the first thing to do is measure it. My colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) has given you the facts, but perhaps you would permit me to run over the ground again. There have been numerous reports of late to the effect that unemployment in Canada is running in excess of half a million persons. Presumably these reports refer to figures for job applications on hand at national employment offices.
It is true that since about the middle of January this figure has exceeded half a million. However, it should be made absolutely
clear that this figure does not constitute the number of unemployed. As my colleague the Minister of Labour has pointed out to this house, this is simply a figure which becomes available through the operation of the employment service in carrying out its task of helping to place people in jobs. As such, the figure includes people who after registration find jobs on their own while failing to notify the employment office, and also people who have jobs but are not working or are working part-time but can qualify for benefits under the unemployment insurance regulations.
On the other hand, there are some unemployed persons who do not register at employment offices but will attempt to find jobs through other means. The fact that such discrepancies exist means that these figures cannot be accepted as an adequate measure of the numbers of unemployed, even though they are very useful as an indication of general trends and also of the relative position of different localities.
The dominion bureau of statistics instituted in 1945 a survey designed to provide on a current basis essential information on Canada's labour force. This survey is presently conducted each month on a sample basis in accordance with proven sampling methods. The latest available results from this survey show that for the week ending January 23, 1954, there were 280,000 persons out of work and seeking work. In addition there were 24,000 persons who for the full week in question were temporarily laid off. Also there were 65,000 persons on short time or laid off for part of the week.
However, these three figures are not to be added up and referred to as the number of unemployed. Those involuntarily on short time, though partially unemployed, should not each be counted as an unemployed person; moreover, those subject to temporary lay-off can hardly be classed with those having no jobs in sight. These distinctions simply serve to indicate the difficulty of trying to gauge in one simple aggregate the many varied situations encompassed within the term unemployment.
As previously stated, the number of persons without jobs and seeking work as of January 23 numbered 280,000. This represents an increase of 93,000 or 50 per cent above the corresponding figure in January 1953. In other words the increase in unemployment now over what prevailed in a generally buoyant market situation one year ago amounts to roughly 2 per cent of the labour force.

21C4
Proposed Committee on Unemployment
This comparison is not made in any attempt to minimize the extent of the unemployment situation. It does, however, serve to point up the rather narrow margin between a strong labour market situation and what some persons are now attempting to describe as a serious recession. It also should be pointed out that the January figure of those out of work and seeking work is below that reached in early March of 1950, when the figure totalled 308,000 persons.
In fact there is much similarity between conditions prevailing then and now. Largely reflecting a down-turn in output in the United States and a contraction of overseas markets, the tempo of business in Canada experienced some slowdown in that year which coincided with our seasonal slack period. As a result unemployment climbed to a level higher than had prevailed in any previous post-war year. Immediately the alarmists among us began to clamour for measures to offset a pending depression. The government did take action to extend unemployment insurance benefits, but no major anti-recessionary program was put into operation. Nevertheless, by June 1 the number of persons without jobs and seeking work had declined to 139,000 and this, as you will recall, was prior to the outbreak of hostilities in Korea. Had the government acted promptly to bolster demand at that time, such measures would have served simply to add fuel to the inflationary pressures which were dominant before the end of that year.
This experience shows that it is important to remember that economic conditions are always fluctuating, but many of these fluctuations are minor and largely self-liquidating in character. Any attempt on the part of government to smooth out every minor bump and trough in the trend of business may simply aggravate rather than lessen the extent of fluctuations in the economy.
What then is the nature of the economic climate in which we now find ourselves? Is it a relatively minor adjustment or, as some would apparently have us believe, is it the beginning of a major decline? No one, of course, can answer this question categorically or with complete certainty of being right. This, however, does not mean that we should not look over the evidence systematically and make as sound judgment as possible.
Toward the latter part of 1953 those indicators which gauge 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, purchases by consumers and also outlays for investment. In each of these instances the rate of expansion has slowed down. The important exception is exports, which are now running moderately below the levels of one year ago.
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 slowdown in the pace of business which in the present instance has coincided with the seasonally slack period in the economy.
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. Before coming to any such conclusion it is necessary to look carefully at the more basic determinants of the level of economic activity.
In this connection current and prospective levels of investment spending are of utmost importance. At the beginning of each year a survey is made of the amount of capital expenditures planned for the ensuing year by business, institutions and governments and also for housing. Compilation of the returns from the 1954 survey are now complete, and a report embodying the results will be tabled as soon as copies can be printed.
The survey indicates a capital expenditure program for 1954 of $5-8 billion, roughly 3 per cent above the previous record achieved last year. Expenditures for new construction are estimated at $3,865 million, an increase of 6 per cent, while outlays for new machinery and equipment are expected to be 3 per cent lower. With spending on defence construction now past its peak, the federal capital expenditure program, as presently planned, is a little lower than in 1953. Reports from provincial governments indicate their programs to be roughly unchanged, while capital outlays of municipalities should show a moderate increase. Capital outlays of federal, provincial and municipal governments, taken as a group, are expected to remain about the same as last year. Nongovernment capital spending will be up by roughly 4 per cent and non-government outlays on new construction are expected to increase by 6 per cent.

Proposed Committee on Unemployment
This projected volume of capital spending has far-reaching significance for the trend of economic activity in 1954. Expenditures on new capital goods account for about 23 per cent of total production in the economy. Prospects of a further increase in the capital expenditure programs mean that in over-all terms this important sector of demand will be more than maintained.
In addition, investment plans tell us a good deal about the state of business confidence. While the foregoing expenditure estimates cover total outlays for new capital goods, including replacement, a major portion of the program represents net additions to capacity. Yet no one builds new capacity except on the expectation that markets will be available for the additional goods or services to be produced. It should be borne in mind also that these investment intentions have been recently submitted, and therefore can be assumed to take into account the uncertainties which have prevailed in recent months, particularly in respect to the future trend of economic activity in the United States.
In these circumstances one can only conclude that, notwithstanding these uncertainties, the collective view of Canadian business enterprise is on the side of continued growth and prosperity in our economy.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner recess I was discussing the prospect for capital investment during the year 1954. I stated that the survey of business intentions which has just been completed indicates that capital investment this year will be about 3 per cent greater than it was last year, which was itself an all-time record representing as it did about 23 per cent of the gross national product of Canada.
I might say that these preliminary estimates are made with great care. Each year in the past we have found that our January estimate was overly conservative. A check is made in July. In every case we have had to revise our estimates upward when the July survey is completed.
The next important factor is the prospect for exports. There again I believe we can look for another good year. The final figures for 1953 show a decrease of 3 per cent in value of exports but, as a matter of fact, in volume the last year was a record year for 83276-133
exports, being even greater than 1952. The reason for the lower dollar value of exports during 1953 was, of course, the drop in prices of many important commodities that are represented in our list of exports. For example in the metals, in 1952 we were exporting zinc at 19 cents a pound; last year we were exporting zinc at 10 cents a pound; we were exporting lead at 21 cents a pound in
1952,	and at 13 cents a pound in 1953. There was a sharp drop in the price of lumber included in the exports for 1953.
I believe that our prices have stabilized and that the pricing of our exports for 1954 will not be much different from the pricing in
1953.	Our principal export is wheat. The volume of exports to date is not as great as last year owing, as I have explained on several occasions, to exceptionally good crops in many of our principal markets, and also owing to the fact that the war threat has receded to a point where many governments have been using their war stocks of wheat for civilian purposes.
In other directions export prospects have improved. A few days ago I mentioned the opening up of markets in the West Indies, a fact which is important. The return of trading from governments to private hands in the United Kingdom has been helpful to Canada. As that trend proceeds I think we can expect even better markets in the United Kingdom than we have had in the past.
Today I was reminded that our sales to South America are off, and it was suggested that my trip may be the reason. May I say that the reason I went to South America was that our markets at that time were abnormally high. Since then dollar difficulties in several of the South American countries, particularly Brazil, have caused restrictions of exports from dollar countries. However, I am happy to say that today we received confirmation of a large sale of wheat to Brazil. We have not sold wheat to Brazil for several months. I think there are indications that the South American market is finding it possible to use dollars to a greater extent, which will, I am sure, mean greater purchases from Canada.


An hon. Member:: You did not trade wheat for coffee?


Clarence Decatur Howe: If Brazil sells coffee at good prices they are apt to buy wheat at our prices. The other factor, of course, is consumer buying. Consumer buying in Canada is at a high level and there is every reason for thinking that a high level of purchasing should continue. I believe those are the three elements that we look to for a forecast of the level of the Canadian economy during 1954,
2106	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment and in those several directions there seems to be no indication of any serious recession in the year 1954.
It is said that we have not taken any special steps. We have not panicked and rushed out in all directions to take emergency measures to deal with the present situation. 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. 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. 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.
In the investment field our economy will be reinforced by two large projects. One is the St. Lawrence waterway project, which we fully expect to be under construction before the end of the year. The other is the longest pipe line that has ever been built anywhere, namely the gas pipe line from Alberta to Ontario and Quebec. I therefore think we can look for a continuing high level of investment in Canada not only in 1954 but well into the future.
How do we explain the discrepancy in the figures which are given us? The applications at the labour office suggest that some 520,000 people are seeking employment. That situation comes about in a very simple way. In the last year or two the list of insurable occupations has been enlarged to include a good many seasonal occupations. I know something about the forest industries business at the lakehead where I reside when I am at home, which is not often. That business has not changed over the years. The men go in the forests in the fall and work there during the cutting season. They mostly work on a piece-work basis; that is, so many cords of wood return a certain wage to the cutter. Since the introduction of the power saw it does not take nearly as long to do the winter cutting as it did in the old days. When the cutting is finished the men 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 forests and take care of the hauling and driving of the timber down the river. By that time the construction season has started and they return to then-summer work of construction. That has been their program, and it has been going on for a good many years.
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 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.
Over the past three or four years there has been such a demand for manpower that many seasonal workers have been working during periods in which they do not normally work. That pressure is off. The urgency for the carrying on of construction work throughout the winter has disappeared. The urgency has eased off in many other directions, and there is little off-season employment for men who are normally only employed seasonally. This has caused a great number of applications for employment that really do not represent men out of work. I think we all have confidence in the dominion bureau of statistics. We accept their figures on most matters, and I am prepared to accept their figures on employment. I think they are correct.
In reading a brief presented by the labour leaders who called on my colleagues two or three days ago I noticed that they mentioned figures with respect to frictional employment. They used a figure of 3 to 5 per cent of the labour force, and I thought they were very generous in that respect. Five per cent of the present labour force is about 260,000 men, which is greater than the number unemployed at the present time. I would put the frictional figure at something under 3 per cent. Added to the frictional figure are the people who are unable to find work, and they come largely from particular industries. Ocean seamen are on shore now and looking for work. Training courses are being provided

for them to fit them for other occupations. The textile workers are having a difficult time. There is widespread unemployment in the textile industry. The third industry that is having difficulty so far as employment is concerned is the agricultural implement industry.
These three industries are feeling the effect of the present situation. I stated to a group of agricultural implement workers, as has been said in the house, that I had noticed that the industries in trouble are those that have had the greatest proportional increase in wages from 1945 up to the present time. I put the seamen first, because in 1945 an able seaman was getting about $45 a month, and up until recently he was getting something over $200 a month. The textile workers come next so far as the proportional increase in their wages is concerned. In 1945 and 1946 agricultural implement workers were regarded as being in a rather low paid industry, but today they are higher paid than the automobile workers whom we always consider the aristocrats of labour.
I simply mention these things to indicate that both employers and employees have their responsibility in this transitional period. I always tell employers that this is the period that separates the men from the boys. This is the time when good management is going to pull an industry through and when bad management is going to result in its being in difficulty. In just the same way the workers have a responsibility. This is no time to go out and try to greatly improve working conditions. They have had three or four years of constantly improving conditions, and this is a year in which they should join with industry and all others who are trying to bring about a sound transition from the Korean period to a normal peacetime period.
Certain of our products have been priced out of the market. We found we could not operate deep-sea ships any more unless there is a subsidy of $100,000 per annum per ship. We think that is evidence that we cannot compete in deep-sea shipping. We are not the only people who have felt the competition of southern United States textiles. Many mills in New England are closing down, and one or two have closed in Canada. But this is the competition of our highly organized labour with the unorganized labour of the southern states. That is a situation which presents serious difficulties for the industry and requires very careful handling indeed if our textile industry is to be stabilized.
That is the situation as I see it. I can assure the house that the government is doing everything it believes can be done to improve the situation. We are not panicking. We believe that we have the situation in 83276-133J
Proposed Committee on Unemployment hand. In January of 1950 there was very serious unemployment, more serious than today, while in June of 1950 there was practically full employment, and we believe that the pattern of 1950 will be repeated in 1954. I believe that as the season opens up we can expect a return to the employment conditions that we have had for the last several years and that we must have if Canada is to be a prosperous country.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the minister permit one question before he finishes his speech? He used' the figure of $100,000 per ship as the suggested subsidy to keep the merchant marine in operation. Is the government satisfied that that figure is reasonably accurate? Is it a figure that may be accepted as a basis of discussion, or does the minister think there would be any wide variation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was brought to us as an analysis of the labour and sustenance cost of a ship under the Canadian flag compared with a ship under the British flag. The figures seemed to be accurate and complete. I think it can be taken as a reasonable differential.
Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway)f
Mr. Speaker, about this time two weeks ago we were discussing the problems of another group of Canadians who were in distress. It appeared to me throughout that discussion that the distress was a little synthetic or, for want of a better term, a little phony; but there is nothing phony about the distress of the people whose plight we are discussing tonight.
I find myself in the very difficult position that I cannot agree with the reasonable and unconcerned picture of the situation that has been painted by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg). I do not like not to do so, because all the cabinet ministers are nice, friendly fellows and I do not like to disagree with them. Someone said that if you are not a great man yourself, the next best thing is to say that you know a great man. So I get quite a lift when I am talking to my election committee back in Vancouver-Kingsway and I can tell them that I am on such intimate terms with the Minister of Trade and Commerce that I can call him "C.D." when we meet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What do they call him?


Mr. Maclnnis:: Or when I meet the hon. member for	Bonavista-Twillingate-oh,
excuse me, I should say the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill)-in the corridors I call him Jack. Yes; when you are a little fellow

Proposed Committee on Unemployment like myself it gives you quite a lift. So I feel quite badly in having to bring some of the facts of life to the ministers' attention.
Now let us see what the situation is. It is admitted that there is some unemployment in Canada, but there is a question of how much. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said, very generously, that we should be concerned about even one person who is unemployed. But I can assure him that one person unemployed could not get anywhere, because he could not squawk loudly enough. The more unemployed there are, the more likely something will be done for them because of the greater noise they will make. In the world we are living in today, if you cannot make a noise you are in a bad way; your case is a bad one indeed.
As I said, there is agreement that there is some unemployment. The Minister of Trade and Commerce as well as the Minister of Labour have said, "But wait; the possibilities for investment this year are real good. Some time before the year is out we will start the St. Lawrence waterway. That should be under way before the end of next year." That is what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said just a moment ago.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The end of this year.


Donald MacInnis: And he says to the unemployed, "Now, if you fellows can hold on until next December you will have a job, maybe." They both agree on that, that everything will be all right if the unemployed can only hold on. Spring will come to the rescue. Korea came to the rescue in 1950. I hope we will not have another Korea in
1954.
The ball is then thrown over to the official opposition. They go over the situation and find that there is considerable unemployment, that it is quite serious indeed. But what do they want to do? They want to refer it to a committee; and by the time the committee is finished it is spring again, and the unemployed are in just the same position under the Conservative amendment as they were before. The situation will be just the same as far as the unemployed are concerned, whether it is left to a committee or left with the government. They say that spring is coming, when things will begin to show up; and that is the talk we are handing out to the unemployed all across Canada.
I tell you that kind of policy will not provide bread, will not provide shelter, will not provide jobs. Surely we have had enough experience with the sort of conditions that existed when my hon. friends took over in 1936, or in late 1935. Surely they have

learned something from the conditions they found, until the war rescued us in 1939 and 1940, that they should have been ready now with some concrete proposals the unemployed could get their teeth into. But they are not. We are just as Micawber-like as we were in the 1930's.
Then, as usual, the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) went over the whole gamut of items-the government in industry in Saskatchewan, the dead weight of taxation, the wheat surplus, the estimates, last year's election, the sales tax, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and a number of other things. He said that these are some of the things that could be discussed in the committee-that is what we are going to have the committee for-to go all over the issues that were discussed during the election last July and August. Let me tell the official opposition again that that, any more than the government's do-nothing policy, will not feed and clothe and shelter the unemployed.
Probably one of the strangest things said during this debate was by my good friend the Minister of Labour. It is said that the human being can rationalize his behaviour in the most unsocial or anti-social circumstances. There is nothing so vile he can do but, given the opportunity, he can prove to you that it was done for somebody else's good. The Minister of Labour went over pretty much the same ground as the Minister of Trade and Commerce. As reported at page 1447 of Hansard he said:
The current unemployment situation is not entirely due to the seasonal factors which I have mentioned although there are indications that the amount of purely seasonal unemployment is greater than in recent years . . . These industries are not operating at capacity employment levels for various reasons. For some, import competition has become keener. This has been particularly true in the case of clothing, textiles and electrical appliance industries. Others, such as sawmilling, farm implements and certain base metal producers have found world markets becoming increasingly competitive. Forestry operations in eastern Canada are currently proceeding at the low levels of last winter, partly because of improved technology in forestry operations and partly because of softer lumber and pulp markets. In most of these industries, there has been some accumulation of inventories at various levels of production and distribution, and employment in several industries is reflecting the consequent adjustments.
Then he went on to say this:
The government is not ignoring the problems of these industries which are encountering difficulties in adjusting to a more competitive situation in both the domestic and foreign markets.
In effect what is the Minister of Labour saying there? Only this, that there is an accumulation of goods on the market-overproduction, if you like-and because there is overproduction, the people who produced the

Proposed Committee on Unemployment
goods, or at least some of them, must go hungry until that is cleared off the market. That is all it means. I would like to know if the government is not ignoring the problem of those industries which are encountering difficulties in adjusting to a more competitive situation in both the domestic and foreign markets. What are they doing? In these circumstances what is the government doing that is of value to those people who are now unemployed?
Then the minister said:
Nevertheless, I feel that It would be a mistake to draw a gloomy picture for the economy as a whole solely on the basis of the situation in which certain industries find themselves at the present time.
And then I find my genial friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) reported in the Montreal Gazette of February 12 in respect of an interview following joint representations by the executive of the Canadian Congress of Labour and the executive of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. The newspaper article states:
"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".
At this point Mr. Bengough, president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, butted in and said:
"I think there are 530,000 out of work. The situation is serious".
To this the Minister of Finance 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."
Whether the situation is serious or unpleasant depends entirely on where you are situated; whether you are at the gate of a factory looking in, or sitting in your living room with a glass with something to drink in it and a pipe and a book in your hand.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I said exactly the same thing to Mr. Bengough. I said that for the man who is out of work it is always serious.


Donald MacInnis: Well, the Gazette, as usual, did not print it all.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That sometimes happens in these periodicals.


Donald MacInnis: That is the situation. If these people who are unemployed do not draw attention to that situation nothing is going to be done for them. It is only to the extent that they holler, that we holler and
everyone they can get in contact with can be made to holler that this government or any other government will take steps to relieve their distress.
Let me continue with what the Minister of Labour says. At page 1448 of Hansard he is reported to have said this:
This leaves the problem of what Is being done to assist those out of work, whether seasonally unemployed or otherwise. Actually, a great deal is already being done. The extended coverage of unemployment insurance during the last few years, plus the provision of supplementary unemployment insurance benefits during the first three and a half months of each year, has done much to help ease the burden of unemployment.
But we were doing all that three, four and five years ago. Unemployment insurance came into operation in 1941, and this is 1954. But at the moment we are dealing with a situation that has come about in 1954, and what we are asking is, what is being done to meet that situation? The minister went on:
This year benefit payments will be even larger.
The benefits will be larger because there are more unemployed. I continue:
This sum would not be offsetting income losses due to unemployment were it not for unemployment insurance. Many unemployed workers are also being assisted by family allowance payments and by old age pensions. In addition, the provincial and municipal governments are making social welfare payments which benefit those in need.
I never heard such quibbling with facts. The minister speaks of family allowances. Those people were receiving family allowances when they were employed, and the people who are employed today are receiving family allowances just the same as those who are unemployed. It was never intended that family allowances were to be put into effect to help the unemployed; they were put into effect because even with full time employment their incomes were not sufficient to give them a reasonable standard of living. How can it help them, or to what extent can it help them, when they are unemployed and have to live on either the unemployment insurance at $24 a week or nothing at all? The old age pension was not provided for people who are unemployed. They are unemployed, of course, because they are not employed in the sense that they are no longer able to work. Let us not try to throw sand in people's faces in regard to this problem. It is far too serious for that.
Then the minister goes on to say that the provincial and municipal governments are making social welfare payments which benefit those in need. I believe one of the reasons the problem is so serious is that during the period of good employment the federal government stopped assisting municipalities
2110	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment with the employable unemployed. They are left on the hands of the municipalities and the provincial government.
I hold in my hand a letter which I received from the Vancouver presbytery of the United Church of Canada, dated November 27. It enclosed a resolution, and this is the prayer of that resolution:
The Vancouver presbytery of United Church of Canada urges that appropriate steps be taken by federal and provincial governments to implement in principle the recommendations of the policy statement on social assistance adopted by the governors of Canadian Welfare Council in their meeting of December 13, 1952, that provision be made for the payment of social assistance to indigent employable unemployed persons.
This is one of the difficult problems of the municipalities. They just have not the means to meet this situation that has been aggravated tremendously by the increased number of unemployed.
I hold in my hand a news item which appeared in the Vancouver Province of February 5, ten days ago. It reads:
Deputy police chief, Gordon Ambrose, today blamed unemployment-which is far worse than most people realize-for the recent minor wave of burglaries, safecracking and armed holdups.
Chief Ambrose said that the people police are arresting for these crimes "are not newcomers". But criminal types unable to find employment are "hungry" and thus become more active.
I can tell this house that hunger is a very potent urge, and hungry people-and there are many of them today-are going to get the means to buy what they need even if they have to commit crimes in order to do so. As a matter of fact I was reading in a Montreal paper a few days ago that in that city people were committing crimes so they would be put in jail where they could get food and shelter.
I suggest to this government that they should have known this situation was coming, because the conditions which we are meeting now are as old as the industrial system itself. We have had to deal with it periodically for the last two hundred years. There is nothing new in it; there is nothing strange about it. But it appears that we have not learned how to deal with it. If the government were to be ready for this situation, I suggest they should have been preparing not now but ten months or a year ago. There are, however, a great many things the government could do to help the unemployed if they would only take the trouble to find out about them. They could be doing these things while they are getting ready a program of public works in case the investments which they have been telling us about do not materialize.
This situation of falling markets and increasing unemployment is not something


that is confined to this country alone. It is taking place in almost all industrial countries, and it is sort of contagious. When it develops in one country it makes it difficult for that country to trade with other countries, and so unemployment goes from one country to another as smallpox might go.
I say it is the proper function of government at a time like this to do these things for the people which the people individually are not able to do for themselves. One of the things which the people individually are not able to do for themselves is to provide employment. That will have to be the function of the government, and while they are preparing work programs they should provide adequate maintenance. We should get busy and help out the municipalities and the provinces in providing reasonable standards of food, clothing and shelter for the unemployed until employment can be found. The longer we delay, the more trouble we are building up for ourselves. We ought to get that clear in our minds, and get to work at once.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed very much the pleasant discourse of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis). I concur in his realistic view that this is a problem of today and not one of the distant future. However, I find myself in the paradoxical position of also agreeing with the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) in so far as I also consider this to be a problem covering a period of years, a seasonal problem, and that therefore a committee to consider the whole thing may be most desirable.
Coming now to the particular remarks of the right hon. Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe), I was pleased to hear that we had sold some wheat to Brazil for the first time in several months. It will certainly help the prairie farmers to a considerable degree. A loosening of the purse strings in connection with investment is a most desirable feature, instead of continual defence spending, although we probably cannot forgo the latter because we may need defence spending in the not too distant future. The construction of the St. Lawrence seaway is indicated to commence later in the year, but it will not assist us today.
There is one feature of this debate which I found very amusing. I refer to the fact that many of those who have spoken from time to time have complained that the newspapers were quite frequently at fault, that they were being misquoted, that things were not being said in the newspapers as they should be said. However, I noticed that

Proposed Committee on Unemployment
nearly everyone quoted from the newspapers at some length in order to indicate the justice of his particular remarks.
Coming to the problem itself, I would say that it is a three-way problem. It is an immediate seasonal problem; it is a long-range seasonal problem, and it is an in-season problem. Speaking to the first, the immediate seasonal problem, this calls for the immediate support of the subamendment we have before us at the present time. The long-range seasonal problem would call for the setting up of a committee along the lines proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra in order to alleviate the situation at another time. The in-season problem is one that is usually of a calamitous type and therefore will give us a great deal of difficulty if our seasonal problem is not rectified immediately.
I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Labour gave us the statistics which had been compiled by the Department of Labour. I do not think we can blame the unemployment insurance commission or the national employment office for the unemployment that exists at the present time. It certainly is not of their doing. The men and women who are doing such an excellent job in his department are to be congratulated.
According to the figures quoted by the Acting Prime Minister there are over half a million unemployed. The Minister of Labour indicated that there are over 357,000 who worked less than 35 hours a week and 139,000 who have jobs but who did not work during the survey week. That gives us a total of approximately 496,000 who either had no work or worked less than 35 hours a week.
Using the figure that was quoted as the number of employables, which was 5,242,000, the ratio would appear to be 9-46 per cent of our eligible labour force which was wholly or partly unemployed. This is a most unfortunate situation. Comparatively speaking the 280,000 without jobs, who were seeking work, can be compared with the 190,000 who were mentioned a year ago as looking for employment. It is a most aggravated situation when we find an additional 50 per cent unemployed over what we had a year ago. I say that it is not seasonal when there is an increase of 50 per cent in the number of unemployed; it is definitely in-season.
As the Acting Prime Minister indicated, frictional unemployment might be a little less than 3 per cent. He was rather surprised at the figures given by the congress of labour, of from 3 to 5 per cent. I think he will agree when I say that the 3 per cent is possibly
indicative of this particular time of the year, when seasonal employment happens to be at its lowest. The 5 per cent comes about when people find it very easy to get jobs, and they are more apt to leave their own jobs. A total of 150,000 then are out of work in Canada at all times. That would mean that the difference between 150,000 and 550,000, or about 400,000, are unemployed largely because of seasonal unemployment.
On checking the figures a little more closely we find that these may be grouped into three categorical divisions. There are those who are in a slump during the winter months; there are those whose slump is about over in January or February, and there are those who are unemployed during the summer months because of the seasonal period.
In the first group, those in connection with whom the seasonal slump is in full swing during this particular time, we find building construction with a 24-3 per cent variation; highway department work with a 60-6 per cent variation; meat, 17 per cent; logging, 60-3 per cent. The next group happens to be one that should be coming out of the slump, as its lowest point of seasonal employment is either in January or early February; I refer to motor vehicles, where the figure is 4-7 per cent. Then we have wood products, 11-3 per cent; pulp and paper, 9-9; distilled and malted liquors, 8-4 per cent.
In the next group employment should be at the absolute peak today, and I refer to the agricultural implement and textile industries. However, if you were to travel across the country I think you would find that the textile workers are practically out of business at this time. They are not seasonally unemployed'. Because our wheat has not been moving, because the agricultural market has been rather stagnant in the past several months, agricultural employment has not been as high. These are not seasonal workers such as those mentioned earlier.
The cause of unemployment is twofold. It is either the fault of management, the fault of the workers or it is a combination of both. In connection with management it might be bad administration and planning. Possibly there are material shortages or delays in the arrival of the necessary material. It might be a case of bad management as regards machinery maintenance which leads to breakdowns through lack of replacements, or it might be a lack of storage facilities in businesses such as the lumber trade, where they have to store lumber and have a backlog of logs. It might also be an inadequate knowledge of marketing conditions, because certain departments do not look after these things
2112	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment as they should. It might also be a misdirection of shipments such as we had listed' in farming periodicals, where it is sometimes related a carload of grain is shipped to one port and then has to be sent off to another.
On the other hand, the workman may sometimes be equally wrong. I was rather surprised in this connection to hear the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) say it was wrong for an industry to shut down. I am wondering whether it is not just as wrong sometimes for labour to force the shutdown of a plant and thereby affect the whole economy of the country. Mind you, I do not say it is wrong, but I am wondering if the same code does not apply to labour as to management in that particular regard.
The effect of unemployment on business, whether it be caused by strikes or by management or anything else, is already clear. The businessman is affected in so far as he is afraid to invest more capital in his business. We often face this argument as to which group is right, and that was illustrated in a newspaper very recently when we had an argument between labour leaders and the government as to the actual figure regarding the number of unemployed.
Statements on this question are sometimes considered to be radical in nature, and I sometimes wonder whether the people who are trying to correct this labour situation should not stop and ask themselves this question. What would you do if you were affected? Suppose, for example, you came to the government and said you wanted help, and they said you had better get a job elsewhere, as there were no jobs in your locality. Just what would you do? A man comes along then and says: If you come into our union group we will look after your interests. Whether they are communist-led or not is immaterial. The important thing is that they have a leader. They have someone to lead them, someone who will make representation on their behalf to the government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you can talk to some people but you cannot talk reasonably to a man with an empty stomach. He has a right to live. It has often been said that hungry people are very dangerous people, and that hungry people often start wars. It is the "have-nots" who want what the "haves" possess. I therefore submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is the responsibility of this government to see to it that we do not have this hungry element among us. We are just breeding a communistic group of people so long as we allow this condition to continue.
I contend it is the business of the government to regulate the economy of our country 

so that the absolute minimum number of people are deprived of the privilege of working. These people do not expect the government to find jobs for them, but they do expect the opportunity of finding jobs if they wish to apply for them. We must find the means of getting a job to them.
Labour claims that $24 or under per week is too little to live on. I think every hon. member in this house realizes that if a home owner buys one of these national housing homes we propose to build he is going to require practically that entire sum to meet payments in the form of rents, taxes, water and light. It is not sufficient to keep him alive. We have a reserve of $900 million or more in the unemployment insurance fund, and if we were to divide that among these people on the basis of a living wage it probably would not last for more than a year and a half.
What can we do, then? This problem which faces us at the present time is one to which we must find the answer; otherwise it is going to swallow us all up.
And what about the man who has not worked long enough for benefits? He has to live. You cannot tell him, Well, move along, bub. We will build you a soup kitchen and let you have some food. They do not want bread alone. They do not want a canopy of words put around them. They want enough to live on, and you have to give it to them. Perhaps I should not say "give it to them", for I do not believe people want anyone to give them anything. All they want is the means of obtaining it, unless this communistic idea is so instilled in them that they think of these things as theirs by right.
We also have the question of requiring the building industry to process its own raw materials, a sort of Canada-first policy. Here is another dangerous feature in their demands, for they want us to build industries and they want a guaranteed wage. This also is a part of their Canada-first policy; and yet if we told them we were going to bring in electric equipment from Japan or Germany or from somewhere else they again claim it should be Canada-first and the equipment should be built here in order to provide jobs.
The problem has to be solved in such a way that we can regulate employment, do away with unemployment and do our trading in such a way that we can get rid of our surpluses. I know the government will probably say: "You have put your finger upon the problem we are up against, young man." I am fully aware of that, and I am quite certain in my own mind that there is an answer, provided we are ready to look

Proposed Committee on Unemployment
around and find the answer as so many other countries must at the present time. We can have another war, but that would be a very hasty answer. It might be the quickest cure, but it is certainly not the one any hon. member in this house would advocate. Certainly I would be the last one to suggest it.
It is claimed we do not require foreign capital. I happened to discuss that matter with a group the other day, and they claimed we should not have foreign and United States capital coming into Canada. I am rather amazed that so many people should insist upon that, especially people who call themselves socialists, for we find on page 2 of the Financial Times of February 5 the following advertisement:
Department of Mineral Resources, Province of Saskatchewan
Public Notice
Petroleum and Natural Gas Leases (receiving sealed bids).
Whom do they want to sell them to? Anyone who will buy them, including buyers from the United States. And now, Mr. Speaker, the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterway has been a long time in coming. More than twenty-odd years ago I gave a short address on this subject. The project is a practical reality, but it is not going to solve the unemployment problem facing us at the present moment. That is a problem we must solve now. The 100,000 homes which will be built over the coming year is not going to put 400,000 men back at work immediately. That will be a slow process. The building of sport fields and cultural institutions, schools and hospitals and all the other public facilities we require so badly in this country is also something for the future, but it is not the answer to the problem facing us today.
If we are going to have the small businessman continue in existence, if we are going to encourage capital to continue in this country, as is so earnestly desired, we have to solve this problem at the present time. The men and women we are discussing want work. They do not want anything else. They are interested only in solving the problem now, not at the next session of this house. I think if we are to be in the position that we consider we should be in, as men who call ourselves parliamentarians we should find the answer to that question.
I have just one or two words here in conclusion, Mr. Speaker. There is a real reason for unemployment. First it must be understood. From what I have heard various men say in this house from time to time, I am sure that private enterprise has solved the problem of production. As mute evidence of that fact we have a surplus of butter, of 83276-134
machinery, a stockpiling of textiles, salmon, canned meats, cheese and other products. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) the other day suggested to us that the British Columbia fishermen solved their own problem to a degree by sending a trade mission to Britain to see whether or not they could buy some British goods and possibly, in the course of so doing, sell our Canadian canned salmon. They did an excellent job, as only British Columbians can. They went to Britain and bought fishing nets, trawlers and the various paraphernalia they need in the fishing industry, and they induced the Britishers, in turn, to take canned salmon. It was not a barter deal. However, it might almost be suggested that it developed as a barter deal.
I do not think it is the responsibility of the wheat growers of Saskatchewan, the fishermen of British Columbia or the fruit growers of any area, no matter which it might be, to go on a trading trip to any other nation in the world. That is what this government has been elected to do. We are supposed to find markets for these products, not to send small individual groups to do it. I respect the fishermen for what they did. I respect any group for trying to sell its own goods abroad. But every time they do that they are taking dollars and cents from their own group, money which rightfully belongs to the people in that particular area. The farmers, the ranchers, the lumbermen and the various industries that might be involved should not, in my opinion, be obliged to look after the selling of their own goods. It is a problem that should devolve on the government of this country.
The government should take action now for the alleviation of a situation that has grown into an unhappy one in this country. We therefore support the subamendment that was proposed by the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to quote labour leaders and what they have found. I am not going to quote editorials and what they have reported. I am just going to speak of what I know. I know something about Fort William. I know what causes any unemployment that we have there. When the freeze-up comes, it certainly freezes certain sources of employment. Navigation ceases. Therefore those who are working on the freighters or on passenger boats and who have their homes in Fort William are obliged to seek other jobs. Elevator work becomes a little bit scarcer. Dredging is shut down. Some railway workers are laid off. Road work is scarcer. Sometimes pulp and paper workers are laid off. Certainly in connection with

Proposed Committee on Unemployment contractors who are engaged in the construction of houses and outside work, there is some unemployment.
However, I have noticed that we in Fort William have some men who are engaged in seasonal work and who are never unemployed because they have initiative and, like some hon. members, they would not be out of work; if they became unemployed in one job, they would get another. I know that in Fort William we have some unemployment at the present time. But from the report I received on Friday from a young businessman who visited me, the unemployment situation there is not serious. In fact, according to his report employment is on the up trend. While Canadian Car laid off a considerable group of men a while ago, they have taken them back again. That is a sign in the other direction.
I have a friend who is a building inspector. He says the best source of employment is the building trades because there are so many industries connected with them. As the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) has said, the construction of houses will be on the increase. Therefore employment from that source should be on the increase. I expect that in Fort William by the end of March there will be less unemployment; and by June I doubt that we shall have anybody unemployed there.
I appreciate the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He did not mention Fort William, but I mention Port Arthur. We are very much alike. As far as we are concerned, it is seasonal unemployment. I should like to see any government on earth that can change the seasons and bring about all year round work. I have known of only one case where the sun was caused to stand still. That was in the case of Joshua. As long as we have lake Superior and the lakehead, we are going to have seasonal unemployment. Any government that can cure that situation is, in my opinion, certainly a sweet government. We shall continue to have seasonal unemployment. There are, however, certain men who, as I have said, when they lose one job and become unemployed, go and get another one. If they do not earn as big pay, they earn enough to keep the pot boiling.
I appreciate the work our trades and labour council in Fort William are doing. They are second to none in helping the men to get jobs.


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose there is no other problem in Canada that affects as many people as this question of unemployment. Because of the
(Mr. Mclvor.l
far-reaching consequences I felt that I should take part in this debate, because quite a large percentage of the people whom I have the honour to represent are working people in the London area.
The first indication we had of the approaching problem-and it was pointed out by our party quite some time ago-was the loss of the primary markets for agricultural products. We are now reaping some of the results of those lost markets; and, on top of that, we are piling up surpluses of many farm products. Just while I am mentioning that fact, may I say that I hold in my hand an editorial from tonight's Ottawa Journal. I am going to ask the house to bear with me while I read a couple of paragraphs from it. It is entitled "Skeletons of the Farm" and reads in part as follows:
The Hamilton convention of the Ontario federation of labour, CIO-CCL, heard Mr. Douglas McEntee of the united automobile workers explain that a reduction in implement sales was due to farmers being unable to buy because of a 22 per cent drop in their own income in the last fifteen, months. Thus there is evidence that labour leaders are taking a more realistic approach in examining the causes of unemployment.
Further on there is the following:
In 1953 the average weekly earnings of Canadian workers in manufacturing rose by 4 per cent in real income, but the farmer in many cases had no income gain for the year and in several instances he had less.
That indicates pretty clearly why farm implement manufacturers are not able to sell their products, and why the employees are finding themselves idle. Another indication of the trend of events is the report of the Bank of Canada mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, and I couple with that the annual statements of the chartered banks. I have examined them carefully. I think without exception they approach this problem cautiously, but they indicate that the loss of markets cannot help but have one result, a decrease in employment in Canada. Our banks are fairly conservative in their outlook, and I think they have soft-pedalled this question. Because of the danger that the impression might be created in the minds of many people that times are tougher than they actually are, they have approached the question with some caution. After all, markets are the keys to employment. We have lost markets and consequently we have lost the keys to employment.
There is another cause which I have mentioned before, inflation, which was aided and abetted through all the years from the beginning of the war until the last year or two. Inflation has resulted in our pricing ourselves

out of world markets, and consequently we have unemployment. Then there is the increasing danger of competition from Europe and Asia, particularly from Germany and Japan. There again they are able to out-produce and out-sell us, and that is one of the big problems that we as Canadians must face.
I come back again to the drop in purchasing power of those engaged in agriculture, which is now being felt not only with respect to agricultural implements but in all segments of our economy. Another thing that worries agriculture is the fact that while farmers are taking a 22 per cent cut in the prices of the things they sell, very little if any of that reduction is reflected in the prices the consumer pays. In fact the last report of the dominion bureau of statistics actually indicates that the cost of living has gone up. Certainly it is fractional, but the reduction in farm prices is not indicated in the cost of living.
According to the minister there are 524,000 people seeking employment. But that does not indicate how many firms are operating on short time, two, three or four days a week, or on shortened hours of work. It does not indicate the number of people who are out of jobs but do not go to the unemployment insurance offices and report for work. They search for work themselves and try to find jobs.
I had an experience along that line a week ago Saturday when I returned home. I was waiting on the street near the station for my family to pick me up with the car. An elderly gentleman came along and I passed the time of day with him. I said, "What are you doing?" He said, "I have just come from the unemployment insurance office, where I have been collecting my unemployment insurance." He said, "This is the first time in my life I have ever had to collect unemployment insurance. Never before when I was out of a job was I unable to go around and find another job. If the worst came to the worst I could always go out to the farming country and get a job, but they do not want men today. They are equipped with farm machinery, and they do not want transient help. They are not hiring anybody. Consequently I am walking the street looking for a job and collecting my unemployment insurance."
I think the Acting Prime Minister handed out rather cold comfort to the unemployed when he suggested that they go and find different jobs, in view of the fact that at the present time there are some 500,000 men who cannot find work.
83276-134i
Proposed Committee on Unemployment
Another rather disturbing angle is our trade position. We have an unfavourable trade balance after many good years. Actually what is happening is that we are employing people abroad to produce and do things that many of our Canadian people could do for themselves and do as well or better. But the goods that are produced by these people abroad are priced lower because of the lower cost of labour and the lower standards of living in these countries. Therefore we have become dependent on many foreign countries for things that we could produce ourselves.
I do not need to go over the list of such goods, but some of them are Canadian farm products that are being replaced by foreign goods. So far the government have evinced no desire whatever to change their trade, economic and fiscal policies to meet the changing conditions of the times.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) blamed unbridled capitalism for some of our troubles, but there are many people throughout the country who blame unbridled inflation for the difficulties in which we find ourselves. Prices have chased wages and wages have chased prices up and up into an unreal price world. As we look around this Canada of ours we see that there are thousands and thousands of things that can be done. Yet there seem to be so many dollars to do other things and so few dollars to do the things that could and should be done. So far the government has only indicated a fervent hope that things will get better. They are waiting for something to turn up.


Mr. Siewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should explain why I intend at this moment to alter the order of rotation. I should like to tell the hon. member for Winnipeg North that I was informed that it would be most convenient if the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond could be allowed to speak now. Considering that the hon. member for Fort William only spoke for a few minutes and that the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond is not going to speak for any more than 20 or 25 minutes, I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North will agree that it would be a nice gesture if he would allow the hon. member to proceed now. Then he may proceed.


Mr. A. J. MacEachen (Inverness-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate on unemployment I am conscious of the concern any degree of unemployment causes hon. members in the house and the people of Canada generally. I am very happy to follow my good friend from Cape Breton South in this debate because his constituents,
2116	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment like my own in Inverness-Richmond, are exposed in varying degrees to the current uncertainty in the coal industry. This uncertainty arises from a painful readjustment to the competition of fuel substitutes, and a program of mechanization which is expected to permit the largest producers of coal to compete more favourably in the future.
Without turning this debate on unemployment into a discussion of the coal industry itself, I might say in passing that the problems of the small coal operators are even more acute. For example, I have in my own constituency the town of Inverness, a coal town whose history has been one of uncertain development because the producers of coal have been unable to find access to coal markets, except in the depth of the winter. But while I am necessarily conscious of the problems of the coal industry, I would prefer to make a few comments on the general problem of unemployment as it exists in Canada as a whole.
Sir William Beveridge, who contributed so much to our understanding of this problem, made the comment that the greatest evil of unemployment is not physical but moral; not the want which it may bring, but the hatred and fear which it breeds. Unemployment is a great evil; but because of the contribution made by Sir William Beveridge and others we can conduct this discussion in an atmosphere entirely changed from that which prevailed in the thirties, and in periods earlier than that.
The prevailing opinion then was that there were certain natural and necessary forces within the economy which automatically created a momentum toward full employment of all resources. Any evidence of unemployment was simply taken as proof that the economy was not being allowed to operate freely. Fortunately that view is no longer respectable. Lord Keynes and his disciples created a revolution in economic thinking by proving the simple proposition, which the layman had long suspected to be true, that the economy, on its own, did not naturally gravitate toward full employment, and that at certain times it rested at a level lower than full employment. Because of these changes in the thinking of economists, we have at present certain established and recognized measures by which assistance can be given to the economy in its momentum toward full employment.
I refer particularly to public investment, stabilization of purchasing power, social security payments and, finally, the use of the budget and financial policy as methods of maintaining full employment. I am sure it was this line of thinking that prompted the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in his recent


statement to say that the government was embarking upon a less restrictive policy of public works expenditures, and was attempting to make available greater funds for residential construction. Both of these are obviously anti-unemployment measures.
I belong personally to the school of thought which affirms that with our new understanding of the causes of depression there will not occur in Canada in the future the kind of depression that afflicted us in the thirties. Hon. members who read mystery stories know how valuable is the axiom "cherchez la femme" in discovering the culprit. Likewise the axiom "cherchez le placement" is a powerful ally to an economist who is interested in finding out how deep-seated the unemployment situation is. The movements of investment are a powerful ally, especially in the private sector of the economy, because investment is the most volatile segment in the volume of national output.
If there are evidences that private investment is decreasing, and if there is evidence that private investors are unwilling to invest further, then there are bound to be warning signals in the rest of the economy. In his summary for the year 1953 the economist for the Bank of Nova Scotia has this to say:
As the year 1953 draws to a close it is abundantly clear that new records have again been set in Canadian employment, production and income. Industrial activity has been considerably greater than in 1952, construction has continued buoyant, and the country has been favoured with the third exceptional harvest in succession. Though the cash income of farmers will not be quite as large as in 1952, average weekly earnings of industrial workers have continued to rise.
He further states that the main impetus to economic activity in 1953 has come from increases in consumer spending and' capital investment outlays. In fact the capital investment outlay for 1953 was in excess of $4 billion. At present in Canada there is no real evidence of weakening in the desire of Canadians to invest capital in the development of our natural resources.
While the figures on unemployment are disquieting, there are at the same time other reassuring evidences of stability. Private investment is one of these, and I mention it particularly because when any economist wishes to find out what is really happening, just as the good detective story reader will look for "la femme" in the story, the economist will look at investment. And at the present time, no Canadian has grounds to be concerned about the readiness of both Canadians and others to invest in the future of this country.
A great deal of importance is currently attached to public investment as a method of reducing employment, and of course the

chief form of public investment is public works. I think it should be pointed out that public works, as an effective anti-unemployment measure, is a mixed blessing. I say this because of the diminishing amount of manpower being used in all public works projects. It is not sufficient simply to approve of public works without at the same time knowing the manpower content of any public work under consideration.
May I give an example. The great engineering project now under way in Nova Scotia, the construction of the Canso causeway, while costing approximately $21 million, is making no substantial contribution to the unemployment problem in that area because of the low ratio of labour to capital equipment. At present about 150 to 200 persons are employed there.
So in considering the impact of public works as an anti-unemployment measure, one must take into account the only important aspect of it for that purpose, namely the volume of manpower required in any particular situation. Furthermore the completion of the Canso causeway will have a very detrimental effect on three communities of the area because of the displacement of personnel.
This example of the Canso causeway is a very apt one for my purposes because, first of all, it allows me to make my point about public works, namely the relationship between labour content and capital equipment. At the same time it provides me an opportunity to draw to the attention of this house the unemployment problem which will be created in three communities, namely Mul-grave, Port Hawkesbury and Point Tupper, when the personnel now employed in carrying traffic by ferry and rail across the strait of Canso will be permanently unemployed. I am sure the residents of the area, in the solution to their problem, will have the active and considered assistance of the government of Canada.


Mr. Castleden:: How many people will be affected?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The estimate varies. It may be from 200 to 400 or less; it is hard to predict.
I simply want to make one final point, Mr. Speaker, in commenting upon some of the remarks that have been made this afternoon and this evening. The comment is that no longer can any country exclusively control the movements of its own economy. This is particularly true of Canada because of its vulnerability to changes in world markets. For that reason one of the chief ingredients of a full employment policy for Canada is an increasing willingness to take part in all forms of international economic co-operation.
Proposed Committee on Unemployment


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I can quite honestly congratulate the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond (Mr. MacEachen) on a very distinguished maiden speech in this house. It certainly showed that before he came down here to speak he had studied his subject very carefully. I think we can also draw from his remarks the feeling that the government say to themselves, "We are all Keynesians now," but they are about 25 years too late. I do not think what J. M. Keynes suggested can at any time provide a solution to the perpetual problem of unemployment under the capitalist system.
I do not know whether or not the Conservatives recognized that this afternoon when they moved their amendment suggesting we should have a committee-I am not sure for what; to consider how the unemployed became so, or how we get unemployment-but I remember very vividly a few years ago when we in the C.C.F. were asking, at the time of rising prices, that there should be price control, and the then prime minister of Canada, Mr. Mackenzie King, offered to the house his solution, another parliamentary committee to consider how prices got where they were. I remember the then member for Cariboo, Mr. William Irvine, rising in this house and saying to the then prime minister, "If my right hon. friend saw a man drowning in a pool he would appoint a royal commission to find out how the devil the water got there"; and that was about the value of the committee, as it happened.
I do not think the Conservatives have any solution to the unemployment problem as it now exists. Obviously, from what we have heard from the government side, neither have they. They are both believers in the capitalist system of economics, and unemployment has been endemic under capitalism ever since we have known that system. They have never managed to find a solution except in time of war. I say there can be no solution under a capitalist system as long as the function of the system is to give the making of profit precedence over the rights of the great majority of the people.
One of the rights which I consider to be inalienable in any democratic society today is the right of a man to employment at reasonable rates of wages, and that fundamental human right is being denied in this country. When we bring unemployment to the attention of the government we get no answer, at least in the sense that the government has no solution to offer.
This afternoon the Minister of Labour gave an objective statement of the situation. He said that committees had been appointed, and he hoped we might get some valuable sug-
2118	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment gestions. While the government is hoping, men are going without work and still more are becoming unemployed. While the government is hoping, rents are unpaid or home owners are going behind in their mortgages. We need something more than hope; we need something more than a desire to have suggestions come out of committees. We need some action, and it would be a pleasant thing indeed if a member of the government would get up in this house and tell us what they intended to do.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce for once departed from his usual Pollyanna attitude that all was for the best in the best of all best possible worlds. He said he was anxious, and he had every reason to show anxiety. He agreed tentatively that there were 524,000 applicants for jobs. Then hurriedly he went on to say that this number cannot be accepted as right. Well, what is right and what is not right? We are told by the Minister of Labour that there are 524,000 applicants for jobs, and then the Minister of Trade and Commerce begins to tear that figure down.
Let us take for instance the figure of 280,000 men without jobs, seeking work. Even if only 280,000 are seeking work the fact remains that there are 280,000 personal tragedies in Canada. Where a man is unemployed you have a home in which there is fear, in which there is worry; and as we saw during the thirties, when you have those anxieties in a home you have the possibility of a home breaking up. But there are far more than 280,000 unemployed. The figure is nearly double that mark.
Then the Acting Prime Minister said that the increase in unemployment is only 2 per cent of the working force. I have been troubled before with ministers who deal in percentages and who do not deal in figures. The increase may be only 2 per cent of the working force but, Mr. Speaker, translate that into numbers and the increase is 100,000; and 100,000 is something vastly more frightening than 2 per cent.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce did not seem to be unduly worried at the idea of a 2 per cent increase, but he should be worried at the idea of a 100,000 increase. Yet as he said, "we have not panicked." Not only has the government not panicked; it has not done anything. The government has no solution to this problem, and they tell us, like Mr. Asquith, well, let us wait and see. We will hope that something will turn up.
We have over on the other side of the house the greatest group of Micawbers that Canada has ever been afflicted with. They are always hoping for something to turn up. Then the Minister of Trade and Commerce went on to 

say that there is much similarity to 1950, when there were hundreds of thousands unemployed. When we asked the government what proposals they had to set before the country to alleviate the situation, there was no answer from any minister. Well, once again the government was extraordinarily lucky. At that time it was Stalin who took them out of the hole. In 1939 it was Adolf Hitler who solved the problem of unemployment for them.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Something has happened to the predictions of my hon. friend each year for the last 15 years. They have not worked out as my hon. friend expected. Is that not so?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Our predictions have worked out remarkably well. We have told the government they have no plans for unemployment, and it has been proved to be so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend has been predicting that the government would meet disaster every year, and we have not had that.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: I think a
very large number of Canadians are coming to believe that to have a Liberal government is a disaster, but you may as well make the best of it while you can.
The minister told us, as I said, that 1950 was different, and that had we adopted the ideas of the opposition we would have gone through an inflationary process. That might well have been so, but it was only avoided because of the advent of war. The fact remains, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway pointed out today, and as the workers of Canada are realizing more and more, that under the capitalist system the more wealth there is produced, the more insecurity there is for all concerned. That is a fatheaded system if there ever was one.
We have to get away from the concept that unemployment is simply a mass of figures or certain percentages. We have to realize that every case of unemployment, as I said earlier, is a personal tragedy. Unemployment is a waste of human resources, an unforgivable waste of the capital of the nation. I can well imagine what any businessman, what any chamber of commerce or board of trade would say if machinery was seen lying idle and rusty. They would object and expostulate at the waste of capital, and rightly so. But they seem to forget that when workers are not working and producing they also are rusting, they also are idle. The capital of the worker is his ability and his time, and when he sees those things deteriorating or disappearing in front of his eyes he loses that which is of vital importance to him.

Yet when the workers in the farm implement industry appeared before the cabinet the other day and pointed out how acute their problem was they were told in part that they had priced themselves out of the market -a point which I shall deal with later-or, on the other hand, that they ought to move on to other areas where there was work.
The fact remains that today a worker who has been stationed in an area for some time with his wife and family in all probability has an equity in a home. He has established his family life in that area, and now he is being asked to break it up, to move to some other area with no guarantee that he will get what he paid for his house or even part of it, and with no guarantee at all that there will be housing available in the area to which he may go. Perhaps he and the rest of his family will have to live apart for many months. That is not an answer to the problem.
The most important thing about the brief presented by the steel workers and the united automobile workers on behalf of those engaged in the farm implement industry was the realization that labour in the city and the worker on the farm are interdependent. The more the farmer gets in income the more he is able to buy of that which the city worker produces. In reverse it is exactly the same. The higher wages the city worker gets the more he is going to buy from the farmer. The city worker and the farm worker are completely interdependent despite all the ideas of those who try to drive a wedge between the two, to split them up and keep them separate. Their fundamental interests are the same, yet the government has no answer except to tell the city worker that wages are too high and he has priced himself out of the market.
What are the facts? They were given in the brief submitted by the workers in the farm implement industry. In 1946 there were 51 plants in the farm implement industry; in 1951 there were 81 plants. In 1946 there were 11,548 wage earners; in 1951 there were 14,078. There had been an increase of 22 per cent in the number of wage earners. In 1946 the wages paid amounted to $20,038,000; in 1951 the wages paid amounted to $41,490,000, an increase of 107 per cent.
The gross value of production in that industry in 1946 was $63,239,000; in 1951 the gross value of production had risen to $171,172,000, an increase of 170 per cent. Or to put it another way, in 1946 the average worker earned $1,735 and produced $5,476 worth of goods whereas in 1951 he earned an average of $2,947 and produced $12,159 worth of goods.
Proposed Committee on Unemployment
I would say that in the face of such figures those who maintain that the workers are pricing themselves out of jobs do not know the facts of the situation. Earlier in the debate the minister said that those industries in which there was the greatest proportionate increase in wages were the ones which were affected most. I do not think that applies in this industry. It is not without significance to note that the profits of this industry increased by 224 per cent between 1946 and 1951.
The workers in that industry know very well that they are interdependent with the farmer. They know very well that if the farmers are well off they are going to have employment. They know that if the farmers are up against it, then the workers in the city will be up against it. They pointed out in this brief that between 1950 and 1951 the net income of farmers fell by 11 per cent or $240 million. When you compare the price index of agricultural products of July, 1951, and August, 1953, you find that it fell from 308 to 240, or 22 per cent.
All this brings home once again the fact that if the primary producers in this country are beginning to find the economic going rough, then the rest of us are going to suffer. In no small measure prosperity in this country depends upon the well-being of our primary producers. What then can we do to help them in such a way that it will reflect favourably on the employment figures of this country?
I have a suggestion to offer. We have in this country one of the greatest surpluses of wheat ever known. We have in the world two-thirds of the population going to bed hungry. We have suggested on more than one occasion that 200 million bushels of wheat should be given to those who need food today and cannot get it. From the selfish point of view it would pay us hand over fist; from the humanitarian point of view it would do more to win the cold war than anything else I can think of.
I may be asked where the money is going to come from. The government already has the money. There is a fund-I will not call it a slush fund; it is not that-a very tidy little hidden reserve tucked away in the Department of National Defence amounting to some $300 million which is still unexpended. In the economic cold war there would be no greater protection for Canada than to use that money to buy wheat to send to those who need food. It would be a good thing from every point of view. It would put purchasing power into the hands of our farmers, and that purchasing power in turn would be reflected in the industrial economy of this country.
2120	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment
It is an idea which I suggest to the government. It is one which I commend to the government. I am perfectly certain that they will not act upon any idea which comes from this side, but I think it is one thing which would help to restore what the Acting Prime Minister called an economic atmosphere conducive to a high level of employment. The minister speaks about it, but I have yet to see the government doing anything about it.


Mr. B. R. Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, as one who spent 20 years working in industry, and who for some 15 years has had men working for me, I intend tonight to touch on a different phase of the unemployment situation, I should like to follow along the lines adopted tonight by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Holowach). What I would like to say tonight has to do with management-labour relations.
I am not concerned at the moment with the figures in respect to unemployment. These statistics mean very little to us unless we are thoroughly familiar with all the matters connected with them. What I am concerned1 with today is the relationship that exists between management and labour. I do not believe either management or labour are justified in all the things they do. The employer is as dependent upon labour as labour is dependent on the employer. And, as the hon. member for Edmonton East said, we must perpetuate that marriage, and we must encourage the attitude of partnership.
In connection with the unemployment situation today, and in past years, I believe it will be found that much of it has resulted because of the wedge which has been driven between management and labour. That is one of the greatest causes for alarm in any country; and the lack of proper relationship between those who are to perform the work and those who are outlining the work to be performed must always constitute a serious problem to any country.
In that regard I would like to touch upon the problem of strikes, and in this matter I can speak with some knowledge, for we just went through a 101-day strike in the Prince George area. During that strike we found children going to school without butter or jam or anything else between their slices of bread, and other children at the schools had to share with the children of those who were unfortunate enough to be caught in that strike.
A strike does not only affect the strikers, but also other people who are connected with the particular industry involved, and who

perhaps themselves were not in favour of the strike. That was the case at Prince George. Prior to the strike we had three trains per day hauling lumber out of that town, but after the strike had been on for some little time these trains were entirely cut off. The railroad men depending on the lumber industry suffered because of the relationship that existed between management and labour at Prince George.
In any investigation the government might conduct into this matter I hope that is one of the phases of our industrial life which will be investigated at the same time, because harmonious relationships between management and labour will aid in any development of our natural resources and in the construction of irrigation and power projects so badly needed in this country.
There is one particular aspect we should all remember, and that is that any worker who works in a plant, regardless of its size and monetary value, is making a living out of the fixed assets that are there. The operator naturally expects to operate at a profit; but we must not forget, as workers, that we have all this equipment in our hands with which to make our living. I recall that when I was employed in the sawmill industry I would often look at the machines there and reflect that I had nothing to do with the actual investment, but that I certainly had a chance to produce and make a living with the machines which were provided.
Management is dependent on labour and labour is dependent on management. If they cannot get along together we cannot solve our production problems. Once we develop harmonious relations between management and labour, and I say this sincerely, I do not think we need to fear communism in this country. Those people who would sow distrust and hatred and drive a wedge between management and labour are the ones who are going to be our undoing in the long run if this situation is allowed to continue. We must make every effort to bring management and labour closer together.
On motion of Mr. Leboe the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall continue this debate, and if it is concluded we shall take up the amendments to the Salaries Act; amendments to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act; and the resolution with respect to the Export Credits Insurance Act.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 16, 1954