1954-02-22

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to transmit to the house a report from the civil service commission of Canada concerning the salaries of the employees of the parliamentary library.



RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES FIRST AND SECOND REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEE-CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. P. Cavers (Lincoln) presented the first and second reports on the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the second report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Brooke Claxlon (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I should like to inform the house that an agreement regarding the status of United Nations forces in Japan was signed in Tokyo on February 19. The parties to the agreement are, on the one hand, the government of Japan, and on the other hand, the governments of Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa and the government of the United States, acting as the unified command of the United Nations.
As soon as we receive from Tokyo the authentic text of the agreement as signed, it will be tabled in parliament. In the meantime, I have a draft copy available if any member wishes to see it.



BANK OF CANADA ACT


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 297, to amend the Bank of Canada Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Since parliament in this session will be considering matters pertaining to the Canadian banking system in connection with the decennial revision of the Bank Act, it is appropriate that the Bank of Canada Act should also be revised at this time. The Bank of Canada Act was passed in 1934 and amended in 1936 and 1938. Since then the act has been amended in a number of ways by provisions in other statutes. As a result of these amendments and changing circumstances, a number of provisions of the act are either no longer operative or no longer appropriate. In addition, to bring the act up to date in these respects, it is proposed that certain revisions should be made.
In view of the proposed provision in the National Housing Act allowing chartered banks to make insured mortgage loans, it is proposed that the Bank of Canada should have the power to make short-term loans to banks on the pledge or hypothecation of insured mortgages held by them.
In addition, changes will be made in the limitations on the bank's holdings of government of Canada securities, in the amount of its rest or reserve fund and the provisions regarding cash reserves to be maintained by the chartered banks.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 296, an act respecting Brazilian Telephone Company.-Mr. Hunter.


Mr. Bell:: 1.	Have any cases been reported or investigations conducted into the smuggling of liquor or any other goods from the United States into Canada through Saint John or any other maritime ports, during the past two years?
2.	If so, were any employees or agents of the United States government, United States army, or United States companies presently in Canada, involved?
3.	What were the quantities and amounts involved?
4.	What course of action has the government taken to prevent a recurrence?

Questions


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Records of alleged or proven cases of smuggling are not segregated according to nationality, occupation or personal status of individual.
3.	Quantities and amounts (value) of goods investigated or forfeited under the Customs Act are not maintained on a commodity basis nor by individual ports of entry. The number of customs seizure reports received from the maritime provinces (Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick) during the two-year period February 1, 1952, to January 31, 1954, was 1,329.
4.	Continued vigilance and enforcement measures including seizure of goods, seizure of vehicles and vessels used in transporting
goods liable to forfeiture, application of penalties and prosecution of individuals under the provisions of the Customs Act.



FEDERAL COLLECTIONS, ALBERTA

Mr. Fair:: During each of the past five years, what amounts have been collected by the federal government from the province of Alberta as a result of: (a) personal income tax; (b) corporation income tax;
(c)	succession duties; (d) excise taxes; (e) excise duties; (f) customs duties; (g) excess profits tax; (h) any other taxes?


Mr. McCann:: (a), (b), (c), (g), (h). See statement attached.
Following is the amount of excise taxes, excise duties, customs duties and sundry other collections collected by customs-excise ports in the province of Alberta for the last five fiscal years:
(d)	(e)	(f)	(h)Excise	Excise	Customs	SundryYear	taxes	duties	duties	collections1949	. .. $10,760,329.43	$ 7,235,639.68	$ 5,937,159.52	$13,905.941950	. .. 7,784,071.22	7,028,790.27	6,622,979.57	13,339.541951	. .. 8,716,338.64	8,584,991.46	8,594,455.33	16,240.361952	... 13,415,997.08	8,595,355.79	11,044,508.55	30,182.931953	... 17,592,742.72	10,315,617.33	16,458,147.25	41,630.97Fiscal Year	Income Tax	Other Taxes	(a) Individuals	(b) Corporations	(h-1) Non- Residents	(h-2) Undistributed Income	(c) Succession Duties	(g) Excess Profits Tax$	?	s	$	$	$1948-19	39,298,283	13,482,064	516,539	14,906	1,049,531	3,436,8321949-50	40,960,325	20,882,364	610,091	95,823	1,481,253	1,007,3631950-51	40,895,324	22,587,275	809,110	4,697,480	1,839,098	583,3391951-52	54,895,533	33,280,467	673,013	867,358	1,252,024	61,8851952-53	74,097,266	43,687,135	749,997	645,723	2,262,749	-



ELEVATOR COMPANIES


Mr. Argue:: 1.	Does the board of grain commissioners obtain the overage or shortage incurred by each elevator company in its operations at each marketing point in western Canada?
2.	If so, what are the most recent figures available showing such overage or shortage for each elevator company at each marketing point?


Mr. Dickey:: I shall answer this question orally. The first part of the question asks for the overages or shortages incurred by each elevator company in its operations at each marketing point in western Canada.

The answer to that question is that the board obtains from licensees of country elevators, in accordance with regulations made pursuant to subsection 16 of section 15 of the Canada Grain Act, statements for each country elevator in the form of statutory declarations, showing gross and net receipts and shipments during each crop year and stocks in store of each kind of grain at the end of each crop year. From these sworn statements gross and net shortage and overage positions for each country elevator are calculated.

Then the second part of the question asks for the most recent figures available showing such overage or shortage for each elevator company at each marketing point.
The answer is that the most recent figures available showing shortages and overages for each elevator company at each marketing point are those for the crop year 1952-53. This information is contained in 5,042 documents. It is obvious therefore that it would be a most laborious task to have these copied. If the hon. member has some particular marketing point in mind, I would be happy to get the information for him, but I doubt if he wants to put the board of grain commissioners to the trouble and expense of copying the entire material.



ASSISTED PASSAGE LOAN SCHEME

Mr. Bell:: 1.	How much money has been made available under the assisted passage loan scheme, during each of the years 1951, 1952 and 1953, to (a) British immigrants; (b) non-British immigrants?
2.	What percentages of said loans remain outstanding?
3.	What steps are taken to collect same?
4.	From information obtained in conducting 3, and otherwise, (a) what percentage of those assisted immigrants remained in their assigned or intended occupations; (b) what percentage left before the expiration of the one-year period?


Mr. Harris:: Questions
received from the shipping companies due to these persons having sailed late in 1953 or early in 1954.
Total warrants issued, 28,403; total value of warrants issued, $4,670,953.05; total cost of transportation accounts paid as of Dec. 31, 1953, $4,504,529.65; collections for the period, Feb. 1, 1951, to Dec. 31, 1953, $3,599,087.21. Collections are, of course, continuing.
3.	In most cases arrangements are made with the employer to have monthly deductions made from the individual's wages and forwarded to Ottawa to be credited against the individual's loan. In the other cases individuals make their payments direct to the immigration branch, Department of Labour, and in some cases, to provincial government officials. Automatic collection procedure, consisting of notices of arrears, and if necessary, followed by letter, is instituted when accounts indicate instalments have not been received when due. Immigration officers in or near the person's place of residence are also used to contact the individual and an endeavour is made to have the individual make his monthly payments. Close check is kept of all delinquent accounts and every effort is made to locate individuals.
4.	Statistics not maintained.



VITAMIN PRODUCTS

[Stage Direction]
1 and 2. Statistics maintained respecting assisted passage loans show office of issue of transportation warrants, not nationality or ethnic origin of the immigrants. The statement below provides as close an answer to the question as can be given. For every dollar actually paid out for loans, 79-8 cents had been recovered by the end of December, 1953. 27,391 loans had been made, for which billing to transportation companies had been paid, and of this number 17,037 or 62-2 per cent had been repaid in full. Loans are payable over a 24-month period from date of arrival of the immigrant in Canada.
Warrants issued Value	
Warrants issued Value	
Warrants issued Value	
Immigration offices, United Kingdom
3,528
[Stage Direction]
All other offices
12,028
[Stage Direction]
Note: The figures for 1953 include 1,012 warrants which were issued at a cost of $166,423.40 for which accounts had not been
Mr. Knight:: 1.	Has the government during 1952-53 and to date, investigated potency of the vitamin products of certain manufacturers?
2.	If so, how many such (a) products; (b) manufacturers were investigated?
3.	What percentage of the products investigated were below labelled potency?
4.	What were the products, by advertised name, and who were the manufacturers of the products which were found to be below labelled potency?
5.	What action has the government taken as a result of these findings?


Mr. Marlin:: 1.	Yes. The potency of vitamin products on the Canadian market is under constant review.
2.	Approximately 1,500 products were examined from January 1, 1952 to January 31, 1954. These products were obtained from approximately 200 manufacturers.
3.	Particular attention was paid to the products of those companies which it was felt might have products below the labelled potency. Furthermore an effort was made to concentrate on those types of products which experience has shown may be more often below label claim. Of the 1,500 such products which were analysed approximately 300 were found to be below the labelled potency in one or more vitamins. However the fact that one-fifth of the products analysed did

Questions
not meet label claim should not be interpreted to mean that one-fifth of the vitamin products on the Canadian market do not meet label claim as the above figures apply only to those companies which were studied and not to the industry as a whole. It is known that the great bulk of vitamin products now on the market conform to labelled potency and are adequately labelled.
4.	Generally speaking vitamins are unstable compounds and precautions must be taken to ensure that the potency of the vitamin product is still satisfactory when it reaches the consumer. It has been found that practically all pharmaceutical companies have had on the market at some time a product which did not meet label claim for at least one vitamin. During the period January 1, 1952 to the present not all products nor all companies have been examined, hence it would be unfair to reveal the identity of those companies whose products happened to be analysed and were found to be below labelled potency in that period. Furthermore, most products which were found to be below labelled potency have subsequently been corrected or withdrawn from the market by the company. Thus it would not be desirable to name a product which was below claim two years ago but has subsequently been found to meet label claim. The survey of the vitamin
products produced in Canada is still not complete. Therefore it would be grossly discriminatory to release the findings at this time.
5.	The first approach to a manufacturer whose product has been found to be below the labelled potency has been educational. Experience has clearly shown that those companies who have adequate control facilities and who analyse their products before placing them on the market, usually have products which meet label claim. Advice is given to the manufacturer when requested regarding possible causes of the low vitamin content of the product and the institution of proper control measures. If a manufacturer persists in placing on the market a product which does not meet label claim he is given a final warning and if necessary prosecuted. If seriously below labelled potency, existing stocks of the product may be seized by the crown. Goods under seizure are forfeited to the crown and disposed of, either by reprocessing under supervision, if considered feasible, or by destruction on the order of the minister.



PUBLIC HEALTH GRANTS


Mr. Kickham:: How much did the province of Prince Edward Island receive by way of assistance in new construction, repairs and equipment to hospitals in each year since 1946, including all federal public health grants?


Mr. Martin:: The health grants program	commenced	in 1948-49.	Since that time the following		expenditures have been	
made by the federal government-						
						1953-54
Grant	1948-49	1949-50	1950-51	1951-52	1952-53	(to Feb. 1)$	$	$	S	$	$Hospital construction	38,228	36,163	87,216	55,535	44,912	14,655Crippled children	5,000	5,000	3,191	3,294	14	-Professional training	7,247	7,011	6,894	5,033	8,533	2,674Venereal disease control	7,483	7,356	4,961	3,614	2,473	1,047Mental health	34,004	34,021	18,268	31,762	43,197	19,554Tuberculosis control	34,016	42,843	43,985	49,137	44,579	23,061Health survey	3,514	4,740	4,004	656	2,086	-General public health	23,777	36,555	38,826	77,069	80,129	26,987Cancer control	5,010	10,582	9,365	9,306	8,070	3,454All grants	158,939	184,271	216,710	235,406	233,993	91,432



SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS, MANITOBA

Mr. Pommer:: 1.	How much money was paid by the federal government in the province of Manitoba, during the year 1953, for (a) family allowance; (b) old age security; (c) old age assistance?
2.	How many families were in receipt of family allowance during the same year, and for how many children?
3.	During the same year, in the province of Manitoba, how many received (a) old age security; (b) old age assistance?


Mr. Martin:: 1.	(a)	$17,827,134;	(b)	$19,825,848;	(c)

2.	115,338 families were paid family allowances for 251,021 children during the month of December, 1953, in the province of Manitoba.
3.	In December, 1953, in the province of Manitoba: (a) old age security payments were made to 42,157 persons; (b) old age assistance payments were made to 4,816 persons.



CAMP GAGETOWN-HOUSING

Mr. Brooks:: 1.	Has the federal government either through one of its departments or through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation purchased any land for construction of houses for Camp Gagetown administration personnel?
2.	If so, (a) where is land located; (b) from whom purchased; (c) what was the cost per acre;
(d)	number of acres?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1	and 2 (a). Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation have purchased land in Fredericton, New Brunswick, for possible future housing developments. The plot is part of the area enclosed by College road, Third' crossroad, Regent street, and Second crossroad.
2	(b). Randolph and Doris Mae Wood.
(c)	. $634.05.
(d)	. 66.3 acres.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Does there exist any intergovernmental committee or organization whose purpose is to ensure co-ordination and avoid duplication as between dominion and provincial programs of immigration and settlement?
2.	If so, what is the name of such committee, who are its members, how often does it meet, and when did it hold its last meeting?
3.	If there is no such committee or organization, are any steps taken to ensure that there is such co-ordination, particularly in connection with placement of immigrants, land settlement and agricultural worker schemes, and generally to ensure that the population requirements of the nation and the rights and responsibilities of the provinces are kept in harmony?
4.	What is the nature and extent of any such arrangements as may be covered in part 3, and how are they implemented?


Mr. Harris:: 1.	No.
2.	Not applicable in view of answer to No. 1.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) Continuous liaison on departmental level is maintained between federal officials of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and officials of provincial government departments concerned on all problems of mutual interest affecting the placement of immigrants, land settlement as it pertains to immigrants and agricultural workers schemes. Early in 1953, all provincial governments were invited to have senior departmental officials attend meetings with senior federal officers on immigration matters of mutual interest. To date, eight of the provinces have sent representatives to such meetings which were concerned principally with the development of ways and means
83276-146J
Questions
to achieve closer co-operation and co-ordination in the fields mentioned above. This cooperation and co-ordination is being pursued and extended wherever possible, in field activities in Canada.
(b)	As the successful establishment of immigrants is closely related to the welfare of immigrants during the early period after their arrival in Canada, the federal government, early in 1952, offered to conclude with, each of the provincial governments an agreement for the sharing on a basis of equal cost of necessary hospitalization and welfare assistance for immigrants who became indigent through accident or illness during the first year after their arrival in Canada. To date, agreements have been concluded with six of the provinces covering both hospitalization and welfare assistance, while an agreement covering hospitalization expenses only has been concluded with yet another province. The provincial governments are responsible for the operational administration of these agreements and accounts for the federal share are submitted to the federal Department of Labour.
(c)	With particular reference to agricultural workers, federal-provincial farm labour agreements have been entered' into by the federal Department of Labour with each of the provinces of Canada with the exception of Newfoundland. These agreements provide for co-operative action in relation to the recruitment, distribution and placement of farm labour. A federal-provincial farm labour committee is set up in each province and in all cases includes representatives of the provincial department of agriculture and the national employment service. In addition, in most provinces, representatives of farm organizations and other groups are also included in the membership of the committee. These committees are concerned not only with local and interprovincial recruitment and movement and' placement of farm workers, but also make recommendations relative to the importation of immigrant agricultural workers and their recommendations are cleared through the Department of Labour to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration which selects the immigrants overseas.



STOCKS OF BUTTER

Mr. Proudfoot:: What stocks of butter are now held by the agricultural prices support board, (a)	1952; (b)
1953?


Mr. Gardiner:: Stocks held on February 19, 1954, were; (a) 5,089,224 pounds of 1952 butter; (b) 34,000,732 pounds of 1953 butter.

Questions



NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What persons, organizations and/or periodicals, if any, have made representations to the government for an amendment to the Post Office Act to permit a newspaper or periodical to be posted in some other postal area than the one in which it is published and still get the benefit of the reduced rates of postage accorded to newspapers and periodicals?
2.	On what dates were such representations made, (a) by letter or other means of correspondence; (b) by personal calls on cabinet ministers, individually or collectively?
3.	What replies were made to such representations?
4.	Have any persons or organizations made representations to the government in opposition to such an amendment?
' 5. If so, what are the names of such persons and organizations, and on what dates were such representations made?
6,	What replies were made to such representations?


Mr. Pickersgill:: Mr. Speaker, in the normal course this question should be made an order for return. However, in view of the general interest and the simplicity of the matter perhaps I could answer part of it orally.
Representations were made to a committee of ministers consisting of the Prime Minister, the Postmaster General and myself on January 21 by the periodical press association. The delegation consisted of Mr. Napier Moore, Mr. Roy Parry, Mr. Floyd Chalmers, Mr. J. Kent Cooke, Mr. Charles Sauriol and Mr. George Mansfield, all members of that
association. They came to make representations about the competitive disadvantage which they considered Canadian periodicals were under as compared with American periodicals.
Among the suggestions they made was the suggestion referred to in the question. The answer to part 3 is that the Prime Minister undertook to see that such representations were given consideration. I understand from the office of the Postmaster General that one or two representations have been received recently in answer to No. 4. Perhaps parts 4, 5 and 6 could be made an order for return, and the return will be tabled in a day or two.


Mr. Speaker:: Part of this question is answered, and part will be made an order for return, subject to the minister's remarks.


Mr. Knowles:: I wonder if the return the Secretary of State is prepared to bring down might include a list of the periodicals represented by that periodical press association referred to by the Secretary of State.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly, sir.



SALARIES OF LETTER CARRIERS, HALIFAX

Mr. Balcom:: What were the minimum and maximum rates of pay for letter carriers for the period 1939-1954 in the Halifax postal district?


Mr. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: Date	Salary	Plus cost of livingMinimum	Maximum	bonus1st April 1939 	$1,020	$1,500	-1st August 1941 ....	
1,020	1,500	$142.921st August 1942 	
1,020	1,500	221.041st July 1944 	
1,200	1,620	221.041st April 1946 	
1,320	1,800	221.041st August 1946 ...	
1,320	1,800	313.321st September 1946	
1,644	2,124	(salary and cost ofliving bonusconsolidated)1st October 1947 ...	
1,620	2,160	1st October 1948 ...	
1,800	2,340	1st December 1950 .	
1,920	2,628	1st October 1951 ...	
2,028	2,628	1st December 1951 .	
2,220	2,850	1st December 1953 ..	
2,400	3,060	FEDERAL BUILDING,	VERNON, B.C.	Mr. Bourgel:	1, 2 and 3. The	estimates for the fiscal


Mr. McLeod:: year ending March 31, 1955, contain at page	
1. What progress is being	made with plans to	447 the amount voted by parliament for the	construct a federal building in the city of Vernon,	fiscal year 1953-54,	and the amount sought
British Columbia?
2.	Has the vote for this project been reduced?
3.	If so, in what amount, and for what purpose will this amount be used in the current year?
for the fiscal year 1954-55. The latter amount is for the purpose of completing plans which are in the course of preparation.



OLD AGE ASSISTANCE

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many persons, by provinces, are in receipt of pensions under the provisions of the Old Age Assistance Act?
2.	What is the average monthly payment, by provinces, being made under the provisions of the Old Age Assistance Act?


Mr. Marlin:: i.	2.
	As at	As at
Province	Dec. 31,	Dec. 31,
	1953	1953
Alberta 	. 4,972	$36.54British Columbia ....	. 8,051	37.68Manitoba 	. 4,816	37.83New Brunswick 	. 5,680	36.87Newfoundland	. 5,079	29.22*Nova Scotia	. 5,168	33.42Ontario 	. 21,452	36.84Prince Edward Island.	. 592	25.87Quebec 	. 31,483	37.44Saskatchewan 	. 4,508	36.73Northwest Territories.	. 60	38.23Yukon Territory	. 4	40.0091,865	Maximum assistance $30	a month.



FOOD AND DRUGS


Mr. Johnson (Kindersley):: 1.	How many examinations of domestic dairy products were made by the food and drug divisions of the Department of National Health and Welfare, from 1st April, 1952 to 31st March, 1953?
2.	How many cases of adulteration were discovered?
3.	How many cases of misbranding were discovered?
4.	How many prosecutions were launched under (3) and (4)?


Murdo William Martin: Examinations of domestic dairy products are made by the food and drug divisions of the Department of National Health and Welfare for both the Department of Agriculture and the Department of National Health and Welfare. The following information gives the figures for each department:
National Health
and Welfare Agriculture Total
1	
654	1,730	2,3842	
64	1,104	1,1683	
78	-	784.	Number of prosecutions for adulteration:7	20	27
Number of prosecutions for misbranding:
Questions



MALLEABLE IRON PIPE FITTINGS

Mr. Starr:: What was the total amount of malleable iron pipe fittings imported into Canada month by month, during the year 1953 and in January 1954, from (a) Germany; (b) Italy; (c) Belgium?


John Horace Dickey: Information not available.
Malleable iron pipe fittings are not separately classified in Canadian import trade statistics but are included in the general item of "Pipe fittings, n.o.p.". Canadian imports by countries under this general item during the months January to November, 1953, the latest figures available, are as follows:
Germany
Month	West	Italy	Belgium1953	$	$	$January 	557	Nil	NilFebruary ....	Nil	NilMarch 	34	Nil	NilApril 	429	Nil	NilMay 	Nil	NilJune 	4,147	Nil	NilJuly 	100	Nil	NilAugust 	1,290	Nil	NilSeptember ...	....	Nil	NilOctober 	Nil	NilNovember ...	12,787	Nil	NilDecember,	not yet available	Nil	NilTotal 	$19,344	Nil	Nil



&quot;FAREWELL TO OAK STREET&quot;

Mr. Henry:: 1.	Is the government aware that the national film board has plans to distribute a picture deeply offensive to the human dignity of many Canadians, the title being "Farewell to Oak Street"?
2.	Has the government considered the advisability of a restricted distribution?
3.	What distribution of the picture is being made under present plans of the national film board?


Mr. Harris:: 1.	"Farewell to Oak Street" is currently being shown in the city of Toronto. Three complaints about it have been received.
2.	No.
3.	It is included in the theatrical series "Canada Carries On" which is distributed for the national film board by Columbia pictures. In the normal course of events it will find its way into a large number of Canadian theatres.

Questions



CUSTOMS TARIFF

[Stage Direction]
CANNED MIXED FRUIT*	BOARD OF GRAIN COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has mixed fruit been declared recently to be regarded as peaches for purpose of the customs tariff?
2.	If so, by whom was such a change made, and by what authority was it made?
3.	Has any increase in the tariff on mixed fruits resulted from this change?
4.	If so, what does this increase amount to in respect of tins of mixed fruit when purchased by the consumer?


James Joseph McCann: Answered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, I believe there is an asterisk opposite the question.


Mr. Speaker:: The answer to the question
will have to be given orally.


James Joseph McCann: The first question is:
Has mixed fruit been declared recently to be regarded as peaches for purpose of the Customs Tariff?
The answer is that certain canned mixed fruit was classified as peaches, effective January 30, 1953.
The second question is:
If so, by whom was such a change made, and by what authority was It made?
The answer is, by a decision of the deputy minister that the goods were properly dutiable as peaches, based on the premise that they consisted of a large proportion of peaches. The authority for that is found in section 43 (2) of the Customs Act.
The third question is:
Has any increase in the tariff on mixed fruits resulted from this change?
The answer is: yes; one and one-half cents per pound.
Then the fourth question:
If so, what does this increase amount to in respect of tins of mixed fruit when purchased by the consumer?
The answer is that there is no information.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Answered.



SALT FISH GIFTS


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	Of the gift of salt fish by the federal government to Korea and Greece, what amount in dollar value is to be purchased in Nova Scotia?
2.	Approximately what amount in dollars has already been purchased in Nova Scotia?


Mr. MacNaughl:: 1.	$190,000.
2.	$140,000.


Mr. Argue:: 1.	What are the names of the members of the board of grain commissioners?
2.	Is any member of the board of grain commissioners on loan to any other department of government or filling any government position in addition to that of member of the board?
3.	If so, is such second position of a temporary or permanent nature?
4.	When is it intended that all members of the board of grain commissioners shall devote full time to the administration of the Canada Grain Act?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Donald Gordon McKenzie, John Vallance, Roy Wilfred Milner.
2.	Mr. Roy W. Milner was appointed transport controller.
3.	Temporary and part time.
4.	Answered by No. 3.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


STEEP ROCK IRON MINES


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How much money has been spent by the federal government, either directly or through the Canadian National Railways, in each year since 1939, in construction projects the purpose of which was to assist in the mining or transport of iron ore at or from Steep Rock iron mines, at Atikokan, Ontario?
2.	How much money has been spent by the federal government, either directly or through the Canadian National Railways, in each year since 1939, by way of freight subsidies in connection with the transport of ore, as noted above?
3.	Has Steep Rock Iron Mines Limited received any other form of financial assistance from the federal government or from the Canadian National Railways, at any time since January 1, 1939? If so, what is the amount of any such additional assistance?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: Return tabled.



TEXTILE IMPORTS

Mr. Brooks:: What was (a) quantity; (b) value; (c) country of origin, of textiles imported into Canada during each month from (i) January 1, 1953 to February 1, 1954; (ii) January 1, 1952 to December 31, 1952?


John Horace Dickey: Return tabled.



WHEAT OVERAGES AND SHORTAGES

Mr. Argue:: 1.	What overages or shortages of wheat were shown by each licensed elevator company operating in the prairie provinces in the crop year 1952-53?
2.	What overages or shortages of wheat were shown by each elevator company in its terminal operations at Fort William-Port Arthur and Vancouver?
3.	On what basis did the wheat board pay for any overages it purchased: (a) country elevator operations; (b) terminal elevator operations?

4.	What was the value of any overages paid to Her Majesty, under section 140, Canada Grain Act: (a) on country elevator operations; (b) on terminal elevator operations?


John Horace Dickey: Return tabled.



COUNTRY ELEVATOR LICENCES SUSPENDED

Mr. Argue:: 1.	In how many instances, if any, did the board of grain commissioners suspend the licence of a country elevator during 1953?
2.	What was the name of the elevator company and the marketing point in each instance?
3.	What was the reason for each such suspension?
4.	What was the period of each suspension?


John Horace Dickey: Return tabled.



TELEVISION SETS AND PARTS

Mr. Hansell:: 1.	How many TV sets were sold in Canada during 1953?
2.	What was the total sales price of TV sales in 1953?
3.	What was the total tax received from the sale of TV sets in 1953?
4.	What was the total tax received on TV parts in 1953?



RATES FOR CARRIAGE OF MAIL

Mr. White (Middlesex East):: 1.	What are the rates per mile paid by the post office on 15', 30', 60' and 75' railway mail cars from Toronto to Windsor?
2.	What rate per unit does the post office pay for 74 bags of mail from Toronto to Windsor?
3.	What is the rate per mile on 3 ft., 6 ft., 9 ft., 12 ft., 15 ft., 18 ft., 21 ft., 24 ft., 27 ft. and 30 ft. units?
4.	How many times, if any, since 1940 have the railway rates on transportation of railway mail cars been increased?
5.	On what dates were these increases made?
6.	What was the amount of the increase on each occasion?



HOSPITALIZATION AND MEDICAL CARE

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many persons in Canada, by provinces, are
enrolled in plans that provide for the cost of hospitalization, in whole or in part, in each of the following categories:	(a) provincially-operated
plans; (b) voluntary plans of the Blue Cross type; (c) company plans; (d) insurance company plans;
(e)	civil service or other public service plans; (f) others?
2.	What is the average extent of coverage in respect of benefits provided by provinces and/or by categories, afforded those enrolled as set out in question (1)?
3.	What is the total cost per year, by provinces and/or categories, in premiums paid by those enrolled as set out in question (1)?
4.	What is the total amount paid per year, by provinces and/or by categories, for hospitalization incurred by those enrolled as set out in question (1)?
5.	How many persons in Canada, by provinces, are enrolled in plans that provide for the cost of medical care, in whole or in part, in each of the following categories: (a) provincially-operated plans; (b) voluntary medical plans of the prepaid type; (c) company plans; (d) insurance company plans; (e) civil service or other public service plans; (f) others?
Orders for Returns
6.	What is the average extent of coverage in respect of benefits provided, by provinces and/or by categories, afforded those enrolled as set out in question (5)?
7.	What is the total cost per year, by provinces and/or by categories, in premiums paid by those enrolled as set out in question (5)?
8.	What is the total amount paid per year, by provinces and/or by categories, for medical care for those enrolled as set out in question (5)?
9.	Is there any duplication of persons in the answers to questions (1) and (5)? If so, what is the net total number of persons in Canada, by provinces and by categories, enrolled in such plans?
10.	For the latest year for which figures are available, what total amount have the persons enrolled as set out in question (1) had to pay for hospitalization over and above the amount paid for them by the plans in which they are enrolled?
11.	For the latest year for which figures are available, what total amount have the persons enrolled as set out in question (5) had to pay for medical care over and above the amount paid for them in which they are enrolled?
12.	For the latest year for which figures are available, what is the total annual cost to Canadians for hospitalization, including all sums paid (a) by patients, (b) by hospitalization plans, and (c) by public funds?
13.	For the latest year for which figures are available, what is the total annual cost to Canadians for medical care, including all sums paid (a) by patients, (b) by medical plans, and (c) by public funds?
14.	For the latest year for which figures are available, what is the total annual cost to Canadians for (a) dental care and dentures; (b) optical care and eye-glasses; (c) nursing care; (d) any other health costs not included in questions (12) and (13) or in parts (a), (b) and (c) of this question, including all sums paid (i) by patients, (ii) by group plans, and (iii) by public funds?



NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What is the current estimate as to the annual cost of a nation-wide program of health insurance along the lines of the federal government's proposals of 1945?
2.	Is the Department of National Health and Welfare now ready with material and information on the basis of which a nation-wide program of health insurance could be established?
3.	Is the Department of National Health and Welfare in possession of information on health insurance programs in effect in other countries? If so, for what countries is such information now on hand? Is this information available to members of parliament?
4.	Have there been consultations with the provinces concerning a program of health insurance?
5.	Have any of the provinces indicated their readiness to proceed with a health insurance program on a federal-provincial basis? If so, which provinces?
6.	Has the federal government indicated to any of such provinces the basis on which a health insurance plan could be established so that its provisions would apply in those provinces agreeing thereto?
7.	If so, what is such basis?
8.	Has the draft bill, cited as the National Health Act, which was laid before the House of Commons, on July 29, 1944, been revised to conform to the federal government's health insurance proposals of 1945? If not, has an alternative bill, setting out provisions for health insurance, been drafted? What are the terms of such a draft bill?

Motions for Papers



VETERANS ALLOWANCES COSTS, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

Thomas Joseph Kickham: How much money was spent by the federal government in the province of Prince Edward Island since 1946 in connection with pensions and all other allowances to veterans and their dependents, including administration costs, such as salaries and rentals for both D.V.A. and V.L.A. offices?



NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	What persons, organizations and/or periodicals, if any, have made representations to the government for an amendment to the Post Office Act to permit a newspaper or periodical to be posted in some other postal area than the one in which it is published and still get the benefit of the reduced rates of postage accorded to newspapers and periodicals?
2.	On what dates were such representations made,
(a)	by letter or other means of correspondence;
(b)	by personal calls on cabinet ministers individually or collectively?
3.	What replies were made to such representations?
4.	Have any persons or organizations made representations to the government in opposition to such an amendment?
5.	H so, what are the names of such persons and organizations, and on what dates were such representations made?
6.	What replies were made to such representations?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Nowlan:: For a copy of all payrolls for work, labour and services performed, as well as a copy of all accounts and vouchers for goods and material used or supplied in connection with repairs, additions or construction of the government wharf or wharves at Parkers Cove, Annapolis county, Nova Scotia, during the calendar years 1952 and 1953.



HALLS HARBOUR, N.S.  WHARF

George Clyde Nowlan: For a copy of all payrolls for work, labour and services performed, as well as a copy of all accounts and vouchers for goods and material used or supplied in connection with repairs, additions or construction of the government wharf or wharves at Halls Harbour, Kings county, Nova Scotia, during the calendar years 1952 and 1953.



HARBOURVILLE, N.S.-WHARF

George Clyde Nowlan: For a copy of all payrolls for work, labour and services performed, as well as a copy of all accounts and vouchers for goods and material used or supplied in connection with repairs, additions or construction of the government wharf or wharves at Harbourville, Kings county, Nova Scotia, during the calendar years 1952 and 1953.



SCOTTS BAY, N.S.-WHARF

George Clyde Nowlan: For a copy of all payrolls for work, labour and services performed, as well as a copy of all accounts and vouchers for goods and material used or

supplied in connection with repairs, additions or construction of the government wharf or wharves at Scotts Bay, Kings county, Nova Scotia, during the calendar years 1952 and 1953.



BRITISH EMPIRE GAMES


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


James Joseph McCann: I would ask the hon. gentleman whether he would let this motion stand for a day or so, and I shall take it up with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the attention of the Acting Prime Minister been drawn to a report today over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), when speaking in the United States yesterday, pledged Canada's help to the United States in the event of war and used these words:
We range ourselves on the side of freedom, under the leadership of the United States of America.
If the Acting Prime Minister has had this drawn to his attention, will he inform the house whether it represents a new declaration of policy by the government?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Acting Prime Minister):: I have not seen the dispatch nor have I seen the Secretary of State for External Affairs for a few days. Perhaps my hon. friend would let the question stand as notice until I can consult with the Secretary of State for External Affairs.



OPPOSITION BY INDIA TO UNITED STATES SUPPLYING ARMS TO PAKISTAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['No, not for the\ngovernment. Looking over the debates of the House of Commons of about 20 years ago, I came across precisely the same sort of debate we are having today, on the subject of unemployment, by way of an amendment to the motion to go into supply. I find that almost the same kind of thing was being said then as we have heard today.\nFor instance, at page 1275 of Hansard for April 4, 1930, I find a speech by my old friend Henry Spencer, in which he speaks of the unemployment situation and points out that at that time the number of unemployed in Canada stood, in round figures, at 100,000. That interested me, because at that time it was quite obvious that members of the house on all sides were taking the unemployment situation extremely seriously. Yet here we had a figure of 100,000 out of an admittedly lower population of about 10 million. That is, there was only a fifth of the number of\nProposed Committee on Unemployment unemployed we have today, at a time when the population was two-thirds of today\'s population.\nNow, of course not all people at that time took the same serious view of the matter that Mr. Henry Spencer did. We had another gentleman who was, need I say, a government supporter of the day, a member of the Liberal party in 1930, and he had this to say in part, as reported at page 1347 of Hansard for April 7, 1930:\nDuring the summer season of 1929 this country enjoyed the greatest era of prosperity that it had known since confederation. Never in the history of this nation have we enjoyed greater prosperity, greater development and greater contentment, and nowhere else in the world could a labouring class be found who enjoyed a higher standard of living than did the people of Canada during the year 1929.\nMr. Speaker, one might almost have imagined that the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) was speaking. Yes; and then, as my Conservative friend says, "came the deluge". But the deluge was in the form of a Conservative government, which arrived in 1930. In Hansard for 1931 we have the report of speeches made at that time, in which the prime minister of the day is quoted as having said this, as reported at page 465:\nI tell you that when parliament meets, if there is not then evident further increase in employment, additional steps will be taken to meet the situation.\nAnd the hon. member who quoted him said this:\nI believe, Mr. Speaker, we have a right to know what those additional steps are to be.\nAgain that is curiously reminiscent. I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to a more recent Hansard, as recent as February 12 of this year. At page 2026 we find a statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in answer to a question regarding the fiscal and monetary measures which, according to the Acting Prime Minister, this government is now implementing to prevent a rise in the level of unemployment. I find in it very much the same sort of vague assurance that the people of Canada were receiving from their spokesmen in 1930 and 1931.\nI suggest that it is time the government began to take a little serious interest in the actual state of affairs in Canada, that they should take their heads out of the sand, that they should, for instance, perhaps listen to the voice of the executive commission of the Canadian association of social workers whose corresponding secretary had a letter in the Toronto Globe and Mail this morning, from which I should like to quote a few rather striking sentences:\nLast year, after most careful study by the Canadian Welfare Council and its membership across\n2344\tHOUSE OF\nProposed Committee on Unemployment\nCanada, representations were made to the government at Ottawa and to all provincial governments regarding the urgent necessity of having some over-all and permanent provision made to meet the situation and avoid the destitution and disruption of normal family living which today faces many families through no fault of their own. As far as can be observed, nothing has been done to make effective the recommendations made in this report or to evolve any satisfactory alternatives. Unemployment of able-bodied employable people who need and want work is a national problem which strikes at the very roots of family life and causes untold suffering.\nThere is more in the same vein, Mr. Speaker, which indicates that people whose daily work brings them into close contact with the unemployed are viewing the situation today with a great deal more gravity than our spokesmen on the government benches are doing.\nIt may be that such champions of free enterprise as the government of Canada will pay more attention to such sturdy enterprises as Messrs. Dun and Bradstreet rather than to the presumably soft-hearted and sentimental social workers. Messrs. Dun and Bradstreet have some rather shattering information for us too, as published in the Financial Post of February 13 of this year, where they report the number of business failures in the years 1952 and 1953. They tell us that in 1952 we had 843 business failures; in 1953, 1,039, an increase of 23 per cent. But worse than that, the number of business failures in the last quarter of 1952 were 192. In the last quarter of 1953 there were 317 failures, an increase of 65 per cent.', "The liabilities of those failing concerns presented an even more serious picture. In 1952 the total liabilities of business failures amounted to $21,823,000. In 1953 the liabilities amounted to $30,704,000, an increase of 40 per cent. But here again we find that the final quarters of each year present an even more depressing picture. In the last quarter of 1952 the liabilities of business failures amounted to $4,605,000; whereas in the last quarter of 1953 the liabilities amounted to $10,325,000, an increase of 125 per cent.\nSince it is ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move the adjournment of the debate.\nOn motion of Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo) the debate was adjourned."]
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: I
should like to inquire whether or not radio and newspaper reports are correct that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will deal with India's opposition to reported plans of the United States to supply arms to Pakistan.

Inquiries of the Ministry
In view of remarks also attributed to the	INTERNATIONAL LABOUR
Prime Minister in Pakistan, will the gov-	ORGANIZATION
ernment inform the house of its policy about a matter which is causing concern to friends appointment of harold c. banks as of both India and Pakistan?	Canadian representative
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Acting Prime
Minister): I have not been in communication with the Prime Minister for a few days. I have no information as to what was said, but I take it from the dispatch that he talked of Canada's aid to Pakistan and not of the United States' aid to Pakistan. I would think that I would have to be convinced by the Prime Minister himself that he did that.


Major James William Coldwell: Newspaper reports definitely mentioned the United States.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Sometimes the newspapers get a little confused.


Major James William Coldwell: Will the Acting Prime
Minister inquire and let us know about it?



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs which has to do with the convening of the conference in Geneva in connection with the Korean and Indo-China situation. Was Canada consulted prior to the decision to hold this conference and did Canada agree to the absence of representatives of the Formosan government and to the inclusion of representatives of red China?


Brooke Claxton: I have not
received notice of this question, but subject to further inquiry I can tell my hon. friend that we did not receive advance information about this but we were informed on February 19 of the result, at the same time as the other nations participating in action in Korea were informed. This took place at a conference at Washington at which the situation was examined. It was felt that the agreement was satisfactory and in line with the United Nations resolution adopted last year. My impression is that the Chinese government would be represented there, but I am not sure and was not informed at the same time.


John George Diefenbaker: You mean the Formosan government?


Brooke Claxton: Yes. Further, I can say that it is understood that Canada would be afforded an opportunity to attend the meeting at Geneva as one of the sixteen participating nations.
On the orders of the day:


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Will the minister explain why, in appointing a Canadian representative to attend the proceedings now being held at Geneva under the auspices of the international labour organization, the government saw fit to appoint Harold C. Banks, who is a citizen of the United States and who has a record of court convictions in Canada and in the United States?


Hon. Milfon F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: In this case, as in others where labour representatives are required, the recommendations of the national organization were passed on to the I.L.O.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I ask a supplementary question? Do I understand that this appointment is made not by the Canadian government but by I.L.O., when the delegate is representing the Canadian government?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The Canadian Minister of Labour concurs with and transmits the recommendation of the national organization required to provide a delegate to I.L.O., so that in that sense the appointment is made by the Minister of Labour.


George Alexander Drew: I should like to ask a supplementary question. In such transmission does the Minister of Labour not express his own judgment as to the advisability of the choice that has been made, or make any inquiry as to the suitability of the person being sent?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The Minister of Labour has the right to make inquiries, and inquiries were made in this case, and it was confirmed that it was the desire of the national organization who made the nomination that this should be their nominee.


George Alexander Drew: Another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the Minister of Labour in this case take cognizance of the representations that had been made in regard to the unsuitability of this man, and did he obtain information from the Department of Justice in regard to the record of this man that was placed before the Department of Labour? Is the minister not prepared to answer whether he did exercise his judgment in this case?
2302	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Milton Fowler Gregg: In response to the question as to whether I conferred with my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson), on the appointment, the answer is no.


George Alexander Drew: No, Mr. Speaker; the question was perfectly clear. Did the Minister of Labour exercise his judgment in this case, which he says he had a right to do, to determine that this was a suitable man to send as the Canadian representative on this occasion?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I exercised my own judgment.


SUGAR BEETS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. B. Huffman (Kent, Onl.):: I should like to direct questions to the Minister of Finance, arising from a statement by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) when speaking in St. Thomas and reported in the London Free Press on February 19, referring to taxes on sugar beets? My questions are: Is there any tax on sugar beets? Has there ever been a tax on sugar beets?


Douglas Charles Abbott: There has never been a tax on sugar beets so far as I am aware. In 1933 my predecessor, Mr. Rhodes, recommended a tax on sugar and that tax was finally repealed in 1947.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that the C.N.R. drydock at Prince Rupert has been listed for sale and, in any event, will be closed in March, thereby injuring both the fishing and the shipping industries of British Columbia?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I made a statement on that matter last week, but since then there has been a change. Perhaps I should advise the house that the change came about because of representations made to myself and to certain of my colleagues of the government by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite), and the fact that he brought a delegation from Prince Rupert in the riding of Skeena.
The change is that the Canadian National Railways have now agreed to postpone the sale for a period of six months in the hope that a purchaser may be found and also with
TMr. Drew.)

the expectation that those keenly interested in the fishing industry in that area may be able to find someone who would be a satisfactory purchaser either of the whole drydock or of a portion thereof.


CUSTOMS TARIFF
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Was the decision of the deputy minister respecting mixed fruits, to which reference was made a few minutes ago, made on his own initiative or after instructions from any member of the cabinet?


James Joseph McCann: The decision made by the deputy minister was made after consultation with the minister.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to whom I sent notice this morning with a copy of a telegram in which the grain workers' union of Vancouver say that coastal wheat terminals are operating at only 70 per cent of capacity.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member must not read from a telegram. Will he now put his question.


Harold Edward Winch: I am not reading from a telegram. Can the minister comment on the statement of the trade union in Vancouver that the facilities on the coast are operating at only 70 per cent capacity, and their fear that this is going to cause unemployment, in view of the statement made by the minister the other day on grain prices?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My comment would be that more grain is being shipped from Vancouver today than ever before in history. It is the opinion of competent grain men, including my own officers, that the port is working practically at capacity. If there is unemployment at this level of operation in Vancouver, I am unable to understand how that unemployment could arise.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF REDUCED PRICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. For the purpose of clarifying the effect of the reduced price at which wheat is being offered at the lakehead, so far as domestic purchases are concerned, would the Acting Prime Minister state whether or not this price reduction will be borne by the producers of wheat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The wheat board is the agency of the producers charged with the marketing of wheat on account of the producers. The board is authorized to use its best judgment as to the prices and other factors affecting the sale of wheat. The gross receipts will be divided among all the producers and the amount returned to the producers will be the recovery made by the board from the sale of that wheat.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the result of this reduction at the lakehead mean a lower over-all return to the producers?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Lower than what? I suppose if the board was not able to sell wheat at all the return would be lower. It would certainly be later anyway. As I say, the sales are made by the wheat board on account of the producers with the board using its best judgment as to the basis of the sales. Perhaps my hon. friend can sit back quietly and answer his own question.
[L ater:l


PRICE EQUALIZATION POLICY AT FORT WILLIAM, PORT ARTHUR AND VANCOUVER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question arising out of the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch). Is it the intention that the setting of different prices for wheat at Fort William and Port Arthur and at Vancouver is to be a permanent policy or is it merely to meet a temporary situation?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In announcing the policy on Thursday last, I said it was a policy of the day. I announced the prices of that day and I said that tomorrow they might be different. The purpose of the policy is to equalize delivered prices from the two ports as far as shipments to England and the continent are concerned. We have had for two 83276-1474
Inquiries of the Ministry or three months a rather absurd situation in that grain destined for the United Kingdom is hauled west from Saskatchewan to Vancouver, then from Vancouver through the Panama canal to England, whereas logical pricing would make it possible to move that grain through eastern ports at a price that would equalize with west coast shipments at the destination. The purpose was to equalize prices at destination, and that will be the purpose in the future. As navigation opens and the St. Lawrence comes into use the price differential will of course be reduced.


Howard Charles Green: Then in future prices are to be dropped at Vancouver over other points if the quantity of grain going through there does not happen to be of the right proportion?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I did not say that prices would be dropped at Vancouver; I said that prices at delivery points would be equalized.


POLIOMYELITIS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if his attention has been drawn to a news item entitled "School Test for Polio Vaccine" which appeared in the New York Times of Monday, February 15, 1954, wherein Dr. Van Riper indicated that the vaccine trials in the United States scheduled to begin February 8 will be delayed owing to a shortage of vaccine? Will the minister comment on the situation and state whether or not production of virus at the Connaught laboratories has in any way delayed this program?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I should think that this is the kind of question that could easily go on the order paper, but lest there be any suggestion that this is a matter of great urgency may I say that I did see this article and if there is delay in the testing that delay is as a result of operations outside this country. I visited the Connaught laboratories on Monday last and the production of virus is going on according to plan.


INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF RUSSIAN TRADE REPRESENTATIVES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and in his absence perhaps the
2304	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Acting Prime Minister will undertake to answer. Has the government any information concerning the appointment of U.S.S.R. trade representatives to Canada? In the event of such appointments has the government any announcement to make that such ostensible trade representatives may not be used as espionage agents?


Right Hon.  C. D. Kowe@Minister of Trade and Commerce: Mr. Speaker, the officers of my department have been advised that the U.S.S.R. are sending trade representatives here. We have trade representatives from most countries in the world here in Ottawa and we are prepared to assume that this is a bona fide trade appointment. We have no reason to assume otherwise.


PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if it is his intention to recommend to the house amendments to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act along the lines requested by the government of Manitoba.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I think the request made by the government of Manitoba was made last November. There have been considerable discussions since and it has been determined here that any decisions which could have been made under an amendment to the act with regard to applications made by the province of Manitoba have been made already to the satisfaction of most farmers, in so far as we could give satisfaction under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: May I ask a supplementary question. Were the changes referred to by the minister made in the regulations or were they made by order in council?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, no changes were made in the regulations. The administration of the regulations is under a committee of three which meets from time to time and considers any objections that are taken by farmers as to the treatment they receive under the act and regulations. In considering the objections that were taken by farmers in the Dauphin area the committee made decisions which I understand were as near to the satisfaction of the farmers in the area as anything that could be made under any amendments which could have been made without changing the principle of the act itself.


DUMPING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. The Toronto Daily Star of February 18 contains an article under the headline "Ruling Bars U. S. Bargain Refrigerators." This article refers to a ruling by the minister's department based on a recent amendment to the Customs Act. Would the minister please advise to what particular products this amendment to the Customs Act has so far been applied in order to reduce imports, either by the creation of a mass of red tape or by increasing the percentage rate of the import duty?


James Joseph McCann: That is a rather detailed question and I shall take it as notice and give an answer later.


SALARIES ACT
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. St. Laurent for the second reading of Bill No. 172, to amend the Salaries Act.
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether, in proposing this legislation, the members of the cabinet appreciate what their colleagues, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), are going to do to them as a result of this increase. It is apparent that the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) has not yet realized the position because, speaking on Friday last, he said, as reported at page 2250 of Hansard:
Assuming that a minister is a married man with two dependent children, which may be flattering to some of my colleagues, his tax deduction today would be $3,700.
That may have been correct a week ago, but it was not correct on Friday when the Acting Prime Minister spoke.
According to my calculations, a married man with two dependent children, with no other income, would be liable to a tax of $5,375. I hope the Acting Prime Minister will check his figures. I am sure he has no one from the Department of National Revenue or his own bureau of statistics working out his income tax return, because there is a considerable difference between $5,375 and the figure the Acting Prime Minister

gave on Friday of $3,700. There is a difference, in fact, of $1,675, and the tax on the new amount will be $2,250. I am not suggesting that these are not sizeable amounts, but I have paid some attention to instructions regarding relevancy since Friday, Mr. Speaker, and if one gives consideration to the relevant amount the' present position is this.
A member of the cabinet who has no other income receives a salary on the present basis of $20,000, less $5,375 tax, which would leave $14,625, plus a car allowance of $2,000, which is not taxable, and he would have a total amount of $16,625, or $1,385 per month.
In all seriousness I want to suggest that when one is in a position of obtaining $1,385 per month one should ask oneself whether it is worth it to meet the criticism one must meet in order to receive an extra $230 per month.
I will concede that I do not know a member of the cabinet who would not be in a better position today than he is now if he had never entered public life; but a number of years ago, I am sure for very good reasons, the members of this cabinet decided to enter public life and I for one cannot express a great deal of sympathy for those who have missed making a great fortune.
In fact, I believe some of the unhappiest people I have ever known during my lifetime have been people who made the mistake of trying to accumulate money, and with few exceptions, whether they made a lot or very little money, they missed a great deal in life.
Even if the members of the cabinet were able to save every cent of this increase for ten years it would amount to only $27,500. Again I am not suggesting that is not a considerable sum, but it is a very small amount compared with the fantastic fortunes that have been made by some people in Canadian history.
There was the case of the member of the other place who died recently. In one report I saw his estate valued at $1,750,000 and in another it was estimated at $1,200,000. It takes a long time to save that amount of money even if one saved the entire indemnity of a senator, previous to the last increase. If a senator did not spend one cent of that $6,000, it would take 200 years saving that amount per year to accumulate $1,200,000.
I therefore suggest it is too late now for the members of the cabinet to feel sorry for themselves and to wonder what their position might have been if they had stayed
Salaries Act
out of public life and devoted their time to practising law or pursuing a business career or doing anything else that might enable them to accumulate a sizeable fortune.
It has been demonstrated in Canadian history that a cabinet can so organize the affairs of the country that we can plan our production and consumption with unemployment and a low standard of living, or full employment and a high standard of living. If the cabinet will so organize our affairs that we can have a high level of employment and a rising standard of living, then they will have no need to worry about the future.
If, on the other hand, our economy cannot be organized so we can have full employment and a high standard of living, then I submit that for them to try to put themselves in a preferred position is folly. I suggest it must be very difficult to explain how one cannot get along on $1,385 per month but that an additional $230 or a total of $1,615 per month after payment of tax would be adequate.
I wish to add before I conclude that I have a very high personal regard for the members of the cabinet. I have never thought that, because I am in opposition, my constituents have suffered. I feel sure that in spite of these critical remarks the views I express will not be held against my constituents when I have occasion to consult members of the cabinet in connection with various problems.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I want to go on record, along with other hon. members, as opposing the bill now before the house for increasing by $5,000 a year the salaries of members of the cabinet. I also want to associate myself with those who have emphasized that their remarks were in no way directed against the persons who compose the present Canadian cabinet.
My opposition to this bill is based on my belief that this bill would not be in the best interests of the people of Canada if it were passed by parliament at this time. I believe hon. members should bear in mind, and I believe the cabinet should also remember this, that they are now assured of an increase in salary amounting to $4,000 a year because of the fact that they are members of parliament. Members of the cabinet will now receive a salary of $22,000 per year instead of $18,000 per year which prevailed when this parliament began.
I believe $22,000 a year is sufficient for a cabinet minister and in keeping with our concept of democracy and the present economic prospects for the rest of the people of this country. I can think of occasions when

Salaries Act
an increase in the salaries of cabinet ministers would be absolutely necessary. I believe such an increase would be necessary if we had gone through a period of violent inflation which had made the purchasing power of salaries so low that an increase became absolutely necessary. It is true that we have gone through a period of inflation. However, I believe the result of that inflation has been overcome, as far as the cabinet is concerned, to a considerable extent by the increase that has already been placed in effect. I would think, too, that it would be quite in order for the government to move an increase in cabinet ministers' salaries in keeping with general increases in the economic standard of living of the people of Canada. But it seems to me that at the present time the prospects for the average Canadian are perhaps for a lowering of the standard of living rather than for an increase in it.


An hon. Member:: It has never been better.


Hazen Robert Argue: Certainly the most optimistic prediction I have heard from any minister of the government is that the rate of improvement in our standard of living is likely to be less in the future than it has been in the recent past. I say that if the vast majority of Canadians could look forward to a continuing increase in the standard of living over the next few years, then perhaps a move like this one might be justified.
Just previous to the present debate we had a debate on unemployment. The business for the house today is, first, the measure we are now discussing, to be followed by a debate on unemployment. I cannot see any consistency in the proposal now advanced to increase the salaries of members of the government and I cannot understand how their arguments for an increase can be justified if they are to be followed in a few moments perhaps by the very opposite arguments against doing something immediate about unemployment. In other words, when unemployed workers come to the House of Commons and to parliament they are met by ministers of the government saying to them, "Your wages have gone up by a tremendous rate; you are helping to price yourselves out of the market; the best thing you can do is to change employment", and then the next time saying, "We need an increase in cabinet ministers' salaries".


Mr. Fulton:: Is the hon. member suggesting a change of employment on the opposite side of the house?


Hazen Robert Argue: That change might follow. I do not know. The public decided a year ago

that there should be no change in employment. Of course, I think the public came to their conclusion without the benefit of any advance knowledge of the bill now under discussion. Nevertheless, the country decided the political party that should form the government, and that political party will continue in office during this parliament. I do not know who is the author of the note that was just handed to me, but it says "They will price themselves out of the market". I do not know just what that means but at any rate it sounds like something I could support. To suggest an increase of $9,000 a year, made up of $4,000 increase as a member of parliament and $5,000 as a cabinet minister, is advancing a proposition that, at this stage in our economic development, is fantastic. People working in the farm implement industry have been told that their wages are too high in relation to the competitive position of the country. They have been told that $2.14 an hour for the members of that industry is a wage that has resulted in pricing themselves out of the market. A wage of $2.14 an hour in that industry means an income of $60 a week or $3,000 a year. This bill when enacted-if it is enacted-will result in a total increase of $9,000 a year; in other words, the amount of that increase is three times as much as the income of these individuals who were told, not so long ago, that their wages were at a point where they were pricing themselves out of the market.
I may not be the brightest student of economics but I cannot understand how one moment you can say to workers that $2.14 an hour is such a high wage that you are pricing yourselves out of the market and then come to parliament with a bill such as the one we have before us this afternoon.
The net income of farmers went down last year and the year before, 1952. The forecasts are that farm income in 1954 will go down. The forecasts are that the cost of living will level out or will go down. I for one believe that the present rate of pay, without this measure, to members of the government is sufficient. In a democracy such as ours I believe that members of the government-yes, members of parliament- should be paid an income in keeping with their responsibilities, if you like, one that will give them and their families, while they are carrying on in public life, an amount sufficient to remove severe financial worries. I imagine that it would be rather difficult to give your undivided attention to the needs of the country if you are compelled to consider your own economic situation and if you are faced with a good deal of worry

on that account. However, it seems to me that if this bill were turned down, the present state of affairs would give the cabinet ministers a reasonable remuneration.
I suppose that the personnel of the cabinet are like the personnel in the House of Commons, or in the C.C.F. group or that you may meet in any walk of life. You have the kind of people you have in a school class. You have good students, fair students and below average students. I suppose that in the cabinet there are cabinet ministers-I do not know which ones they are-who have not quite so much ability as have certain other cabinet ministers. But the cabinet ministers whom I see in the front row of the government benches this afternoon in this house could go out of parliament, I am sure, and earn far more than they will get even with the passage of this measure.


Mr. Hodgson:: Not all of them.


Hazen Robert Argue: I said "those in the front row". I was being careful. I think I could perhaps even move into the second row and include the cabinet ministers that I .see in their seats there this afternoon. As I say, I do not know which ones you would put ahead of which other members of the cabinet, but I am sure that a great many of the cabinet ministers could in private life earn far more than they will get from the passage of this measure. So whether this bill is passed or not, it will not bring the same financial remuneration that they would have if they had not come into public service. I know that the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe)-and this is well known-could have continued to make far more in his private business than he could representing the country. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) came from a very responsible position, the premier of a province, into the cabinet. I believe that the members of the cabinet, yes members of parliament generally, come to parliament hoping that they will be able to render a public service by accepting such a position.
I do not really believe this increase will get better cabinet ministers. I do not believe it will result in getting cabinet ministers of any lesser ability than we now have. I do not believe people join a political party, run for office as members of parliament, and are accepted into the cabinet because of the pay that is involved. Rather, I think they accept those responsibilities in the hope that they will be rendering a service to their country. I feel that the remuneration now provided, without this measure, is in keeping with the responsibilities and the dignity of the position that they now have.
Salaries Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) speaks now, he will close the debate.


Clarence Decatur Howe: 
Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister if he is not wrong in that statement? He said the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister received the same salary.


Clarence Decatur Howe: At the moment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: But they do not receive the same perquisites.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They get a free house and free travel.


Howard Charles Green: No, not from the taxpayers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What rent does the Leader of the Opposition pay?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I know the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) would not want to leave a wrong impression in the country. The taxpayers do not provide the Leader of the Opposition with a house.

Salaries Act


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is provided by friends of the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Macdonnell:: We are talking about taxpayers.


Clarence Decatur Howe: They both get free houses, except that the Prime Minister chooses to pay $5,000 a year rent for his house. However, I am simply pointing out that I think the Leader of the Opposition would be the first to agree that the Prime Minister carries responsibilities in this country which do not fall upon the shoulders of the Leader of the Opposition. In the absence of the Leader of the Opposition I think I can say fairly that he would not be happy to have the present position maintained.
I see the Leader of the Opposition is now entering the chamber, so I shall repeat my statement and he can object if he wishes. I was pointing out the British scale of salaries, and I was saying that I did not think the Leader of the Opposition would be too happy if we adopted the pattern that is used there. I said also I did not think he would be too happy about the situation that obtains at the moment, when the salaries and the perquisites of the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition are exactly the same. I think I am correct in that.


George Alexander Drew: Perhaps since this has been directed to me I might point out that that is only an accident of circumstances. The reason the leader of the opposition is receiving the same as the Prime Minister is that it happens that the leader of the opposition in Westminster was prime minister and is receiving-


Douglas Charles Abbott: No, in Canada.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with that, because the Acting Prime Minister obviously has not read the measure.


Douglas Charles Abbott: The measure is not through yet. You are opposing it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some of us know the circumstances upon which the Acting Prime Minister is basing that statement. He makes it clear when he says "at the moment" that he is referring to the fact that the bill amending the Senate and House of Commons Act was given royal assent last Tuesday. Since that date the salary of the Leader of the Opposition has been raised to the salary the Prime Minister is receiving until this bill is passed. It is only an accident in the timing of these bills that enables him to make that statement, and I suggest that the minister should admit he is having a bit of fun at the expense of the Leader of the Opposition.
(Mr. Fulton.]


Clarence Decatur Howe: My statement is correct, at the moment.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: The Acting Prime Minister is leaving a wrong inference there, which I feel he ought to clarify.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It has been said by several speakers that the glory of being a cabinet minister should be compensation enough; the salary should not matter. Perhaps it is enough for the head of the family; but is it enough for his wife and children? After all, most members of this cabinet are spending the most productive years of their lives in the service of the crown, years when I think all of them could be making provision not only for their old age but for the future and education of their family. I know from my experience in the cabinet over the years that the salaries are not sufficient in themselves to permit suitable provision for their wives and children.
People may think it is rather embarrassing for me to stand here and plead for a raise in pay for myself. I may say that this is not a movement by the cabinet as a whole. It is a movement by three or four older members of the cabinet who are not particularly concerned about their own salary, and who no longer have dependents. They are trying to right an injustice which has been allowed to continue far too long.
This is the fourth time since confederation that the salaries of cabinet ministers have been increased. They are not increased often. The period which has elapsed since the last increase is the longest by far of any of the periods during which cabinet ministers' salaries have been unchanged. The present salaries were fixed in 1920. When any changes have been made in the past, the increase has been about 50 per cent, and we are following that pattern once again. Does anyone know of any class of salaries that have not been increased by 50 per cent since 1920? I do not know of any class of salaries that have not. I believe that in fixing the rate of increase we have not only followed the pattern, but have made a reasonable adjustment of the salary scales referred to in the bill.
Mr. Bennett was discussing these very same salaries I am discussing today when he spoke back in 1931; and that was a year, as my hon. friends from Saskatchewan will know, when wheat was selling at 20 cents a bushel on the farms. This was what Mr. Bennett had to say, as it appears at page 4507 of Hansard for that year:
But it is unfair to ask men to leave their homes and their professions, in many instances their future, and come to the city of Ottawa and live

here, maintaining that position which they are bound to maintain by virtue of their office, and then find themselves, at the end of a term of office, hopelessly bankrupt. That has happened in this city. It has happened during the last few years that one of the leading ministers of the crown found himself in that position, and when he departed this life his estate indicated that that was so.
Men in politics should not be compelled to rely upon the benefaction of friends or otherwise, so far as the duty they owe the state is concerned; and when men serve Cans da for the miserable pittance they get, as compared with what they would receive if they were practising their professions-they would get twice as much-to say that they should come here and find themselves, after a term of office, with their little savings gone, with their families on the threshold of life, without much opportunity to get an education because of the cost, and then to expect them to maintain the dignity of their office, entertaining, dispensing hospitality, treating visitors as they should treat them, moving to and fro, from one place to another, maintaining ears, I do not believe that anybody would suggest that this is at all reasonable.
Mr. Bennett, speaking in 1931, was talking about present-day cabinet ministers' salaries. As I say, I think the comment that other systems should be reviewed is hardly one that would lead hon. members to vote against this measure.
I was very interested in what was said by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Mac-donnell), who said that he does not know enough about the salaries position to be able to vote for the bill, and that therefore he would vote against it. I would point out that the hon. member for many years was general manager of one of the greatest trust companies in the country, a company with branches from coast to coast; and I think if anyone should know about salaries, the hon. member for Greenwood should be that man-and about pensions, as well.
I hope the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) will not vote against the measure for the reason he is not sure we are not paying cabinet ministers too much. In his idle moments he can go out, after he has performed his duties as a member of parliament, and, as the head of one of the great pulp and paper companies in the country, draw a salary three or four times as great as the salaries we are discussing here.
I could pass along the same thought to several other members in the house. I see the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Nickle) in his seat. I hope he is not going to say that he will vote against the measure because he thinks no man can earn that much money. I could even find a member in the C.C.F. party who should not be appalled at the scale of salary indicated in the measure. I think he knows something about salaries as large as that, and that he has also earned as large a salary in his idle moments, after completing his duties here in the house.
Salaries Act
However, I do not know that we want to pursue that point any farther. I was interested in the reason given by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for not supporting the measure. He said he could not support it because he does not think the car allowance provision is legal. All we know about the car allowance legislation-and he tells us it was drafted by the present Auditor General-is that it was sponsored in the house by the then prime minister of Canada, who was certainly one of the great legal authorities of his generation. It has been passed upon from time to time by law officers of the crown. And, just to make sure, in the last two or three days I referred it to the law officers of the crown, and they tell me that the provision introduced by Mr. Bennett, in 1931, is a continuing provision that will be the law of the land until it is repealed by parliament. The argument that it could be regarded as a temporary measure is one that would convince no one, except the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
It has been suggested by others that if we pass the bill it will upset the welfare legislation that we have enacted. I have heard some statements about unemployment insurance payments. I have heard it suggested that the $24 a week unemployment insurance payment, what has been described as a mere pittance, will be cut if this bill is passed. I have heard it suggested that payments to veterans will be cut, and that somehow this bill is going to affect payments to the blind. I did not hear a similar reference with regard to family allowances; I am sure hon. members must have overlooked them. Let me give an assurance that none of those benefits will be cut if this bill passes the house.
It has been suggested by the leader of the C.C.F. party that he speaks for his group in opposing the measure.


An hon. Member:: No, no.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, I was going to say that I think there is at least one hon. member sitting in that group whose feet are on the ground, and who had a down to earth view of practical problems. And I have often thought I would like to attend a C.C.F. caucus when certain measures were being discussed. I am sure I would enjoy that, but that cannot be my privilege.
I do not wish to discuss the matter further. As I say, this measure is being sponsored by three or four older members of the government. We think it is a duty we owe to our successors and to our younger colleagues who, we have reason to know, cannot carry on

Salaries Act
the very onerous duties of their positions without also having on their minds domestic financial problems that certainly should not have to be a source of worry to them.
That is my submission, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, when the Acting Prime Minister spoke a few moments ago he made two statements to which I must take exception. First he indicated that my reason for being opposed to this legislation had to do solely with the matter of the motorcar allowances. I think he will be the first to admit that when I began my remarks on Friday I indicated my opposition to the bill was in relation to its substance. I am opposed to the proposed increases. I introduced the question of the motorcar allowance as a subsidiary reason why I was opposed to the bill.
The other statement which the Acting Prime Minister made to which I must take exception was his remark that I had alleged that the paying of the motorcar allowance was illegal. Had it not been for the fact that I knew we would shortly be in committee of the whole when I would be able to deal with the point I would have raised a point of order or a question of privilege at that time. I felt that this was the easier way to do it. I would remind the Acting Prime Minister that when I discussed this question of the motorcar allowance on Friday, February 19, I said, as reported on page 2259 of Hansard:
I am not alleging that the paying out of this money is illegal.
I made that quite clear on Friday, as I have done on previous occasions. I then went on to say:
If it were the Auditor General would have said so long ago. But I am asserting in the words of the Auditor General that although it may be proper
(Mr. Howe (Port Arthur).]

to deal with a transitory matter by means of items in the estimates, it is not fair to parliament nor to the recipients to continue year after year making payments of this kind on the basis of an item in the Appropriation Act of 1931, which was spent long ago.
I certainly do not intend to take the time of the committee in repeating the arguments which I advanced on Friday of last week, but I would remind the government that Mr. Watson Sellar, the Auditor General, made it perfectly clear that although this practice was legal it had undesirable characteristics, that it was not the proper way to make a payment which is to be made year after year and that it should be dealt with in some other manner. The Auditor General has suggested two or three times that there were other ways in which an item such as this should be handled.
Just in case you may be wondering, Mr. Chairman, and it would be a perfectly proper point for you to wonder about, how this question of motorcar allowances comes in in relation to the salaries of ministers, I would point out to you and to members of the committee generally that the bill before us is to amend the Salaries Act. That act now provides for each minister a salary of $10,000, but if you open the blue book of estimates to the first item of any department-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Look at page 152.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Page 152 is in the breakdown in the back of the book and the minister is perfectly correct in drawing attention to that. He is referring to his own department, the Department of Defence Production, but I remind the Acting Prime Minister that we do not pass the details in the back of the book; we deal with the estimates as they are ;set out in the front.
On page 12 we find the item to which the minister is now referring, "Minister of Defence Production-salary and motorcar allowance, $12,000". My point is that since the present $10,000 item in the statute becomes an item of $12,000 in the estimates we can only assume that if this bill should pass and the minister's salary becomes $15,000, in next year's blue book of estimates that $15,000 will turn up as $17,000. True it may be shown as salary and motorcar allowance, but the two will be put together in that way.
If one were to ask next year as to the basis upon which that amount is called statutory, he will no doubt be told that $15,000 of it is on the basis of the Salaries Act and the other $2,000 is on the basis of an item in the 1931 estimates. My colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, says that in other words there is no statutory authority. The authorities would argue about that point
Salaries Act
back and forth. Those who would take the government side would say that it is what is known as a continuing item. I think Mr. Watson Sellar has been very clear that r continuing item is all right for something that is transitory, but it is not all right for an item being continued across the years. The remarks of the Acting Prime Minister when he closed the debate on second reading today implied that it was going to stay there in that way for a long time to come.
As I said on Friday, when we get to clause 2 of this bill we will find that we are tidying up a matter that is parallel to this one. I shall not discuss it now because that is under another clause, but I think it is proper for me to point out that if we are tidying up a point parallel to this one, wc should be tidying up this one at the same time. I for one am disappointed that this has not been dealt with on this occasion. If it is not dealt with now when the Salaries Act is being amended the chances of it being dealt with so far as this statute is concerned become very poor.
Of course, there is one other way it could be handled. The government could pay some attention not merely to what I have said but to what the Auditor General has said and provide in next year's estimates an item for the motorcar allowance set out separately from each minister's salary, and put it in as a numbered item rather than as an "S" item, so that parliament could actually vote upon it.
I have referred to this matter a number of times and on several occasions I thought the Prime Minister appreciated the point and was interested in having matters of this kind tidied up. The last occasion on which I drew the matter to his attention was on June 29, 1951, when I related this item in a general way to other items similar to it and asked him if any progress was being made in tidying up these matters. The answer the Prime Minister gave, as reported at page 4970 of Hansard, is as follows:
Progress is being made, but we have not yet reached the end we shall have achieved when the progress has been completed.
Well, of course, that produced a laugh in the house and brought that particular exchange to an end, but I dared to hope that it signified that attention was being given to the point. I see that attention has been given to one of these matters and we are being asked to deal with it in this bill. That comes up under the next clause. But this one has not been touched. I had hoped that consideration might be given to this matter over the week end and that that consideration would result in a willingness on the part of the government to deal with it in this statute. The words of the Acting Prime Minister a few

Salaries Act
moments ago do not suggest that that has been the result of such thinking, though I still hope it might be considered.
If the government is not prepared to make this change by a change in the Salaries Act, then I ask that consideration be given to separating the motorcar allowance from the salaries in the estimates, and putting it in as an item that we can vote every year, in the same way in which we vote an item covering the extra $4,000 paid to parliamentary assistants. No one has ever suggested putting the word "annually" into that item and no one has ever tried to make it a continuing item. We vote on it every year and the same should be done with respect to the motorcar allowance.
If the situation is not to be dealt with in a more satisfactory manner than has been the case thus far, I would like to hear from the Acting Prime Minister, or the Minister of Finance, or any other member of the cabinet who wishes to answer the question, as to when and by whom the decision was made that this motorcar allowance was to be free of income tax.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, the point at issue is an interesting one. It is really a battle between legal giants. As 1 said, the statute was framed by Mr. R. B. Bennett, when he was prime minister, and it has been discussed by Mr. St. Laurent, who is also a legal authority. My hon. friend, on the basis of his legal training and experience, does not like it. I do not know that we can do much about it. We are told that this statute is a statute of Canada and it is binding until it is repealed. The purpose of this bill is not to repeal it. This is a separate piece of legislation. The hon. member asks why the allowance is tax-free. The answer is, because it was voted to cover an expenditure for a definite purpose. Before 1931, from the time when automobiles were invented, each minister of the crown had an automobile and a chauffeur at his disposal. That is still true in most of the countries I have visited. I do not think I have ever been in a country where members of the government were not furnished with motorcars and drivers. We do not have that provision here and I personally am not sorry. If we have an official visitor I can lend him my car, providing my wife is not using it and I do not require it. Otherwise he would have to travel by taxi. That is all right, but in 1931 it was not the desire to lower, if you like, the standard of government representation, and it was the intention to do away with that practice of providing automobiles and instead make an allowance which could be used for the purpose indicated.
(Mr. Knowles.]
An expenditure of that kind is, of course, when properly authorized, not taxable and that is the reason an expenditure for a definite purpose by a minister is tax free. My hon. friend will realize that even parliamentary salaries paid to members of parliament include $2,000 which is set aside as an expense account and it is not taxed. The two items are on a par. An hon. member not a member of the government receives $2,000 which is set aside for his expenses and a minister receives $2,000 which is set aside for automobile expense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On that particular point, the $2,000 expense allowance is covered by a section in the Senate and House of Commons Act. The wording there, if I recall it, is odd; at least it is odd to me, in that it is in a negative form. It does not say that the expense allowance paid to private members is tax free. On the contrary, it says that the expense allowance in the case of senators, cabinet ministers and the Leader of the Opposition is taxable; but I take it it has been resolved from that that since the other recipients of that allowance are not included in the taxable category therefore in their case it is tax free.
I am getting some free legal advice from a very good lawyer here who tells me that it is not on that basis at all but because it is referred to as an expense allowance. The point I would like to have cleared up then is this. Who actually made the decision that the motorcar allowance was the type of allowance that through all these years should be free of income tax? Was it made by someone in the income tax department, someone in the justice department, or was it made by the cabinet? Certainly it was not made by parliament.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The wording of the item indicates that it was to be a continuing payment to cover an expenditure.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to go into the realm of the legal aspects of the motorcar allowance. It has been in existence since 1931 and it is about time somebody made up his mind about it. I do not think I am the person to give advice about that. My experience with the income tax people has been that if there is anything coming to them they generally get it.
But I want to make a few observations of a general nature on this first item, Mr. Chairman, because I anticipate that as we go through the different clauses of the bill there are going to be amendments. I voted for the resolution which preceded this bill and the indemnity bill and I am going to vote for this

bill all the way through, as I indicated when I voted on the resolution. I will do so because I do not believe, after listening to all of the arguments on unemployment, social security measures, and so forth, that they enter into this picture at all. I do not believe you can strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. That has been my attitude from the very start of discussions on this bill.
I also like to see a difference of opinion even among a group because if you get one, two or three people thinking exactly alike it indicates that only one of these people is thinking at all. The rest are merely going along.


Mr. Maclnnis:: There must be a lot of people on that side of the house not thinking.


Clarence Gillis: I am drawing no distinction between the two sides of the house.


Donald MacInnis: About 170 I should think.


Clarence Gillis: In this particular case there are at least two of us in this group who are trying to do our own thinking. However, putting this increase for cabinet ministers on the basis of income or salary is in my opinion basing it on the wrong premise. I believe the Acting Prime Minister put it in its proper perspective when he said the cabinet minister's indemnity is a compensation which permits him to meet the commitments imposed upon him because of the office he occupies.
Commitments made by cabinet ministers or by members of this house are not organized or brought about by themselves. They are commitments that are organized for them by someone else. They are passed on to you. You meet the bill whether you like it or not. I have never looked upon the compensation paid either to members or to the cabinet as being a matter of salaries. It is a straight matter of enabling you to meet your commitments.
As the Acting Prime Minister pointed out, there is only one thing wrong with this legislation, namely that it should have been brought in in 1941 or 1942. That is when it should have been brought in. I think the cabinet of that day and the prime minister of that day missed the boat. I am sure that most hon. members who take a reasonable view of the matter will agree that, after a lapse of 33 years, it is time there was an adjustment in the indemnities that are paid in this house, all round. As far as the cabinet is concerned, that indemnity was fixed back in 1933, when their commitments were relatively simple compared with what you have got to meet today. As far as I am concerned, I am going to say this quite
Salaries Act
frankly. I would not accept a cabinet post for any money, because no money could compensate you for the misery you are obliged to go through; and I have seen enough of it. You go to a dinner; it is a delegation; and you pay for the dinner, generally. You go to a luncheon; it is a delegation; and the same thing occurs. Then someone out in Vancouver decides that they want you in Vancouver, so you go to Vancouver whether you like it or not and you pay the shot for what it costs you. If you are wanted down in Nova Scotia, you do the same thing whether you like it or not or whether it is important or not. You get the call and you go.
When you get right down to it, on the question ''Will you run?" there are members of this cabinet who were drafted since I came into this house. The Prime Minister was drafted. There is not any question about that fact. I was here when he first came into the house and took over the justice portfolio. At that time he made it quite clear that the end of the war was the end of his term, and that he came in for the purpose of making his contribution towards the war. We all know-those who are honest enough to admit it-that he wanted to get out when the war was over but that he was "pressured" into staying by a large number of people in this country.
The Minister of Labour was drafted. He was taken in in the same way. He was given a cabinet post before he came into the house. If members are thinking in terms of the future of this country and not in terms of votes, they will take the view that any reasonable person will take when he considers this fact. Back in 1931 when the indemnity was fixed, you came in here, took a cabinet post and ran the little show that was going on in Canada, with a billion dollars or so of gross national product. It was a relatively simple matter to administer the affairs of Canada at that time. But it is not so simple today, as will be seen when you take a look at the expenditures for veterans, pensions and social security measures you have gone into. Those are perhaps not so hard to handle but when you take a look at the development of T.C.A., you will realize that you must have in the cabinet someone who knows something about Trans-Canada Air Lines. You cannot just pick up somebody off the street and send him in to supervise that vast organization under which comes steamships, Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines. There must be someone in there who knows something about these matters.
Again, consider the development of Polymer Corporation. You have to have someone

Salaries Act
in the cabinet who knows something about it. When the present Acting Prime Minister decides to hang up the boxing gloves, I sometimes wonder how long we are going to hold on to some of these crown companies that were developed with a great deal of opposition from the outside, and also from the inside in this chamber. You are going to need someone in there who knows something about that Polymer set-up and the value it will have to Canada in the future. We do not want to find ourselves in our bare feet, for want of rubber, again in the middle of a war -as happened last time-while the synthetic formula that was held in the United States was sent over and given to the Germans when Burma fell and the rest of our rubber resources were folding up. The Acting Prime Minister I think was the prime mover in the development of Polymer. It is a big job to watch that organization and to see that it makes proper progress.
The situation is the same with regard to Canadian Arsenals, the basis of the munitions industry, something that we in this group all fought for. Today it is doing most of the research in developing patents for small arms, munitions, and so forth. You want in the cabinet somebody who is going to be able to make a fair appraisal of that kind of organization.
I do not look upon the amount of money involved today as a salary or as a compensation for the job at all. I think you are recognizing the fact that since the indemnity was set, the commitments that a cabinet minister has to meet have gone up not by 50 per cent but by 500 per cent; and that is not saying anything at all about the work involved. You are now making an attempt to adjust the matter. I want to say this also. If we want to be fair, we will realize that there are not many members in that cabinet who are going to enjoy that income for very long. They are all about in the same position as that in which I am, thinking about hanging up the boxing gloves and playing with their grandchildren.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They may find themselves going on unemployment insurance.


Clarence Gillis: I believe that the cabinet today is doing something that is going to be of benefit to those who may come after us. What did we have to do during the war when we swung over into a planned economy? You did not pick technicians out of the air. Someone had to run the show, and it had to be someone who knew something about it. We had to go to industry all across this country. When the government went into a partially planned economy, at least to plan the war, they had to go out

and take technicians from all over the country, from industry and from commerce, establishing everything that was needed by way of technical services, and they had to pay them. It is not reasonable for us to take the position that, when we take a man like Donald Gordon, say to him, "You run the Canadian National Railways" and pay him $50,000 a year, yet as to the man who supervises the operation, namely the Minister of Transport, $10,000 is good enough for him. Why the difference? Who is working for whom? Who is supposed to be the best qualified person? I think the man who supervises the whole set-up and is responsible to the people of Canada has the greatest responsibility. He has to have a great deal of knowledge.
Then there is the governor of the Bank of Canada, and his assistant. You pay him $30,000 a year. The Minister of Finance is his boss. So the boss works for $10,000 and the man he is bossing is entitled to $30,000. And so it goes right on through your civil service in the top brackets. I think the time is long past when we should have made some kind of adjustment like this. As I said before, the timing is bad. I do not think that bringing in unemployment insurance and all these things is relevant at all. I initiated the debate in this house on unemployment.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You certainly did not.


Clarence Gillis: Oh, I did. The opposition- and I will leave the leader out this time-


Edmund Davie Fulton: We just waited for the appropriate time.


Clarence Gillis: If the Leader of the Opposition had been in the house he would not have taken that short-cut. I would have had the floor, as it was understood I would have had it the day before. I did not bring that matter up-


Edmund Davie Fulton: You tried to get it in at the wrong time, knowing that it was the wrong time.


Clarence Gillis: My immature political friend from Kamloops should not have raised it. It merely gave me a chance to put on the record the fact that I think the opposition played a very discourteous trick that day in exercising their prerogative of getting up first because they are closer to the Speaker. However, that debate is continuing, and I have not changed my opinion so far as the unemployed are concerned. I shall fight as hard as anyone in this house for them. I always have. The same facts apply not only to the unemployed but to all these social security

measures, because that is something I have been doing all my life. I do not intend to change that.
However, I also have this complex. I have had to go before a good many employers over the years and negotiate wages with them. This time the position is reversed. The cabinet are negotiating wages with us. We happen to be in the position of the employer. We can say we will grant it or we will not grant it. I have thought a lot about this, and I have read a lot about it.
I made the statement at the resolution stage that a proportionate adjustment was being made for the members of parliament and the cabinet to enable them to meet commitments that the general public had fixed for them.
I think they are fair, just and reasonable. It is a measure that is long overdue.
I do not think the dragging in of extraneous matters, these other little things, has any relevancy to the subject at all. Either the ministers are entitled to it or they are not. So far as I am concerned they are entitled to it.
I said when the resolution was before us that I intended to follow the measure all the way through, and I still intend to do so. I just wanted to take a few minutes to put my opinion concerning this matter on the record, as I had not done so before, and because of some statements I have heard this afternoon.


George Alexander Drew: I rise particularly, Mr. Chairman, to deal with a remark made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South concerning a motion that is before the house in regard to another subject matter. He stated that if I had been here the motion would not have been introduced, referring to the question of unemployment. Might I assure the hon. member that if I had been here I would have introduced the motion myself. There was no agreement, there was no understanding, and it would have been entirely inconsistent with what has taken place in this house if the opposition, which has been constantly demanding action to create employment, had not been the party to raise the motion that was raised. I most certainly would have presented it myself had I been here.
May I say to the bubbling Secretary of State, who finds this so amusing, that he may well recall some of the statements already on the record concerning what the predecessor of the present Prime Minister had to say about this same problem on an earlier occasion. He might bear in mind his close association with those facts, perhaps even some of the words, when he deals with the subject so lightly on this occasion.
Salaries Act
I want to refer briefly to the point that has been made. I must say that what has been said by the hon. member who just sat down must be music to the ears of the Acting Prime Minister, and it certainly was obviously music to the ears of hon. members opposite. It is indeed special pleading of a very interesting kind in support of the measure that is now before us. In so far as this party is concerned, the arguments that have been presented have not been inconsistent with anything that may be said about the dignity of the office of prime minister or any member of the government.
We have made it quite clear that we recognize the need for the service in government of men of the highest ability. The position we have taken is that this is something that calls for examination and inquiry as to the best way in which it should be done. We are not bound by the precedents of Westminster by any manner of means. Nevertheless, we have borrowed our whole parliamentary system from Westminster, and have not hesitated to admit that fact. On many occasions the present Prime Minister has made it clear that he recognizes our debt to Westminster in that respect.
It may be notable that only within the last few days a select committee appointed by that house has been dealing with the very problem we have been discussing here. This committee has made recommendations, and those recommendations have already raised a storm in Britain, not merely because the amounts are to be increased but because of the belief that it is inappropriate to deal with the subject in this way without due regard to the wider factors that are before them.
There are alternative methods of recognizing executive ability. I have no doubt that the hon. member who just sat down would be the last to suggest that every union organizer in this country receives the same remuneration. Experience and responsibility do count, and the very nature of the office has some bearing on the amount that will be received. I believe we are in agreement on the basic considerations. Having accepted that proposition, and taking the argument of the Prime Minister that we should examine this from the point of view of recognizing executive ability, then I can only go one step farther and say that executive ability is not recognized by the same flat salary. It is recognized by seeking to make the salary an amount that will be in keeping with the responsibilities.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Will the hon. member allow a question?


George Alexander Drew: Yes.

Salaries Act


Douglas Charles Abbott: What policy did he follow when he was premier of Ontario with respect to the members of his cabinet? Did he recommend a difference in salaries between
them?


George Alexander Drew: Salaries were not differentiated there, Mr. Chairman, nor were the salaries anything comparable with what is mentioned here. The salaries were so small that it would have been impossible to have a differentiation between them. Of course I remember that when those salaries were paid at the time I was there, the recipients had not the heavy load of taxes that has come about because of the waste and extravagance of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: Actually we had not yet reached that level of taxation that has been imposed upon the people during the past few years. In reply to the statement made by the Minister of Finance may I say that I put forward precisely the same view in Ontario that I am putting forward now. This subject was dealt with by a committee of the legislature.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am sure the hon. member would not want to be inaccurate. When he was premier of Ontario income taxes were very much higher than they are today.


George Alexander Drew: A casual interjection of that kind does not get away from the fact that this year the people of Canada are going to pay more in taxes than they have ever paid before in peace or war. In spite of the interjection by the Minister of Finance, I am going to come back to the matter that is before us.


An hon. Member:: Yes; that is wiser.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, as the Minister of Finance
has said, wisely.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I did not say that at all.


George Alexander Drew: I was going to compliment him upon the wisdom of that remark. I withdraw it, if he did not make it, because I was going to say it would be wise if we were to carry forward the discussion, after the remark he made which carried us away from it.
I would simply point out that what we have sought to do is make it clear to the house that when hon. members are telling other people, who are dependent upon decisions of parliament, that we must be fully informed in regard to all the facts before we act in any of those matters, that is the very time we ourselves should be fully informed in regard to any possible alternative, or as to the right figures that should be dealt with.

We have suggested one way in which this can be done. We have made it clear that we will support the idea of either a royal commission or a select committee of the house. Either method would be following the same procedure which has been so satisfactory in relation to other proceedings in this house and in relation to proceedings of this very kind at Westminster, from which we have borrowed so many of our practices.
I can only repeat what I have said before, that if we followed this course we would in no way be shelving responsibility. No royal commission or select committee can make any legislative decisions. These are proper and sensible devices by which a whole situation can be examined independently and without pressure. These are methods by which alternative proposals can be considered, and appropriate action decided in each case.
I did not say I was convinced that we must of necessity have a sliding scale, or that we must have different levels. I pointed out that in other jurisdictions there are different levels of ministerial salaries. I pointed out the fact that, for instance, in Great Britain a prime minister receives a salary not only while he is prime minister but for the rest of his life, if he accepts it. Other jurisdictions have dealt with the matter in other ways.
I have simply proposed in relation to this measure, and in relation to another measure with which we dealt on an earlier occasion, that we should, when this whole matter is under review, follow the wise and sensible course of examining the possibility of arriving at figures by some consideration of what the real factors actually are. Then in reaching this decision we would be able to say that we followed the same tests in reaching conclusions as we apply over and over again when other people depending upon the decisions of parliament ask us for consideration.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I thought I had said all I intended to say on this subject the other day; and it is with a great deal of reluctance that I take up the time of the committee now. I think we should be fair enough with each other, when we take sides on any issue, not to consider that we are just little white saints and that those who take the opposite view are doing it from dirty political motives.
I mentioned the other day that I like the members of the cabinet very much. Nothing would please me better than to please them: but even to please them I am not going to tell them that I think they are supermen, because I do not believe they are. I believe

they are just ordinary run of the mill individuals. Take any of the members back here in this corner, and put them in those cabinet positions, with the civil service staff and the deputy ministers available, and they would give just as good an account of themselves as the present ministers.
I have seen cabinet ministers come and go. I could go through the whole lot of them and ask them-and also ask my hon. friend from Cape Breton South-what qualifications they had for those positions when they were promoted to them.


Mr. Rowe:: What have some of them got now?


Donald MacInnis: Quite true; but that is not in issue in this instance.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It certainly is not.


Donald MacInnis: That is not in issue here. I am not opposing these salaries-an increase of $9,000 in cabinet ministers' salaries-just because I do not think cabinet ministers are worth it.


Walter Edward Harris: For the record, $5,000.


Donald MacInnis: You already have $4,000 of an increase in the indemnity as a member of parliament. Now there is a $5,000 increase as a cabinet minister, and that comes to $9,000 no matter how you look at it. No matter how you look at it, when this bill goes through each cabinet minister will be getting $9,000 more than he was getting before.


Walter Edward Harris: 


Donald MacInnis: The minister will be getting $9,000 more than he was getting before; and he will pay income tax on $9,000 more than he was paying on before. It has been said that things are particularly hard for the cabinet ministers now, so much harder than they were in the thirties. I would say that this is a picnic compared with the problems facing the cabinet ministers in the thirties. I was here; I know what it was like throughout the country. Why, during the last 15 years the country has been going on its own momentum; you could not keep it back if you tried.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If it goes well, it is going well of its own momentum; if it goes badly, then it is the government's fault.


William Earl Rowe: You used to say that.


Donald MacInnis: I think the Acting Prime Minister will agree that I have not criticized him very much during the years he has been here.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I agree.
Salaries Act


Donald MacInnis: And I am not criticizing him today. In fact I have often felt I was not a very good member of the opposition because I could see so much justification for what was being done that I could not conscientiously criticize. But when things are done as they are now I have no hesitation whatsoever in criticizing.
Just let me state one point here. It may not be particularly germane to the bill, but the fact is that up to now not much of what has been said has been germane. What is the record of this government? One of the last acts of the Conservative regime, when it went out of office in 1935, was to put an Unemployment Insurance Act on the statute books of Canada. The Liberal party of that day opposed the passage of that act because they said it was ultra vires of the dominion government. When the Liberals came into office they referred it to the courts, and that is how it was found to be.
But did the Liberal government bring in an unemployment insurance act in 1937? No. Did they bring in an unemployment insurance act in 1938? No. Did they bring in an unemployment insurance act in 1939? No. Did they seek an amendment to the constitution in order to bring one in? No. But they sought an amendment in 1940, and later introduced an unemployment insurance bill. When it was introduced it was not as a social security measure; it came in as an anti-inflationary measure.
And so here is the government's record in regard to unemployment and conditions in the country from 1935 to 1940. They could not put unemployment insurance into effect until recruiting for the armed services and war industries had taken sufficient workers off the unemployment rolls. There you have the picture.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know the hon. member wants to be fair. Mr. Mackenzie King addressed a letter to the premiers of all the provinces on the 5th day of November, 1937, I think it was, seeking provincial acquiescence in a constitutional amendment to make unemployment insurance possible, and three of the provinces would not accede to it; otherwise we would have had it at that time.


Donald MacInnis: Did all the provinces agree in 1940?


The Deputy Chairman:: Both the hon. gentlemen who have just spoken are out of order, for which I take the blame. Not only is the subject which is now being -discussed not by any stretch of the imagination under clause 1 of this bill, but it is also out of order in that the hon. members are anticipating a

Salaries Act
discussion which is the next order of business of this house. Therefore I would hope that we could get back to the Salaries Act.


Donald MacInnis: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. I am out of order; and the speakers who preceded me were out of order. The main point I want to make is that when we are debating these matters we should take it for granted that one is motivated by good intentions. If anybody feels that his conscience pricks him, and because of that he must justify himself, that is all right; he must salve his conscience in some way, but I am not in that position.
One thing I do know is the feeling of the people of the country. I know the feeling of the people in my own constituency, and I know that the feeling of the people in Vancouver is no different from that of the people in Halifax, in Toronto or anywhere else. Seventy-five per cent of them are in opposition to these increases which we are putting into effect. Surely what we are doing here is relevant to unemployment, to old age pensions and to other things. If I were sent here at all I was sent for the one purpose of raising the standard of living of those whose standard of living is low. I was not sent here-and I am not going to stay here under false pretences by giving the impression that I was- to raise our own indemnities and the salaries of the cabinet ministers. I have nothing to gain from opposing these increases. Nothing has been offered to me and I would not accept it anyway. Therefore I have not that to worry about.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I had not really intended to say anything in this debate, because among other things it is always a little more difficult to talk about matters that concern yourself. I am sorry the discussion has taken just the turn it has. Hypocrisy is not a human quality that I particularly admire, and I try not to practise it myself. Therefore let me say without hesitation that so far as I am concerned I feel that I have been underpaid ever since I have been here.
I readily concede that a man in public life should not be able to command as high a financial return as he might if he stayed outside. I think if we had to rely on the services of men who would only come to parliament or serve in the government if they could get a financial return as high as they could get outside, we would be deprived of the service in public life of some people that we ought to have. I readily concede that to those of us who are in public life there are great compensations other than the financial returns that we get. There is the satisfaction of public service performed and then to put it on the lower ground, the contacts that we make,
[The Deputy Chairman.]
the speeches that we deliver here in the House of Commons and the hands that we shake around the country. All that, I know, gives a great personal satisfaction to some of us. It keeps us in the public eye and we probably like that, some perhaps more than others.
But, as the Acting Prime Minister said, all of us, or most of us at any rate, have responsibilities to some people other than ourselves. I think some of those people do not derive the personal satisfactions out of public life that those of us who are in the forefront of it get, and I personally feel that there should not be too great a difference between what a man can command in the public service and what he can get outside.
That is important in order that we should be able to attract men to public life at a reasonably early age. They should not have to wait until they have made the future of their families and dependents secure before they enter public life. And even more important, they should not have to be dependent upon assistance from those who are outside parliament. I can only speak from personal experience, and I always hesitate to do this, but I live fairly modestly, as those of you who know me are aware. I have gone behind just a little bit every year since I have been here, and I have had to use such other modest resources as I might have. I do not think that is a good thing for public life, and I for one will never use the argument that because a man who is in a particular occupation averages only $3,000 or $4,000 a year a cabinet minister should not get more.
We all know that there are inequalities in life. Perhaps it is unfair that there should be, but we all know that even the leaders of great labour unions make a great deal more than cabinet ministers, and I daresay earn it. We all know, as the Acting Prime Minister has said, that men in relatively junior positions in industry, in commerce, make more than cabinet ministers will make even after the proposed increase. Therefore I make no point about that, Mr. Chairman. I say quite frankly that I think the proposed increase is fully justified.
I can understand the position taken by people who say that the increase is too much, and I am not questioning their bona fides in saying that. I find a little more difficulty in understanding the position taken by the official opposition. Most of the members of the official opposition-perhaps not all-are sufficiently experienced in public life, in business or in the professions to know first what responsibilities are incurred by a man in public life; and second, what the remuneration is for men of comparable ability in

the outside professions or occupations. Therefore I fail to see how anyone as experienced as my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, my friends the hon. member for Greenwood, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe, to mention only a few that I see sitting in front of me, could get any information from a royal commission as to what the appropriate salary should be for a man carrying on the executive responsibilities of a member of the government.
I also cannot agree with the Leader of the Opposition that there should be a difference in salaries between ministers. It may be true, and no doubt is true, that certain departments carry heavier administrative responsibilities than others, but every member of the government has to share in the collective responsibility for government policy, and so far as I know there has never been in Canada in any of the provincial governments, and certainly not in the federal government, any difference between the salaries of various members of the privy council.


Mr, Hansell:: I do not rise to make a speech, but when the bill was being discussed on second reading I asked the minister a question. He did not answer it when he replied, and I shall ask the question now because it should be on the record. How many people in the government service or in any crown corporations receive salaries of $10,000 or more?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have not those figures
readily available, but of course in a good many of the crown corporations there are salaries substantially in excess of $10,000. Those salaries are related to the comparable salaries paid in industrial enterprises which have to draw their personnel from the same class of executive. Certainly in a great many crown corporations the salaries paid are substantially higher.
I think I should indicate that there is perhaps some relevance between salaries paid to cabinet ministers and those paid to a number of top-level civil servants, and it tends to establish a ceiling which may not be desirable. We have found great difficulty in holding some of our senior civil servants who have been receiving offers from outside the government service of much higher scales of salary. I am talking of those in the higher ranks of the civil service. So I think it is fair to say that the salaries paid to ministers has some relevance at any rate to those paid to the permanent heads of departments.
Salaries Act


Mr. Hansell:: I do not think the Minister of Finance was in the house when I spoke on this measure, but the Acting Prime Minister-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was for part of the time, but I had to leave.


Ernest George Hansell: The reason I want the information is that I think the people of Canada should know the relevancy between the salaries of the cabinet and of other civil servants or executives in crown corporations. As I said before, if there is any failure within the civil service in any department of government or in a crown corporation, those men can resign and get out and the government will have to take the punishment. In the final analysis, the responsibility for success or failure in connection with all these things is upon the government and the responsible ministers.
I did not ask the question merely because I wanted that information only; and I am in full agreement with what the minister has said, but some of the average Joes in the country have said that it looks as though this is quite a jump the cabinet are making in their salaries. If those salaries can be compared with other salaries within their range or higher, then the people should know. I should like it to be on the record so the people of Canada may know. Perhaps I could put a question on the order paper, although it might not meet with the approval of the government to answer. Perhaps I shall put it on anyway and see what happens. Could the minister tell us how these salaries compare with the salaries of deputy ministers? Is the salary of any deputy minister higher than the salary of his minister?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. The salaries of deputy ministers are public knowledge. Of course the salaries of officers of crown corporations are not public knowledge. I was going to wait until my hon. friend was finished, but if he will allow me perhaps I could give the reason they are not published.
Certain salaries, such as those of the deputy governor and the governor of the Bank of Canada have been made available, and that of the chairman of the Canadian National Railways; but the salaries of ordinary executive officers in crown corporations like Polymer, Canadian National Railways and so on are not made public. The reason is that the salaries of similar officers or executives, say in the Canadian Pacific Railway Company or one of the chartered banks or any commercial company, are not made public. These men say, "Well, if I work for the one company the salary I am

Salaries Act
paid is my own business, but it I work for this company it is to be made public". There is a certain amount of natural human reluctance to having salaries made public.
I am not arguing the point now, but it does affect the ability of the government to get good executives if they are not required to subject themselves to the rule in the public service that salaries be made public. In other words, we are competing with private industry for executives of this type.


Howard Charles Green: What does the highest paid deputy minister get?


Douglas Charles Abbott: At the present time it is $17,500.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But that has to be compared with $27,000 for a minister.


Edward George McCullough: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief but nonetheless very emphatic in stating my opposition to this bill. I do not want to be over-harsh in my statements, but I think it must be generally agreed throughout the country that this matter has met with tremendous disfavour on the part of the people. What I have to say is in no way a reflection on the cabinet ministers now sitting on the other side of the house. As far as I am personally concerned I believe that they are responsible members, that they are competent, that they carry out their work to the best of their abilities, with a tremendous fidelity to their duty.
However, when I consider this matter I can only come to the conclusion that it is most inopportune at this time. I am quite certain that had the people of this country known prior to August 10 that the government contemplated any such move there would be many members in this house who are not present here today.
The hon. member for Macleod has endeavoured to find out what income is received by certain other people in order to arrive at a decision. I have here a table of incomes received by the Canadian people according to the income tax returns for 1951. A salary of $25,000 would be comparable with those provided under this bill, and according to this table only 8,260 people in Canada received an income of over $25,000 in 1951. In other words, only two-tenths of one per cent of the people of Canada in 1951 had incomes which were comparable to those provided for in the schedule to this bill.
When one considers the former measure which was passed he must realize that a cabinet minister is receiving a considerable amount of additional income which by fair deduction should constitute a fair return. The

salary of a cabinet minister has been increased to $12,000 by an additional $4,000 as a member of parliament. Under the new schedule a cabinet minister will have a salary of $15,000, a total indemnity of $8,000, a motorcar allowance of $2,000 and $2,000 tax-free expenses, or a total of $27,000. In my opinion that is fantastic when we consider the incomes reported by people throughout the country.
I do not agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South, who has come to his own conclusion based on his own calculations. I think that as far as parliament is concerned, when we hope that democracy will be accepted as the finest form of government it will be detrimental if we as parliamentarians agree to an increase of this kind in the salaries of cabinet ministers.
When we come asking for increases in old age pensions, veterans allowances, mothers' allowances and so forth, the question is always asked in the house, "What about the cost of living?". We even had increases in civil servants salaries to keep pace with the increase in the cost of living. But in this bill the government comes to this house and asks for an increase not on the basis of any cost of living, but of a straight $9,000 for cabinet ministers.
I believe it is fantastic, Mr. Chairman, that we should be asked to support a measure of this kind. I do not believe it is in the interests of the government or in the interests of our people. I had a letter today informing me that 500 people have been thrown out of work at the Kitimat project. When it is recognized that there are over 500,000 unemployed in this country I say this is a most inopportune moment to introduce a bill of this nature, and I intend to vote against it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure everyone appreciates the Minister of Finance's approach to this problem and the straightforward and frank way in which he has dealt with it. I will not say that we all agree with him, but I am quite sure we do appreciate the basis on which he has considered it.
There was one thing he said however, which I think deserves some reply. He stated, for instance, that no one here would suggest that the salaries of cabinet ministers might be investigated by a royal commission or even a select committee of this house. Let me give the minister an example based on the proposed new clause 5 which is part of the bill we are now considering. That clause if carried will provide a salary of $15,000 per annum for the Solicitor General of Canada.

It may be, and I would ask the Minister of Finance if he does not think there is some merit in this suggestion, that there are members who would take particular exception to that provision. I believe there is some merit in examining this question, and I will advance the reasons why I think that provision should be brought into question.
What will happen in this case is that we will be battling out this question on the floor of the house. I have chosen this particular example to some extent deliberately, because the person holding that office is not in this house at all. Hon. members will have to battle across the floor of the house on the question of what should be the salary of a particular individual who is not in the house. I do not care on how high a plane you try to put it because it comes down to this, that if any one of us here were to say that this ex-cabinet minister or simply "X" should not have $15,000 a year but only $12,500, then you might talk until you are blue in the face without resolving the matter.
Of course I have nothing personal against the hon. gentleman who holds that position, but I am thinking of the position of a man who is not in the House of Commons and how extremely difficult it is to deal with the matter fairly, just as it is extremely difficult to be impartial about the matter of our own indemnities when it has to be battled out across the floor of the house.
Surely there could be no clearer reason why this matter should be considered by some such body as a royal commission or a parliamentary committee. I understand that in the United Kingdom they had before a committee, on a sort of oft the record basis, as it were, a number of individual members and ministers who gave them the facts concerning their own cases, so that the committee accumulated, based on their approach to the problem, the actual facts drawn from the personal experience of the ministers or members.
The Minister of Finance has himself told us how much he dislikes speaking of his personal experience in a matter of this kind. Of course he does, and I do not blame him. It must be most distasteful; yet he had to do it in order to justify the increase. I cannot think of a clearer reason than that advanced by the Minister of Finance himself as to why this question should be tackled, initially at any rate, upon the basis we have suggested. It is not on the basis that we might relieve ourselves of something that must become distasteful that we make this suggestion, but in order to arrive at a sounder basis for a decision.
Salaries Act
Reverting now to the question of the salary of the Solicitor General, I believe there might well be reasons why this office should not receive the salary which is now to be attached to it. The Solicitor General is not even a member of the cabinet. He is not a cabinet minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: You are quite mistaken. I assure you that he is.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I do not believe there has been any amendment to the act so far. The Solicitor General's Act states:
The governor in council may appoint an officer who shall be called the Solicitor General of Canada and who shall assist the Minister of Justice in the counsel work of the Department of Justice, and shall be charged with such other duties as are at any time assigned to him by the governor in council.
Now, it may be true that the person who holds the post of Solicitor General is, in another capacity, a privy councillor or a member of the cabinet. I am not denying that; but the post of Solicitor General is not a cabinet post.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to correct him. A member of the cabinet is appointed by the Governor General and takes the oath as a cabinet minister. The Solicitor General has been so called by His Excellency the Governor General, and he is just as much a member of the cabinet as I am.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is the point I am trying to make. The person who has the post may be a member of the cabinet, but the post of Solicitor General is not one which by any stretch of the imagination could be said to be within the definition of a cabinet post.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The post of Minister of Defence Production is a cabinet post but-


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Minister of Defence Production is the head of a department and of course he is a cabinet minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend can put his own definition on who is a cabinet minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I believe the courts would take judicial notice of what is a cabinet minister, and the head of a department in ordinary parlance, in my understanding, is understood to be a cabinet minister. Despite the different view expressed by the Acting Prime Minister I suggest that in ordinary parlance the post of Solicitor General is not what would commonly be called a cabinet post. Certainly the duties of the Solicitor General as defined here raise some question, I believe, as to whether that post alone should carry

Salaries Act
with it the same salary as that which is attached to other cabinet posts, such as the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of National Defence.
It may well be that the time has arrived in the expansion and growth of Canada, and considering the role we have now assumed in international affairs, coupled with the new problems which are arising, when the number comprising the government should be increased, and that they should not all necessarily be of a cabinet rank carrying the same salary as senior ministers. It may be there should be some measure of reorganization along these lines. It certainly cannot be denied that at the present time some departments carry responsibilities in the national picture which make them more important than others.
These things, and the salaries to be attached to such posts as may be designated or recommended, are it seems to me subjects for inquiry by a royal commission or a select committee of this house. We might then determine whether a position involving a lesser degree of responsibility should carry the same salary, simply because at the present time it happens to carry with it a cabinet position, as that accorded to a ministerial post with a great deal heavier responsibility.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am asking for information, Mr. Chairman. I recognize that although in some instances it might be possible for the same person to obtain two salaries, there are special provisions to make sure that this does not happen. For example, in the case of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and Minister of Defence Production there is a special clause in the Defence Production Act to make sure that two ministerial salaries are not paid to one person. Similarly, the leader of the government in the Senate cannot draw that salary and a salary under the Salaries Act at the same time.
However, I should be glad if someone on the government benches would indicate to me where there is a provision to ensure that the $25,000 for the member of the Queen's privy council holding the recognized position of first minister and the $15,000 for the president of the Queen's privy council for Canada are not paid to one and the same person. My understanding is that at the moment the Prime Minister holds both those positions. I know that he gets only the one salary, but where is the legislative protection on that point?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I would have to refresh my memory on that point, Mr. Chairman. I am certain there is somewhere a provision in

the law which provides that a man shall not draw two salaries as a member of the government, although he may be carrying on the duties of two portfolios. I could get that information for my hon. friend very quickly. I shall send out for it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall be glad if the minister will do that.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-Repeal.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support clause 2.


James Joseph McCann: That is enough.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was opposed to clause 1, as hon. members know, but I support clause 2 because it is an instance where an untidy way of dealing with a matter has been cleared up. For many years the Salaries Act has said that the secretary of the governor general was to be paid $2,400 a year. Apparently it was thought that was not enough and provision has been made for him to receive a salary of $10,000 a year. But instead of changing the statute it was done by putting an amount of $7,600 in the estimates each year. In other words, this person received two salaries, despite what the Minister of Finance said a moment ago.
I think it should be kept clear that there is no general rule that says people cannot receive two government salaries or two government cheques. There has to be a special rule in every case. Without commenting on the amount of this salary, I am glad that this matter has been tidied up and that from here on the salary of the secretary to the Governor General will be provided in one place. I may say, however, that I am disappointed that that same tidying up process was not carried through with reference to the question of motorcar allowances.
I have one other question with respect to this item. Perhaps I might address it to the Minister of Finance. We have had before us, a few days ago and today, two bills, namely Bills Nos. 171 and 172, that make certain changes in the indemnities of members and senators, in the salaries of ministers and so on. In connection with this question of the salary of the secretary to the Governor General, I notice that the estimates for 1954-55 anticipate the passing of Bill No. 172. Personally I think that procedure is inappropriate. I do not believe the people who drew up the book of estimates should have taken it for granted that any bill brought in by the government would go through. In practice I suppose that does happen, but how does it come about that in one instance it was anticipated that the bill would go through, but not in the other instances?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I think it must just have been an oversight. My hon. friend is quite right. In preparing the estimates the usual rule followed is that we do not include items which have to be approved or authorized- if by parliament, by parliament; or if by some other procedure, by executive action- until they have been approved. I think this must have been an oversight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't let it happen again.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is the only explanation I can give.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-1952-53, c. 6, s. 2.
Stanley Howard Knowles: With respect to clause 3
there is a question I should like to ask, and it can be directed either to the Minister of Finance or to the Acting Prime Minister. I think I have made my position against this bill, with its increases, sufficiently clear that I will not be misunderstood if I draw attention to the fact that there seems to be one place where the increase has been overlooked. As the members of the government will notice, the bill now before us-I refer to the bill to amend the Salaries Act-makes no reference to the Minister of Defence Production. There is a reference to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and of course that is the item under which the minister in question draws his salary. As for the Minister of Defence Production, that salary is set out in the Defence Production Act. I think I should read the appropriate lines- they are very brief-of section 3 of the Defence Production Act. There is the usual wording "There shall be a department" and then subsection 2 of section 3 says this:
The salary of the minister, unless he is in receipt of a salary as the minister of another department of the government of Canada, shall be $10,000 per annum.
For all practical purposes, at least so far as the present situation is concerned, there is no need to amend subsection 2 of section 3 of the Defence Production Act because the Minister of Defence Production is not drawing that salary. He is drawing his salary as Minister of Trade and Commerce. But just suppose that the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Defence Production divided himself in two or suppose that the portfolios were divided, and that one portfolio were given to someone else. Unless the law were changed we would find that the Minister of Defence Production would be paid only $10,000 as opposed to $15,000 for the other ministers.
The answer to this anomaly may be that it is the intention to wind up the Department of Defence Production, or maybe it is another
Salaries Act
of those oversights. I am not arguing that this amount should be increased. I think the others should have been kept down to the $10,000 figure. However, I should be interested in an explanation of this point.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Defence Production Act is a temporary act with an expiry date. If I am not mistaken it expires in 1956. It may be renewed. As my hon. friend says, the salary of the minister is fixed in the act. However, if the salary were to be increased the act would have to be amended, or an item would have to be put in the estimates for that purpose. Frankly I think it is just an oversight. I think the salary in question might just as well have been listed here, but it is not listed and I am not going to ask for an amendment. Somehow or other I hope to get my salary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it, Mr. Chairman,- just to keep the technical position clear, that since no change is to be made in this respect-and I am now addressing myself to the Minister of Finance-when the blue book of estimates comes out next year the salary listed for the Minister of Defence Production will have to remain at $10,000.


Douglas Charles Abbott: My hon. friend will appreciate the fact that the salaries are statutory. It would either have to be $10,000 or an item would have to be put in the estimates for an extra $5,000 and be voted. That could be done. It would be perfectly legal to do that. If there were another minister next year, one of two courses could be followed. Either the Defence Production Act could be amended or an item could be put in the estimates to provide that the salary would be $15,000.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Coming into force.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, may I make a very small plea in a very quiet way and suggest that we might save four words here and be tidier and better draftsmen if we said "This act shall come into force on the 1st day of April, 1954". At present the clause reads:
This act shall be deemed to have come into force on the first day of April, 1954.
We have not yet reached the 1st of April. Even if it does not come into effect until after the 1st of April, if the statute does say "shall come into force on the first day of April" it would have the same effect. I have looked up one or two other acts and it seems to me that is the usual way to do it. I am suggesting a saving of words so I will not say any more words, but will merely suggest that it would be better to do it in that way.
2324	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment


Douglas Charles Abbott: This clause was drafted by one of the most competent draftsmen in the public service. I shall not mention his name, but he is one of the assistant deputy ministers of justice. I feel sure he gave that point consideration. As a lawyer, I think he may have anticipated that this bill would not be reached in the course of public business until after the commencement of the next fiscal year. I would really hesitate to amend a measure which had been so carefully considered.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the title carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the bill carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: On division?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Bill reported.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall this bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.


UNEMPLOYMENT-MOTION FOR EXAMINATION BY COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, February 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Green, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Gillis.
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Before the adjournment of this debate on Wednesday of last week, I expressed my pleasure that at long last the members of the cabinet had agreed that in Canada we had over half a million unemployed. I find that admission on page 2085 of Hansard for February 15, 1954, when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) said that the number of applications for jobs listed with the national employment services offices across Canada was 524,000 on January 21, 1954. However,
I regret that following that statement, as recorded on page 2088 of Hansard he said he did not believe there were that many unemployed in Canada. He said he felt our national unemployment estimate for this year was greater than those who were actually out of work.


I regret that very much, because for a number of weeks now the leaders of labour unions in the dominion had been saying that Canada had over half a million unemployed. We were informed for some time in this house that those union leaders did not know what they were talking about; that they were exaggerating the situation, and that unemployment had not nearly reached that stage. I notice that it is agreed by most responsible people in Canada that the union leaders were quite accurate in the statements they made.
I think the qualification the Minister of Labour made ignores a number of other factors. I know quite well that not everyone applying for a job would be in a position to accept it if he were offered a job a few days later. However, there are also thousands of people in Canada who do not register for employment with the unemployment insurance commission, yet they are looking for work. Think of all the people who have reached 35 or 40; we know that thousands of them have long since given up any hope of finding help at the offices of the local unemployment commission. They are not on record. What about those people whose unemployment insurance benefits have expired? Some of them have long since been taken off the record.
X believe a good idea of the extent of unemployment in Canada can be gained when we look at the census report for 1951. We find the labour force listed at just slightly over 4 million. Of those 4 million people, half a million in the course of that year earned less than $500. Another half million people earned between $500 and $1,000. In other words, almost 1 million people out of the 4 million total working force in that year earned less than $1,000. I believe that indicates there must have been a great deal more unemployment in 1951 than any of the statistics we had revealed. We can take the taxation statistics and see that in the taxation year 1951 about 42-8 per cent of the people of Canada earned less than $2,000 per year. When the average wage earner earns less than $2,000 per year, and when we know the average weekly wage in industry, it indicates that the average wage earner has been unemployed for almost half of that year.
I said that I was happy that at last the integrity of our labour leaders in Canada had been established. I prefer to accept the statement of our democratically elected labour leaders in Canada to the statements we sometimes hear from other would-be responsible people. For example, I cannot agree at all with the statements made by one spokesman

of the Liberal party who occupies a seat right next to that of a cabinet minister. On page 2132 of Hansard for February 16, 1954, he made an attack on the labour unions in this country. I have noticed that three Liberal spokesmen have followed the hon. member, and not one has denied that this hon. member spoke on behalf of the Liberal party. In referring to the labour leaders this hon. member said that they blamed everybody for their own mistakes.
In this section of the house we are not particularly blaming anyone for the incidence of unemployment. In this unplanned economy of ours, unemployment is inevitable. That has always been our contention and will continue to be our contention.
Now, over the past week end I have had a number of experiences-


John Horace Dickey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just referred to the statements of another hon. member in this house, but he has identified him in what I think is a rather roundabout way. I would, on a point of order, request the hon. member to do that member the courtesy of identifying him by naming his constituency in the usual way.


Erhart Regier: I shall be very pleased to do so. I regret the omission. The speaker to whom I referred as having made certain remarks at page 2132 of Hansard was the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot).


Mr. Pouliot:: If the hon. member will permit me, may I say that I speak on my own behalf, and engage no one else by saying what I have to say.


Erhart Regier: I am very pleased that the interjection will show up on Hansard, because I think it would be tragic if the people of Canada were to have the feeling, after having just elected this government, that the government had let them down in such a severe manner.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the hon. member will permit me, I just want to say once again that I am not against labour, but I have the right to criticize the leaders.


Erhart Regier: Upon returning from a week end in Toronto I found a telegram on my desk which had something to do with the unemployment situation. Just a few moments ago I indicated how the statements of our responsible labour leaders had been vindicated by statistics. Turning to the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) as recorded at page 2197 of Hansard of February 18, 1954, I find he said:
While the port of Vancouver has been working to full capacity . . .
2325
Proposed Committee on Unemployment
This telegram relates to that statement and the unemployment situation. It reads:
Demand immediate reversal of government decision to equalize east-west grain movements. Trade minister Howe misinformed. West coast terminals utilizing only 70 per cent capacity, lack of ships. Loss of trade will result in unemployment. Immediate action imperative.
Grain Workers Union Local 333.
Then, as I indicated, I was away this week end, speaking to the rubber workers in Toronto. They are very worried about the unemployment situation. They see where, right in their own factories, the technological advances of the day are throwing hundreds of them out of work. They indicated to me that their position is very insecure because of collapsing world market conditions, and they fear that any tightening up of the local economy would cause a decline in their local market and aggravate the situation even more.
We do not think we are being unreasonable when we ask this government to make the resources of the unemployment insurance fund available now to ease the situation. After all, by this time the fund has built up to almost a billion dollars. Everyone realizes that in the event of a major catastrophe the fund would disappear; but if there is any way of halting the trend, then the time to use that method is now. We think the workers who own this money have a reasonable request when they ask that the period during which benefits are payable be extended. This is particularly necessary at the present time, when the cost of living is so high.
Much mention has been made of the relationship between unemployment and the high cost of living. There are many who blame high living costs on excessive wage demands. Mr. Speaker, the high cost of living is the result of the deliberate early lifting of price controls. Prices, including wages, began to rise very soon thereafter, and that rise has only recently been halted. We think the high cost of living is due more to an error in judgment on the part of the government's advisers than it is to any rise in wages.
I have noticed also in the debate interjections to the effect that people are unable to find work because of industrial disputes. This business of talking about strikes during this debate is nothing but a red herring. Lost man-hours due to strikes between 1919 and 1953 would not be as great as lost man-hours caused by six months of unemployment.
I agree wholeheartedly with the sound advice given by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) when he emphasized that the government's share in the national economy was a relatively minor one, even though at times the most effective. He pointed out that the government alone was
2326	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment unable to solve the difficulty, and that it was high time it called in those who are able to wield such an effective influence in the economic life of the country.
I regret that some hon. members representing ridings in which there are large numbers of industrial workers have tried to place the blame for the hungry thirties. I have never been able to blame the Conservative government which was in office between 1930 and 1935 for the conditions of those days. I have *often had the feeling that that government did not take the measures necessary to soften the blow; the blow was felt before it took office. If any government can be blamed-* and I am not sure that it can, because most governments in the world either could not [DOT]or would not know what was coming-that blame would belong to the Liberal government which held office until late in 1930.
To say that in this matter of dealing with unemployment the record of the Liberal government has been the finest in the world is to stretch the imagination to the breaking point. When we see what happened in the United States in the hungry thirties; when we see what happened in some countries of the commonwealth, we see numerous cases where government action was able in large measure to soften the blow and make the hardship less severe on the unemployed.
I am not content to wait to get the facts from some government department concerning this situation. The attitude seems to be to wait until some senior civil servant tells us that we are facing a desperate situation.
I say that the members in this house are in daily communication with the people in their ridings. We ought to know what the situation is, from one end of Canada to the other. We know it is not a happy situation. 1 am not prepared to sit down and wait, or to think that perhaps the warmth of springtime will bring comfort to these people, many of whom, particularly those in the category over 40 years of age, have been without work now for a number of years. May I remind the house that even the President of the United States is not prepared to wait until the warm spring sunshine appears. He has indicated that if these danger signs are still in evidence at the end of next month he will take definite action. I wish we could have the same assurance from the benches of this government.
I know it is felt by some government supporters that the new housing legislation will help relieve the unemployment situation. I think it is timely to point out, however, that it is agreed by the suppliers of building materials, as well as the suppliers of mortgage money, that we cannot expect to see as


many houses built in 1954 as were built in 1953. It is not that the money is not available in the nation, only that it is going to the wrong places. Money at this time should go into the financing of consumer goods, and the building of homes is one such outlet. Because money can make more money elsewhere it is not going into the financing of consumer goods.
I believe there is still plenty of money. I find in this morning's issue of the Globe and Mail an article which reads in part as follows:
Canadian corporations are paying out a total of $28,917,582 in dividends this month, compared with $28,312,571 a year ago and $27,387,006 in February, 1952.
In other words, money available for reinvestment purposes is still being made, and in greater amounts than ever before. However, the main difficulty is, it is not going into the field of consumer goods. There is a great need for an expansion of housing to relieve unemployment, and for other reasons.
The last issue of the British Columbian that I received from New Westminster has a page full of houses of people who are the direct responsibility of the federal government. They are the people who live between the water's edge and the land that is privately owned. I have a lot of that type of land in my riding, and there are hundreds and hundreds of old age pensioners eking out an existence in mere shacks there. Now a British industry is coming along and a causeway is to be built in New Westminster, and many of these old age pensioners are going to be evicted. I would say that the federal government could relieve the unemployment situation by assuring us that they are going to take all these people who are merely existing on federal land in all these municipalities that are on salt water and build decent houses for them.
I should also say, as mentioned, that President Eisenhower is not content to wait until the warm summer sun, and the European nations are not waiting in order to solve their economic difficulties, even if it means doing business with countries behind the iron curtain.
I have often heard it asked, what are your solutions? I think our solutions are well-known, but I should like to remind the government that they have been elected to office and the responsibility for safely guiding the ship of state is theirs and not the opposition's. The responsibility of the opposition is to warn the government, if possible, of the errors that the government may make.
There is a bit of a suspicion in the ranks of labour that to some a certain amount of unemployment may be fine, is looked forward

to, and is even favourably looked upon by those who have to do business with the unions over the bargaining table. I ask this government in all seriousness, is clause 164 of the new Criminal Code the only answer it has to the unemployment situation? It is the section which, if passed, will give the right to arrest all the unemployed of Canada on a vagrancy charge. We ask you in all seriousness to investigate the situation and not to accept the assurance that everything will be all right.
The social needs of the nation are great, and call for an immediate expenditure on public works. We need hospitals; we need highways; we need schools; we need a lot of things. I wonder whether the government, especially the Department of Labour, has considered the possibility of the annual wage. I know there are industries where the annual wage is not practical. However, there are also other industries where the annual wage is a perfectly feasible thing. Where I come from we can build houses the year round, if the building of houses goes forward in an orderly and planned way. I daresay there is not a carpenters' union that would not be prepared to build a house for $500 less, if it could be assured of year-round employment. In our part of the country year-round employment in the house building industry is possible, but it has to be planned. You must have a roof over your head when it rains, or you do not like to work.
Has the government investigated all the possibilities of taking part payment in sterling so that our factories can continue in operation? I wonder whether they fully investigated the possibilities of making more of our goods available to the nations of the world that need those goods. I wonder whether they have investigated the possibilities of increasing the consuming possibilities of the nation.
One of the difficulties of our immigration department, as I see it, is that it has catered to the wishes of those who want to hire cheap labour. I notice, again in this morning's Globe and Mail, an article on a migration plan proposed for homeless United Kingdom children. It is a plan being considered by the government of Great Britain for the emptying of some of their orphanages. In Canada we have a situation not very far from here where up to $3,000 was paid by people who wanted to adopt youngsters. This article says that top government officials at Ottawa are cool in their reactions to the plans that are being formulated in Britain. I can think of no finer way of helping Canada with many of her difficulties, and also in the matter of employment and the sale of our goods, than 83276-1484
Proposed Committee on Unemployment by adding to the small population of Canada. Let us add not only workers to the population; let us let in every orphan in the world who wants to come and live here, and who has an assured home here. We need these people. If we can get them while they are young they will make top-notch citizens later.
The government are not willing to adopt the remedies offered by this section of the house. They are willing to adopt the theory of a planned economy only in time of war, or in some phases of it. I feel that the government is able to do a lot to relieve unemployment, even within the orbit of its own economic thinking.
The great battle of the world today cannot be won with armaments. You must have devoted people to go along with the armaments. Unemployed people and people who are in need are no people to fight a war with. You may have all the armaments you like, but unless the morale of the nation is high you are never going to defeat communism. The fight for peace is worthy of a lot more of sacrifice and a greater effort and devotion than is the battle of war.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, we all agree that the matter presently before the house is of grave concern not only to those who presently find themselves unemployed but to every man, woman and child in this country. If things are as black as they are pictured, then we have much to be concerned about. I feel it is regrettable that this debate has been carried on almost to the point of recrimination and in some cases close to slander of individuals and I could say almost equally of groups of people.
The Conservative party without too much recrimination are blaming the Liberals for the weaknesses in our economic system which caused the great depression, while Liberals have been equally vociferous in their declarations that the Conservative party was the cause of the great depression. In the minds of the C.C.F. party we are heading into the same disastrous conditions, while they seek to convince the people that through some magic wand of controls, such as those during the second great war, the present unemployment situation could have been avoided.
2328	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment
I think these matters might well have been left to the historians. Perhaps the prophets of gloom could be better employed in thinking up some more constructive programs. I have yet to hear any constructive propositions brought forward. Perhaps it is coincidental, but during the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) when, in his usual forceful and if I may say so somewhat indignant manner, he was berating the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) for having made certain remarks regarding a previous prime minister, a page boy brought to my desk a magazine or booklet called Cominco. It is published by the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company for the purpose of giving information to its employees and anyone else who may show an interest in the activities of that company.
There was an article describing the last stages of a $35 million power development on the Pend-d'Oreille river. This power is to be used in the many and varied, and I may say expanding, operations of this company. The power developed at this point will produce enough electricity to light a 60-watt bulb in every home in Canada. It seems to me that is a great concrete example-I may be facetious-of capital investment. It is analogous to the superfluity of words we have heard during this debate, and is a longtime answer in my opinion to the unemployment question.
As I have said, there have been recriminations between political parties, and certain charges have been made. Wishing to be completely fair perhaps I should not say "charges", but there have been inferences drawn on the part of hon. members on this side of the house and, if I recall correctly, by hon. members on the other side, that the labour leaders of Canada are one of the main causes of the present unemployment situation. I think this is most unfortunate as well as being untrue. It is the responsibility of a union leader to see that the workers under his particular jurisdiction maintain an economic balance with every other worker and, for that matter, with the farmers in the Dominion of Canada. I recall that long before I became a member of a trade union my father was a member of a farm organization, a farm union. All these economic units do get together to maintain their proper balance in our economic system.
It has been said that production costs and wages are the reasons for high prices since the end of the second world war. It has been argued, of course, that high prices are the cause of the present unemployment. I think it may be said with equal force that high wages and high prices are perhaps one of


the reasons we have in Canada one of the highest standards of living of any country in the world, so that is hardly a sound argument. We cannot have it both ways.
I think we should look at some of the economic facts that have brought about this situation. It will be recalled that a tremendous productive potential was built up by our factories during the war. Vast sums of money were spent in research and development, which left the country with an internal economy capable of a very high standard. Then what is the cause of high prices? I think we have to remember that almost all non-combatants in Canada during the war made some sacrifice. They bought war savings bonds, they worked harder, and did without some of the amenities of life.
I can remember my own little town, which at the beginning of the war had about 1,200 employees who owned around 800 automobiles. Almost everyone employed was driving an automobile. No new automobiles came into the city during the war, while large numbers were sold to people on farms or people who were in a better position to buy tires and gasoline in the pursuit of their various employments. Undoubtedly it was a small sacrifice when we look back, but we did make sacrifices and because of that there was a vast development.
We were not financing the war entirely by our sacrifices and commitments. Money was created in various ways to the point that after the war there was cash in the banks and securities capable of being converted into cash about three times what there had been before the war. Despite this vast development and stimulus to production, our production did not increase much more than twice. Without some measure of taxation which would have been almost confiscatory, it was inevitable that wages and prices and production would equalize themselves. The labour unions had the inescapable responsibility of maintaining a balance between the wages of employees and the profits of employers. To my mind they have been neither arrogant nor unreasonable.
The hon. member who spoke before me reiterated the C.C.F. claim that the imposition of price controls at this point would have been the answer. I cannot agree with that suggestion. I disagreed with it from the very moment when price controls were removed, and I shall continue to disagree with it so long as I believe in the free enterprise system. I do not believe that was the answer to our problems. Price control could not have meant anything but state control or a further conglomeration of bureaucracy and

interference which would result in lower production. I believe there would have been a considerable amount of bootlegging, black marketing, and so forth.
There is one other aspect of this question which concerns the United States, with whom we have very close economic ties. There we have our greatest market, but they did not see fit at the close of the war to maintain wage and price controls, and if we had clamped on wage and price controls it would also have been necessary to clamp on export controls, because I cannot conceive of a manufacturer manufacturing and selling goods in this country at a price which was pegged, if he could sell to people across the line. Certainly with wages and prices increasing over there the average Joe here would have been left in a very sad state.
There are all kinds of arguments with respect to price controls, but that is one which I believe should be taken into consideration. The underlying and most important objection is that it means statism, and we all know that those countries which have resorted to statism have not yet been able to produce and maintain a standard of living comparable with that enjoyed in this country. That itself should be a sufficient argument.
There is also the question of those who are employed in Canada in industries whose markets enjoy a measure of tariff protection. Some supply the internal market exclusively, and they are perhaps in a more fortunate position. But those who work in industries which depend to a large degree on the export market, and suffer from its fluctuations, are not quite so well off. People in these industries cannot be expected to reduce their standard of living beyond that which is enjoyed by their fellow Canadians. Their standards must be kept in line, and if the export market weakens we have to find ways and means of adjusting the situation.
There is further evidence that it was not wage demands which caused high prices in the base metal and lumber industries. In the metal industry particularly, because of stockpiling by those countries which were preparing for an emergency, prices soared to unheard-of heights. Of course what happened was that the marginal operations came into production. There was high-grading of rich seams, and so forth, until the demand was oversupplied, and naturally the base metal industry is now suffering a depression.
The point I wish to emphasize is that the prices were out of line. I can recall negotiating for a wage increase with the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company at a time when these prices were high. The negotiations were not conducted on the basis of the
Proposed Committee on Unemployment ability of the company to pay. In fact they admitted that prices were high, but claimed they could not pay more despite the fact that they realized there must inevitably be wage demands.
I believe it is commendable that even during this period of high prices some of the large mining companies with great foresight brought in simplified methods of production which improved their over-all efficiency. In co-operation with the unions they doubled their production while using approximately the same labour force. It will be difficult to convince an unemployed miner that this was advisable, but one could point out on the other hand that if this had not been done some of the larger mining companies would be out of business today.
Let us not forget that union leaders, like members of parliament, are elected representatives, and like us they seek only to do a good job. In the same manner as we do, they must face criticism from the members of their unions and be responsible to them for their actions. Like many hon. members of parliament they can always find someone to give them good advice, and there is always someone who feels that given the opportunity he could do the job much better than they are doing it. Union and labour leaders are plagued with advice to desert their present affiliation and join up with some other less militant organization. If they accept that advice they may find to their consternation that their new affiliation has deteriorated greatly in the eyes of the public. In the eyes of many people in Canada, and many employers, the only good union is one which is not asking for something.
Some hon. members have already referred to the rather loose accusations made by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) against some labour union officers, and I must confess that in all the years I have been in the labour unions I have never met any of the individuals described by the hon. member. My reaction to the hon. member's speech might be compared with the feelings of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) when he was rebuking the hon. member for his attack on a former prime minister in regard to the claim that the latter was manipulating the stock market at will.
On February 16 the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) had this to say as reported at page 2127 of Hansard:
Personally, I am opposed to the professional bargainer. I think it is wrong in principle, because the very existence of the professional bargainer depends on the animosity between the employer and the employee. I will agree that expert advice is desirable. I think we should have
2330	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment
expert advice, but X believe it is wrong in principle for people to set themselves up in business as professional bargainers-
I might add professional politicians. I suppose there are some, though I have never met them. The quotation continues:
-because their livelihood depends on the animosity between the employer and employee. As soon as good will is created between the employer and the employee the professional bargainer is out of a job.
And further:
I feel that we would be better oil and have a higher level of employment if bargaining were conducted on a local level as much as possible.
I have a few remarks I should like to make with regard to this statement. I am wondering if the hon. member has ever sat in on a session of negotiations with a large corporation represented by their top officials, with the highest legal authority on their side. They are experts in their own fields; for that matter they are specialists. Does the hon. member feel that it is presumptuous on the part of the union to have spokesmen who may have come up from the ranks-and in many cases they have come up from the ranks and gained experience in the process-speak for them? Is this a presumptuous attitude? Or for that matter does he feel that the union takes an unfair advantage by bringing along an adviser trained in research and economics? With regard to this statement, let me say further that a union officer's livelihood does not depend upon perpetuating the class struggle or, in the words of the hon. member, animosity between employer and employee.


Mr. Shaw:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Yes.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Would the hon. member regard the professional bargainer as being a union officer? I refer to the professional bargainer as known in British Columbia. Is he a union officer?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I have never had the pleasure of meeting a professional bargainer; that is, apart from union officials. They are union officials who, with their experience, are called upon to go from place to place and assist in the bargaining. The successful labour leader, of whom I think there are quite a large number, is one who mostly knits the labour-management relationships, and who makes economic gains without any strike whatsoever. To be sure, the final decision for action should rest at the local level; that is, with the decision of the rank and file, by their ballots. But the hon. gentleman's plan would result only in a local company union which in effect is no union at all.

I listened with considerable interest to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), in order to find out whether we had here an answer to the problem. But again there was little light. He sought to prove, perhaps in a different way than I, that wages were not the reason for unemployment today. In his statement he drew to our attention two contracts that had been let in British Columbia.


Harold Edward Winch: One.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: As reported at page 2155 of Hansard, he said:
In British Columbia, within the last twelve months, the British Columbia Electric Railway Company had occasion to call for tenders for a major high-tension power line and for the supplying of the towers. Canadian companies and companies throughout the world put in bids on the supplying of these towers. The lowest Canadian tender was in the neighbourhood of $1,600,000. The contract went to Italy at a price well below $1 million. No one can say that it is the cost of wages that did that, because if the Canadian workers had given their services entirely free of charge no Canadian company could have touched that Italian tender.
Then further, with regard to another contract he had been speaking to an executive of a firm in eastern Canada, I presume.


Harold Edward Winch: In Ontario.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: This is what the executive of the firm in eastern Canada had to say with respect to a contract on which he bid:
He said, "If our firm had given completely free the use of our factory and machinery, the costs of administration and the raw material required, we could not have matched the price of the English firm, who are up against a 20 per cent tariff when they come into Canada on that contract". He said, "We could not have matched it". That job meant approximately 300,000 man-hours of work.
And so on. I am not taking issue with this argument. I agree with the hon. member that wages are not the cause of the present situation. I went over that speech time and again, and I am going to ask the hon. member if he will allow me to come to his office sometime so I could just get the sense of what the argument brings out.


Harold Edward Winch: Yes. Examine my recommendation and you will find it. I gave it.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I am still at a loss to know just what the hon. member meant.


Harold Edward Winch: That is not new for you.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is just continuing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: In my opinion the conclusion that was drawn is about as conclusive as any possible answer to the old conundrum of "How much oats and a little bit of hay does it take to winter a few head of cattle?"
I regret that I cannot support this amendment or the subamendment. Neither present

Proposed Committee on Unemployment
a solution to the problem. Either would defeat the government, thus necessitating another general election. While it may be the opinion of the members of the opposition that this is a solution, I cannot agree because I have not heard from anyone on the opposition side of the house as to what the solution is.


Harold Edward Winch: What is yours?


An hon. Member:: What is the problem?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I do not pretend to have all the answers, but I think there is a possible solution; for example, one may be found if we look at the statement made by the Acting Prime Minister during this debate relating to the proposed capital investment for 1954. I have said before that I believe the only answer is investment. The long-term answer to our unemployment is work and jobs, and jobs cannot be created overnight. Jobs can be created only by investment.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Why were they lost?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I am quoting the words of the Acting Prime Minister who was making a statement on what is forecast by way of investment for the coming year. As reported at page 2104 of Hansard he stated:
The survey indicates a capital expenditure program for 1954 of $5-8 billion, roughly 3 per cent above the previous record achieved last year.
Having regard to all the gloom expressed in this house, may I say that I know the matter is serious and that there are many unemployed; but if we let this thing spread too rapidly, it may be possible that some of this investment will not be made. If that investment is made it should mean that there will be a considerable uptrend in the unemployment situation. To continue:
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.
There is still about a 3 per cent increase in the over-all projected capital investment for the coming year.


Harold Edward Winch: What is the increase in the number of unemployed?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The increase has been variously stated here, from 3 per cent to 10 per cent; the hon. member can take his choice. I do not think the situation is as bad as some say it is. It is bad; I do not disagree there, but it is not as bad as they picture it.
There are a number of other large developments projected, perhaps not for the immediate future but in the foreseeable future. I think every possible step is being taken to further the St. Lawrence seaway project, not only by this government but the governments of Ontario and the state of New York.
We have the projected trans-Canada pipe line, and we hope there is to be a pipe line from northern Alberta-I would prefer to say southern Alberta and coming through the southern part of British Columbia but I shall stay with the facts, something some members do not do. There is this projected pipe line from the northern part of Alberta down through British Columbia and over to the west coast, which will also supply the Pacific states.
As I have said, these projects are no immediate solution. They do not feed the families of those who are hungry today. The only answer to the immediate problem is perhaps an increase in the unemployment insurance benefits and the extension of those benefits. Why did we institute unemployment insurance if we did not think at some date there was going to be a levelling off, a readjustment of our economy? We have the fund, so let us use it, and let us not be stampeded into a depression.
The estimates before the house contain large expenditures for various projects. I feel we would be well advised to expedite the business of the house so that an early start can be made on these projects. The processing of contracts and so forth requires a considerable time. I suggest that we expedite matters sufficiently to enable these projects to be started by the spring break-up rather than the fall freeze-up. It might be remembered also that under the new arrangements for members' indemnities, the house can adjourn and we can be called together in the early summer without any additional cost to the taxpayers or without any of the formalities required for a normal session. Then we could get down to the business of hammering out a solution to the problem, if that should become necessary.


Owen C. Trainor: I
rise to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, in the hope that perhaps I may be able to shed some small ray of light on what has seemed to me to be a very confused argument. On one point only does there appear to be complete agreement, a true meeting of minds. Everyone believes unemployment to be a bad thing. Even here there is an element of unrealistic thinking. The Acting Prime Minister has said that even one person unemployed is a serious thing, and the C.C.F. agrees with him. One unemployed person may represent an undesirable circumstance, perhaps even serious from the point of view of the individual concerned, but it hardly represents a serious condition in the nation.
2332	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment
The C.C.F. introduced a subamendment which is found on page 2096 of Hansard for February 15, 1954 and reads as follows:
. . . the serious and mounting unemployment situation now facing this country calls for immediate action by the federal government to prevent further economic distress.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let us put alongside of that the amendment sponsored by the official opposition and moved by my colleague the member for Vancouver-Quadra, which states that this house is of the opinion that the standing committee on industrial relations should immediately examine into and report upon the actual unemployment situation throughout Canada and present recommendations to this house as to the short-term and long-term methods of dealing effectively with this problem. The C.C.F. subamendment says, in effect, that the unemployment problem calls for immediate action by the federal government. The federal government, however, in the persons of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), the Acting Prime Minister, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), along with the customary echoes, say there is no unemployment problem or if there is it is of such minor proportions as to be inconsequential.
Now, Mr. Speaker, how in the world can you get action on an unemployment problem from a government that says the problem does not exist? The very premise of your argument is denied. Consequently all subsequent argument is a waste of breath. The C.C.F. in supporting their subamendment, where any effort was made to support it, urged the adoption of shopworn socialist solutions which are usually trotted out in cases such as this. Such tinkering with the economy in defiance of economic law is no more likely to be successful here than it has been in other countries. Do the C.C.F. seriously expect, by the sound and fury of their oratory or by the exposition of the socialist dialectic, to convert the government? They cannot possibly be so naive. These oratorical pyrotechnics are designed for public consumption, and in the hope that they may possibly impress unthinking and uncritical people.
In contrast, the amendment of the official opposition is a serious and reasonable attempt to persuade the government to look at the problem and examine the evidence. It recognizes the fact that the government does not believe there is a problem, and reaches the obvious conclusion that as long as the government believes this there is no possible hope of remedial action. The amendment says to the government, in effect, "We do not believe your contention that everything is rosy, but let us take a critical look at all the available evidence. If it shows you are right everybody,


including the Canadian people, will be happy. If it does not show this, you will be advised you are in error, and in addition will possess a body of expert opinion which cannot fail but be of help in devising suitable remedial measures."
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend in the highest terms the contribution made to this debate by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden). I thought that in the main he presented a thoughtful and well-reasoned effort. He put his finger on the basic fact in this whole discussion, that employment in this country depends upon the maintenance of export trade. Export trade, in turn, depends upon a price structure that is really competitive. Apart from an occasional irrelevant remark and his somewhat naive and childlike faith in price controls, his speech was a valuable contribution and I should like to compliment him.
Apparently, however, the hon. member does not realize that price controls mean wage controls, and that they extend to wheat and other farm commodities. Moreover, controls as used in wartime were designed to counteract the pressure of scarcity on the price structure, whereas now there is no scarcity but rather an oversupply. Should we embark upon a program of peacetime controls I am afraid it might have consequences far from palatable to the hon. member's constituents- compulsory acreage reduction; dictation as to kind, quantity and variety of crop, to name but a few. This is not a piecemeal proposition. Once you start you have to go all the way.
The hon. member was pleased to use a medical analogy, stressing the fact that you must first diagnose a disease before treating it-a wellnigh perfect argument in support of the amendment put forth by the official opposition. Diagnosis is often a difficult and time-consuming procedure. It requires careful examination of all the available evidence, and in difficult cases the consultation of whatever experts may be available. It is not a haphazard and offhand procedure. The so-called snap diagnosis is the mark of the quack and the charlatan. Could there be a better illustration of the necessity for the objective study of this difficult and complicated subject of unemployment by a committee?
For the foregoing reasons I seriously question whether the C.C.F., in bringing forward their subamendment, are particularly concerned about unemployment, or whether they regard it as a convenient club to belabour the government for fancied political advantage. Bear in mind that only the government can cure unemployment, and they say it does not exist.

I may say I intend to vote for the subamendment, for three reasons; first and most important, because I will have a subsequent opportunity to vote for the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), which really gives some prospect of coming to grips with the problem that, despite what the government says, we in this party believe really exists; and second, because it does say that there is an unemployment problem in this country, something which the government denies; and third, because it is really innocuous and can do no harm.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, in a country which is adequately equipped with resources and with the means of processing those resources into consumable goods, I think it could be safely said that unemployment is completely unnecessary and is not to be tolerated.
I have listened with considerable interest to speeches from all sides of the house; I think it is pretty well agreed among all hon. members that any degree of unemployment in this country is entirely regrettable and something we all should attempt to remove. Thus far we are all agreed.
The next question is how to do it; what to do to remove this condition of unemployment. It has been suggested that a number of new projects are being contemplated, and that these will provide employment for a large number of men. Whether there will be places for as many men as there are unemployed, or whether those projects will require the kind of men who are now without work, we do not know. We have to take a chance on that. But it is agreed that that is a possible way out of the difficulty.
May I draw to the attention of all concerned something else upon which I think we shall all agree, namely that where there is enough production and productive capacity and resources, we ought to be able to supply everybody in the country with a job. And if we cannot supply him with a job we should be able to provide him with an income, because where a nation is able to produce enough to supply the needs of everybody in the country, then surely it ought to be possible to provide means whereby everybody can obtain his share of the production or at least that share which will keep him living in comfort. I fancy all would agree to that. All would agree that what is physically possible it ought to be possible to make financially possible. If we can produce enough to supply everybody, then it ought to be possible somehow or another to render available the finances with which to enable everybody 83276-149
Proposed Committee on Unemployment to enjoy a fair share of that production. Otherwise we are faced with what looks like foolishness, are we not?
In the days when the Indians owned this country, if they were able to get enough buffalo and enough fish and firewood they were able to live. In our day, if we can produce enough buffalo and enough fish and firewood we ought to be able to live. In order to live we have to have access to an income which will enable us to obtain the share of those goods we need. I believe that up to the present point everyone will agree with what I have said.
Our whole problem is that of rendering financially possible to everyone a good share of the production we can bring into being. There is hardly any doubt that we can produce enough food for everyone in the country, especially enough food to supply the great necessities of life such as wheat, cream, butter and fruit-those things which, taken together, will supply all the real needs of life. We can produce all the shelter required. It is obvious that we can produce all the clothing of the kind required. And so, all down the line, we can produce enough of practically every commodity necessary for life, and physically we can supply everybody in the country with those commodities. If we are not able to do that there must be something wrong with our system of distribution.
Then, since we have begun talking about the system of distribution, there comes to mind the matter of money, because we use money as a means of distribution. If a man cannot obtain access to money he cannot obtain adequate access to goods or services. Consequently the whole matter breaks down to a financial problem, and this is the general approach of the members of the Social Credit movement. We Social Crediters say "Now, if the problem is a financial problem, then let us attack it as such, and see if there is not some way in which we can render financially possible that which is physically possible".
We all admit that what we desire is physically possible, but up to the present time we have not learned how to make it financially possible. Now, how can we make it financially possible? In the last analysis may I repeat to all hon. members and to people throughout the country that the great problem is one of finance, how to create a financial system which will enable the people to enjoy all the goods we can produce.
I do not propose to proceed any further along that line this evening. I think all hon. members will agree with what I have thus far said in this connection.
2334	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment We have before us in this debate something which, in a way, touched off the debate in the first instance. I refer to the joint submission to the government on February 11 by the Canadian Congress of Labour and the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. I fancy that since so many have referred to the document in question it might be well for me to give some measure of attention to it.
We find that the drafters of the submission make five main recommendations. I believe one of the great desires in the house, something which concerns members on all sides, is to grant to our labouring people what they feel is their right. Now, are we agreed that what they suggest as being desirable, as a means of attacking this problem, is good?
They advocate first Unemployment Insurance Act amendments. I think we will all agree that these would be desirable. Second, a nation-wide program of public assistance in co-operation with provinces and municipalities; I think everybody in all parties will agree that that would be desirable. Third, a public works assistance program: no specifications are given as to the detailed nature of the program envisaged, but in a general way I think everybody in the house will agree that that also would be desirable. Fourth, a greater encouragement of home building;
I am sure everyone will agree that that is desirable. Fifth, increased aid to underdeveloped countries; and I am sure every member of every party in the house will agree that that recommendation is desirable.
The next question which arises in every mind, I presume, is where are we going to get the money to do all this? So once more the problem works itself out to one of finance.
I do not think there is anyone in the house who doubts that we have the physical capacity in Canada to provide each of those five remedies. We do not say we have not the timber with which to build houses; we do not say we have not the coal to provide warmth; we do not say we lack the physical capacity to do all that is envisaged here, but we do worry about finances; therefore once more we find our problem is primarily one of finances. If we cannot find some way of raising money other than those which we have hitherto used and are now contemplating, then we might just as well give up in despair. That would be the general conclusion.
Inasmuch as our labouring men have not exactly told us where we can get the money, they have not contributed very much to our enlightenment in this all-important aspect. However, I do believe there is a way in which we can find that money.
[Mr. Blackmore.l

Before leaving this submission I would say in a general way that it is highly commendable. We owe a debt of gratitude to the earnest men in charge of our labour congresses who devoted so much attention to the planning and presentation of this submission. I am impressed with two paragraphs near the end of the submission. They are to be found on page 14, as follows:
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.
I am sure everyone agrees with that. Then we find this passage:
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 am sure everyone will agree with that. Once more the question is, where are we going to get the money to do it? If we can only get the money we can do it. I will say this concerning this submission, before I leave it:	Subject to a reservation or two
because of the need of clarification, in my opinion, of certain phrases in some of these suggestions, I would support the submission wholeheartedly.
There seems to be a disagreement among the people in the house, the government on one side and the opposition on the other, mainly as to whether the unemployment we now have in Canada is of such a serious nature that we need to fear that it indicates the onset of a depression. It is too early for people to tell. It is natural for those who might feel it would be to their political advantage to have a depression, and who would like to blame the government for something very soon, to say this is a serious depression. It is natural for the government to say, "Well, now, it is not quite so serious as you think; at least, we hope it is not". And so we are inclined to disagree to some extent; but facing facts just exactly as they are, I think a good many members on all sides and of all parties think that it is serious enough. I think it is also pretty well agreed on all sides that unless something fundamental is done there will be a serious unemployment problem.
For the last number of years we have been able to keep ourselves employed because we have been fighting a war, or we have been preparing for a war, or we have been indulging in extensive foreign aid programs; mutual aid we have called it, lend-lease we have called it, and various other names. But we are pretty well all agreed that experience has taught us during the last almost 20 years, at least, that we simply must have some means

Proposed Committee on Unemployment
whereby there is a great deal of expenditure on goods that we are not going to use, to consume-such goods and services, we will say, as armaments, training soldiers, dressing soldiers and that sort of thing. We can say this, that sooner or later there will be a depression unless war develops, or there are heavy expenditures in preparation for war, or that extraordinary expenditures for mutual aid or domestic improvements or both come to be a permanent and normal feature of Canada's governmental procedure.
Once more the question arises, where is the money going to come from? Wherever we go we run into that difficulty. Where are we going to get the money? The United States can go on and spend vast sums of money in preparation for war, supporting various nations in their troubles with communism, and all that; but in due time they will reach the limit of their borrowing capacity. They have already reached the limit of their safely taxable capacity. Therefore the question arises, what are they going to do, and what are we going to do when we get into a position similar to that which they have reached?
Without at present going too much into detail as to where we are going to get the money, may I just leave the question tern

porarily and devote attention to this matter of getting money, raising money. We are taxing just as much as we dare tax anybody. We must not go further into debt. We need a great deal more money. Where are we going to get it?
While I am speaking I would suggest that there are some five measures which would give us a good deal of help if we can get the money, and I am sure we can. First is the payment to farmers of a substantial advance per bushel on the grain they store on their farms, provision for adequate storage facilities on the farms, and the payment to farmers for storage of grain stored on their farms.
Those of you who were in the chamber on November 17, 1953, will remember that I outlined a program which I believed would solve the problem of western farmers. I still stand by that program. There have been a good many who found fault with that in one way or another, but sooner or later they have agreed that when I made the suggestions I did on that occasion I was putting my finger right on the essential needs of the situation. I proposed that money should be made available to farmers at not more than 2 per cent, with which to build adequate storage facilities on the farm. That seems so simple that you would believe everyone would say, well, certainly, that is good common sense.
A good many people misunderstood my proposal. They thought I meant that the money would be advanced out of wheat board funds. That is not right. That money should be advanced by the dominion government. Let us consider our Bank of Canada, which was set up in 1934 with a great deal of fanfare. Everybody thought it was going to do wonders for us. Pretty nearly anyone would agree that we ought to be able to get money from the Bank of Canada at 2 per cent to build storage on farms. If the Bank of Canada cannot supply the money we need at 2 per cent to build storage on the farms, then it ought to disestablish itself because it is of little value to us. I think pretty nearly everyone will agree with that.
I advocated that an advance of 75 cents a bushel be made on all grain adequately stored. I believe everybody will agree that that is desirable. I advocated also that there should be a payment of storage on grain stored on the farm, to encourage the farmer to take care of the grain himself and have it on the farm in case of an emergency.
I suggested that Canadian dollars should be advanced to assist prospective buyers of Canadian wheat abroad. I do not think anyone will object to that. We should do that. That principle was applied by the United States, and it worked with great success. They lent money abroad for many years after 1920 with which outside people were able to buy their goods. There is no reason why we should not do the same. It could be done by taking money out of that Bank of Canada. It would be pretty hard to see how anything better could be done with the Bank of Canada.
I suggested also that measures similar to these should be adopted in respect of our coarse grains. If this set of measures alone were adopted all over the three prairie provinces I believe you would find there would be a tremendous loosening up in pretty nearly every aspect of our economy. You would find that those who had sold clothing to the farmers, for example, would be able to get their pay. Merchants would be able to get their pay and would be able to buy clothing and other supplies from Ontario and Quebec which they have been in the habit of buying. To a surprising degree people would be going back into employment, people would begin to buy lumber for houses and all that sort of thing. I venture that you would find probably no measure which would be more immediately beneficial in the matter of restoring employment conditions in Canada than just that set of suggestions which I made on November 17.
2336	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment
I would suggest as a second means of relieving our problem immediately that we adopt a realistic housing program, one that would make financially possible what is physically possible in the matter of housing in Canada. I am sure it must strike everybody as being simply preposterous that we should have people in this country who are not able to get houses when we have forests of timber in British Columbia all ready to be made into lumber. There are great quantities of lumber in British Columbia just waiting to be brought out to be made into houses. Surely everybody must realize that a preposterous situation now exists.
Once more we come to the matter of finance; and once more I suggest that the financing should be done by the Bank of Canada, which was set up back in 1934. At that time everybody was led to believe that all our financial problems would be solved the minute we got this glorious Bank of Canada. When we got this glorious Bank of Canada it became an impediment to us rather than an assistance in respect of all these vital matters. If the Bank of Canada is not able to do the job then it is time we found out what is the matter. If the Bank of Canada cannot do the job, let us go back to the means we used before we had the Bank of Canada. We had a set-up then which could do this kind of job.
I suggest a realistic housing scheme which would enable people to get money at 2 per cent or even lower in order to build houses, without having to spend $8,000 or $10,000 for a house. Men should be able to build their own houses if they want to, and be able to get the money with which to build those houses without having to comply with a dozen and one regulations that only those with the best kind of incomes are able to comply with.
I suggest as a third measure that we have an extensive and comprehensive reforestation project. We have been wasting our forests up to the present time. I think anyone who contemplates the great forest regions that existed in this country 65 or 70 years ago must feel ashamed because those forests have been wasted in large measure. There are children who will be our descendants in 75 years and who will need forests. What are we doing to provide them with forests? Are we going further to waste this huge heritage that we have, or are we going to rebuild our forests and leave to them fruitful fields for endeavour?
I think everyone agrees that it would be a highly desirable thing if we cultivated our forests. The Germans were able to cultivate their forests to the extent that one hardly saw a stick lying around on the forest floor.


They cared for their forests as though they were gardens. There is no conceivable reason why we should not do the same. By this means we could provide work for many who are now idle. It would not require too great skill to go into the forests and start them growing again. As I have suggested, we need not fear having any unemployed if we embarked on a wide-scale program of reforestation.
People will say, where are you going to get the money? What is that Bank of Canada for? That is what we have to ask. Let us ask ourselves over and over again. When will someone venture to go over to the governor of the Bank of Canada and ask him what they are there for? Ask him what this bank is there for, anyway. Ask him if it was put there as an impediment to Canada or as a benefit to Canada. How can they benefit Canada today except by providing us with money when we need money?


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: There is somebody down there who is forgetting his responsibility. I am sure that he would not want his constituents to know that that is the kind of thing he is saying in a serious moment like this. Let us just be serious now.
I can remember in 1933 and 1934 when the Bank of Canada was being talked up all over. We were given to understand that it was going to solve our financial problems. Well, it has not begun to do as well as we did under the Finance Act of 1923 and the Finance Act of 1914 in the matter of providing us with money to meet contingencies of this kind. No one has ever taken the trouble to explain why it is not doing that service.
Now, the fourth suggestion I have to make I think was impressed upon us in southern Alberta and in other parts of the country last year particularly, because of the great amount of rain we had there. We should have a comprehensive program of flood and erosion control all across Canada. I hear men rise in this house and talk about how river banks are being worn away by high waters. They talk about the floods that are occurring, that are washing out bridges and all that sort of thing. It is not too soon in this young nation to go to work in real earnest to establish the means of controlling floods.
I know of strategic points all over southern Alberta where control projects could be constructed to stop disastrous floods such as those that struck us in June of last year and which did such tremendous damage. They might have done much more. Similar conditions must exist all over the Dominion of Canada. Why do we not arrange for the controlling of floods like these before too much damage is done? Already enough

damage has been done. If we provided for the controlling of floods all over this country I imagine we would not have very many people unemployed. Of course they would have to be used in the warmer season, but there are things they could do in the wintertime.
I would suggest as a fifth measure that we go right to work in real earnest to build roads all over this country, and do not leave the building of roads entirely to the provinces. Generally speaking the provinces are simply not able to bear the financial burden of building the roads which are necessary. But the dominion can assume that burden if the dominion will use the Bank of Canada, or a Bank of Canada that is modified as it needs to be from what the Bank of Canada now is. I believe that everybody who thinks about this realistically will agree with me.
It is time we had roads all over this country, for many reasons. It is beyond the power of the provinces financially to build those roads. There is only one agency able to supply the finances necessary to build these roads. We certainly have all the means available to build roads. We have the soil that is necessary; we have the rock that is necessary; we can have all the asphalt that is necessary to build these roads. We have people enough to do it. Why not go to work to do it? What is physically possible should become financially possible.
I suggest that by the time we have dealt with these five proposals which I have advanced-they are not original; they have been advanced by various members in the house in this debate-by the time we get done building all these projects, then we can look for other projects. If we cannot find the money, let me repeat once more that the Bank of Canada was established presumably to provide the people of Canada with money. Let those who have the responsibility remember that we are here to find a solution to this problem, not to make silly wisecracks. We were sent here by 15 million people to find the solution, and every single one of us is responsible. Let us bear that in mind, and let us face the problem.
The Finance Act of 1923 and the Finance Act of 1914 provided Canadians with the money to do things. Let us now go on and do things. Let us re-enact the financial measure that can meet the purpose, if the Bank of Canada is too puny to do it. The Finance Act of 1923 was strong enough to do things, and through the strain of world war I the Finance Act of 1914 enabled Canada to do great things. It should be remembered, incidentally, that after the end
Proposed Committee on Unemployment of world war I we had no increases in prices such as we have had at the end of world war II.
That will be enough to start with. 1 leave this contribution for the consideration of hon. members and the country with the promise that at a later date I shall go on with the story.


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Mr. Speaker, I believe that in many respects this is the most important debate that has taken place in this house. There has been some disagreement about the extent to which we have unemployment. There has been some disagreement as to the solution for the problem. But I think the important thing to watch is not the figures, which are subject to change from day to day and have often changed for the worse in the past few months, but the trend which has been developing within the past year. That trend is quite noticeable, and I do not believe there is any chance of mistaking it. We are heading back into an unemployment situation. It may recover at times, and at times it may appear to be getting worse, but the general trend is back to the situation which obtained in 1929.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) has moved an amendment, and that amendment calls for immediate action on the part of the government. I regret that it was necessary for the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Trainor), who comes from my own province, to criticize that amendment, particularly from the angle that we might rush into something, and say that in his opinion it was more desirable to set up a committee, or use the committee which existed before, the industrial relations committee, to study this situation and get the facts. I would be rather more impressed with that suggestion were it not for certain historical facts. I have in my hand a publication which appeared in 1934 and which contains quotations from some of the speeches of the then leader of the opposition, Mr. R. B. Bennett.


An hon. Member:: His government?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: No, this goes back to 1930, when he was still leader of the opposition. These speeches were made at various points during the election campaign of 1930. As we know, 1930 was perhaps the beginning of what we call the depression. At that time we already had an unemployment situation in Canada, though it was not as bad as it turned out to be later on. But at that time the leader of the opposition, the late Mr. Bennett, apparently did not believe in setting up committees or holding conferences.
2338	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment I quote his own words as taken from one of his speeches, made on July 10, 1930, when he said:
The Conservative party is going to find work for all who are willing to work, or perish in the attempt.
Then later on, speaking of the government he said:
Mr. King promises consideration of the problems of unemployment. I promise to end unemployment. Which plan do you like best?
Further on he said:
Mr. King promises you conferences, I promise you action.
That is the kind of language I like. Unfortunately, events proved he was not able to carry out his pledges. I do not wish to lay any particular blame at his doorstep, because the situation did not develop after the Conservative administration took office. It developed before that.
I want to make this quite clear. What we are debating now is not a temporary situation. It is not seasonal unemployment, although there is an element of seasonal unemployment in it. We are debating a problem which has been unsolved in this country since 1929. It is true we have had periods of nearly full employment, but the situation which developed in 1929 and continued until
1939	and well into 1940, under both Conservative and Liberal administrations, was not solved by any government.
One needs only to look over recent pages of history to find that as late as 1938, after three years of a Liberal administration which quite often took credit for having solved the unemployment situation in Canada, there were almost one million people on relief. These are the facts, and any hon. member is at liberty to go back and check them for himself.
It was not until 1940, when world war II came upon us, that the unemployment situation began to disappear. That continued throughout the war. However, let me point this out for the benefit of those who have a habit of sneering at the suggestions we put to the government, and to those who have great faith in private enterprise and its ability to make all things right-and here I am not being critical of private enterprise, but simply stating the facts-that even in
1940	private enterprise was not the motivating force in our economy which solved our problem. The Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) will remember when he, in his capacity as minister of munitions and supply, I believe it was, had to report to this house that with the war already upon us he was not able to place war contracts with a limitation
[Mr. Zaplitny.l

of 5 per cent profit because private industry refused to produce on that limit of profit, and it had to be done away with and they finally received what they wanted.
It was public enterprise by the people of Canada through their war bonds, under the direction of their government it is true, which supplied the war effort, and at the same time as a by-product solved the unemployment problem. During the war when we were devoting half and at times more than half of our total potential to war, and perhaps more than 50 per cent of that was going overseas in war material, the people of Canada lived better, on the average, than they had ever lived before.
That in itself proves that it was not private enterprise, it was not any magic solution by the government, but the fact that for the first time in years the government had used the resources and the power of the nation toward a definite objective which solved the problem. Even when that objective absorbed the best of our population, the best young men most capable of work, and took away more than 50 per cent of the materials that were being produced, the by-product of that effort kept the people of this country on a higher standard of living than they had ever experienced before.
That was the situation when we entered 1945. Again what did we find? When the war ended our so-called prosperity continued. We were quite capable of making outright gifts and extending loans amounting to millions of dollars in the aggregate after the war ended, and despite the fact that we were giving away these things, making these loans, and still using half of our production for purposes other than domestic consumption, we continued to provide the people of Canada with goods and services to a greater extent than they had experienced before the war.
That went on until 1949. By that time great pressure had been exerted upon the government from various sources, some of them in this house, to get rid of wartime controls. There were those who said that we must return as quickly as possible to what they called "normal". I have never been able to find out exactly what they meant by normal. However, they wanted to get rid of all controls and go back to the free enterprise system. Hence by 1949 we began again to have an unemployment situation in this country.
Then came Korea. That is one of the things I find members on the government side do not like to mention very often, namely

the fact that in 1949 we were already beginning to drift back into an unemployment situation. The Korean war did what? It made our national defence budget run into $2 billion and more. Again almost half our potential in this country was devoted to war. Again our economy got a shot in the arm, unemployment began to disappear and things began to move once more. It took a large war and a small one within the last 15 years to burst the financial dams in this country, which had dried up the sources of the medium of exchange, in order to permit us to supply ourselves with the goods and services which have been at our fingertips ever since Canada existed. Those are things we have to recognize. We may agree or disagree upon the solution, but let us at least recognize the facts as they are.
The war in Korea ended, to the relief of millions of people across the world, and we hope that peace will be with us. Now we could turn our attention to the many social problems facing us, and to the improvement and development of this country which is one of the greatest on earth. But what do we find? Instead of entering upon a period of greater prosperity than ever before, and to which every economic and physical factor points, we again find that we are drifting back into what some call recession while others even use that horrible word "depression". Let us call a spade a spade. We are drifting back into a depression; and unless the government are willing to take action they are going to find themselves in the middle of it before they are ready to recognize it or admit it.
We now have-and I am going to use round figures-approximately half a million unemployed. There are those on the government side who say that there are not that many; there are those in the labour ranks who say there are more. But even taking the figures given by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg)-and he stated there were something over 500,000 who had made application for work at the various employment agencies across Canada-and even making some allowance for duplication, if there may be some, it is quite safe to say that there are in the neighbourhood of half a million unemployed in Canada.
This figure represents almost 10 per cent of our Canadian labour force. No one can shrug that fact off or brush it aside by saying it is seasonal unemployment. Now when we are entering the spring season, when that part of the unemployment which is seasonal should be clearing up, what do
Proposed Committee on Unemployment we find? We find that lay-offs are continuing. The unemployment figures are increasing rather than decreasing. That fact in itself proves that the unemployment is not a seasonal matter, and that it is owing to one of the weaknesses in our economic set-up.
There are those who say, "It is all right to talk about giving people jobs, but perhaps there is not enough to do. Perhaps there are just not enough jobs to go around." One has only to travel across the country to see some of the things that need doing. Let me put it this way. In 1953, according to the figures issued by the government itself, our gross national product was in the neighbourhood of $24 billion; in fact it was a little bit over $24 billion. Our population is roughly 15 million. If you do some simple arithmetic you will find that that gross national product comes to a per capita amount of $1,600 for every man, woman and child in our country. Let us take the average family of four; that works out to $6,400 per family.
This means that the nation has already produced or is capable of producing goods and services in order to supply every family in Canada with $6,400 of goods and services if we wanted to use it all in consumer goods. But let us allow one-third of that amount for depreciation and capital expansion; and that figure is one which is considered to be fair. It still means that every family, on the average, in Canada would require an income of over $4,000-about $4,400-to buy back the goods and services which we have already produced.
If we look at the statistics, what do we find? We find that 74 per cent of the wage earners or the people who work in Canada have an income of less than $3,000. We find that 40 per cent of them have an income of less than $2,000. We even find that 14 per cent of them have an income of less than $1,000. How in the world are those people going to buy back the production which they themselves have produced? It stands to reason that there is going to be an apparent surplus.
I say "apparent surplus" because it is not a real surplus. One has only to go through the country-as almost every hon. member does from time to time-go into the cities or the rural areas, to see how many families are living on the bare necessities of life; how many families cannot buy the very simplest luxuries or the very simplest things which make life worth living, apart from food, clothing and shelter; how many are living
2340	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment in homes which are not fit for human habitation; how many schools have not been painted for the last 50 years; how many hospitals need to be built, and how many first-class roads we could use in this country. Let us think of the hundreds of accidents which occur every year at level crossings across Canada where trains and automobiles collide, and consider the tragedy of it.
Everywhere you turn there is work waiting to be done. Yet we are told by some of our so-called leaders in government, "You just have to get used to the situation; you just have to adjust yourself to the competitive position". Whom are we competing against? This nation is producing $24 billion worth of goods a year and is capable perhaps of producing much more, because we are doing that while we are keeping 500,000 persons idle. If everybody were working our national product would run over the $25 billion mark. Yet we are told that we must get used or adjust ourselves to a competitive position. With whom are we competing? Apparently with ourselves. The goods are there; the services are there. What is lacking is the purchasing power-I refer to the effective purchasing power-in the hands of the people.
The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) this afternoon was more or less critical of the members of this group for bringing these matters to the attention of the government, the house and the country without putting forward any constructive proposals. That is not an accurate statement, because proposals have been made. But just so that no one will think I am trying to be critical of the government without placing anything before this house, I am going to make some proposals and offer a few comments on at least one of them.
I believe there are five things which the government or this parliament could do and which would be designed to place purchasing power in the hands of the people who could effectively use it. Let me again repeat that it would require an average per family of $4,400 to buy back our production; and that is only that part of the production which can be devoted to consumer goods, after allowing one-third for depreciation and capital expansion. I propose, first, that we should reimpose price controls; second, that we should increase old age pensions, family allowances and war veterans allowances; third, we can reduce the sales tax, which is now 10 per cent, and reimpose the excess profits tax; fourth, that the government proceed with a large-scale public investment program; fifth, reduce interest rates in order to cut the cost of doing business.


I should like to refer briefly to one or two of these points, and I shall start with the question of price control. I have heard a number of members on both sides of the house express themselves as being opposed to price control.


Carl Olof Nickle: Do you accept wage controls too?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Just possess your soul in patience, and I shall come to that before I am finished. There are those who say they are opposed to controls as a matter of their basic political philosophy. Let us approach it from that angle for a moment. Let us not kid ourselves that we do not have price control in this country today. We did have price control during the war years down to about 1946 or 1947, administered by a board set up by the government. In my opinion that was the most democratic way in which it could be done. There were improvements that could have been made, but at least it was always under the control of the public representatives elected by the people. If there were any grievances or any injustices they could be brought to the attention of the government in this house.
Starting in 1946 the government saw fit to wipe price controls from our statute books. Some people were under the impression when the process was finished around 1949 that we no longer had any price control. Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. We have price controls just as effectively today as we had them in 1945, 1942 or any of those years during the war. The only difference is that price control now has been transferred from the hands of the government to the hands of private industry. No economy, particularly an economy such as ours, could operate without controls. Let no one kid himself that it is possible to do so. It would be no more possible to carry on the economy of this country without some type of control than it would be to drive one of these modem 200 horsepower motor cars without any brakes or steering gear. You would wind up climbing a telephone pole.
Somebody is always going to control the economy of this country. It is for us to decide whether it is going to be the representatives of the people who will set up a system of controls for the benefit of the people, or whether we are going to leave it to private industry to do it for us. They are not going to do it for us; they are going to do it for themselves. They have been doing it very effectively. One has only to glance at the annual reports published by the big companies themselves, and by our financial institutions in recent years, to find that their annual profits are climbing at a great rate.

Proposed Committee on Unemployment
The other day a reference was made to the farm implement industry. One has only to glance at the reports from that industry to find that from 1946 to 1951 their profits increased by approximately 223 per cent. They exercise price control very intelligently for themselves. They are not exercising it for the benefit of all people in Canada; and I, for one, would not expect them to do so. It is not their function. The board of directors of the Bank of Commerce, Canada Packers, Massey-Harris or International Nickel were not set up by the shareholders in order to establish a system of price controls for the benefit of the consumers in Canada. They were put in there to create profits. I want to give them credit for doing a good job. They are making enormous profits. One has only to check their annual reports to ascertain that. You will find that after taxes their profits are still much higher than in any period since 1946, and have been increasing every year.


Owen C. Trainor: Why not put them on the record?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: If I were to put everything on the record to which I made reference I would not get it all into one speech. The hon. member does not need to take my word; he has only to refer to the statistics, and he will find that those profits have been increasing enormously every year since 1946.
The trouble is that while those profits have been increasing, the result of the removal of purchasing power from the people has been dumped, so to speak, in the lap of the government. The government has only the result of the situation but has no control over it. I, for one, have no hesitation in suggesting price control. Let us not get the impression that price control means holding prices down, because in its essence it does not mean anything of the sort. It means bringing about a proper relationship between prices. For example, it is well known today that farmers across Canada are receiving a smaller income for their produce than they have been enjoying in recent years, while at the same time they are paying higher prices for their farm implements, their fuel, their fertilizer and the other things which go into the cost of production.
We are told that trade is one of the ways in which we can keep full employment in Canada. How is a farmer going to produce agricultural products which can sell on world markets at lower prices when his cost of production is going up? Certainly if the government had maintained a sensible system of controls the farmer would be in a position today to produce his products at lower prices, and his price relationship would allow him
to sell his goods on the markets of the world. His standard of living would not be impaired.
A question was asked a while ago as to whether or not I was in favour of wage controls. Let me tell my hon. friend that what I said a moment ago about industry taking over price control holds true for labour. Industry is doing a job in controlling wages. Ask any labour union about that, and they will give you the full story about wage control. What we need is control of prices which are being manipulated by monopolies and combines at an international level.
Again let me say it is not the business of private industry to maintain a proper price level; that is not their function. Their function is to produce goods and make a profit.
I have no criticism of the fact that they are making huge profits. It is the function of this parliament to watch and protect the welfare of the consumer in this country, particularly the welfare of those senior citizens of ours and the veterans who are on fixed incomes or pensions. They are the first to be hurt when the cost of living begins to spiral.
I want to refer also to the question of public investment. From time to time, in fact since 1945 when the famous green book proposals were put out-the government has been putting out so many of these books we get our colours mixed, but I believe it was the green book proposals-we have been told that it was the intention of this government to launch upon a wide scheme of public investment by way of necessary public works, and also to initiate certain industries where necessary. The years have gone by since 1945, and nothing has come out of it. In recent months announcements have appeared in the press to the effect that the government has some sort of plan, "built-in stabilizers" as they call them, and certain fiscal policies which would prevent a recession.
I think it is time these mysterious hat tricks of the government were brought to light. Let us see what these built-in stabilizers are. Let us see where their public investment program is. For what reason are they holding back? We were told, in 1946 I believe it was, that the government had a shelf of public works that was being held for just such an emergency as this. So far as I can see it is still on the shelf. It has not been brought before this parliament. It has not been brought to the attention of the country, and the situation is becoming worse each day.
We say, Mr. Speaker, that there is an immediate problem. I hope something can be done immediately now that the problem is
2342	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Proposed Committee on Unemployment here. At the same time let us not kid ourselves into thinking that within a few months we are not going to have an unemployment situation, and that we can just sit back and wait until next year, or until the problem reappears. It will not work out that way. The purchasing power of the people is being drained off in the form of profits at a greater rate today than ever in the history of Canada. If that process continues, and if there is nothing in the form of government policy to replace that purchasing power in the hands of the people who need it and who will use it, then our unemployment problem will increase and snowball until we reach a major depression within a very short time.


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, now that parliament has increased my yearly remuneration by some $4,000-and, I might add, without my consent-I for one intend to do my very best to try to earn that extra money. Perhaps that is a challenge to some other members who may wish to do likewise. I would warn them, however, that if no effort is made to place themselves in the position of $10,000 a year men, many of them will never get past the next general election, and will not be here to enjoy that remuneration.
I had not intended taking part in the debate because, as hon. members know, we are getting on toward the end of it. However, no one has mentioned the point I intend to discuss at this time, and that is my reason for rising. If someone had said these few words I intend to say I would not have bothered getting to my feet.
The government most certainly must accept a share of responsibility for the unemployment situation as it exists today. The government, and in particular the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris), are responsible to a greater extent than they care to admit. Hundreds of thousands of immigrants were brought to this country as agriculturists, their contracts stating that they were to stay on the farms for a period of one year. What happened? Many of them left their employment in one or two weeks, leaving farmers high and dry, and migrated to the towns or cities to find employment, perhaps to be absorbed in industry.
I remember warning the minister about three years ago that the immigration laws should be changed, extending the time to about five years. This would have stopped many of the immigrants coming here as agriculturists. They found the only way they could get into Canada was to come as agriculturists, and we know that many of them were not qualified for that work when they came here and had no intention of remaining on the farms. If they had been told that they 
would be kept on the farms for a longer period of time they would not have come out in the first place. This, to my mind, would have done more than anything else to assure jobs for thousands of men, because it would have stopped many others from coming to Canada in the first place.
Their only way to get into Canada was to come here as agriculturists, and I say the government should have compelled those men to fulfil their contracts. The second mistake was made when the government refused to accept advice to change the provision in the immigration law from one year to a period of from three to five years. This would not have been any hardship for those who intended to make agriculture their life's work, and I am sure it would have had the result that many who now are unemployed would have been working steadily.
There are many farms in this country that could absorb more men than are now available. In addition to this, many farmers cannot afford to match the prices offered in industry. That is one reason men have left the farms; they can get higher wages elsewhere. But had they been compelled to fulfil their contracts when they were brought out here in the first instance we would have found that a great many men who are now walking the streets would have been on those farms and doing good work. However, as these men were probably the last to be absorbed into industry, they have been the first to be let out. That is one of the reasons why unemployment figures run so high at the present time.
To work is not a hardship-that is, unless there is something else one would rather do. One reason there are so many out of work in the farm machinery plants is that the farmers have stopped buying farm machinery. The machine companies have priced themselves out of the market, and the farmer cannot afford to pay farm machinery prices. Labour costs are too high. How can we expect anything but unemployment when the farm income has dropped by about 30 per cent? If the government wants to lessen the degree of unemployment all it has to do is to step up farm prices, and just watch the unemployment situation disappear.
Another factor that is unfair to the farmer is the income tax. Working hours should be considered when farm income is being computed. Why should farmers pay the same rate of tax on income earned when it requires twice as many hours to acquire the same amount of money? And we know, too, that farming is always a risk. The farmer never knows, after having worked to prepare

land for a crop, whether he will receive a suitable return, because much depends on the weatherman.
In closing let me say that the government must accept responsibility for at least a third of the number of unemployed, by reason of not having done those ordinary things one would expect it to do to assist the workingman. Export markets as we know are not very encouraging, and the world demand for wheat has been less buoyant. Continued surplus production in the United States does not brighten the hopes for Canadian producers. Cattle prices have dropped by at least a half in the last two years.
Then federal taxation has done as much as any other single thing to create unemployment. If taxes were to go down the cost of living would go down, as well as the cost of production. We should then find ourselves in a better position to compete for world markets. I most certainly hope the government will consider these problems.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, every now and again the biologists and the anthropologists flatter the human race by telling us we are superior to the lower animals because we learn by experience. However, having listened to the comments of some government spokesmen in recent days I begin to wonder whether that flattery is justified.


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


Colin Cameron: I am speaking for myself, as a human being.


An hon. Member:: Not for the government.


Colin Cameron: No, not for the
government. Looking over the debates of the House of Commons of about 20 years ago, I came across precisely the same sort of debate we are having today, on the subject of unemployment, by way of an amendment to the motion to go into supply. I find that almost the same kind of thing was being said then as we have heard today.
For instance, at page 1275 of Hansard for April 4, 1930, I find a speech by my old friend Henry Spencer, in which he speaks of the unemployment situation and points out that at that time the number of unemployed in Canada stood, in round figures, at 100,000. That interested me, because at that time it was quite obvious that members of the house on all sides were taking the unemployment situation extremely seriously. Yet here we had a figure of 100,000 out of an admittedly lower population of about 10 million. That is, there was only a fifth of the number of
Proposed Committee on Unemployment unemployed we have today, at a time when the population was two-thirds of today's population.
Now, of course not all people at that time took the same serious view of the matter that Mr. Henry Spencer did. We had another gentleman who was, need I say, a government supporter of the day, a member of the Liberal party in 1930, and he had this to say in part, as reported at page 1347 of Hansard for April 7, 1930:
During the summer season of 1929 this country enjoyed the greatest era of prosperity that it had known since confederation. Never in the history of this nation have we enjoyed greater prosperity, greater development and greater contentment, and nowhere else in the world could a labouring class be found who enjoyed a higher standard of living than did the people of Canada during the year 1929.
Mr. Speaker, one might almost have imagined that the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Howe) was speaking. Yes; and then, as my Conservative friend says, "came the deluge". But the deluge was in the form of a Conservative government, which arrived in 1930. In Hansard for 1931 we have the report of speeches made at that time, in which the prime minister of the day is quoted as having said this, as reported at page 465:
I tell you that when parliament meets, if there is not then evident further increase in employment, additional steps will be taken to meet the situation.
And the hon. member who quoted him said this:
I believe, Mr. Speaker, we have a right to know what those additional steps are to be.
Again that is curiously reminiscent. I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to a more recent Hansard, as recent as February 12 of this year. At page 2026 we find a statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) in answer to a question regarding the fiscal and monetary measures which, according to the Acting Prime Minister, this government is now implementing to prevent a rise in the level of unemployment. I find in it very much the same sort of vague assurance that the people of Canada were receiving from their spokesmen in 1930 and 1931.
I suggest that it is time the government began to take a little serious interest in the actual state of affairs in Canada, that they should take their heads out of the sand, that they should, for instance, perhaps listen to the voice of the executive commission of the Canadian association of social workers whose corresponding secretary had a letter in the Toronto Globe and Mail this morning, from which I should like to quote a few rather striking sentences:
Last year, after most careful study by the Canadian Welfare Council and its membership across
2344	HOUSE OF
Proposed Committee on Unemployment
Canada, representations were made to the government at Ottawa and to all provincial governments regarding the urgent necessity of having some over-all and permanent provision made to meet the situation and avoid the destitution and disruption of normal family living which today faces many families through no fault of their own. As far as can be observed, nothing has been done to make effective the recommendations made in this report or to evolve any satisfactory alternatives. Unemployment of able-bodied employable people who need and want work is a national problem which strikes at the very roots of family life and causes untold suffering.
There is more in the same vein, Mr. Speaker, which indicates that people whose daily work brings them into close contact with the unemployed are viewing the situation today with a great deal more gravity than our spokesmen on the government benches are doing.
It may be that such champions of free enterprise as the government of Canada will pay more attention to such sturdy enterprises as Messrs. Dun and Bradstreet rather than to the presumably soft-hearted and sentimental social workers. Messrs. Dun and Bradstreet have some rather shattering information for us too, as published in the Financial Post of February 13 of this year, where they report the number of business failures in the years 1952 and 1953. They tell us that in 1952 we had 843 business failures; in 1953, 1,039, an increase of 23 per cent. But worse than that, the number of business failures in the last quarter of 1952 were 192. In the last quarter of 1953 there were 317 failures, an increase of 65 per cent.

The liabilities of those failing concerns presented an even more serious picture. In 1952 the total liabilities of business failures amounted to $21,823,000. In 1953 the liabilities amounted to $30,704,000, an increase of 40 per cent. But here again we find that the final quarters of each year present an even more depressing picture. In the last quarter of 1952 the liabilities of business failures amounted to $4,605,000; whereas in the last quarter of 1953 the liabilities amounted to $10,325,000, an increase of 125 per cent.
Since it is ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo) the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall take third reading of the amendments to the Salaries Act. Then we shall continue this debate, and if it is concluded we shall call the four departments which we mentioned on Friday evening, standing them all. Then we shall proceed with second reading of the amendment to the Exports Credits Insurance Act and the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Labour, and then the Criminal Code.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 23, 1954