1955-03-01

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received a communication from His Excellency the Governor General signed by his own hand, reading as follows:
Government House.
Ottawa, February 25, 1955.
Members of the House of Commons:
I have received with great pleasure the address that you have voted in reply to my speech at the opening of parliament. I thank you sincerely for this address.
Vincent Massey. AGNES CAMPBELL MACPHAIL



MEMORIAL TO HONOUR THE FIRST WOMAN ELECTED TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS   DATE OF UNVEILING

["I am pleased to announce that the date of the unveiling of the Macphail memorial has been fixed by the internal economy commission for Tuesday, March 8, 1955. It was on March 8, 1922, that the late Agnes Campbell Macphail, elected member for the constituency of Grey Southeast at the general elections held on December 6, 1921, took her seat in the house, the first woman to do so.\nHon. members will recall that on June 8, 1954, I communicated the recommendations of the commissioners of internal economy which were as follows: (a) that to commemorate this historic event, a bronze bust of the first woman member, Miss Agnes Macphail, be placed on a pedestal in the vicinity of the chamber of the House of Commons; and (b) that, for this purpose, the bronze bust of Miss Macphail, offered by her two sisters, be gratefully accepted.\nOn Tuesday, March 8 next, it is proposed to adjourn the house at five p.m. Hon. senators and members are invited to gather in this chamber at 5.30 p.m. to hear the tributes which will be paid to the late Miss Macphail. Miss Macphail's close relatives have been invited to attend the ceremony on the floor of the house.\nWhen the speeches are concluded, Mrs. Meredith Reany and Mrs. Hugh Bailey, sisters\nof Miss Macphail, will proceed to the southwest corridor to declare the Macphail memorial officially unveiled.\nThe public is cordially invited to attend."]
Mr. Speaker:: I am pleased to announce that the date of the unveiling of the Macphail memorial has been fixed by the internal economy commission for Tuesday, March 8, 1955. It was on March 8, 1922, that the late Agnes Campbell Macphail, elected member for the constituency of Grey Southeast at the general elections held on December 6, 1921, took her seat in the house, the first woman to do so.
Hon. members will recall that on June 8, 1954, I communicated the recommendations of the commissioners of internal economy which were as follows: (a) that to commemorate this historic event, a bronze bust of the first woman member, Miss Agnes Macphail, be placed on a pedestal in the vicinity of the chamber of the House of Commons; and (b) that, for this purpose, the bronze bust of Miss Macphail, offered by her two sisters, be gratefully accepted.
On Tuesday, March 8 next, it is proposed to adjourn the house at five p.m. Hon. senators and members are invited to gather in this chamber at 5.30 p.m. to hear the tributes which will be paid to the late Miss Macphail. Miss Macphail's close relatives have been invited to attend the ceremony on the floor of the house.
When the speeches are concluded, Mrs. Meredith Reany and Mrs. Hugh Bailey, sisters
of Miss Macphail, will proceed to the southwest corridor to declare the Macphail memorial officially unveiled.
The public is cordially invited to attend.



[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. Philippe Picard (Bellechasse) presented the first report of the standing committee on external affairs, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that in Ottawa several small hotels, a tailor shop, a taxi firm, an upholstery company, a delivery service and a pool room-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Harris Hees: I am getting to it.


An hon. Member:: Put it on the order paper.


George Harris Hees: -have all been granted the right to use the word "royal" in their title, would the Prime Minister recommend to the Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard) that he speed up the procedure to make it as easy as possible for companies like national railways to obtain the use of the title in the shortest possible time?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: It is not within my knowledge that any of the institutions mentioned by my hon. friend have obtained the right to use the word "royal". From the list he read, even if requests from them were submitted, I doubt that they would be authorized to use the word. I cannot add anything to what I said yesterday about the other matter. If and when applications are received, they will receive due consideration. If they appear to be worthy of Her Majesty's consideration, they will be forwarded for that consideration.
1596	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORTATION



REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGREED CHARGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It has been reported by the press that the report of the royal commission inquiring into railway agreed charges has now been submitted to the government. Will the Prime Minister tell the house when he proposes to table that report?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I understand that the report of the royal commission on railway agreed charges has been delivered to my colleague the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler), that it is quite a lengthy report and that he is having copies prepared for the use of his colleagues when it is presented to the governor in council for consideration. It is also his intention to have it printed and to have copies available for distribution to all hon. members as soon as that can be conveniently arranged.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct to the Minister of Veterans Affairs a question, notice of which I have sent to him. Has the minister received representations to the effect that the staff at the Victoria veterans hospital, British Columbia, be granted a five-day work week of 40 hours? If so, has any action been taken in the matter?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that representations have been received especially from the staff of the Victoria veterans hospital. However, such representations were received during the course of the year from the Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada and from the Department of Veterans Affairs employees national association. These were considered by the government, and two weeks ago it was decided that the 40-hour week would be instituted in all D.V.A. hospitals and, for that matter, in all federal hospitals in British Columbia, starting on the first of April of this year. This decision is in accordance with the policy of establishing the 40-hour week where it exists in similar institutions within one province.
[Mr. St. Laurent.)



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked a question concerning the erection of prefabricated houses at Comox, British Columbia. The Minister of Public Works indicated he would secure further information. I wonder whether the minister can give any further information today on this matter?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member asked if the houses are to be imported into Canada in prefabricated form. The answer to that is no. They are being prefabricated in Canada. This is a project to provide 100 houses for national defence personnel at Comox under the limited dividend section, being section 16, of the National Housing Act. This section authorizes Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make a loan of 90 per cent. The limited dividend company is responsible for the balance of 10 per cent. It also owns and operates the project.
C.M.H.C. invited proposals under this section. Marwell Construction Company submitted the best proposal. It was based on prefabricated units as built by James Riley (Canada) Limited of Toronto. This type of house, which is prefabricated in New Lis-keard, Ontario, is acceptable under the National Housing Act. Accordingly the Mar-well proposal was accepted.
[Later:!


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works or the Minister of National Defence whether or not the houses to which I referred will, when erected, be reserved for the use of the air force personnel at Comox station or will they be available for general rental purposes?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: The houses in question will be reserved primarily for the use of troops, air force in this case. They are being erected under a long-term agreement which provides that we will have first call on rental of houses and which provides also for various contingencies, for example if we should move from the area or should wish to acquire the houses ourselves.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is it correct that the plans for the expansion of Malton airport now include situating the new runways, including the instrument landing runway, to the south of the present existing runways so as to minimize the hazard to Brampton?
Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: I received notice of this question just before I came into the house, and I shall endeavour to answer it tomorrow.



POSSIBLE COMPETITION OF LIQUID METHANE IMPORTED INTO NOVA SCOTIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Buchanan (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys based on a recent newspaper report of an address by Dr. G. S. Hume of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. Can the minister say if the importation into Nova Scotia of liquid methane is imminent and, if so, can he give assurance that it will not constitute a new threat to the Nova Scotia coal industry?


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I wish to thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. Officials of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, especially the men engaged in scientific work, are called upon from time to time to speak to conventions on various technical subjects. The speech to which the hon. member refers was given by Dr. Hume, our director general of scientific services, to the engineering institute of Canada. The subject of his discourse was the transportation of fuels by pipe line. During his speech Dr. Hume made reference to the recent development of a method of transporting liquefied natural gas to distant markets in refrigerated ships. He referred to the possibility of such liquefied gas from the Middle East becoming available on the eastern seaboard of Canada.
My hon. friend asks if this is imminent and what impact it will have on the coal industry. There is no evidence of such a development at an early date. I believe that the arrival of natural gas in eastern Canada, if and when it does occur, undoubtedly will have an impact. The extent of the impact will depend
Inquiries of the Ministry on the price and on consumer acceptance. However, I believe that the people of the maritime provinces will be well advised to be very slow about converting to fuels such as gas and oil originating outside of Canada, which fuels are in direct competition with coal, a major industry in Nova Scotia.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: On Friday last, the hon. member for York South asked me on the orders of the day whether it was a fact that immigrants ordered to be deported are sometimes held in Toronto jail for more than a month at a cost of $10 a day to Canadian taxpayers, even though they offer to pay their own way back to their country of origin and to leave as soon as they are notified of deportation action. So far as I can discover, this is not a fact.
In the first place, the cost of detention is not $10 a day but $3 a day. In the second place, after a review of all cases of persons detained for 30 days or more during the years 1951 to 1954 inclusive, only one case has been found of a person who volunteered to leave this country of his own accord, and the privilege of leaving voluntarily was denied to this person because he could not establish that he had the means to provide for his transportation to Europe.
After asking his question, the hon. member sent me a letter on which his question had been founded. This letter was from a Dutch immigrant whose name I would prefer not to give to the house. This immigrant had been convicted on two occasions of theft and on both occasions had, perhaps mistakenly, been allowed to remain in this country on compassionate grounds. His wife subsequently reported that he had deserted her and their children and, as there was no evidence that he intended to return to his wife and support his family or that he had been rehabilitated in any way, this immigrant was apprehended on January 24, 1955, and immediate steps were taken to arrange with The Netherlands authorities for his deportation. It took some time to secure the necessary permission, which has now been received, and as his deportation is imminent he is being removed to detention headquarters in Montreal pending actual deportation.
I might add that the department has no record of any offer by this immigrant to depart voluntarily and, in any event, we
159?	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry have no evidence that he has the means to pay the costs of transportation.
I have given this rather lengthy answer very reluctantly. I question whether it is proper for me to answer, or for hon. members to ask, questions about these individual cases on the orders of the day when they are not really urgent.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that in the last few days meetings have taken place between representatives of the federal government and the government of Saskatchewan relative to bringing about finality with respect to the South Saskatchewan river dam project? What is the present position of the negotiations since the Prime Minister last gave a report to the house?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is not to my knowledge that there have been any recent meetings between representatives of the government of Canada and representatives of the government of Saskatchewan, and there have been no developments that I have heard of since I last reported to the house.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO PROGRESS WITH ARRANGEMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister to bring the house up to date on the progress that is being made toward holding a dominion-provincial conference.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is intended that there will be, as early as can conveniently be arranged, a dominion-provincial conference on fiscal relations between the two levels of government. I expect to be communicating within the next week with the several premiers of the provinces in that regard.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: I rise on a question of privilege. Some years ago I asked Miss Agnes Macphail what she
[Mr. PickersgiU.l

thought of the character and ability of the members of the House of Commons. Her reply was that there was not a group of men in Canada which would excel them in character and ability and in willingness to serve.
I rise now because I want to ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition what he thinks of the statement made by the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne). I know it is not true of this side of the house. I wish to ask the Leader of the Opposition if that lie is true for members on that side of the house?


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. members on this side of the house are quite capable of speaking for themselves in regard to their conduct in this house or outside of it. I have no intention of making any remarks in regard to it. Since coming into this house I have always found the hon. members faithful to their duties and I should not expect the Prime Minister, in his capacity as prime minister, or myself or the hon. members of this house to assume the responsibility of telling any member what he should do once he is outside of this chamber.



PROCEDURE IN ANSWERING QUESTIONS

['Give us the answer tomorrow.\nOn motion of Mr. Johnston (Bow River) the debate was adjourned.']
Mr. Speaker:: In view of the remark made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard) with respect to certain questions which he thinks are improper on the orders of the day, I might say that I agree with him in large measure. I must also add, however, that when a question is too lengthy for reply the minister is not obliged to answer it. In giving us an answer he might state that he will give a reply to this question when his estimates are before the house.


Mr. Pinard:: I believe you meant the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry. Perhaps I was living in the past.



Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 4, to regulate the exportation of power and fluids and the importation of gas.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee of supply.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Last Thursday I rose to speak on a question of urgent public importance, namely the unemployment problem. I am prepared to proceed-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) rose at the same time as the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough). As he knows, the hon. member for Hamilton West is the labour critic of the official opposition. It had been announced that we were to discuss unemployment today and therefore, as far as I am concerned, I will follow the usual practice in this house of first recognizing the representative of the official opposition in any debate.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, may I just state that I bow to your ruling, particularly in view of the fact that the spokesman for the official opposition is a lady. I think, however, when a member rises to move a motion dealing with a particular problem, that courtesy demands he should be allowed to proceed with it.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not wish to have any misunderstanding arise. It is often the duty of the Speaker to extend courtesies. For instance, when a new member rises to make his maiden speech at the same time that two or three old members of the house rise, the Speaker gives the floor to the new member for the purpose of making his maiden speech. I want to make certain that when the hon. member refers to a lack of courtesy I am not responsible for it.


Major James William Coldwell: I wish to make it abundantly clear that I was not referring to you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Even if the hon. member has moved a motion on an earlier occasion and feels that he should have the floor when another occasion for debate is provided, there is no doubt that in the past, and in any event whenever any debate is initiated upon any motion, the mover is recognized first and then the critic or the member speaking in reply as a member of the official opposition is recognized. On this occasion, a motion has been made to go into supply and it is normal for grievances to be aired and 50433-102J
Unemployment
amendments proposed in the form of a vote of censure or want of confidence. Unless the practice is to be changed, and I do not feel it should be, the representative of the official opposition should be given the floor first.


George Alexander Drew: On a question of privilege, I wish to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well). It is not customary for him to leave an insinuation hanging in mid-air as he did when he made his remark about courtesy. Perhaps he did it unconsciously. He explained, of course, that he was not referring to Your Honour. This left the inevitable inference that there was a lack of appropriate courtesy on the part of the hon. member who had risen and stood ready to speak.


Major James William Coldwell: No, no.


George Alexander Drew: If that is not so, I have no further comment to make. I did not wish any question left on the record in that regard.
You will recall, Your Honour, that when the motion was presented last week concerning the adjournment of the house, I stated on that occasion that we had proposed to bring the matter up in another way. That followed immediately after the presentation of the latest reports in regard to unemployment. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) had discussed the matter with me and it was decided that we would bring it up in the way in which it is now being brought up.
I would only point out that if at any time the suggestion were to be accepted that, by bringing up a motion which you would not hear, Mr. Speaker, this would be given priority, we would then all be in a scramble with every kind of motion to establish a priority position in regard to the regular debates when that opportunity presented itself. On this particular occasion I made it clear that we had discussed this subject and intended to bring it up in another way and the hon. member for Hamilton West in rising on this matter today is now carrying put the procedure we had considered and decided upon at that time.


Major James William Coldwell: I would like to rise on a question of privilege. I may say that you did not decide that the motion should not be proceeded with on Thursday. What I actually did was to accede to a suggestion made on the other side of the house that an opportunity would be provided early this week. Indeed, I suggested an opportunity should be provided. It was agreed we might proceed on Monday or Tuesday.

Unemployment
Concerning the matter of courtesy, I was not referring to the hon. member for Hamilton West but I think the procedure might be accepted by the member of the official opposition in this particular instance because we endeavoured to initiate the debate first.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, I think I will deal first of all with what has happened, and say to hon. members that I am sure they will agree with me when I say that since I have been a member of the house I have neither asked nor given quarter in debate, because of my sex. And I rather resent the inference of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) that it was because of that I had risen to take part in this debate.
I am here as a member of the House of Commons with certain duties to perform, speaking for my party on matters arising which are of special interest to labour; and I propose to exercise my duty in the best manner available to me. Those members of the House of Commons who desire to cast aspersions on the manner in which I do it are at liberty to do so-but that will not deter me at any time from doing what I consider it is my duty to do.
Then, with regard to the matter which has been raised and which, as my leader pointed out, we had intended to raise in this manner, I must say that members of this party had considered the possibility of asking for the adjournment of the house, as was done last Thursday. However, we do know that a debate instigated in that manner would die with that sitting. Accordingly we thought that, for the purpose of having a fuller and more extended debate on a subject which is of such vital concern to the people of this country, we should proceed in this more regularized manner to present our views to the house and the government. It is also true, Mr. Speaker, that had the debate died with the sitting there would have been no opportunity for collecting the voices in this matter. That also influenced us in our decision to wait.
There are many aspects to this problem of unemployment. First of all of course there is the annual squabble which takes place over which are the right figures, as to how many people are actually unemployed. Then there is the question of the number who are receiving unemployment insurance benefits and the impact which that has on the welfare load which falls, in the main, upon the municipalities, which have only one source of revenue. That, in turn, leads us to the over-all question of what happens to the

economy of Canada under circumstances like this; and that in turn leads us to the question of what is to be done about it.
I should like first of all to deal with the question of the numbers of people who are unemployed in this country. I have made a considerable study of this matter and have called upon others to assist me in securing the best possible information we could secure on the situation today.
It is true that there has been a deterioration in the employment picture all through 1954. The latest figures available, for January 1955, of applications on file at national employment offices total 569,600 or an increase of 206,900 over last year-an increase, let me say, of 57 per cent.
Throughout the whole of 1954, I reiterate, there has been a marked deterioration in the employment situation. Comments have been made each year to the effect that when winter broke and spring came many of our problems would be cleared up. So, with this in mind, I looked at the spring and summer months of 1953 and 1954, extending my survey into the autumn. I found that in the months of May to October 1953 inclusive- and certainly neither May nor October could be called a winter month-the percentage of applications for employment to the total civilian labour force ranged from 3 per cent in the mid-summer months to 4-2 per cent. Those figures when compared with the figures for 1954 show that in 1954 the percentage of applications for employment to the total civilian labour force ranged from 4-4 per cent to 6-6 per cent, or an increase of at least 50 per cent between 1953 and 1954.
This deterioration can be seen from the fact that at all national employment service offices in every single month the total number of people in the civilian labour force has been higher than in the corresponding month of the previous year. For example, applications for employment in January 1955 are 10 [DOT] 7 per cent as against the corresponding figure of 10 per cent in January of 1954. The sorry part of it is that if the increase in the number of applications for work in March of this year, the month into which we just entered today, bear the same relationship to the January figures for 1955 that the March figures bear to the January figures in 1954, there will be 620,000 unplaced applicants in Canada during the course of this present month. That will represent 11'6 per cent of the present labour force, as against 10-9 per cent applying for jobs last year.
From time to time government speakers have maintained that the national employment service figures overstate the condition

of unemployment. They have claimed that not all applicants for employment are necessarily out of work, or are regularly part of the labour force. However, evidence of the deterioration in the employment situation is equally strong if we analyse the figures from the sample survey of the labour force taken by the dominion bureau of statistics.
For this purpose I have secured the percentages of unemployed, according to the D.B.S. figures, which is the other set of figures from which we glean information on the subject. Upon doing this I find that in 1953 the D.B.S. figures showed a percentage of unemployed ranging from 1-6 per cent to 3-6 per cent, while the figures from the same source show for 1954 percentages of unemployment ranging from 3 per cent to 6 per cent-again twice as much, practically, as the year before.
I find also from these figures, which government spokesmen are fond of quoting as against the higher figures of the national employment service, that in January 1955, the last month for which figures are available, even the dominion bureau of statistics showed 6-8 per cent unemployed, which is 1-5 per cent higher than the figure for the preceding January.
From these figures it is also clear that in every month of 1954 the percentage of unemployed was higher than in the corresponding month of 1953. That situation is getting progressively worse, as shown by the fact that the percentage of labour force unemployed in January 1955 was 6-8 per cent, as I indicated, as against 5-3 per cent in January 1954, and as against 3-6 per cent in January 1953. According to this sample, the actual number of persons without jobs and seeking work in January, 1955, was 362,000, as compared with 569,600 in the national employment service figures.
I realize that without a lengthy study it would be impossible to reconcile these conflicting figures; but it is true that both sets of figures show the same situation, namely, a deterioration in the employment position during 1954 and, according to the latest figures that are available to us, right up to 1955. It is not only the actual figures of unemployment that cause us concern. From the Canadian statistical review, January, 1955, I find that the retail trade of this country has suffered in the last three years. In November, 1952, the retail trade in millions of dollars was 1,006-9. The following year, November, 1953, it was 1,001-7, or a reduction of $5,225,000. The following year, November, 1954, the amount was 994-3, which represented a drop of $7,500,000. We find that
Unemployment
the retail trade gradually dropped while the ordinary claims on the unemployment register gradually rose from November, 1952,-the same months-to 161,900; November, 1953, to 238,500; November, 1954, to 274,500. From the same publication I find on page 12 in the statistics with reference to the civilian labour force, between January, 1953 and January, 1955, there was an increase in the labour force of 145,000. At January, 1953, there were 5,200,000 in the civilian labour force of Canada. In 1955 there were 5,345,000. Without jobs and seeking work in those same months we find the following figures: In January, 1953, 187,000; in 1954, 280,000; and in 1955, 362,000, which gives us an increase of persons without jobs and seeking work in that two-year period of 175,000. At the same time that the total civilian labour force increased by only 145,000, the increase in the number of persons without jobs and seeking work in that two-year period rose by 30,000 over and above the actual increase in the size of the labour force.
This, Mr. Speaker, is cause for grave concern to everyone. But, regardless of the number of people who are out of work, regardless of whether the number is 362,000 or 569,000, the question we have to ask ourselves is whether or not hon. members and the people of Canada are going to consider that a person is merely a statistic. Is the individual to be merely a statistic in the estimation of those people who are governing this country? Each of these 569,000 persons reported by the Department of Labour and each of those reported by the dominion bureau of statistics is a human being. Many of them have persons dependent upon them for support. It is not only a matter of buoyancy or lack of buoyancy of the Canadian economy; it is a matter of frightened men and women with cold bodies and hungry stomachs. It is a matter of fear which grips the hearts of working people who are probably employed themselves but see their neighbours idle and who ask themselves: when is it going to happen to me? Certainly, they say, we expect Canada to go ahead. Certain it is that Canada will thrive, but in the meantime what do we eat?
Not long ago I noticed an article in one of the newspapers with reference to a plea which had been made to the municipal authorities on behalf of the unemployed persons, and it was headed: "Can't Eat Snow". No, Mr. Speaker, they cannot eat snow and they cannot eat Kitimat. They cannot eat Knob Lake; they cannot eat Alberta oil; they cannot eat a pipe line and they cannot eat the St. Lawrence seaway, important though these things are to Canada, and despite the

Unemployment
fact that they supply jobs to large numbers of Canadians. Perhaps that is why this situation is so appalling.
In the midst of wealth we have human misery. The very presence of this wealth, the very picture of progress points up more vividly the lack of constructive planning which results in this actually increasing unemployment problem. With all the faith in the world, Mr. Speaker, these people cannot wait ten years or fifteen years for a steady job and a weekly pay cheque.
We should probably ask ourselves what the government's reaction has been to this. Not so long ago a year-end review by the Minister of Labour was released. Quite frankly, I read it with amazement. It is true that when unemployment is rising the talk of the department is that it is seasonal or regional. When unemployment fell off a bit, the department was prone to describe the situation as encouraging. However, I was not prepared for some of the remarks in this news release. In the very first paragraph the minister remarked that there was some improvement in the level of economic activity and employment, while unemployment continued on a higher level in 1954 than in 1953. Now, I am not very good at this double talk myself, or maybe I am misreading this particular paragraph, Mr. Speaker, but it seems to me when one says that there was some improvement in the level of economic activity and employment and then turns around and says in the same sentence, without a comma in between, that unemployment continued on a higher level, if that is not double talk, I have not read any. As a matter of fact, the article goes on in that vein and I could quote several such instances in it.
Another thing that I should like to mention appears several paragraphs down the page. Reference is made to the relative improvement in the employment picture and the demands for labour which have been sufficiently strong in recent months to reduce the year-to-year gap in the unemployment level. Well, in December, 1954,	352,000
persons were out of work as against 303,000 in 1953, or an increase of 49,000 persons out of work. Is this a relative improvement? If so, relative to what? What does it mean to say that the year-to-year gap in the unemployment level has been reduced?
A couple of paragraphs later it goes on to say that there is a stronger over-all picture employmentwise than was the case a year ago. We might ask ourselves just what this

stronger picture is. In December 1953 the civilian labour force was 5,275,000, and the out of work numbered 303,000 or 5-7 per cent. One year later, in December 1954, at the time this news release was issued, the civilian labour force numbered 5,414,000 and the number out of work was 352.000 or 6-5 per cent, an increase of -8 per cent despite the fact that this release says that there is a stronger over-all picture employmentwise.
A little later on in the release it says that job opportunities should be somewhat more numerous this winter than a year ago. Even at the time of writing this, the minister must have known that unemployment was rising even over the large figure of the previous year. To my mind, while the rest of this might very well be considered double talk, while it might be conceded that the department was trying to put a brave face on what was a very bad situation, the final blow comes in the last paragraph. I almost hesitate to read it for it is no longer double talk, it is flippancy. It says:
Finally I would like to say on behalf of the federal government that you have our best wishes for a happy, successful and productive new year.
A little later on, not so long after this report came out, we had the speech from the throne at the opening of this session-a speech which was full of vagaries and half promises, a speech which said in one place that there was some unemployment of a regional and seasonal nature and in another place that there should be a substantial increase in public works of a sort that will relieve unemployment.
There were some speeches made during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Among those who spoke was the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). It was interesting to note that the Prime Minister had changed his tone a little since September of 1954 when he spoke in the province of Quebec. Among the remarks which he is credited with having made at that time is a sentence which I should like to quote now. According to a Canadian Press dispatch the Prime Minister had this to say:
We have a country where there should be work for everybody and if we are not smart enough to organize the economy of the nation to provide work for everybody we are incompetent.
After this house had opened and during the debate on the speech from the throne the Prime Minister, after expressing anxiety about unemployment, had this to say:
Each year the situation has eased as the season advances. There is reason to expect that it will do so again.

I ask: what reason and to what extent? Is it to the extent, to quote the Prime Minister, that there is work for everybody or merely to the extent that the government can alibi itself out of its incompetency? Those words of the Prime Minister did not go unnoticed. In a publication which comes to all of us entitled Labour Research and published by the research department of the Canadian Congress of Labour, the Prime Minister is quoted as having said, which he did, that there is some unemployment in Canada. This article starts out by saying that this classic understatement almost deserves to rank with President Wilson's description of the great war. I am sure that hon. members of this house are familiar with that classic understatement. Then the article goes on to say:
This is really sublime. There has indeed "been some unemployment in Canada every year".
Canadian Business, the official organ of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, in December estimated that this year's March figure for unplaced applicants would be around 600,000. The present indication is that it may be higher than that. Last year it was 570,000; in 1953 it was 408,000; in 1952 it was 382,000; and in 1951 it was 296,000. Four years ago it was less than 300,000; this year it is over 600,000. Four years ago about one in thirteen workers unemployed; this year about one in seven. This very remarkable breakdown of employment conditions in Canada goes on to give facts and comparisons of figures which are really amazing.
In the midst of all this many representations have been made, not the least of which was a very fine letter from the Ontario welfare council. Since this is addressed to the right hon. Prime Minister I know he must have received it, and since I received a copy I presume that every hon. member did also. In this letter they set out a most excellent description of the situation.
They point out that there is only some 62 per cent of the labour force which is insured under the Unemployment Insurance Act. They point out also that with some 62 per cent insured there is left a sizeable percentage who cannot hope to benefit even when they are out of work. Then they go on to point out some other things. They say that in addition there are those persons whose benefits have expired. They say also that it is apparent at a time when the employment situation is worsening steadily every year that there are many people in this province who have used up their rights to benefits and have passed from under the protection of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Unemployment
They go on to point out that there are also those persons who are without sufficient credits to claim insurance benefits and that there are also those young people who are entering the labour market, newcomers to Canada and others who are unprotected because they have not worked long enough to earn rights to benefits. They regret further that the benefits are not sufficient to support these people and their families at a minimum subsistence level. Then they make this statement:
It is self-evident that we have a problem whose solution requires federal participation on a major scale-and quickly.
The Ontario welfare council is not the only organization that is concerned in this matter. Briefs have been presented to the government and delegations have come here to meet, not only the government but the opposition parties as well. Across this country newspapers have recorded these things, have written articles and editorials on the subject. I have already mentioned one article which I had seen and which is headed "Can't Eat Snow". It then went on to say that immediate talks were sought on the growing lack of jobs. Another one is headed, "Tomorrow may be Too Late; Help Needed Now for City's Jobless". The next one says that aldermen in one city blast government inaction. Today I received a telegram from the Hamilton council of community services in which it is said:
Public assistance still urgently needed in Hamilton, 14,000 now unemployed. Seventeen thousand spent by city in January and nearly that much in February for unemployed employables without benefits and needing emergency relief. Please urge federal action toward adequate financial assistance program . . .
Another article is headed "Unemployment Mask," and this one proceeds to set out the picture as it is seen by the editorial writers across this country of a progressively worsening situation. The next one says, "Federal Ontario Officials Discuss Job Lack Planning". Then it says that nothing has yet been done with regard to unemployed employables. Again another one is headed "How Many Jobless?" That is a question that we all ask ourselves. Another one is headed, "The Wrong Doorstep" and it sets out the manner this problem has been juggled around from one authority to another, with no one taking any credit for it. Another one is headed, "Jobless Paid to Quit City and Go Home". All of these articles, Mr. Speaker, give evidence of the concern which is felt not only by people in public life, not only by the unemployed themselves but by newspaper writers and newspaper editors throughout this land.

Unemployment
Again I should like to refer to the submission of the Ontario welfare council and its strong plea for consideration. In a closing paragraph of their letter, speaking of the meeting which they had called, they have this to say:
It was clear that those who attended our meeting did not accept general statements that this problem represents no responsibility of the federal government. Since employment-and unemployment-are a national concern, it is self-evident that the fate of unemployed employables is similarly basically sensitive to federal initiative.
And further on it points out what should be a warning to all of us:
. . . the suffering endured by many now will be reflected inevitably in reduced morale, health, productivity and purchasing power of our people.
That, Mr. Speaker, leads directly to the $64 question: Whither the Canadian economy?
This government never displayed any bashfulness at all in accepting credit for boom years. These ministers went up and down the land beating their chests and bragging. They even forgot to give credit to the poor taxpayers who provided the money to pay for the services they bragged about. To hear them tell it, you would think they had dug into their own pockets and paid for them. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, anyone who wants to read the newspapers over the last few years will be surprised to find the number of instances in which ministers of the crown referred to "I" and "we" in their recounting of the events which had taken place. But now, when the municipalities are caught in a giant squeeze, this government will not even admit the desirability of drawing together all levels of public administration to discuss the best means of alleviating the municipal distress, because that is where the big load inevitably falls. It falls right on the municipality with its one source of tax revenue. Having taken credit for the employment boom of a few years ago, surely the government can hardly disclaim responsibility now when unemployment rears its ugly head higher and higher as the years go by.
What has the government done? It has done this, Mr. Speaker. It has published a little pamphlet which is called "Two Minutes of Employment Facts". This pamphlet came into my office postmarked February 9, 1955. It points out that everyone is concerned about the unemployment situation and then it goes on to say this:
Though extremely complex in all Its ramifications, the problem of seasonal unemployment does appear to offer some weak points for immediate attack where there is a reasonable chance for definite progress. Recent extensive studies of the subject point up the fact that at least some of our difficulties result simply from force of habit.

My word, Mr. Speaker, do you mean to tell me that the government was obliged to have an extensive study made in order to show that the government has become a victim of habit? I would think it would be apparent to anyone who sits in this house or who reads the newspapers. But they had an extensive study made, and I guess it entailed extensive expense also. This pamphlet goes on to say this:
Spring to most of us is the traditional time to start clean-ups, remodelling, renovation and the general brightening up of our homes-
And it urges the people of this nation to try to place a few of these people who are out of work by doing their housecleaning early. Such drivel! Mr. Speaker, does the government not know that many of these home owners whom they are urging to do their spring cleaning early are the very ones who are out of work? They can do their own repairs around their houses if they have any money at all with which to buy lumber and paint. But I strongly suspect that many of these people will make no repairs to their houses this year because they cannot even afford the things they need in order to make the necessary repairs.


Mr. Hodgson:: Let them get some whitewash from the government.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am sure there will be plenty left over, judging by what we get in this house.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) spoke in Hamilton last Saturday and there were some press reports. Over the radio on Monday morning I heard this:
Labour minister Gregg has hinted at a large-scale housing program to take care of winter unemployment. The hint came in speeches to trade unionists and Liberal party members at separate meetings in Hamilton yesterday. He told the Liberals that federal authorities expect to be able to fight winter unemployment-especially in construction industries-with proper planning. To the trade unionists, he said that housing programs could have a sweeping effect on unemployment across the country.
In the Hamilton Spectator there is a report of the minister's speech in which we find the following:
The distinct possibility that construction work "almost throughout the winter" may become a reality in the not too distant future was envisaged on Saturday evening by the Hon. Milton F. Gregg, V.C., M.P., federal Minister of Labour-
Then it goes on to quote him as follows:
"We have discovered", said Mr. Gregg, "that with proper advance planning, there is no insurmountable reason why construction work should not continue throughout almost the entire winter each year, with the addition of only a slight extra cost to the work undertaken."

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Labour has made that discovery, why did he not put it into effect this year?


George Harris Hees: A very good question.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If there is to be a housing program which is going to have some effect on the unemployment picture, why was it not announced in this house? Why do these things have to be said to Liberal party organizations as, I presume, a chin-lifter at their regular meetings? This house is now in session. Why could it not be said here? Why does the minister not disclose to us what this housing program is, what these construction plans are?


Mr. Cardiff:: It is not as well received here.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The government itself should take the lead and not call upon home owners to employ a few clean-up men in their back yards, somebody to shingle the roof or to paint the living room. The government has far more scope for employing people than all the householders of the country put together.
I should like to mention one matter which has been drawn to my attention and which I have mentioned before. It is one way in which the government could do something to level out the peaks and the valleys of employment in Canada. This one, as it happens, is related to my home town of Hamilton where we have the centre of the freight car industry in Canada. There we have the company which is the largest fabricator of freight cars in Canada. Also in Hamilton we have a company which produces castings and two companies which produce sheet steel. In Hamilton also is situated the company which produces air brakes. An informed guess as to the. number of workers who are engaged in the manufacture of freight cars and related production would be about 3,000 to 4,000.
At the present time freight car activity in Hamilton is at a standstill, and so far as I can ascertain there are no orders outstanding. In the past the requirements of the two railroads have averaged around 8,000 cars per year. In some years the orders have been less and in other years much more. I understand they have gone as high as 16,000 cars in one year. At the present time the placing of further orders has been deferred with the result that many workers now find themselves unemployed. Not once but many times, I understand, representations have been made both to the railways and to the government to adopt a policy of levelling out orders to avoid the very severe peaks and valleys in production which an ill-advised policy of purchasing has produced, a policy which has had an inevitable effect upon the
Unemployment
working conditions of so many people in my city. One of these railways is government controlled, and it is my opinion that the government should take the lead and set an example of properly controlled orders which would permit the supplying companies to revise their production schedules in order to provide year-round work for the employees in these plants.
There are other ways in which the government could assist in the present crisis, and not only in the present crisis but with an eye to a long-range program. I do not want it to be taken from my remarks that I think that public works in themselves are a cure-all for this situation. I do not. I think they play their part but I do not think that public works alone can cure the problem at the present time. However, I will say that we have one huge project in Canada which is away behind schedule. I refer to the trans-Canada highway in the completion of which alone there is plenty of work to be done. That highway was supposed to be finished in six years. Four of those years have gone by and only one-fifth of the road has been completed. There is apparent indifference on the part of the government to the situation of highways in this country. No one knows better than I that highways are a provincial responsibility, but the provinces have been kept plenty busy these past few years finding the funds to build highways within their own borders. There is still a crying need for through roads, roads to link provinces, roads to provide ready access to far places, roads which will provide the means of employment for the workers of tomorrow.
Despite the heavy taxes which flow into the federal coffers each year from the automotive industry alone, this country is far behind its neighbour to the south. We are not now back in the days of the horse and buggy when dirt roads were sufficient for local travel. The highway of today is as important as the railroads and the air lines, and it is about time that the government woke up to the fact that motor transportation is here to stay. In an article published in the Globe and Mail of Saturday, January 29, on this subject this paragraph appears:
If Ottawa continues to read the British North America Act but misread its Intent, there is a very real danger that the provinces, lacking a national blueprint, will spend millions of dollars and years of effort and time constructing the less important highways first.
I should like to point out the terrific importance of through roads in this country if for no other reason than that of military preparedness. The government has not hesitated to step into other departments of provincial authority and it is about time it

Unemployment
consulted with the provinces to determine the best way in which to pick up the slack in the construction of through roads which are so badly needed. Here is one more place where money could be invested wisely and well and, in the investment, provide employment for our people.
A nation, Mr. Speaker, is prosperous only as its people are prosperous. I think that is an accepted fact. A short time ago an editorial appeared in the Hamilton Spectator headed with the one word "If". It went on to point out the many "ifs" that have to be taken into consideration in looking at the Canadian economy. It asks what the government proposes to do about various things and then it says that probably things will work out well if-"if the economy of Canada today is not really, as it sometimes appears to be, a sort of Indian rope trick, up there in the sky with no visible means of support."
That "if" is what is bothering the people of Canada today right across the country. It is what prompts remarks by leaders of industry and leaders of labour unions alike, remarks of a nature we have not heard in Canada in many years. Wheat is unsold, markets have been lost, automobile inventories grow and grow so that one industrialist remarked only a very few days ago:
I'm very much afraid that we are in for more chaotic conditions in the auto industry in 1955 than we lived through in 1954.
He went on to say:
Don't ever forget this. We will never again experience the lush seven years we did during 1946-53. Those conditions are as dead as yesterday's newspaper.
The electrical manufacturing industry in this country has placed in the hands of every member of parliament a copy of the Knox report. Knowing full well that members of parliament are busy people they have also placed in the hands of every member of parliament a condensation of that report. The textile industry has been making representations to this government for over two years. Just this week a labour union presented its views on the condition into which the electrical manufacturing industry has fallen, recognizing that what affects that industry also affects its workers.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, history is being made when the members of a labour union take it upon themselves to present their views of the industry in which they are employed.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Trades and Labour Congress, the Canadian Congress of Labour, the Catholic confederation of labour, the association of mayors

and municipalities, the Canadian Manufacturers Association and other groups have spoken on this subject. They have all made their voices heard. There is no need to quote from their briefs; I am sure their contents are familiar to all the members of this house. I am certain that a good many hon. members have received telegrams from them today asking that their views be put forward in this debate. What are they worried about? They are worried about jobs, which mean purchasing power. They are worried about imports thrown on the Canadian market at prices below the cost of production here. They are worried about exports which they should be making to markets abroad. There has been a serious loss of markets for Canadian products abroad.
This is no time for complacency, Mr. Speaker. This is not a time at which we can say this situation will ease as the season advances. We cannot afford to wait. This is a time for action, and a time for both short and long-term planning. This is a time when we should take steps to provide jobs for our workers, a time when we should ensure that there will not be a recurrence of the situation in which we find ourselves today.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr):
That all the words after "That" to the end of the question be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"in the opinion of this house, because of the grave state of unemployment in Canada as disclosed by the joint statement of the Department of Labour and the dominion bureau of statistics on February 23 last, the government should immediately give consideration to the formulation of plans to deal with this emergency, and to the necessary steps to establish a long-term program for expanding employment to be presented to parliament during the present session."


Hon. Milion F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: I hope the leader of the C.C.F. party in this house will understand if I further delay the presentation of his case. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in this debate immediately following the labour critic of the official opposition.
In some of the remarks my hon. friend has made from time to time she has indicated that perhaps the federal Minister of Labour lives in something akin to an ivory tower and does not get out in the country to learn what is really happening in the front line of labour activities. On Saturday morning I was engaged in discussions with labour leaders in her great city. I was rather hoping she would commend me for my visit to the city of Hamilton, but she did not see fit to mention it. I must say, however, that I came away from Hamilton on Saturday night greatly encouraged both from the point of view of the immediate market for steel and

from the point of view of the question which we are discussing at this particular time as it relates to Hamilton.
I am going to agree with my hon. friend from Hamilton West that the present unemployment situation does cause us great concern, but I am also going to say that this house should not conclude that we are confronted with a totally black picture. Far from it. I cannot even agree with the words my hon. friend used in describing the situation as a crisis in the history of Canada so far as unemployment is concerned. I do not believe that this is true. I do not frequently impose long speeches upon the members of this house, but in a little while I am going to present the over-all picture on employment as I see it. I shall try to do this without any "double talk" and without any appearance of "flippancy".
My hon. friend devoted a good deal of time to statistics. I agree that statistics are important, and a little later I am going to discuss statistics despite the fact that some people feel that we have too many statistics, particularly on this matter. At the outset and without any apology I am going to speak about the two sets of figures we issue every month, which cover the situation for every four weeks' period. Each of these two sets of statistics is designed for a special purpose and the two sets contain as much definite information as it is possible to obtain with regard to the employment situation in Canada without tremendous canvassing and census taking. Statistics compiled in the latter fashion would be out of date before they became useful for general purposes.
It is interesting to point out that the dominion bureau of statistics survey is generally in agreement with the statistics issued once every month by the department of commerce of the great country to the south. Statistics so compiled take the general form which was discussed and decided upon at the world statistical conference held at Geneva about a year ago. I do not wish to give the impression that because of this fact I believe the statistics are perfect. I think, however, it should be borne in mind that the statistics which come to us every month from the United States are comparable with the figures issued by our dominion bureau of statistics.
In listening to some of the statements made by my hon. friend one could easily get the impression that nothing is being done in relation to unemployment. I have already said that the unemployment situation this winter is a matter which causes us considerable concern. Most certainly we are concerned about those workers who have not been able to
Unemployment
secure aid through their unemployment insurance or through provincial or local arrangements. For this reason this government introduced an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act at the very outset of the session. I reiterate today what I said at that time, that the amendment deals with only one phase of the act, namely an improvement in the supplementary benefits. This in no sense meets the entire problem of unemployment which exists this winter. That problem will not be solved by waving a magic fairy wand over the country. It is not going to be improved by the introduction of controls in our economy at this stage, as was suggested by my hon. friend from Hamilton West.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I shall have to rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not mention controls at all. I referred to the levelling of orders.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am sorry. I understood my hon. friend was suggesting that the federal government enter into the activities of those industries and exercise control.


Donald Methuen Fleming: She said no such thing.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Not at all.


Donald Methuen Fleming: She said no such thing.


Milton Fowler Gregg: If I misinterpreted her, then I regret it. These supplementary benefits have been in effect since January 10. In mentioning them now, I am not going to stress them, more than to say that they have been one factor this winter in alleviating the effects of unemployment in Canada. The remainder of the amendments to the act will be coming to the house this month.
There are however a number of other and, I would emphasize, equally positive steps that we in the Department of Labour have been taking in recent months. To those I shall refer later. But, Mr. Speaker, in looking at this matter in a calm and dispassionate way, as I am sure we must, I do not think we should overstate the case, nor do I think we should understate it. Certainly I am going to try not to do either today.
But if we take a look at the situation, as the amendment suggests, from the broad point of view, every member in the house will agree that the greatest ally in the maintenance of employment, and to bring about the fullest possible employment, is in the realm of good labour-management relations. In making that statement I am going to say immediately that, as everybody knows, the great majority of workers in this country come under the jurisdiction of the labour laws of the ten provinces of Canada. The provincial department of labour are doing a great job

Unemployment
in this field, and today I pay a tribute to them; because in their fields as well as in our own- but particularly in their fields-there have been very few recent labour disputes that have culminated in strikes. There have been two outstanding ones now settled. The first of these was the Ford strike, which was settled not so long ago-and we were all happy about it. This was followed by the Chrysler dispute settlement. While these disputes were within the automotive industry they also were important in their second, third and fourth repercussions on other industries which provide materials and supplies.
In her remarks my hon. friend mentioned the difficulties being experienced by our municipalities across the country. Although there is no way at all by which the federal government can or should act over the heads of the provinces and deal direct with the municipalities, nevertheless I, like her, am concerned with the situation in those municipalities. Perhaps we should not have done so, but from time to time members of this government have met and discussed unemployment problems with the representatives of many municipalities at their request, particularly within Ontario. Basically they have what is a serious problem in connection with what we have come to call the unemployables. I do not like the word very much, but it refers to those people who for the time being are not able to work to earn a livelihood. A very great deal has been done in recent years by all levels of government and by private agencies on behalf of those who are in this group, who are handicapped in their ability to work and to earn a livelihood. One can think of all kinds of examples on a national scale, as well as those on the provincial and municipal levels. There are such outstanding ones as the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Tuberculosis Society, and many more. Thank heaven we have them in Canada, on the national as well as the local scale.
In recent years these are backed up by such provincial agencies as the provincial workmen's compensation plans, then there is the federal-provincial rehabilitation plan, which takes in three or four departments of provincial governments, three departments of the federal government, the municipal governments and a whole array of private agencies at all three levels.
And there is now, this winter, the federal-provincial pension plan for those totally disabled civilian members of our population who cannot work at all. And, finally, there are arrangements existing in some parts of the country for local assistance of those people

who are left out of all these other agencies. They can be and are being given relief by local agencies or governments. Sometimes it is in co-operation with provincial governments, and sometimes it is not.
I believe that in this field I have just mentioned we in Canada as a country-with the provinces, the municipalities and the great agencies that are working in those fields- have made very great strides during the past four or five years; and in that we can take some joint satisfaction.
Now a word about the very much larger number of people today who are fit and able to work but who are without employment. They are the ones to whom my hon. friend has referred. The great majority of these workers are protected by unemployment insurance to tide them over until work can be found again, and to augment whatever they may have been able to save during their employment prior to losing their jobs.
But I have been very well aware of the fact that there are others who are able to work, but who are without jobs and are not receiving unemployment insurance benefits. In some cases local authorities on whom the responsibility for these workers falls are providing aid either alone or, in some instances, with the provinces. And while several municipalities in the province of Ontario- quite a number as a matter of fact-have made representations directly to the federal government on the problem, neither the government of this province of Ontario nor of any other province has stated that the problem had reached proportions beyond their capacity to cope with it.
The unemployment this year has added to the number of cases requiring assistance by local agencies, and particularly in industrial centres. As the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) knows-because he was present-we had a case in point last Friday.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the minister permit a question?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has disclaimed any intention of understating the problem. May I ask him if he would describe the extent of unemployment in Canada today- the first day of March-as it was described in the speech from the throne on January 7, when these words were used:
Some unemployment of a regional and seasonal nature is being experienced.


Milton Fowler Gregg: If my hon. friend will recall, in the early part of my remarks I promised that later on I would discuss that matter. At the moment I am discussing the situation

affecting welfare. I am more interested in what is happening to these people-whether they are suffering from hardships-than I am in quoting figures. But I shall put the figures in, just the same, a little later on.
Now, while there has been a recognition of growing need in this area I have been talking about, it has not led to any mutual understanding between federal and provincial governments as to the action that should be taken in the matter. This government has not been unconcerned about the problem. Notwithstanding the primary responsibility of the provinces in this field, the federal government is prepared to discuss with them the problems of this group of unemployed workers, as an item on the agenda of the forthcoming federal-provincial conference, if the provinces request that that be done. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that that will be the answer to the hon. member for Hamilton West who said that the problem she mentioned has been juggled around between governments. As far as this government is concerned, we do not want it juggled around any longer.


Mr. Knowles:: Does the minister know
when that conference will be held?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That was discussed by the
Prime Minister today in answer to a question, and I am sure he will reply to any question of my hon. friend's.


John George Diefenbaker: Next June will not help much now.


Milton Fowler Gregg: With respect to the remarks
made by the hon. member for Hamilton West, but not so specifically today as on other occasions, as to what the Department of Labour is doing about this and whether we were prepared to sit down, as the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) said on one occasion, and allow these people to be abandoned and take no constructive measures with respect to them, I want to say that we in my department are active in this regard. I wish to pay a tribute today to the way in which Canada's workers, whether they are organized or unorganized, have met the strains and hardships that have been talked about in the discussion so far. The hardships have been greater for some groups than for others; but in nearly all cases there has been, on the part of those affected, a degree of mobility and adaptability that is highly commendable. I am referring here not only to the workers but also to those who manage the industries involved. I want to pause here and emphasize it. It is patently true-and the hon. member for Hamilton West may throw it back in my teeth-that in this country we must have
Unemployment
a greater mobility of working forces and a greater willingness and desire on the part of our working people to take advantage of the opportunities for employment that are coming up in North America's last frontier in the north. In spite of all the clashing of orders that has taken place, the way in which our workers have filled the needs in those fields is something of which we are very proud.
I will admit that some of the adjustments that we have made could have been less painful-I will put it that way-if we had continued, as some hon. members suggested, in all those years a tightly controlled economy such as we had in world war II. But I am convinced at the same time that this would have been at the price of progress in our country, and it would have lowered our standards of living and the working conditions of our workers.
I am sure there is no doubt in the minds of most Canadians that they prefer freedom and a change to tight control and a relative static state of affairs. I know that nobody in this house is advocating that, but I do think that sometimes when we say: let us do this, and let us do that; let us go into industry and tell them that they have to put this industry in this place, and then we are going to have a group of workers move over from point A to point B and work in that place, we forget that these things cannot be done without the kind of control that we had during the war, and we might as well face it.
When this government gradually lifted controls after the war, there were prophets of gloom who forecast that all sorts of consequences would come. There would be utter chaos and long and heavy periods of unemployment. Instead of that we have witnessed one of the most prosperous decades in our history. Despite the effects of the difficult situation that we already admit and which my hon. friend mentioned this afternoon, I believe that the confidence exhibited in the potentialities of our country, when the economic forces were given freedom to work, has completely justified all that. This freedom which has prevailed has been a factor in attracting to Canada the large investment which we have had during the post-war years. In spite of that old tough law of supply and demand that has worked and has left its results on some workers who could not get jobs, I am sure that if we had let that go as a tough law and had not provided anything at all to take up the slack and to protect them, we would have been very cruel indeed.
We could have said: it is too bad, but we must let it take its course. We would have

Unemployment
been callous if we had not injected something to help find jobs and alleviate hardship. As a matter of fact, some things have been done by very important agencies within my department. I am going to mention them again because they are working today in our country. In our over 200 employment offices across Canada we have well-skilled placement officers finding employment. In the calendar year of 1954 over 800,000 workers, in addition to those who found employment by other means, were employed through our offices. It may be interesting to know that in the month of January, 1955, in our offices across Canada 59,610 workers were found employment, which indicates that the 570,000 that my hon. friend mentioned a moment ago is not a static figure. It does not represent the same people from day to day, week to week or month to month. It is an ever-recurring figure of the number of workers who are often on short time unemployment.
This is a large operation, and I am grateful from time to time to find that those who are engaged in the task are doing things, as an American so well put it, over and above the ordinary call of duty.
Not so long ago the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. White), in his speech in this house, referred to the Belleville Ontario-Intelligencer. He said that the national employment service was acting as the rallying point for a drive on seeking winter jobs. The hon. member for Hamilton West did not think very much of this program. She accused me of announcing it in Hamilton instead of in this house, but I would remind her that on my estimates last year I went into this matter to some extent and made a report on it. I do not want to overemphasize it because it is not the whole cure for unemployment, but it is one of those things that can help. Furthermore, this winter was designed to be the first opportunity we would have to put a variety of experiments into effect.
Experiments such as are going on at the edge of Ottawa, at Mooretown, a subdivision being constructed under the supervision of the trades and labour council of Ottawa, which is being specifically worked out so that every item going into that undertaking shall be looked at from the point of view of the possibility of a greater amount of employment during the winter months, is'a case in point.
I should like to refer to the town of Pembroke. In Pembroke they took this matter under consideration at the suggestion of the employment committees and the local manager of the employment office as a job in hand. Without reading the full report, I will

say that all parts of the community are connected with it and the results have been very good. Representatives of management, representatives of unions, representatives of retail merchants, representatives of municipalities, of social organizations, of building and trades council, of the Petawawa military camp and of educational institutions, are on the committee. I could quote quite a number more, but I am not going to do that. However, the story would make interesting hearing.
The national employment committee is composed of senior representatives of the Canadian Congress of Labour, the Trades and Labour Congress, the Canadian Manufacturers Association, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the National Council of Women, the Canadian Legion, the Canadian Retail Federation and the Canadian Welfare Council. These ladies and gentlemen are most active in their own organizations and in the ordinary walks of life. They meet at regular intervals to consider this problem. They are joined at these meetings by members of the unemployment insurance commission, officials of my own department and any other officials of government who might be useful.
It is to that committee that thanks should go for encouraging this idea in the first place and for seeing that there was carried out a survey which made it possible to have a report which would act as a textbook for all those concerned that could do something about this. Perhaps I should refer for instance to the results as obtained in the city of Quebec, as well as in the city represented by my good friend the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) and others, but perhaps that would take up too much of the time of the house.
However, I might refer to the fact that quite recently the Canadian Construction Association met with the government and pledged their full co-operation in this field in seeing that additional construction work was carried out during the winter months. There are those who may say, "Oh, well, you are going to do summer work in the wintertime". I point out the fact that this would not necessarily mean there would be less work during the summer.
Perhaps I could say just a word about industrial relations. Collective bargaining settlements of particular significance were reached recently in the automobile, radio, television broadcasting and shipbuilding industries. Most of the recent settlements affected provide for small wage increases and many are to be put into effect during the next two years. I have referred already

to the automobile settlement and the settlement in connection with the Chrysler Corporation of Canada. It is hoped that the settlement of these two disputes in the provincial jurisdiction will have an important impact upon the employment situation in the industrial area of southwestern Ontario which is so greatly affected at the present time.
I pass quickly over the dispute which was within the federal jurisdiction, and refer particularly to that affecting the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) was very worried that he would turn on his radio and get no results.
The shipbuilding industry is in good shape at the present time. On the west coast there is a strike at the Burrard Dry Dock Company at North Vancouver, but this is the only strike there has been in that area for some little time.
As to public utilities, an agreement was reached between the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario and an independent employees association representing 10,000 office, operational and maintenance workers. The new agreement provides for a 4 per cent increase in salaries with certain other fringe benefits. The settlement of this dispute will have its good effect. In Saskatchewan contract negotiations are reported to be in progress between the Saskatchewan power corporation and the oil workers international union CIO-CCL representing approximately 1,200 workers of that crown corporation. The union's demand for a general wage increase, which appeared to be the main issue of dispute, was turned down by the board of conciliation.
I come now to textiles, which has been much in the public mind, certainly in the minds of the government during the past two years. I am not going into the causes for the decline in the textile industry this afternoon, but it is truthful to say that apparently the textile industry is not declining any more. Many will say, "Thank heavens, it has gone too far now".
Following a strike which lasted several weeks, an agreement was reached between two syndicates of the National Federation of Chemical Workers (CCCL) and the Dominion Oilcloth and Linoleum Company Limited, Montreal, and a subsidiary, Barry and Staines Linoleum (Canada) Limited, Farnham, Quebec.
In connection with chemical products, several collective agreements were bargained recently, mostly in Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Newfoundland.
Unemployment
As to civic employees, negotiations are reported to be in progress between civic employees unions and civic authorities in Vancouver, Saskatoon, Toronto and Sarnia. Reports indicate that these negotiations are proceeding.
Preliminary figures on strikes and lockouts for January 1955 show little change as compared with the previous month. Time loss in man-days during the month was considerably higher than during the corresponding period of 1954. The totals for each period are as follows:
Number	Number	Time Lossof Work of Workers in Stoppages	Involved	Man-DaysJanuary 1955 .... 16	11,106December 1954 ___ 16	12,169January 1954 .... 24	10,619
218,145
240.841
156,969
I should like to refer back to the matter of statistics. I do not want to minimize the seriousness of what we are discussing today. Fortunately as compared with earlier years in Canada we have a statistical record. It has been the traditional policy of the government, in fact of all governments, since the passage of the Employment Offices Coordination Act after world war I to publish employment service statistics. With the development of the unemployment insurance program and the expansion of the national employment service, statistical material reflecting the operations of the employment service has been extended. These operational figures are available and provide information as to the numbers of persons who use the employment service, their occupational and other characteristics, information which it is imperative to have.
That is a general statement and you may say, "What do you mean by that?". I said a little while ago that this problem is one which concerns us all. The things we can do can be most effective if they are attacked, as I mentioned about Pembroke, by a lot of people from many different points. We should be able to know how the situation is there or in any given city or town in Canada. As well as that, we should have the over-all picture. People who are moving or building or constructing in various parts of Canada should be able to know what the employment situation is in that area. I think a good example of that is this. Great contractors coming from all parts of the eastern half of Canada to the national defence construction at Camp Gagetown were glad to get through our employment service what manpower was available and where. For their purpose it did not matter very much whether they were exact, but they served as a good guide.
These operational figures cannot provide information on the over-all characteristics of

Unemployment
the working force and other adult members of the population. It was for this reason that the government some years ago decided to develop a comprehensive national sample survey of people of working age. This survey to determine the views of people across Canada with regard to their association with the labour force provides valuable data on the various broad categories of employed persons. It also provides useful estimates of the reasons people are not at work during that particular survey week. A similar national survey of the labour force has been made for a number of years in the United States. I will add what I said a little bit earlier, namely that this has been carried further now through the international labour office to other countries.
The national employment service data, on the other hand, provides us with a single figure of those who are registered for jobs. An effort is made to remove from this figure those people believed to be employed, but it is known that a considerable number of those registered at national employment offices at any one time will have found work other than through our local offices. From this single figure of applications for jobs we cannot tell much about the type of association these people have with the labour force, whether they are long-term or short-term, whether they have a job or are not working, and all that. As long as it is recognized that these registrations for employment at local offices, which I have said are operational statistics, and those estimated from the overall labour force survey as being without jobs and seeking work during the survey week, were never intended to measure exactly the same groups of people, there is no need for confusion at all, as I see it. I can inform the house that the people who are in fact utilizing these figures for practical purposes are not finding them confusing. I am convinced that we can tell much more about the over-all employment and unemployment situation locally and nationally through having both sets of figures than we should be able to do without them.


George Harris Hees: Will the minister permit a question? This is the question I asked before the orders of the day were called last Thursday. At that time the minister did not answer, and Mr. Speaker indicated he thought this was a question that might better be answered in this debate. My question was this. In view of the figures released by his department and the dominion bureau of statistics last Wednesday, do the minister and the government still consider unemployment today in the same terms in which they

described it in the speech from the throne, namely as seasonal and regional?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am going to go right on now, if my hon. friend will permit me to do so, and then when I am through-


George Harris Hees: Shall I get my answer?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


George Harris Hees: Does the minister refuse to answer?


Milton Fowler Gregg: If my hon. friend will wait until I have finished and then if he finds that I have not answered him, perhaps he would ask his question again. What I propose to do now, Mr. Speaker, is to give the house a summary of the unemployment situation as we see it across Canada at the present time. That perhaps will be the answer to my hon. friend's question.
At January 20 persons without jobs and seeking work were estimated in round figures-and my hon. friend referred to this-to number 362,000 by the D.B.S. survey, or 80,000 higher than last year. The number of persons registered at the national employment service was 570,000, again in round figures, 46,000 above last year. On the face of it, therefore, the unemployment situation may appear a good deal worse than last year, which might lead one to conclude that both the economic situation and the employment picture are deteriorating.
I stop there to refer to my hon. friend's reference to my Merry Christmas and Happy New Year message at the end of the year-


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: How about an Easter
message?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It is too soon. I also want to refer to the remark that it was double talk. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I have not often been guilty of double talk in this house. If my hon. friend thought I was guilty of double talk in my New Year's message, I can assure her that there was no such intention on my part. In discussing this question and trying to find the middle ground, the facts of the matter, it may be that sometimes it looks as though you are leaning a little further over to the right or a little further over to the left. But I can assure my hon. friend that our labour force in Canada is growing more rapidly than that of almost any other country in the western world, and we can easily have more unemployment and greater employment at the same time. She will admit that. Having admitted that, I shall return to my script. The employment picture-


Donald Methuen Fleming: And come to the question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Oh, yes.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I should like to point out that what I said was that we not only had more unemployment but that we had more people unemployed than the actual increase in the labour force itself; that the number of unemployed had increased.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I think I must disagree with my hon. friend there. I shall just go on from the point where I started.
At January 20 of this year persons without jobs and seeking work were estimated to be 362,000 under the dominion bureau of statistics survey, 80,000 higher than last year. That is the D.B.S. survey. The number of persons registered at the national employment service was 570,000 last month, or 46,000 above last year. I shall stop there. A while ago my hon. friend indicated that the labour force had increased by over 100,000. I should have the figure-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The labour force increased by 145,000 and those unemployed by 175,000 in the same period, a two-year period between January 1953 and January 1955.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I will proceed from there, Mr. Speaker. On the face of it, therefore, the employment situation may appear a good deal worse than last year, which might lead one to conclude that both the economic situation and the employment picture are deteriorating.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Hear, hear.


Milton Fowler Gregg: This is not the case. I say that with all due respect for my friend the hon. member for Eglinton. In fact the employment picture during the last six months is a good deal better than was the case last year.


George Harris Hees: This is triple talk; this is not just double talk.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Milton Fowler Gregg: From September to January of last year the number of persons with jobs in non-farm industries declined by 211,000. This year the economy lost 50,000 fewer jobs than a year ago during this period of seasonally declining employment. Thus the underlying trend of industrial employment is stronger than it was last year. Because total employment in January this year was the same as last year, and it was, almost all of the increase in unemployment is due to the growth in the labour force. In January, 1955, the labour force was 72,000 higher than was the case last January. If we look at the increase in the
Unemployment
labour force since September last year compared with the year before we find that the great change contributing to unemployment was in the non-agricultural labour force. Last year over this period the non-agricultural labour force decreased by 21,000 whereas this year it increased by 32,000, or a net growth of 53,000 in the non-agricultural labour force. This, as can be appreciated, has been the major factor contributing to our higher year to year level of unemployment. The increase in unemployment has been no greater this year than last year considering the fact that we have been at higher year to year absolute levels.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The minister has been living in an ivory tower.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Perhaps my hon. friend will wait, as I sometimes do with his speeches, until the end of my speech. Between December and January of this year the percentage increase in unemployment was the same as last year although, of course, the absolute increase was greater. Between November and January the rate of increase this year was considerably smaller than last year, being 85 per cent last year and 70 per cent this year. I am not bragging about this; I am just stating facts.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask the minister if he still says that the situation is not deteriorating as compared with last year?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The employment situation is not deteriorating compared with last year, no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then the minister must be living in an ivory tower.


Milton Fowler Gregg: This increase in unemployment has taken place at the same time as productivity has risen as a result of increased competitive pressures at home and abroad. This has, in fact, meant that some weaker firms have had to close down. Other firms have succeeded in increasing output without increasing employment and have tightened up on their use of manpower in their effort to overcome high labour costs. Again, I am trying to be factual. For example, while total industrial production during 1954 increased to approximately 4 per cent, employment remained stable throughout the year. Total output in manufacturing remained quite constant during 1954 while employment in manufacturing declined by about 5 per cent. These productivity gains have had a double barrelled effect. Rising productivity has strengthened the competitive position of the Canadian economy in export and domestic trade, thereby putting our industries in a stronger position to increase employment in the future. This year,

Unemployment
however, it has meant displacement of labour and has contributed to our unemployment problem.
While there has been little change in the level of total employment over the past year, there has been a considerable strengthening of employment in many industries. On a year to year basis, employment in the forestry industry is up. In the mining industry it is up 7 per cent, in public utilities 4J per cent, in trade 0-5 per cent, in finance, insurance and real estate 6 per cent and in the service industries 2 per cent. Employment in manufacturing industries has shown divergent trends. While it has declined in a number, it has risen in others. A further favourable development has been the increase in the number of hours worked in manufacturing. Throughout most of 1954 the number of hours each week averaged considerably less than in 1953. This gap narrowed rapidly towards the end of the year and at the beginning of December the number of hours worked was the same as in the previous year.
By themselves, of course, these increases in employment over the past year are not representative of the over-all situation. There have been a number of employment declines which have been more than seasonal in character. Perhaps that partly answers my hon. friend's question.


Donald Methuen Fleming: A very small part.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Such declines have been concentrated in manufacturing and these have tended to offset employment gains so that total employment has remained stable.
Although there are a large number of workers currently registered with the national employment service, the great majority of these are receiving or will shortly be receiving unemployment insurance benefits. At the end of January of this year there was a total of 543,300 people claiming regular unemployment insurance benefits. Not all of those who claim unemployment insurance benefits, of course, receive them. Some claims are disallowed because the people concerned are not unemployed or are not really available for work. Others are postponed for varying periods because such workers voluntarily left their last job or for other similar reasons. By far the majority of people who make claims, however, receive benefits.
At the end of January workers actually receiving regular and supplementary benefits totalled 450,400, of whom 62,400 were in receipt of supplementary benefits. The amount of money at present being paid to workers as unemployment insurance benefits is very great indeed. During January, 1955, it totalled $28,372,400, of which $2,222,600 was in the form of supplementary benefits. Both regular
rMr. Gregg.]
and supplementary benefit payments this January were substantially greater than in the same month last year when they amounted to $25,149,900 in total, of which $1,202,700 was supplementary benefits. Since last November total monthly payments of regular benefits have risen by about $12 million, slightly less than the rise which occurred over the same period last year. Supplementary benefit payments, on the other hand, were almost twice as large this January as last. The reason for the big increase in the supplementary benefit payments is, of course, the recent amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act which were brought in last January.
Employment in the five regions-I am going to go over them very quickly-has shown diverse trends during 1954. As all hon. members know, unemployment insurance offices cover the Atlantic region which includes the four Atlantic provinces and a small slice of Quebec, the province of Quebec which covers part of northern Ontario, Ontario which goes as far west as the head of the lakes, the prairie region which extends from lake Superior to the Rockies, and the Pacific region on the Pacific coast. Over-all employment in the Atlantic region, which fell considerably below year-earlier levels by June, 1954, has gradually increased during the latter part of the year and equalled that of a year ago by January, 1955. Unemployment in the region in January of this year was about the same as that of a year ago although in terms of its labour force it was slightly higher than that for Canada as a whole.
Employment in the Quebec region also fell somewhat more than seasonally during the first half of the year and failed to reach last year's level by January, 1955. While employment in the forestry industry has been running above last year's levels during the fall months, the decline in textiles, clothing and iron and steel industries has offset other employment gains. Consequently, the unemployment level has been running slightly above year-ago levels and in terms of the labour force of the region is somewhat above the average for Canada as a whole.
Total employment in the Ontario region has shown only a moderate pick-up during the latter part of 1954. By January, 1955, the over-all employment level in the region approximated that of a year ago. In this region a decline in manufacturing employment has been partially offset by higher levels of employment in construction and forestry industries. In terms of the labour force of the region, unemployment in January,

1955, was somewhat higher than that of a year ago, although still lower than the average for Canada as a whole.
Over-all employment in the prairie region has maintained a slight margin over year-ago levels during most of 1954, and this was also true of January 1955. While farm employment has continued to drop in this region, nonfarm employment has been rising at a considerable rate. However, despite the increase in employment, unemployment in the region increased above year-ago levels, although it might be pointed out that unemployment in this region was remarkably low during the latter part of 1952 and early 1953. Unemployment in terms of the region's labour force was somewhat below the Canadian average in January 1955.
The employment level in the Pacific region. after being below the year-earlier level in June 1954, rose fairly rapidly during the latter half of the year and by January 1955 was moderately higher than that of January 1954. The major impetus to this rise in employment has come primarily from the forest industry, where employment at December 1, 1954 was 10 per cent higher than the year-earlier level. While unemployment in terms of the labour force of the region has continued above the Canadian average, it was the only region in which the unemployment level was no higher than it was last January.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister when he is going to answer my question?


Some hon. Members:: He is doing so now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. minister indicated that he would be answering the question in the course of his remarks.


An hon. Member:: And he did, too.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


George Harris Hees: I would like permission to ask the minister that one question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) will kindly understand that he can ask a question only with the permission of the minister. The minister allowed him to ask his question and then indicated that he would answer it during the course of his speech. I do not think that the hon. member for Broadview can insist further.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Perhaps I have taken too much of the house's time in attempting to lay before it what I consider to be some of the most important facts related to my activities on this question of unemployment. I am sorry if my hon. friend is unable to find the answer
Unemployment
he wants in the information I have presented for the benefit of the house. I have attempted to present some of the information that has been assembled by the Department of Labour in regard to this matter about which we are so greatly concerned.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why not answer the simple question?


George Harris Hees: Why not just answer it yes or no?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I have tried to answer your question without any double talk and without flippancy.


George Harris Hees: Nonsense.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I confined myself almost entirely to those statistics which come within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour. I am certain that my colleagues will speak about other aspects of this problem as far as the government as a whole is concerned before the conclusion of the debate.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: You have done an excellent job.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I believe the role of the Department of Labour is to attempt to perform as effectively as possible those functions which I mentioned. It is concerned mainly, with the other departments of labour in the provincial governments and all other forces, to maintain a high morale amongst workers and to maintain industrial peace. It is also concerned with guarding against the hardships which come with unemployment.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.


Major James William Coldwell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker-


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the minister promised he would answer my question.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: The hon. member for Broadview will realize that I have already dealt with the matter which he is attempting to raise now as a question of privilege.


George Harris Hees: Well, of all the double talk I have ever heard-it is small wonder that we are in the mess we are in today.


Major James William Coldwell: I do not wish to discuss the matter due to a change in the business of the house so at this time I cannot very well present the remarks that I intend to make on this very important problem. I wish to state, however, that in spite of what the minister has said I believe the house is justified in

Private Bills
supporting the amendment that has been moved this afternoon by the hon. member for Hamilton West.
It being five o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I shall resume my address at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are a number of divorce bills on the order paper. Shall these bills be considered in the one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 165, for the relief of Habel Irene McKay Puttee.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Dematra Denis Varverikos Kotsos.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 167, for the relief of Therese Des-c'hamps Pare.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 168, for the relief of Beatrice Edith Paige Bouchard.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 169, for the relief of Sheila Edith Emily Little Staniforth.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Elias Hela-kos, otherwise known as Louis Childs.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 171, for the relief of Albina Le-gault Desjardins.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 172, for the relief of Maia Piibe Paul.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 173, for the relief of John Russell Watt.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 174, for the relief of William Watson Southam.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 175, for the relief of Marie Joyce Kane Grant.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 176, for the relief of Anton Josef Cermak.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 177, for the relief of Myriam Micheline Weil Goldschmied.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 178, for respecting the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Pembroke. -Mr. Forgie.

Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 126, to amend the Canada Elections Act (age of voters).
He said: I am pleased to again have this opportunity of presenting a bill to the house which would amend the Canada Elections Act by reducing the eligible age for voters from the present 21 years to 18 years.
The house debated a similar bill last session on June 4 and again on June 8. At that time the debate, in which a number of
[Mr. Coldwell.l
members took part, was conducted in a very amicable fashion. I am sure all hon. members taking part made a valuable contribution, and there was little or no acrimonious discussion throughout the two days of the debate.
The statement made at that time by the then secretary of state, the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickers-gill) was noteworthy because, speaking for the government on the measure a year ago, he called off the whips, at least so far as his party was concerned, and said it would be a matter for the judgment of each member in the house. As reported at page 5663 of Hansard he said:
It seems to me that in relation to the election laws we, as members elected to this chamber, and not as members of the government or of the opposition, settle what the law will be. And it would not embarrass me in the slightest to find that the hon. member for Rosthern or the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir), or the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris), or any other member in the house took a view of this question different from the one I take.
I hope that view will be voiced again during the current debate by a member of the government. I believe if this bill comes to a vote in which hon. members are allowed to vote in line with their views as to the merits of the proposal, there is every chance that the bill will pass. But even if the bill does not pass, there is certainly every chance that it will receive substantial support.
I believe the time is not far distant when the voting age in Canada will be substantially reduced. The trend is already very evident. Three provinces in Canada have reduced the voting age to considerably below 21 years. In 1945 Saskatchewan reduced the eligible age for voters from 21 to 18 years. Saskatchewan was the first province in Canada so to reduce the voting age, and it remains the only province that has followed that course. But the governments of Alberta and British Columbia have reduced to 19 years the eligible age for voters in provincial elections. It seems to me those three examples are an indication of the trend to reduce the eligible age of voters.
A suggestion was made by the President of the United States to congress last year that the eligible age of voters in that country be reduced to 18 years, and I believe a reduction in the eligible age is on the way. It is only a matter of time until we in Canada will bring about a substantial reduction in the age of voters.
Because I believe that is so, and because I believe it is a laudable objective, I have presented this bill in the hope that that objective may become an accomplished fact at an

early date. I believe it is wise for Canada to provide the widest possible base in the matter of the eligibility of voters. Over the years property qualifications have gradually been abolished in elections; they are completely abolished in the federal law and in the law of most-if not all-of the provinces. Perhaps a majority of the municipalities still require certain property qualifications; and in those municipalities where property qualifications have been partially removed the requirement usually prevails that to have a vote a person must rent quarters having a certain annual rental value.
I hope the day will come when property qualifications in all our municipalities will be completely removed, because the fact that a citizen of a municipality does not own property does not mean that such citizen is not making as valuable a contribution to the life and welfare of the municipality as is the property owner. The very fact that a person lives in a municipality, produces wealth and pays rent is as great a contribution as though that person held a good deal of property.
So over the years the base for voters has been widened. Today women have the franchise; we have universal suffrage in Canada, with the eligible voting age of 21 years. Only the group between the ages of 18 and 21 now remain to be given the franchise. I suggest they should be given it because, on the basis of any standard the government may wish to put forward, Canadians between the ages of 18 and 21 can qualify just as readily as citizens of any other group. As a matter of fact statistics show that perhaps the best educated group in our nation are our younger citizens between the ages of 18 and 21.
This is a good sign, because it means that over the years the educational standards of Canadian citizens have been improved. In 1911, according to the census of that date, the average 18 year old citizen in Canada had a grade VII education, whereas 30 years later, according to the 1941 census, the average 18 year old Canadian had the equivalent of a grade X standard of education. This is an average improvement in the 30-year period of three additional grades of education. The 1951 census shows that educational standards have improved so that the average schooling of a Canadian citizen had increased in the ten-year period by one-half year.
This is just a statistical indication of a situation of which each member in the house is aware, that as the years go by Canadian citizens are becoming better educated and better qualified to cast intelligent ballots at elections. They are better qualified to vote at the age of 18 years, I suggest, than were their fathers or their grandfathers at the age
Canada Elections Act
of 21. That is progress, something to be proud of; and we should recognize that progress has been made by reducing the eligible voting age.
It does not follow that when the eligible age is reduced to 18 years everybody upon reaching that age would vote automatically in a federal election. What it means is that when a federal election is held every four or five years, all persons of the ages of 18, 19 and 20 would have the right to vote. At present the average Canadian citizen casts his or her first vote in a federal election at the age of 22 or 23. If I may make a personal reference, in my own case I happened to be 24 when I had my first opportunity to vote in a federal election.


Mr. Sinclair:: How did you vote?


Hazen Robert Argue: Had the age of eligibility for voting been reduced I would have had the opportunity to vote at the age of 19. With a reduction in the voting age, perhaps the average age at which young Canadians would cast their first vote would be reduced from 23 to 19 years. Surely that is not a very revolutionary suggestion for a change in the voting age. I have seen at first hand in my own province that young people 18, 19 and 20, realizing that they have the right to vote in a provincial election, do in fact accept and discharge that responsibility, if I may say so, at least as capably as the persons in other age groups.
Somebody says, "Look at the result". Well, I imagine if the ballot were not secret it would be found that the opinions of the people in the younger voting group, on balance, are not too much different from the opinions of other persons in different age groups. I think that comment is borne out by and large by the result.


Mr. Garson:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If the result were the same for the lower age group as for the higher age group it would not affect the result of the election.


Hazen Robert Argue: I doubt whether it would. That is really a brilliant comment by the Minister of Justice. If he followed that logic perhaps he would take away from people who are under 30 or under 40 the right to vote. He might just let the old age pensioners vote, or he might do it on a statistical sampling basis, or let us not have an election at all. Let us have a Gallup poll to find out what Canadians are thinking. Of course we cannot go along with the inference that the comment of the Minister of Justice might suggest.

Canada Elections Act


Stuart Sinclair Garson: This is not my bill; it is the hon. member's.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was going on to attempt to prove that I did not expect the result would be altered very much, because in the years that we have had a provincial election in Saskatchewan we have had a federal election shortly after, and while there have been slight changes, the trend has been usually about the same and the result usually has not been very different.
I would expect that in the normal course of events on balance the younger people would have some newer ideas and would be able to bring some new thinking to bear on the different issues. I believe the contribution that can be made to public life in Canada by allowing the 18, 19 and 20 year olds to vote in elections would be a healthy one. I was about to point out that young people in those age groups take their right to vote in Saskatchewan provincial elections very seriously. As a matter of fact they consider it a very important obligation, and, from my own observation, I believe they accept their responsibility at least equally well compared with any other age group of voters. The public meetings that I have had the opportunity to address, particularly in provincial elections, have convinced me that young people come out to hear the issues that are being discussed.
I was about to make reference to a comment made in the debate last year by the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I said that the standard of debate was high and that no member had criticized substantially the point of view of any other hon. member. However, I noticed one comment by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that I felt weakened the argument he otherwise might have had. He made the comment that to bring in a new group of voters would be expensive; it would cost a good deal of money. Apparently he was advancing that as an argument against reducing the voting age. I cannot believe that the government would advance such an argument as something one could seriously consider as a reason for voting against this measure. I am hopeful that in this discussion hon. members will endeavour to show that there is an argument for the bill, if they cannot be completely convinced. I am hopeful that a free vote will be held so that hon. members may follow their own conscience and their own beliefs without any reference to party discipline.
I also mentioned that I was travelling in fairly good company in asking that the voting age be lowered. President Eisenhower, in his message to congress last year, urged congress

to amend the United States constitution so the eligible age for voters could be reduced to 18. He said:
For years our citizens between the ages o!' 18 and 21 have, in time of peril, been summoned to fight for America. They should participate in the political process that produces this fateful summons. I urge congress to propose to the states a constitutional amendment permitting citizens to vote when they reach the age of 18.
It was suggested in the debate last year that the matter of reducing the voting age had been taken care of as far as members of the armed forces were concerned, and that any reference to a reduction in the voting age in order that such persons might have some say in the decision on government policy with reference to peace or war was invalid. I suggest that is not the case; that our citizens of 18, 19 and 20 should, as President Eisenhower suggested, be given the opportunity to participate in the political process that produces this fateful summons. We feel that as young Canadians have entered the armed forces they have discharged their responsibility with great merit. They have shown themselves capable of taking technical training in many instances and operating successfully, perhaps more successfully than any other age group, the intricate apparatus of war.
I suggest that there is no argument for refusing to lower the voting age. In the debate last year the hon. member for Pro-vencher (Mr. Jutras) made a very interesting speech. In the first part of his remarks he admitted, as reported at page 5534 of Hansard:
...the tendency in this country-and indeed in many others-is to lower the voting age from 21 to 18.
But he might have left with the Minister of Justice the idea that caused him to ask the question he did during the discussion. He said there did not seem to be any very keen desire on their part to exercise their responsibility at the present time, but he went on to say:
Taking the results of the last election, if they were to follow the example set by their elders, that would seem to be an indication that there is not a very keen desire on the part of any particular group to go to the polls on voting day. According to the results of the last election, even the older people did not go to the polls in the numbers that they should have.
Well, as I said, if that argument is carried to its logical conclusion we should be raising instead of considering a reduction in the eligible age of voters. I am sure the hon. member for Provencher would not want such action taken in this house, and I suggest to

him that the argument he has advanced is scarcely sound. He went on to say, in another part of his speech:
I do not think it would be logical to have students or young people voting in federal elections when they did not have the right to vote in provincial or municipal elections.
My comment upon that statement would be that the federal government should give a lead in reducing the eligible age of voters. As a matter of fact, if such a step were taken it would not be giving a lead to all the provinces, it would merely be following the step taken by three of the provinces. However, it would be giving a lead to the rest of the provinces and I expect also to the municipalities.
The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) made a most interesting contribution to the discussion last year. He referred a number of times to his great interest in scholarships for young people, and then he had this to say, as reported on page 5538 of Hansard of June 4, 1954:
A nice question arises when one has to decide at just what age a young person who is wholly maintained by his parents should receive the right to vote.
I suggest that whether or not a young person is being wholly maintained by his parents should have nothing to do with arriving at a decision as to the eligible age of voters. I imagine that the average young person in Canada who is being wholly maintained by his parents is being so maintained because he is continuing his education. He is spending those years to better prepare himself for citizenship in this country. The fact that a young person is still in school at 18, 19 or 20 years of age means that he is preparing himself to make a greater contribution to the welfare of the Canadian nation in years to come. If that young person is ready to so prepare himself to make that greater contribution, I suggest that is no reason why he should not be given the vote.
Members of this group are not the only ones who have supported a reduction in the eligible age of voters. I noticed that the provincial Liberal convention in Ontario a year ago supported a reduction in the eligible age of voters to 18 years. I suggest that the provincial Liberal convention in Ontario was providing real leadership to the government here, and that its suggestion was sound. For many years the C.C.F. has supported a reduction in the eligible age of voters. We welcome this resolution from the provincial Liberal convention in Ontario supporting our position.
I hope the government will act. I believe the eligible age of voters will in time be reduced, and I submit that the best time to do it is now.
Canada Elections Act


Mr. A. B. Weselak (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to reduce the voting age from 21 to 18 years. I appreciate that a large number of those in this age group have sufficient education and experience to exercise their franchise in a rational and reasonable manner, but on the other hand I question whether a sufficient majority of them have reached political maturity. I feel that to pass this bill after a summary debate of this type would not be doing justice to it; therefore I shall oppose its passage at this time.
I feel that a measure of this sort requires a far more extensive study than can be given to it in a debate of this type. When we recall the responsibilities of this age group in other fields we find that over the centuries in our civil and criminal law this group has been treated differently from those who are over 21 years of age. Under our criminal law we find that those in the 14 to 21 year age group are held responsible for their actions, but it must be remembered that in criminal matters the problem is not too involved. Criminal law requires only that there shall be a knowledge of the difference between right and wrong. It is a fairly simple matter, as it is something which is ingrained in the child practically from the time he is born.
On the other hand our civil law both under British jurisprudence, which takes in all of Canada except the province of Quebec where the Napoleonic code prevails, and under the code in the province of Quebec, we find that those under 21 years of age are protected. Account is taken of the fact that no man nor woman under 21 years of age has sufficient maturity to assume complete responsibility for his or her acts. In civil law there are many problems of a complex nature which must be carefully weighed in order to arrive at a rational decision which will not do harm to the individual himself. As a result the attitude of the law has been that with a few exceptions no person under 21 can bind himself without the approval of the court or of his legal guardian.
I think a similar parallel extends into the political field. Politics is very complex. The public are being continually bombarded with statistics, propaganda and literature from all sources. We have in this house four political parties. It even takes a great deal of study and reasoning for a member of this house to weigh the different issues and arrive at conclusions which he feels are satisfactory. Therefore I say that far more study should be given to this matter than can be given in a debate of this type.
To illustrate what are the feelings of some of those in this younger group I should like

Canada Elections Act
to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press. This consisted of a contribution by the editor of the Manitoban, the journal of the University of Manitoba students' union. It is indicated that the opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the editorial views of the paper. I quote:
A recent address by President Eisenhower contains passages which if acted upon by American legislators will provide support for a new domestic issue in Canadian politics.
The reference is to a speech in which the president expressed favourable sentiments towards renewed suggestions that the voting age for American elections be lowered, from its present level of 21, to 18 years. Since the end of the second world war pressure for amendments to election acts has arisen in both Canada and the United States. Proponents of the change most frequently advance the argument that, "if a man at the age of 18 years is old enough to fight, he is old enough to vote."
But such an argument is based more upon the sentimentality of reward, than upon reason. The criteria of being able-bodied, and of being capable of obeying commands (which are the primary requirements for the bulk of any fighting force) do not in themselves ensure that youths at the age of 18 are equipped to mark a reasoned and responsible ballot. The execution of a military command and the exercise of one's franchise are subjects of widely differing mental processes. Development of the latter remains a more formidable problem.
British law has traditionally recognized that "infants" between the ages of 14 and 21 years are responsible for their criminal acts, since they are presumed to be capable of differentiating between good and evil. But legal commentators maintain that this simple ability does not serve to indicate the existence of a similar capacity for reaching wise mental conclusions. No one will suggest that a child has perfected his mature development at the moment he attains the age of 21; but the grounds for a valid presumption, based upon the experiences of making a living, are greater than at the school age of 18.
To date, measures for reducing the voting age have been supported by minor political parties and protest groups on the Canadian scene. In order to curtail any broadened application of the "fighting age-voting age" philosophy, the government has extended ballot privileges to those under 21 who enlist for active military service. On the provincial level, only the C.C.F. government of Premier Douglas has undertaken to extend the franchise in Saskatchewan elections. Whether the political maturity of that province has been enhanced remains for conjecture.
Amidst increased discussion of electoral reform, it is significant that pressure for lowering the voting age has come less from youth groups, which would be properly affected, than from parties in search of political issues. Before Canadian parliamentarians consider amendments to the elections act, it would be well to remember that for most youths of 18, this is still a world of hot dogs, and popcorn, and the corner "jukebox". Only the sobering influence of a few years spent making a living will best produce that interest which is sufficient to ensure mature political thought. The process requires time, and in this at least, youth abounds.
That may be an oversimplification of the problem, but I think it presents some of the views of the younger group.

When we refer to the records of this house we find that on February 25 a motion was made and agreed to, which instructed the standing committee on privileges and elections, among other things, to suggest to the house such amendments as the committee may deem advisable. That is a fairly wide directive to the committee, and I think it would take in, in this particular case, the problem which is immediately before the house. I think this committee could give this problem far greater and far better study than could be given to it in the house. It could obtain the necessary information and the necessary opinions upon which to base its findings. If this information is made available to the members of the house, following the hearings held by the committee, I think it will assist members also in making a rational decision in this connection.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that in my opinion this bill should not be passed by this house at the present time but rather that the committee which has power to study this problem should give it consideration.


Roch Pinard: have listened with great interest to the remarks made by the sponsor of this bill. I thought those remarks were similar to those he made last year, when he introduced a similar bill. I have read with interest the speeches that were made last year during that debate, to some of which reference was made by the hon. gentleman.
In so far as my predecessor is concerned I would say this. I do not believe the main reason for the then secretary of state opposing the measure was based on the ground mentioned by the hon. member, namely that there would be an addition to the expense of government if the lowering of age was approved. I think his main reason for opposing it at the time was the fact that he thought, along with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), that the age of majority-which in this country is 21 years-should first be lowered before a measure similar to that with which we are concerned today should be considered. I think that was the main reason for his opposition, and I think my hon. friend will agree with me when I say that.
I do not propose to speak for long, but I should like to make a few remarks concerning the matter. I believe we are all in agreement that we should extend the right of franchise to as many Canadians as possible if we wish to discharge our duties to the people under our system of government. I think that attitude has been taken previously by members of the government. When reading previous debates concerning amendments

to the Canada Elections Act, some time ago I read certain remarks that were made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I just wish to quote a sentence from those remarks, which may be found at page 2171 of Hansard of 1951. On the introduction of a resolution similar to the one I myself introduced to refer the amendments to the Canada Elections Act to a committee, the Prime Minister said:
I think we are all agreed that it is desirable that under the act the franchise shall be exercised as widely as possible, and no one would wish to insist upon any rule that unduly diminished the possibility of any elector exercising his franchise.
I quote those words because I believe that is the guiding principle we all have in mind, namely that we should try to extend that right of franchise as much as circumstances will allow. But as I mentioned last Friday when moving to refer the Canada Elections Act to the standing committee on privileges and elections, there are obstacles in the way. There are serious objections to extending a privilege as important as this to certain classes of people. I do not think I would wish to object strenuously or with much vigour to this measure which is introduced by the hon. gentleman. However, I think there are reasons which would justify my attitude in opposing the measure because I feel that the time has not really come for this action to be taken.
The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Weselak), who has just taken his seat, has suggested that this matter could very well be studied by the committee on privileges and elections. I do not see any reason why this matter could not be brought up for consideration at some time during the sittings of that committee, but in my opinion there is no justification for referring it to the committee.
As I said before, I believe there are reasons which would justify people in thinking that this measure proposed by the hon. gentleman is premature. I think the first remark I would make on that score is that this is an extremely important matter, and we ought to be careful before we extend the right of franchise to a new class of people.
The sponsor of this bill has pointed out that my predecessor last year mentioned the question of expense. It is, of course, true that this consideration should not be a reason for opposing the measure. On the other hand, it is a known fact that to set up an electoral district is a costly matter. We also all know that elections cost the Canadian people a great deal of money. The matter of extending the franchise to another class of people, thus increasing the expense in connection with elections, is one which must be seriously considered.
Canada Elections Act


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether the minister would permit a question?


Roch Pinard: Yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would not the cost per elector be much lower for this group, inasmuch as all the election machinery must be set up in any event?


Roch Pinard: That is possible. I am not sufficiently familiar with all the intricacies of these matters to be able to voice an opinion with regard to what the hon. gentleman has just mentioned. I think he will also admit that there is no doubt that an increase in the eligible list will necessarily entail greater expense than we have at the present time. That is obvious.
The hon. member mentioned some provinces in Canada which have extended that right of franchise and which have lowered the voting age. He has mentioned the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. I think it would be an excellent idea to wait until the other provinces follow suit so we may have a better understanding of the attitude of the whole nation to the question of extending the franchise to this class. We would be in a better position to see what the results would be throughout Canada. However, I do not want to put this forward as a reason for opposing the measure. I do not want to say that we should necessarily wait for the other provinces to take the initiative, but it would afford us an opportunity to find out what all the people of Canada think about it.
Another reason I think the time has not yet arrived is the fact that I believe we should be concerned first of all with trying to extend the right of franchise to Canadians already on the eligible list but who are not in a position to vote. In other words I believe that first things must come first, and that we should try to extend the right of franchise to people who, because of certain obstacles or circumstances, are not in a position to exercise that right. We should deal with that matter first and so arrange things that as many Canadians as possible who come within the section of the act defining the voting age and the conditions of voting will be able to exercise the right of franchise. I refer to those over 21 years of age who are eligible to vote but do not do so because of circumstances that may arise.
Canadians who are abroad are prevented from voting under conditions that now exist, and I believe one of the important and serious studies the committee should make is to see whether or not the right of franchise cannot be extended to these people. Before we extend that right to another class of people,

Canada Elections Act
let us see to it that those who are already qualified to vote under the act are able to do so, that the obstacles in their way are overcome so they can exercise their right to vote.
One of the main reasons mentioned last year by those who opposed this measure was the age of majority. I think we can safely say that in most countries of the world the age of majority is either 21 or over 21. It would appear that the argument advanced last year by my predecessor deserves consideration. He said that he thought the age of majority should be studied first before the age of voting is lowered.
The hon. member said that because of the education given our young people today and their greater maturity they are in a better position to exercise the right to vote than those who preceded them. That may be true, but I think quite a number of people will agree with me when I say that before the right of franchise is offered to those between 18 and 21 years of age they should be given a chance to gain practical as well as theoretical experience. In their studies they are accustomed to dealing with the theory of things, but I think the matter of giving them a chance to see what practice teaches should be given consideration before they are given the right to vote. The three years between the ages of 18 and 21 is the period in the life of a young man when he has his first contact with public affairs. I believe it is sound to think that these three years are very important to the young man so that he may learn about conditions in his own locality, his own province and the country at large. Such knowledge will influence his judgment, and will help him in making a choice as to those men he would like to see in public life, and the man he would like to represent him in the parliament of this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Man or woman.


Roch Pinard: Yes. I do not believe one can seriously disagree with the hon. member, but I think that the whole question would benefit by being given further study, and for this reason I propose to oppose the bill.


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, had this been a resolution I probably would not have risen at this point, but since it is a bill and can come before the house again, and since the hon. member who moved the bill is not particularly desirous that it should come to a vote tonight I might say a very brief word or two about it. The hon. member for Assiniboia has covered almost all the grounds, so there is little I can do except associate myself with him in the desire that the bill be ultimately passed.

The hon. member for Assiniboia told us that on account of the electoral laws, which will not permit those under the age of 21 to vote, he was unable to cast his first vote until he was the age of 24. Since that was the age at which he entered the House of Commons I presume that my hon. friend had the good wisdom to vote for himself on that occasion. Perhaps I may suggest playfully that the government would not have welcomed his coming to the house at an earlier age.
I think we are all agreed there is no doubt that young people reach the age of maturity much earlier now than they did at the time when older people like myself were at the age of 18. I want to say a word or two about the people who have voted in provincial elections in Saskatchewan at the age of 18. I have found considerable enthusiasm and interest among a fair percentage of the young people who are just past high school age. I may tell the government that the boys and girls who were allowed to vote in the provincial election of 1952 at the age of 18 or 19 were very angry indeed that they were denied the right to vote in the last federal election. They blamed the government when possibly they should not have done so. I do not know, but at any rate they blamed the circumstances which denied them the vote in the federal election. Having become interested in the provincial election in 1952 they did not see, and it was difficult to explain to them, why they could not vote in the federal election of 1953.
It has been said here that young people show a lack of interest in political affairs and do not know quite what it is all about. In that respect they are not much different from some of their elders. I dare to make that statement because of the fact that usually only a small proportion of the voters of the country exercise their franchise. It is not very long, of course, since the same thing was said about women's suffrage that is being said about these students. It was said that woman's place was in the home, that she should not concern herself with political matters and so forth. History reveals that it was a long time before women were given the opportunity to vote. The suffragettes sought for it by devious means, including the smashing of windows. We will not go into that now. Women finally got themselves the vote, and we have universal suffrage in Canada.
I would like to touch upon a point which I feel has not yet been mentioned, and that is the matter of intelligence. From my experience as a school teacher I have some

slight knowledge of psychology. Psychologists teach us that intelligence does not continue to develop in the individual after he has reached the age of 18. In fact, most people reach the acme of their intelligence at 15 or 16 years of age. After that, intelligence does not increase. We would hope, however, that wisdom does.
Another point which has not been mentioned is this:	Political clubs and student
parliaments in both colleges and high schools are becoming more prevalent across the country. 1 take this to be a sign that young people are becoming more interested in public affairs than was the case some few years ago. I also maintain that you learn to do by doing. You learn to have an interest in political affairs by having an interest in political affairs. I suggest that process could be commenced at the age of 18 as easily as at the age of 21. After all, many of our older people are not considered to be very mature after years of experience with the general field of politics. I do not think it is right for us to tell our young people that they must wait until they are 21 before they can begin to develop an interest in public affairs. I suggest it takes from 2 to 10 years after the age of 21 has been reached before most people become politically mature.
Life being limited, I suggest that we should interest people in public affairs at an earlier age. Our boys and girls are being taught civics and citizenship in our schools, and many take part in public speaking clubs, political clubs and student parliaments. I feel that this interest could be maintained if they were permitted to vote at the age when their thinking has been trained on public affairs. When our young people are 18 we think nothing of sending them out to work______


Mr. Casileden:: Or off to war.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Yes, we send them off to war or out to work or we send them back to the farms and tell them to forget about politics and public affairs until they are 21. By some magical process we expect them to be endowed with wisdom when they reach the age of 21. I suggest that the interest in public affairs which is created in our high schools and colleges should be continued, and that the next logical step is to turn the eyes of our young people to the field of public affairs and the politics by which such public affairs are governed. Some of our young people, of course, will take no more interest in politics than their parents did. They will probably vote as a matter of routine, and will follow the political opinions held by their parents. It is all right to follow the political persuasion of their parents, but I suggest that 50433-103^
Unemployment
the three years between the ages of 18 and 21 could be utilized to develop their own political thinking.
I think it was my hon. friend from Springfield who said that the provinces do not allow young people to bind themselves legally before they are 21. I would suggest that the enlistment forms which they sign in order to go off and if necessary give up their lives for the protection of the older people who stay at home is a very binding agreement upon them.
That is the sum total of my argument. I have tried to avoid those arguments which were presented by my hon. friend from Assiniboia. The Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard) in objecting to this amendment said it was premature. I have no doubt that this was said about women's suffrage. I fancy that even the Secretary of State would not be so bold as to suggest that the giving of the vote to women was premature. The only argument which was presented in which I could see any logic whatever was that this amendment might require further study. I do not know, nor did he say, how he is going to conduct that further study.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He might discuss it with his children at home.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: It is not my desire to plunge my hon. friend into difficulty.


Some hon. Members:: It is six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mrs. Fair-clough.

Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we listened to two speeches, one by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough), who made some well-deserved criticisms of the government's policy and of the situation as it exists today, and the second by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg).
The minister began by telling us that the present unemployment situation causes concern. But it seemed to me that as he proceeded with his address, which I found rather difficult to follow, he ended by trying to tell the house and country that the increase in the

Unemployment
unemployment figures in the country at this time is due very largely to an increase in the labour force.
Now, if we look at the figures we find that we have more unemployed than we had four years ago; but we have also more people available for work. And if we compare the various percentages of unemployment with the total number of workers available we find that the picture is entirely different from the one presented to us this afternoon by the Minister of Labour. The 296,000 unplaced applicants in March 1951 were 7'8 per cent, or nearly 8 per cent of the total number of workers available for work-that is, the paid workers plus those who were seeking work.
At the present time I believe we are approaching a figure of some 600,000 persons who are seeking work in Canada, and this works out at some 14J- or 15 per cent of the labour force. Or, if we take the other set of figures, the 170,000 persons without jobs and seeking work in 1951, we find that was 4J per cent of the workers available for work. If today there are 362,000 without jobs, as we are told there are, then that is something over 8 per cent of the labour force. So the persons without jobs and seeking work are proportionately very much greater in number than they have been in preceding years.
We were told, too, by the Minister of Labour this afternoon that there had been a general increase in production during this period. That, of course, is true because of the increased efficiency of industry and because of new industrial machines. No doubt if the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) were to speak in this debate he would tell us that the gross national product has increased over those years. That also is true, and his estimate is that it will increase further in the coming year. But it seems to me that if that is good for the country, as it should be, then we should have a diminution rather than an increase in the number of unemployed this year over preceding years.
The amendment states, of course, that the government should immediately give consideration to the formulation of plans to deal with this emergency, and to the necessary steps to establish a long-term program for expanding employment. I am thoroughly in accord with that, but what does the official opposition mean by those words? I know what we would mean if we had used them in an amendment we moved, and indeed in the amendment I might have moved this afternoon we had a phrase somewhat similar to the phrase I find in the amendment offered by the official opposition. If we are going to plan, and take the necessary steps to establish

a planned long-term program for expanding employment, then I believe we have to do many things that hitherto we have not done. And that, of course, is what we believe should be done.
The Minister of Labour this afternoon spoke about the necessity of people who were unemployed finding opportunities elsewhere, and he mentioned once again the necessity of the mobility of labour. But as a matter of fact what we have been doing over the years in relation to housing, for example, is to make less mobile our labour force. We in this party have urged the government again and again to establish rental housing projects in order that those who wish to seek work elsewhere than where they are located may rent homes, and not be tied down by homes they have had to purchase in the districts in which they live. It seems to me there is a conflict in ideas when the Minister of Labour suggests that there should be greater mobility in labour and that persons should seek work opportunities in districts other than those in which they live, if we tie them down in various localities because we refuse to adopt a housing scheme based on low or moderate rentals.
This afternoon we heard a great deal about the figures wholly related to the unemployment problem, but tonight I wish to deal with the subject from a slightly different angle; because I believe a significant feature of our unplanned economic system in North America is that between wars unemployment, and something which always accompanies unemployment in this country, namely falling farm prices, invariably plague the producers of wealth, whether they are industrial workers or workers on the land. We in this party believe that a country with abundant resources, such as the one in which we live, a country with fertile land and an intelligent and virile population, together with modern machinery, should be able to provide for full employment and proper returns to the farmer. And of course this also means a high standard of living for all the people in this country.
In wartime we had full employment, accompanied by relatively good returns to agriculture. This brought a widespread improvement in the standard of living of all the people of Canada, particularly those engaged in industry and agriculture. The fact that this does not happen in peacetime indicates, we think, a basic weakness in our economic system, a weakness which movements like ours were founded in all the democratic countries to bring before the public for ultimate solution.
It is I think significant that falling farm returns during the past several years have

been accompanied by rising unemployment. If one draws a graph showing farm returns and watches the fall and then the rise in a similar graph relating to unemployment, he will see immediately the connection between the two. In my mind the two are inseparably linked, as they were of course in the years of the pre-war depression.
Net farm income has fallen substantially in these post-war years. The dominion bureau of statistics-and I quote their figures because they are a government agency- shows that, in round figures, net farm income in 1951 amounted to $2,155 million. In 1952 it was $1,901 million; in 1953 it was $1,657 million, and the unofficial estimate for 1954 which, from what I have learned, I believe is going to be very close to the official estimate, is $1,200 million. There you have a striking fall in farm returns, accompanied at the same time by alarming, rising unemployment in our cities.
Let us look at the unemployment, and then we shall see how closely they are related to the farm figures and follow the same sort of pattern. On January 25, 1951, as reported by the dominion bureau of statistics, the unplaced applicants for work numbered-I want to use round figures again, and this was a labour department report-294,000. A year later, on January 24, 1952, the labour department release gave the figure as 350,000. On January 22, 1953, the figure had risen to 384,000. On January 21, 1954, it had risen to 523,000, and on January 20 of this year, the last return which we have available to us, the figure was 569,000.
These are unplaced applicants for work. But some of these of course the government will contend, and did contend this afternoon, were employed already and seeking new jobs. If we look at the other release, the labour department release of persons actually without jobs and seeking work, we find that in January, 1953, there were 187,000 without jobs and seeking work, in January, 1954, there were 280,000; and in January, 1955-and this again is the official labour department release-the figure was 362,000. I am not quarrelling about which set of figures we should use, because I think they both indicate the same sort of disease, but whether we take the figures of the unplaced applicants for work in the years under consideration, or whether we take those actually without jobs and seeking work, the increase each year since 1953 has, in my opinion, been nothing short of alarming.
All the minister could tell us this afternoon was that the present situation was causing the government concern. We had been told in each of those years that there was
Unemployment
nothing to worry about. We had contended that there was a great deal to worry about, but we were simply not listened to.
In January, 1955, there were almost twice as many people without work and seeking it as there were in January, 1953. In other words the number had increased from 187,000 to 362,000; and remember, I am taking the number without work who were seeking jobs. I am not, therefore, as I have said, going to take any exception to the difference between the two sets of figures. Both sets of figures indicate the tragic situation in which many thousands of Canadians and their families find themselves at the present time.
I said last year, after very careful examination of the trends in unemployment since the war and the equally significant fall in farm prices, that this winter would witness the worst unemployment situation we had faced not only since the end of the war but since 1940. I said at the time that all Canadians might not feel directly the effect of this serious situation, but that all of us would in time be indirectly affected to some degree by the misfortunes of so many of our fellow citizens. Apparently the government did not believe the situation would be as serious as it was last year, and it has done nothing effective to mitigate, let alone remedy, the problem. There has been no public works program or anything of the kind that would give relief to those who are unemployed.
It may be argued that the government, as the minister indicated this afternoon, had increased unemployment benefits by making some supplementary payments. But supplementary payments and unemployment insurance are not a cure for unemployment, they are merely palliatives. The only cure for unemployment is the provision of work, the finding of jobs.
In their presentations to the government last autumn the trade unions warned also that unemployment would be higher this winter than the previous year. In reply the Prime Minister, it will be recalled, said he felt that those pessimistic predictions would not be realized, and this winter unemployment would not reach last winter's postwar high. The official figures I have quoted sadly belie the judgment of the Prime Minister and the government. Unemployment now stands at a post-war peak. There is no doubt about that. All official figures very clearly indicate it.
I believe there is ample justification for the contention which I and my colleagues in this group have made on very many occasions, that unemployment in Canada is intimately related to falling farm income. Those

Unemployment
parallel trends I contend, Mr. Speaker, are not accidental. The decline in farm income is intimately reflected in the decline of farm purchases of manufactured goods of all kinds, and more particularly in the purchase of farm machinery and farm equipment and supplies. The result is that in the cities where farm implements and farm equipment have been manufactured there has been an acute unemployment situation since last summer. It is not surprising, then, to find that the workers in the farm implement industry, for example, are suffering acutely. They have gone to the trouble of preparing a brief in which they support-and I think this is significant-not meeting the unemployment particularly by the provision of public works and so on, but the fact that they believe it is necessary to maintain a prosperous agriculture because they recognize that they cannot be fully employed unless agriculture is prosperous.
Then you have the lay-offs of railway workers. They are not altogether due to the same cause. To some extent in some of the towns, as I have reason to know in my own constituency, the lay-offs have come about on account of the dieselization of the railways; but in the main the lay-offs on the railways are related to the. depressed condition of the agricultural industry. In many other ways the decline of something like 40 per cent in farm income in the last three years is having an effect on the general prosperity throughout the whole of this country.
It is paradoxical that in this land of plenty there should be people who, because of unemployment, have to reduce their purchases of protective foods. That was the case in the 1930's under the government then in power; or should I use the plural, because while we think of the Bennett regime, that was succeeded by the regime of the Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King, and during the whole of that period it was the case. In a land of plenty there was inadequate relief and virtual starvation. And it is the case today though to a less extent among some of the families in Canada. They are unable to buy the protective foods that the farmers produce. We find a condition of falling farm prices accompanied, as I have said, by unemployment in the cities.
The question I am going to ask is this. What is the government going to do about all this? That is the question which this debate raises very sharply today. So far this afternoon the Minister of Labour has indicated no solution for the problem. It seems to me that so far Canada has been following a policy of too little, certainly too late, when we consider that this is the month of March and winter is passing.
[Mr. Coldwell.l
Last year we were told that the unemployment figures were too small to warrant premature action on our part. We are told again that much of Canada's unemployment is seasonal or due to improved technology; that these types of unemployment are unavoidable and that they must be accompanied not by a recession, of course, but on the contrary by progress and prosperity.
I think such an attitude is fundamentally wrong and will lead us into more serious difficulties as the days pass. This afternoon we were told that in the last ten years Canadians have been more prosperous than ever in their history, that there has been more employment and better farm prices. I am not going to dispute that, but I am going to say that that was not anticipated when the war ended. Only the action of the United Nations in setting up UNRRA, the Marshall plan, the threat of war and the rearmament programs were responsible for those ten years of prosperity of which the government boasts today. Nothing the government has done brought that about; it was brought about by factors beyond the control of the government except in so far as we contributed to UNRRA and to the Marshall plan, and engaged in rearmament.
As I have said already, in a country like Canada with our resources and machines there should be more jobs to fill than there are men and women to fill them. If we look across the ocean we see a situation in Great Britain where full employment exists with far less resources and with the need to recover from devastation after the war. That picture in contrast to ours should fill us with shame.
It seems to me that the major responsibility of the government is to see that the pace of economic progress is not allowed to slacken until all the needs of the country are filled. Today plants are idle, men and women are unemployed and the standards of living, not only of those directly concerned but of all Canadians, are threatened by this condition.
There was a different attitude on the part of the government in 1945 when there was widespread gratitude by the government and of course by the people of Canada for the efforts made by our farmers and industrial workers during the war years. It appeared then that the government recognized its responsibility and announced that it was drafting a program for continuing full employment for Canada. At the dominion-provincial conference of 1945 the present government actually made specific proposals, which most of us, including myself, felt if put into effect would help to maintain full employment in Canada. The federal government proposed

certain measures including public works projects that would help to alleviate the hardships of those who in spite of plans to maintain full employment happened to be temporarily unemployed.
Those proposals were aimed too at taking the responsibility off the shoulders of the provincial governments. This afternoon we heard the Minister of Labour say that the primary responsibility for the care of and assistance to the unemployed lies in the provincial governments and the provincial legislatures. That is a different attitude from that taken back in 1945 by the present government at the dominion-provincial conference. Let me quote part of the statement that was made at that time:
As a part of the general arrangement with the provincial governments the dominion government now proposes to establish a practicable and comprehensive system of assistance to able-bodied unemployed persons as soon as possible rather than waiting until the need for it actually arises. It is thought necessary not to permit the recurrence of the problems of administration being separated from financial responsibility, and to avoid the makeshift arrangements and controversy with provincial governments which otherwise would be almost certain to recur under the old methods of providing relief even though the number of persons involved were small.
The government then proposed, as they said, to do something before the need arose; not, as we are discussing now, after the need had become evident and the situation had become alarming. Nothing was done and now they refuse, ten years later, to institute an emergency program to meet the situation even when the need has become both urgent and apparent at the present time.
We have heard members of the government pleading that its responsibility does not extend to these matters. We heard it this afternoon. Indeed, the federal government has pushed the responsibility for caring for the unemployed back to the provinces and the municipalities when the fall in farm returns, which I regard as a principal reason underlying the present situation, is the result not of provincial policies but of federal policies. In a recent brief of the Ontario welfare council, they make this telling point when they say:
It was clear that those who attended our meeting did not accept general statements that this problem represents no responsibility of the federal government. Since employment and unemployment are a national concern, it is self-evident that the fate of unemployed employables is similarly basically sensitive to federal initiative.
It seems to me that is what the federal government also said ten years ago, in 1945, at the end of the war. We of the C.C.F. have constantly urged upon the federal government that it should assume, as it indicated in
Unemployment
1945, full responsibility for all able-bodied unemployed. Not only did the government in effect admit this responsibility at the dominion-provincial conference but-I am going to emphasize this-when we signed the United Nations charter nearly ten years ago Canada undertook the threefold pledge of planning to achieve, and I quote the exact words of the charter-
-higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development.
Let me add too that such a policy is the only effective answer to propaganda either of the communist or fascist variety. Let me say that when you have a situation like we have at the present time, which may become worse as the days go by, you will find that these incipient dangers do exist in a country where the standards of living fall and unemployment rises. These are the seedbeds. Hitler rose to power because of unemployment in Germany, and communist parties have risen to strength and power because of unemployment and distress. When we talk about containing communism we should begin in our own country by bringing about conditions such that incipient fascism and communism cannot arise.
Five years ago the secretary general of the United Nations appointed a group of experts on the problem of full employment. Their report, which was submitted in December, 1949, made three main recommendations. I want to put them on the record because they are in line with the philosophy and policy which the C.C.F. has preached throughout the years in this country. Summarized they are: First, that each government should adopt and announce a full employment target which will define the meaning of full employment in the country concerned.
Second, that it should announce a comprehensive program for directing its fiscal and monetary policies, its investment and production planning, and its wage and price policies, including anti-monopoly policies, to the continuous achievement of its full-employment objective.
Third, a whole series of policies that would help to expand effective demand, such as increased social security payments, lowering of the.incidence of taxation of the low-income groups, raising the standards of expenditure for education and health, and by means of other support to personal consumption, and by maintaining adequate and stable prices for agriculture.
The group went on further to advocate the control of monopoly prices to serve the interest of increasing consumer demand through the reduction of profit margins.

Unemployment
That is precisely the kind of program we have been preaching in this house and in the country. We have been urging Canada to maintain the high level of employment which we call "full employment". I know there are times when there must be some unemployment, but never the unemployment of 8 per cent, 5 per cent or 15 per cent, as unemployment has risen from time to time in the past. We have been urging Canada to maintain the high level of employment which we call "full employment", adequate returns for our farmers and a measure of prosperity for all our people. We believe these things are linked together, that they cannot be separated, and are possible.
Although Canada is a member of the United Nations and is aware of these recommendations, it has refused to take the initial steps to carry out either the charter, the pledges of the dominion-provincial conference or the recommendations of experts appointed by the secretary general of the United Nations. There has been much vague talk about maintaining a high level of employment which, I say, means substantially "full employment" but which, it seems to me, may mean anything or nothing to our present government.
I recollect that in 1950 my colleague the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) put on the order paper a question inquiring whether the government had done as the United Nations report suggested and had set up a full employment target. Viewed in the light of present conditions the government's answer is interesting, for it said this in part:
A rigid target in terms of a single objective-
And full employment was the objective under consideration.
-is generally considered oversimplified and unrealistic, particularly for an economy like that of Canada.
In other words, the government said that the aim of full employment set forth in the United Nations charter which we signed was unrealistic. During the war, however, we directed all our energies to a single objective. That single objective was the winning of the war. Then it was not oversimplified and unrealistic to direct all our energies to achieving victory. The point is that where there is a will there is a way; and the government has shown no willingness to achieve the target to which, I say again, we are pledged.
The difficulty in which the government finds itself is that public planning of the character required to meet the target does not suit the private business interests who themselves control the economy to the extent that it is controlled; and it is controlled to a very large

extent. That, of course, is the real explanation of the refusal of the government to adopt the target and the program set out by the United Nations. We say that if this nation could plan to defeat Hitler or could assist in planning the defeat of Hitler-which perhaps is the better way to put it-we could plan equally well for full employment and the maintenance of adequate returns for agriculture in these times of peace.
It is useless to say that so much of our unemployment is seasonal and cannot be otherwise. If we examine the statistics during the war years we find that there was little difference between the numbers of unplaced applicants and persons without jobs in the so-called peak unemployment months-let us say March-and those in the peak of the high employment months, let us say June. As an example, on March 2, 1944, unplaced applicants for work were 68,615. On June 29 of the same year, 1944, the total was 68,773. At the beginning of November of that year, when we are told unemployment should begin to increase because it is seasonal, the total instead of rising had actually fallen to 65,000.
Thus it is clear that if we had a target appealing to this house and to the imagination of the Canadian people we could overcome unemployment and guarantee to everyone able and willing to work a decent opportunity of earning a living.
I have spoken of the seriousness of unemployment as it affects the worker himself and the farmer, but an examination of the dominion bureau of statistics figures on the value of retail trade in Canada teaches us exactly the same lessons. Unemployment and falling farm prices mean a substantial drop in trade in retail stores, particularly in the country stores. It is reflected also in the value of the gross national product at market prices. The dominion bureau of statistics figures record a significant drop in the third quarter of last year over the same quarter in the two preceding years.
When people are unemployed, they are not producing and there is loss in production; and the loss in production through unemployment is greater than the loss from all other causes combined, including sickness, strikes or what you will. Yet according to official estimates and the figures in the 1951 census, Canada is a country which needs many of the things which today are regarded as necessities. We are told that, approximately, Canadian homes need two million furnaces and refrigerators; one and a half million modern toilets and bathrooms; one million washing machines, besides vacuum cleaners, telephones and other modern necessities. I am not including radios and television sets

in those necessities. These are domestic needs. But when we add to these the needs of hundreds of millions of people overseas who could use the products of our farms and our factories, we ask the question, why should anyone in Canada be unemployed?
Our government boasts about the increase in capital investment in our country. I would not minimize the value of this expansion, but as capital development increases employment should rise and our overseas trade should increase. Much of our exports are now in raw materials and partly manufactured products of our forests and our mines. This situation has been brought about largely because of the high level of expenditure on armaments and defence preparations in the United States as well as in other countries.
Over the last number of years we have come to rely more and more on exports of such materials and commodities to our neighbours to the south who-let me remark once again as I have often done in the past-are in many respects competitive to our economy, particularly in the production and marketing of farm commodities. In planning to maintain employment and farm prices we must pay more attention to the trends and financial relationships between Canada and our most reliable overseas customers who are complementary to us rather than competitive with us in these fields.
My opinion is that the government has failed to do this and the mounting unemployment, the falling farm prices, the accumulation of certain farm products, all emphasize the need for a program of intelligent economic planning and trading relationships by the federal government which alone is in a position to undertake it. The failure of the government to meet the needs of such large sections of our Canadian people warrants support of this motion of want of confidence that is before us at the present time.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I do not propose to quote again from the report of the address of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) at the new Reform Club in Quebec on September 19, 1954. I quoted somewhat extensively from it, or rather from newspaper reports of it, on January 10 when I spoke in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. On that occasion the Prime Minister said it was the government's job to find work for all. He went on to say that if the government was not smart enough to organize our economy to provide work for all, it was incompetent. That is our contention today. He invited this house to throw the government out and to put in its place one which could do better 50433-104
Unemployment
if the government failed to do what he said was its job, namely to find employment for all.
The government has failed. Consequently the want of confidence motion is one which should express the opinion of the house-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Throw them out.


Major James William Coldwell: -that the government has failed to do the job, or indeed to carry out the pledges and promises made to the people of Canada at the dominion-provincial conference in 1945, or the pledges made when the Prime Minister and the late prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, signed the United Nations charter at San Francisco in 1945.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, we have all listened with interest to my colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), and to the two members from parties opposite who have already contributed to this debate on unemployment. Understandably, opposition members have placed emphasis on the statistics which indicate an increase in unemployment during the past year. It is true that unemployment in Canada is now at the highest level in our post-war experience, and it is not my intention to minimize in any way the hardship occasioned to some individual Canadians by this situation. It is the concern of the government, as it is of all hon. members, to have unemployment at the absolute minimum consistent with the achievement of the essential goals of our economic life. In considering how these goals are to be achieved, it is, I think, essential that we examine carefully the current economic situation and our future prospects.
By concentrating attention solely or even principally on unemployment figures, and particularly on comparisons of these figures between certain periods, as hon. members opposite have done in this debate, it is possible to leave an impression of the present state of the Canadian economy, which is quite unwarranted. Without minimizing the extent of the temporary slackening in our forward progress which occurred from the end of 1953 through most of 1954, I would like to point out that there are bright spots in the picture as well. It is not my intention to place undue emphasis either on the dark side or on the bright side. What I propose to do is to look at unemployment in relation to other important forces at work in the economy. Such an assessment is, I think, essential to arrive at a sound approach to this problem.
The facts on the extent of current unemployment are available in statistical releases and I will not go over these in detail here. The labour force survey, which

Unemployment
is the one set of statistics available giving a comprehensive and detailed description of Canada's labour force, sets the number of persons without jobs and seeking work at 362,000 this January, compared with 280,000 at the same date last year, and 318,000 at last winter's peak in March. It is important also to note that the number of persons temporarily laid off and also those on short time is about the same as a year ago. Significant also is the fact that the number of persons with jobs, that is, total employment in January and also in the two previous months was about the same or slightly above levels of one year previous. Meanwhile, the labour force has continued to expand, though at a slower rate than population.
In other words, during the past year or so employment has been maintained, but productive activity has not been sufficient to absorb the net increase in persons coming into the labour force.
This levelling off in productive activity was the result of certain new influences which began to affect the market situation in the latter part of 1953 and early 1954. Hon. members are no doubt aware of most of the difficulties encountered-a general business let-down in the United States; a consequent decline during 1954 in Canadian exports to that market; reduced incomes of grain producers, and the effects of this on sales of farm equipment and other manufactured goods; reduced procurement in 1954 of defence goods; a tendency during 1954 for businesses to meet orders from inventories rather than new production; and, finally, intensification of international competition in manufactured goods which presented new difficulties to some manufacturing industries in foreign and also in domestic markets.
In view of these and other problems faced in 1954, the economic achievements of that year have been remarkable indeed. Instead of declining significantly, as might well have been expected, economic activity has remained fairly steady. The gross national product in 1954 was about 2 per cent below the level of the previous year. This decline is fully accounted for by the reduction in grain crops. If crops are excluded, output remained about the same as in the previous year.
As previously indicated, this sustained level of production has not been adequate to absorb the amount of manpower available. Nevertheless, in view of the extent of the adjustments faced, the performance of the economy demonstrates great vigour and resilience. It is, I think, fair to say that it has withstood the threat of the first post-war recession.

Much of the softening in markets in 1954 can be traced in one way or another to a levelling off in the defence build-up in North America and to the subsequent decline in defence procurement. We can be thankful for circumstances which permit the use of less of our resources for defence. Nevertheless, such a development does present a problem of adjustment in that manpower and resources freed from defence and related activities must be absorbed elsewhere. This adjustment has been made more difficult by certain other market fluctuations which are bound to occur from time to time, and which happened to be concentrated in this same period.
From the actual experience in 1954 we can, I think, conclude that this re-absorption process involving the shift of manpower to new activities has been proceeding well. Difficulties of the past year or so have been concentrated to a large extent in certain manufacturing industries. Employment in textiles and in most hard goods industries has declined substantially and in spite of limited improvement in recent months remains well below the levels of a year ago. At the same time, employment in material processing industries, in services and in primary industries such as mining and logging has increased, in some cases quite markedly. The result is that over-all employment has been sustained.
I would like to point out here that Canada has not been alone in encountering increased unemployment. In fact, the business slowdown in the United States commencing in the closing months of 1953 and carrying on into 1954 appears to have been a little more pronounced than that in Canada. In the United States persons out of work and seeking work expressed as a percentage of the labour force increased from an annual average of 2-5 per cent in 1953 to 5 per cent in 1954. In other words, in that country unemployment roughly doubled between the two years. In Canada the corresponding ratios are 2-6 per cent and 4-3 per cent, an increase of about two-thirds.
In recent months, however, there has been a marked improvement in business conditions in the United States. This has been accompanied by a strengthening in the labour market and unemployment in January, 1955, remained below last year's peak. This development is reassuring as regards our own position here in Canada. While unemployment in Canada has not yet shown a corresponding improvement, it is not unusual for changes in business trends here to lag somewhat behind those in the United States. Moreover, with the much greater seasonal

variation experienced in Canada, strengthening forces have much less chance of taking effect during the slack season of the year. For example, promise of a renewed upswing in construction activity is one of the principal stimulating forces in our economy. Yet the extent to which this influence can make itself felt during the winter months is very limited.
Another factor which helps to explain the recent divergence between unemployment trends in the United States and Canada is the contrast in conditions prevailing in the automobile industries of the two countries. In the United States all-out production of automobiles in recent months has been one of the major influences sparking the up-turn in general business activity. In Canada the prolonged strike in Ford plants accentuated the difficulties in manufacturing communities and swelled the numbers of unemployed. I should make it clear that persons on strike are not counted as unemployed. Nevertheless, the widespread effects of the strike on employment in parts plants and in industries affected by loss of income, resulting directly from the strike, were important factors contributing to the level of unemployment reached in January, 1955.
Notwithstanding the current trend of unemployment in Canada, there has been unmistakable evidence of some general strengthening in business conditions in recent months. I have already indicated that national output, excluding crops, was about the same in 1954 as in the preceding year. However, quarterly figures, adjusted for seasonal variation, indicate that over-all output, which turned downward toward the end of 1953, has been increasing since about mid-1954. By the end of that year it appeared to be running about 2 per cent above the level of 1953. This change in direction is reflected in employment figures. Total employment in Canada, after having run a little under previous year levels from December of 1953 to October, 1954, has subsequently been about the same or slightly higher.
These trends suggest that the turning point in the adjustment which I mentioned has already been passed. The important point now to be considered is whether the limited improvement already achieved will gather momentum in the period ahead. A look at prospects in our principal markets should throw some light on this question.
First of all, the export situation. Following a pronounced increase in the period 1949 to 1952, Canada's merchandise exports fell off slightly in 1953. There was a further decline last year of about 6 per cent in value and 3 per cent in volume.
Unemployment
Conditions largely responsible for this decline in exports have already undergone a substantial change for the better. Lower wheat shipments was one of the principal factors in the decline. Hon. members may recall that in the two years ending about mid-1953 the combination of short supplies in overseas countries and bumper crops in Canada boosted our wheat exports to record levels. Between the crop years 1952-53 and 1953-54 wheat and flour exports declined from 386 million bushels to 255 million bushels; still, however, a fairly good record judged by longer-run standards. In recent months a much improved selling atmosphere has developed and sales to date are well ahead of last year. This has not yet been reflected in current exports, as compared with last year, but will gradually become more apparent as the year goes on.
A second reason for lower export totals in 1954 was, of course, the down-turn in the United States economy, even though sales of most of the important export items in that market were reasonably well maintained. This situation is substantially altered as a result of the pick-up now under way in that country. This strengthening coincides with the coming into operation in Canada of extensive new capacity for the production of industrial materials such as aluminum and iron ore. Consequently, we can reasonably look forward to a better year as regards trade with the United States.
Export prospects in overseas markets are also favourable. The situation in overseas countries was, in fact, one of the bright spots in the trade position during 1954. Except for the special circumstances relating to wheat, sales to the United Kingdom, western Europe and a number of other countries were substantially higher last year. This reflects the growing economic strength of these countries.
The present prosperity in western Europe has been associated with a substantial rise in output during the past two years. This reflects important progress on the part of European countries in overcoming the fundamental post-war imbalance between domestic requirements and production levels. In addition, hard currency reserves of the nondollar area have been rising, permitting a general relaxation of restrictions against dollar goods. The United Kingdom has removed discriminatory restrictions against nearly all bulk materials, such as grains, wood products and metals, which are of primary importance to Canada. There has been a better market in the United Kingdom for Canadian agricultural and food products, such as tobacco, salmon and apples, some

Unemployment
of which are again moving in volume across the Atlantic. This move toward fewer import controls has been followed by both European and commonwealth countries. South Africa and Belgium have been added to the list of countries which have effectively ceased to discriminate against dollar imports. Following the commonwealth meetings in January, 1954, both Australia and New Zealand increased their allocations for the purchase of goods from the dollar area, resulting in greater sales of a fairly wide range of Canadian products, including limited quantities of manufactured goods.
The recent improvement in conditions in foreign markets is already being reflected in better export figures, which in volume terms are running at peacetime record levels for this period of the year. A noticeable improvement first became apparent in November of 1954, when exports increased 4 per cent over the same month in 1953. This increase widened to 8 per cent in December and to 17 per cent in January, the latest month for which figures are available. In value terms sales for these three months are still a little below the levels reached two and three years ago. However, price levels are also lower. Consequently, in volume terms our exports in this period reached the highest level ever recorded for these winter months, in peacetime.
In January, 1955, exports amounted to $310 million, 17 per cent above the same month of 1954. The increase is about equally divided between sales to the United Kingdom and sales to the United States. Sales to the United Kingdom have been substantially higher for some months. However, this is the first significant increase in the value of exports to the United States in more than a year and is no doubt associated with the improvement in business activity in that country.
All in all, there is good reason to expect this firmer trend in exports to continue. This, in turn, will have a marked effect on employment during the coming year.
Having looked at past performance and present prospects in the export field, let us now turn to the domestic situation. What is the outlook for capital investment? I am glad to report that the information now available on expansion plans for 1955 is reassuring indeed.
Capital expenditures in 1954 turned out to be down by about 5 per cent from the 1953 level and were, in fact, lower than the intentions reported earlier in the year. This short-fall seems to have been the result of

certain retarding factors such as unfavourable weather during the construction season and a poor harvest. There was no indication, however, of cancellation of major expansion plans. To some extent, therefore, the shortfall in 1954 programs means simply a larger carryover into the current year.
The brief duration and relative mildness of the recession in the United States is undoubtedly reassuring to businessmen who are considering capital expansion at this time. This newly inspired confidence in the United States economy, together with the improvement in international trade, come at a crucial time in Canada's development. With much of the post-war re-equipment now completed, and with manufacturing industries facing stiffer international competition, future expansion in Canada may depend to a greater degree than in recent years upon a sound international trading position.
At any rate, the results of this year's survey of investment intentions which are contained in the report "Private and Public Investment in Canada-Outlook 1955", tabled a few days ago, point to an immediate resumption of an upward trend in capital spending in Canada. The survey indicates that over-all capital expenditures of $5-8 billion are anticipated in Canada for 1955. This figure is nearly 6 per cent above actual expenditure of $5'5 billion last year. The estimate includes all planned expenditures in Canada for new capital facilities and covers expenditures for new construction and for machinery and equipment made by business groups, institutions and governments as well as estimated expenditures for new housing. Looking at the major changes by industrial groups, the sharpest increases are indicated for mining, institutional building and housing. Outlays by the trade, finance, and commercial service groups, and by government bodies are expected to increase moderately, while capital spending in agriculture and in utilities is likely to remain about the same as in 1954.
An encouraging feature of this year's survey is the moderate rise in anticipated capital outlays in manufacturing industries. This reverses a downward trend in evidence for some time past. These increases in capital expenditures are mainly concentrated in material processing industries such as paper products, chemicals and non-ferrous metal products. On the other hand, in a number of manufacturing industries capital spending plans appear to reflect the continuing market difficulties being encountered as a result of intensified competition on an international scale. However, even in those industries

most affected, outlays for new capital goods, though reduced, remain sizeable.
Further details concerning the nature and composition of this year's investment plans can be obtained from the published report. I would, however, like to lay particular emphasis on two important implications of the projected rise in capital outlays.
In the first place, it illustrates clearly and forcibly the confidence with which Canadian business, collectively, views the nation's long-run economic future. Even in the face of the substantial additions to capacity since world war II, the business community is continuing to add to its capital facilities at an undiminished rate. This can only mean that businessmen anticipate not only sustained markets but growing markets for years to come.
Next, let us look at the consumer market, which, it should be remembered, accounts for by far the larger portion of goods and services produced and sold in Canada.
First of all, it is important to note that personal spending during 1954 continued to rise. In fact, it was the Canadian consumer who was largely responsible for holding national activity at a fairly even pace in the face of moderate declines in both exports and capital expenditure. In 1954 consumer expenditures amounted to approximately $15 6 billion, nearly 3 per cent above the level of 1953. Canada's population was up 2-7 per cent between the same two years, indicating that on a per capita basis consumer expenditure has been well maintained. Now this is another remarkable achievement for a period in which we have faced substantial difficulties. In spite of the adjustments which the economy has had to contend with, Canadians have, on the average, been able to maintain the high standard of living achieved during the preceding unusually prosperous years.
This high level of consumer outlays was supported by sustained personal incomes. Notwithstanding the increase in unemployment, wage and salary payments rose by about 2 per cent in 1954 compared with the previous year. Workers were able to earn this higher income even though the average working week was a little shorter. Also in 1954 Canadians received about 10 per cent more in interest, dividends and net rental incomes and in social security payments from governments. The latter reflected a greater volume of family allowance and old age security payments as well as unemployment insurance benefits. Rising incomes in these sectors offset in aggregate the decline in net farm income so that total personal income was at about the same high level as in the previous year. After deducting
Unemployment
direct personal tax payments, income left at the disposal of individuals was at least as high as in 1953.
These, in brief, were the circumstances affecting the Canadian consumer market in 1954. Looking ahead, prospects of increased activity in both capital goods and export industries should, in turn, bolster income positions. Consequently, consumer demand, which remained firm in 1954, may be even better in the coming year.
In view of the circumstances I have described, it is reasonable to anticipate continued firming in both foreign and domestic markets. As previously indicated, production trends have already shown some response to these strengthening influences. Over-all output is now running a little ahead of a year ago. However, with increasing effectiveness in the use of manpower, this rise in output has been achieved with, as yet, scarcely no increase in employment. With a continuing rise in the labour force, unemployment is still running somewhat higher than a year ago.
It is to be realized, however, that the strength now in evidence in investment and export markets has not yet had its full impact on conditions generally and cannot be expected to do so during the slack season of the year. As the year draws on we can, I am confident, look forward to a broader resumption of expansionary trends with an accompanying growth in job opportunities.
If these are the economic prospects ahead of us, what role should the government play? I submit, Mr. Speaker, that what is needed is a continuation of the sensible economic policies which have enabled Canadians to enjoy a lengthy post-war period of economic expansion and improvement in earning opportunities and living standards. These policies are directed towards creating a favourable economic climate in which individual initiative thrives, and businessmen are encouraged to expand their capital facilities in order to cater to growing domestic and foreign markets.
Some hon. members of the opposition have been saying that the government has stood idly by and watched the number of unemployed rise. Nothing could be further from the truth as the economic achievements of 1954 so well demonstrate. I do not want to claim that the economic policies which were followed were solely or mainly responsible for the reasonably good showing in 1954. Obviously and unquestionably the dominating factors were the continuation of basic forces of sound economic growth and the initiative,

Unemployment
energy and good judgment of the Canadian people in all walks of life. But what I am suggesting is that the economic policies that have been followed have facilitated the adjustment processes which we experienced in Canada last year. The effects of the adjustment were minimized for most Canadians.
Here is a brief summary of the economic policies that have been pursued. I will not go into any details, but I can say that each and every one of these helped Canadians to find jobs and thus earn more money to spend on t'he things they wanted to buy, or to build houses, or to expand business capital facilities, or to sell more abroad.
1.	Tax collections have been lower, and for the first time since 1946 a net budgetary deficit is indicated. Even though incomes of most Canadians rose, the personal income tax take has been reduced, a drop of 2 per cent during 1954, as compared with the year previous. Sales and excise tax collections were also down 5 per cent, though total domestic sales, as I mentioned, remained firm.
2.	Monetary conditions eased considerably in the latter part of 1953 and the early part of 1954, and again even more recently. This has made it possible for provincial and municipal governments, as well as businesses and other private borrowers in the investment market, to raise money for capital expenditures more readily and at lower rates of interest. It has also ensured that there was ample supply of bank credit available to finance worthwhile and constructive undertakings.
3.	The new National Housing Act, 1954, made it easier for people to build houses by reducing down payments and lengthening the period of amortization. At the same time the availability of mortgage credit was broadened considerably through the entry of the chartered banks and the Quebec savings banks into the field. The interest rate on National Housing Act loans was reduced.
4.	In foreign trade our earnest and unremitting efforts brought some results, partly reflected in an increase in many of our overseas sales, partly in persuading our friends to the south to go slow with some of their restrictive measures in the interest of greater international commercial stability. The medium of export credit insurance was used increasingly during 1954 to reduce the risks Canadian businessmen faced in doing business abroad. Policies written for the 12-month period ended September, 1954, amounted to $35 million, or some 40 per cent above the corresponding period a year before. Much of the additional export credit was for the
tMr. Howe (Port Arthur).]
medium term and covered largely capital goods, especially farm machinery and equipment.
5.	Personal incomes and consequent consumer spending were bolstered by increases of about 10 per cent in the volume of social security benefits, as I mentioned earlier. A further increase in such payments is in sight for this year. The program of allowances for totally and permanently disabled persons, passed by parliament during the last session, has come into effect in a number of provinces as of the 1st of January this year. Further, as announced in the speech from the throne, the program of allowances for the blind is again being expanded by providing wider coverage and scope of benefits.
6.	In agriculture, orderly marketing, particularly in wheat, helped to tide us over a difficult market situation, assuring farmers of as good returns as appeared possible under the circumstances. Price support continued to help farmers with respect to such important commodities as butter and eggs. Apple growers in Nova Scotia who suffered grievously from storm damage received financial assistance.
7.	In fishing, a number of steps were taken to assist the industry in finding new markets abroad, in providing aid to modernize fishing fleets and equipment, to find new fishing grounds, to develop more scientific methods of operation for fish processing.
8.	Several of our mining industries continued to have difficulties, particularly coal and gold. Substantial financial assistance was provided to those industries.
9.	The tightened anti-dumping regulations enacted in the last session of parliament have helped a number of our domestic manufacturing industries.
10.	To help the unemployed, particularly during the winter months, the Unemployment Insurance Act was amended earlier this session to provide for an increase in the duration and scale of supplementary benefits. A major revision of this act is proposed during the present session. The local offices of the national employment service have speeded up their activities to bring men and jobs together.
11.	Defence expenditures during the year past have been running at a somewhat lower level. I shall make a report about the progress of our defence procurement program later on in the session. All I want to say now is that the decline was more than offset by rising civilian expenditures, particularly those of the social security type and the public investment type. For example, expenditures of the Department of Public Works

during 1954 were 35 per cent above those of 1953 and expenditures of the Department of Transport during 1954 were 14 per cent above those of 1953. Several major projects were completed or were nearing completion, such as the Canso causeway, and railway extensions to Lynn Lake and to Kitimat. Major new projects initiated last year included the St. Lawrence seaway, the $30 million military camp and housing project at Gagetown, New Brunswick, and access railway lines to open up newly-discovered mineral deposits in the Chibougamau area in Quebec and the Hills-port region in Ontario. In addition there were dozens of smaller projects undertaken of particular importance to the development and service of our country, ranging all the way from the Yarmouth ferry terminal to the dredging of the First Narrows at Vancouver. Provincial governments were approached to speed up the construction of the trans-Canada highway to which the Canadian government contributes 50 per cent of the cost.
For the fiscal year 1955-56 total federal funds available for new construction work including advances to public bodies such as the St. Lawrence seaway authority amount to $435 million, which is approximately $100 million higher than the value of work being carried out in 1954-55. I suggest to the leader of the C.C.F. party that he is quite mistaken in saying that there is no additional works program under way.
Many hon. members seem to believe that the answer to unemployment lies in the volume of federal public works. In my opinion this is entirely fallacious. Our difficulty in Canada is seasonal unemployment, or in other words the problem of maintaining a high level of employment in the winter months. Excepting inland navigation and the shore jobs incidental thereto, construction work is perhaps of all occupations the one least capable of maintaining full employment over the full twelve months. Many types of public works involving large expenditures are comparatively small employers of labour. For example, I am told that the more than $20 million expenditure in the Canso causeway provided peak employment for about 250 men.
Nevertheless, we will admit at once that the volume of construction work is important to the men normally employed in construction, but I will point out that unless continuing employment beyond the construction period is involved, it is of little importance to other classes of workers.
Obviously it will be of no great help to the women in the textile trades or to the men formerly employed on the assembly lines of the agricultural implement industry.
Unemployment
The fact that construction work was the government's solution to unemployment in the depression of the early thirties probably affects present thinking. Then 25 cents an hour and a pick and shovel job on highway work was considered a complete solution. Today that kind of relief work would be of little value.
A high level of employment in the Canadian economy can only be achieved by a program that will lift the Canadian economy as a whole to an extent that suitable employment for all types of workers can be made available. That is the program on which the government is engaged. The fact that the program is producing results will, I think, be made apparent to all during the next three or four months.
In expanding our public investment program this year the government has selected a number of useful projects which will contribute to the long-term development of our country. To add to this some hastily-conceived make-work projects, it seems to me, would be an unwise use of public funds. In saying this I am not denying that there are a number of constructive development works which the government can undertake. A good many such projects of major importance have been undertaken or are under way as, for example, the St. Lawrence seaway and railway extensions to the north country. Such projects help the long-term development of our country and stimulate the expansion of business. I am sure there will be ample opportunities to undertake similar useful projects in the future.
In summing up, I might say that we on this side of the house do not look at public investment as a panacea for solving all our unemployment problems. Increased public investment spending if applied judiciously and timed right can help, but it is only one of the economic policies designed to aid in the maintenance of a high level of employment and income. There are many other economic policies that should be followed and, in fact, are being followed by the government in dealing with problems of economic adjustment we must inevitably face in Canada from time to time.
I, for one, believe that the Canadian economy remains basically healthy and continues to expand, despite an occasional interruption. In my opinion this is no time to lose sight of our larger objectives or to permit our confidence to be unduly shaken by fears which are not justified by the facts. The present level of unemployment is the result of known factors, which I have briefly attempted to outline. Knowledge of the causes has permitted us to act effectively within the proper sphere of governmental

Unemployment
activities to meet the situation as it has developed. I have briefly described some of the steps we have taken. The full results desired cannot be achieved immediately, as economic factors must be given time to operate. However, some success is already apparent. The time may come when there has to be greater emphasis on supplementary measures to maintain employment and incomes. If this does become necessary we must ensure that these supplementary measures support and do not interfere with the attainment of a highly productive low-cost efficient economy.


Mr, C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I think the house generally will recognize that the government now has come to the conclusion that this, unemployment problem is becoming serious. I think that is evident, because in the four speeches that have been given so far we have had two by leading cabinet ministers who gave prepared speeches on the subject.
As we listened to those speeches I hope I am correct when I say that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) appeared to be sympathetic toward the position in which the unemployed find themselves. But he said as a sort of consolation, "Oh, well, things are not much worse than they were a year ago, because we had 500,000 unemployed then and have only 600,000 now; that is nothing to be too excited about." But his sympathies were there.
Then the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) came along and told us that he was not going to minimize the importance of unemployment or the position in which these people find themselves, but he went on to say, "What should the government do about it?" He said this, "We should continue along the same lines; we should do about the same thing as we have been doing, and if the time comes when we should really take this thing seriously then the government will have to bring forth some other remedial measures." I am sure that will not be much consolation to the 600,000 unemployed people who are looking to the government for some remedy.
I do not think anyone would say that the government is not concerned with the present situation with regard to unemployment. It will be recalled that in the speech from the throne the government had a line or two about unemployment. They said at that time that unemployment was of a regional and seasonal nature, that that was what was being experienced. The Minister of Trade and Commerce reiterated tonight that it was mostly seasonal, and that he hoped as time went on it would correct itself. On

February 25 the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said that the government very seriously regretted the developing unemployment across the country. So I think we can take it that the government is concerned about this matter.
But that is not going to be good enough for the 600,000 people who are unemployed. Everybody across the country knows that something must be done about it. Even the Conservative party in this house has shown some little concern, because they have put forth an amendment. I was somewhat interested in their amendment. Let me put it on the record:
in the opinion of this house, because of the grave state of unemployment in Canada as disclosed by the joint statement of the Department of Labour and the dominion bureau of statistics on February 23rd last, the government should immediately give consideration to the formulation of plans to deal with this emergency, and to the necessary steps to establish a long-term program for expanding employment to be presented to parliament during the present session.
So they are concerned. I had my pencil and paper ready to jot down what their cure was going to be, but they very skilfully avoided any mention of what they were going to suggest to cure this unemployment problem. I think we can take it that when they presented their amendment they were saying to themselves, "This is not our problem. We have no policy to correct this unemployment, so let the government worry about it."
I think that is very true. As we look back in history we find that the Conservative party was in power for a period of time during the thirties when we had unemployment, and they certainly did not do anything about it. The Liberals were in power; they started unemployment rolling, but they did not do anything to stop it. They came back in 1935, and they did not do anything about it. History has shown that the only cure for unemployment that has ever come about under our present orthodox system during the leadership by the Conservatives or Liberals in this country is war or preparation for war.
I am not suggesting for one moment that the present government would wish a continuation of war or preparation for war in order to solve our unemployment problem, but the hard fact is that they have no other cure for it. It is not good enough to say, "Oh, well, the construction program, when it gets really under way"-and it has been under way now for several years-"is going to cure the unemployment problem". It is going to do no such thing. Let us therefore make no mistake about it. This unemployment affair is becoming a serious problem. Everyone in this country recognizes it to be so.

I want just to show you how concerned the people of Canada are with regard to this matter, and how they are looking to us here in this house and particularly to the government to come forward with some solution to this problem. When the municipalities and the provinces are appealing to this government to bring forth some program in order to solve this problem, it is indeed serious. 1 have in my hand an extract from the Ottawa Citizen of February 25. The heading of the article is " 'More Jobs' Cry Grows" and it reads in part as follows:
Toronto Mayor Nathan Phillips and a civic delegation pleaded with the federal government today for remedial measures to halt the "demoralization, want and discontentment" of spreading unemployment.
The group met a cabinet group composed of Trade Minister Howe, Finance Minister Harris, Works Minister Winters and Labour Minister Gregg following an undertaking by the government in the Commons yesterday to stage a full-dress debate on unemployment, probably Monday.
Then down further:
The Toronto group said these statistics and the "stark realities" facing those in authority in the larger cities especially "compels everyone responsible for leadership in government to assess the avenues of possible remedial measures".
They are looking to us to do something. I am sure they are going to search in vain when they go through the speeches made here in the house tonight by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In them they are going to find little hope for a solution of their problems.
Then the Ontario welfare council, which keeps a close eye on this matter, has come to the conclusion that something must be done.
I am not going to read this whole brief to you, Mr. Speaker; I am just going to quote one little section of it in order to show what a similarity there is between the present situation and that of the 1930's. On page 2 of their brief they say this:
At our meeting, the administrator of one hostel which serves "single men", and among them many transients, reported that he had registered 3,200 such men in the past three months. He reported that they had come from all parts of Canada-
That is not regional, sir; from all parts of Canada.
-and for many of them the only help which could be provided by a private agency was food and shelter for a minimum period-and a request that they move on. In one instance, four such men were arrested on a theft charge within a few hours of being "pushed on".
How familiar that phrase is, when we remember that in the hungry thirties men went to these municipalities in search of relief and could not find it, then were told, "Here is a meal; now move on". Then when they hopped the train to find another job in
Unemployment
another place they were arrested as vagabonds. Here we find this same thing. So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that when these labour organizations read the speeches that were made here tonight they are going to find little consolation indeed; and this in a country so wealthy as Canada.


Mr. Gillis:: Tell us what you want done about it.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am coming to you in a minute.


Clarence Gillis: Tell us that in one, two, three order.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am coming to that. I am going to read only one line from the brief of the Canadian Welfare Council, but I say to you that in a land so abundantly blessed with natural resources and having such a tremendous productive capacity there is no excuse for want or poverty in this day and age. On the second page of their brief there is just one line that I want to read. It is as follows:
Much of the distress and suffering referred to above is unnecessary and could be prevented.
I agree with that statement wholeheartedly. This problem is serious, Mr. Speaker, and it is continuing to grow. Figures have been put on the record, and I also want to put a few figures on it. I think possibly I have about the latest figures, because this information was sent over to me from the dominion bureau of statistics just on Friday, February 25. In this review the figure with regard to applications for employment on file at N.E.S. offices on January 22, 1955 is given as 570,000, and for persons without jobs and seeking work from L.F. survey, the figure given is 362,000. If we take the figure of 570,000- and that is fairly close now to 600,000, if it does not go over that figure-that is an increase of 206,000 since December 9. That is a tremendous increase in unemployment. It is all very well for the ministers to stand up here on the floor of the house and say in effect to the unemployed who are looking to them for a solution, "Just keep going; hang on; do without a few more meals for the next two or three weeks and things will finally solve themselves". That is not good enough.


Mr. Philpoti:: They never said any such thing.


Charles Edward Johnston: Let my hon. friend read the minister's speech in Hansard. If he does so, he will find that in essence that is what he said.
In my statement here the other day when I said that the total number of unemployed now was almost equal to that in the 1930's

Unemployment
somebody said, "Oh, nonsense". I have the return sent over from the dominion bureau of statistics for 1931-1950. I turn to page 15 and I go to the year 1931. I find that the number of persons without jobs and seeking work then was 475,000; in 1932 the number was 733,000; and in 1933-and that was the peak year-it was 817,000. We have almost 600,000 now. Those are only the unemployed registered by the national employment service. It is generally conceded that if you take 20 or 25 per cent more than that you would come close to those who are not registered. Thus you would have well over 800,000. ,


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Charles Edward Johnston: You just figure it out and see. Just a moment ago I read from the brief of the welfare council an extract that points out that conditions are almost the same. It is indeed a serious problem for those who are unemployed and have families to keep. Mind you, the 600,000 that is being spoken of does not include members of the families. The number going hungry now would therefore be much more than 600,000. A moment ago I was asked to say what we would do. I shall come to that shortly.
We have heard the socialists in this house claim that the greatest difficulty we are facing now is as the result of private enterprise, and that what we need is the socializing of everything and long-term planning. Private enterprise is being blamed for the difficulty in which we find ourselves today. They say that what we need is more jobs and that private enterprise has failed to give those jobs.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that nothing could be further from the truth. Private enterprise has produced so many goods that there is now a surplus and as a consequence men are laid off. Literally they have produced themselves out of jobs. The goods are there. There is no fault on the part of private enterprise. It has really exceeded itself. The difficulty is that there is something lacking in connection with the distribution of those goods.
In a debate like this, Mr. Speaker, some of the socialists particularly like to blame private enterprise. They supposedly sponsor the workers of this country, giving the impression across the country that the workers are all socialists. Again nothing could be further from the truth, because the workers' organizations and the workers generally are not socialist-minded. Let me repeat here a statement made by William Green, president of

the American Federation of Labor, as reported in the Wholesale Grocers' News of October, 1943. He said:
As the spokesman for a labour organization with 61 million members, I want to make it emphatically clear here and now that the American Federation of Labor stands foursquare in support of free and private enterprise. We recognize the right to own and manage property for public service and private profit. We will oppose any attempt to abridge, restrict or interfere with the functions of free enterprise.
He continues along the same line. Here in Canada Mr. Percy Bengough used almost the same words, only he went further and dissociated himself from any political organization whatever. So when we are discussing a matter of this importance we should never attribute socialism as a part of labour's program.
Let me turn to some of the responsibilities of the government. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said a while ago: Now, what should the government do? He went on and said in effect that we should continue along the same lines that we are following. Both he and the Minister of Labour said very definitely, and I think rightly, that it was not the duty of the government to supply jobs, that that was a part of private enterprise. Private enterprise has done so.


Mr. Croll:: No.


Charles Edward Johnston: The hon. member for Spadina says "no", that that is not true. Let the Minister of Labour get up and correct me if I am wrong when I say it is his view that the government is not necessarily bound to supply jobs, but that it is the part of private enterprise. I do not think he will stand up and say that, even in support of the hon. member for Spadina. Certainly the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) will never get up and support him, so I do not think the hon. member is going to have much support for that view. I believe it is the business of private enterprise to produce jobs, and they will do so if they are given the opportunity without government interference.
I said a moment ago that the Minister of Finance certainly would not support a suggestion such as that put forward by the hon. member for Spadina. Let me refer to what he has said, as found in the Montreal Gazette of Friday, February 25. He is reported as saying:
In this country it is still left mainly to the private business world to plan expansion and development, to supply capital for new ventures, assume financial risks and take the initiative in all the ways that provide employment and careers for those who work for salary and wages. This fact should never be lost sight of.

You could not get it clearer than that, and there it is. But, Mr. Speaker, when we find the federal government doing anything, especially as a matter of policy, that interferes with private enterprise and so affects the earning power of the people or, as it is sometimes called, the purchasing power of the people, it is increasing the problem of unemployment; and when the government so interfere they should accept their responsibility and face up to the issue. When we find unemployment increasing as the result of government policy, then it is the responsibility of the federal government to do something and not do as they have done tonight, merely shrug it off and say, "We will wait until the thing gets a little bit worse before we do anything because, after all, it is not too bad."
Let me give an illustration of what I mean. When the province of Alberta was endeavouring to develop its gas resources and wanted to export gas to the best and most logical market, the United States, the federal government said no, sir, you cannot do that. A policy was established then by this Liberal government that the gas should go to eastern Canada by an all-Canadian line whether or not that line was economically feasible. The man who did that, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, was the very man who, when the oil pipe line was built, had it constructed in the most economical way, namely, by having it go through the United States.
As the result of that interference, what has happened? The government is now considering the possibility of having to subsidize private enterprise because of a mistaken government policy. The delay they have caused has meant that the people of Alberta and Canada generally have lost billions of dollars that would have been of great assistance in this time of need. So I say that when the government, through their policy, interfere with private enterprise and prevent it from doing the very thing that the Minister of Finance says it should do, it is the responsibility of the government to step in and do something and not merely sit back and say that they will go along and do the same as they have been doing before.
Another place where the federal government has interfered with private enterprise is in the British Columbia dam development. There again they have-


Elmore Philpott: You said all that last week.


Charles Edward Johnston: -prevented the British Columbia government from going ahead and developing the project there in the interests of the people of that province.


Elmore Philpott: Surely you are not going to start another filibuster.
Unemployment


Charles Edward Johnston: Let me give another example referred to tonight by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The government have failed to establish a national fuel policy for Canada, and as a result they are ruining one of the greatest industries in this country, the coal mining industry. Our mines are being closed, but at the same time we allow United States interests to ship many millions of tons more coal into this country than we produce. There again is government interference, and something should be done. I think the government should carry on a very extensive public works program at this time because of their unwarranted interference with private enterprise.


Clarence Gillis: In the next ten minutes you tell us what you are going to do.


Charles Edward Johnston: It cannot be said that private enterprise does not do the job if it is given the opportunity to do it. As I said a moment ago, private enterprise has produced the goods and has paid good wages, but another thing the matter is that the federal government has confiscated most of the wages through taxation. If there were a lowering of taxation that too would be of some assistance, and I quote as my witness to that the Minister of Finance. He seems to be the only one who is realistic about these problems. As found in the Montreal Gazette of February 25 there is the following:
H?,r,ris said in a speech in Montreal last November:	I confess myself concerned about tax
rates under which the government takes away half or more of the rewards of hard work which leads to promotion."	wmcn
It is about time the government did something, and not merely sat back on their haunches and said that the situation is not so much worse than it was a year ago, so there is not much to be concerned about. By so doing they have confessed their utter failure to cope with the problem of unemployment.
What have the Liberals done? They have been carrying on the same policy that they have carried on ever since there has been a Liberal party. That policy brought on the depression of the 1930's, a depression that was only cured by war or preparation for war. We come now, some years after the war, to a time when there are 600,000 people unemployed, and the numbers are still climbing.
Then I come to the Conservatives who moved an amendment this afternoon. What have they done? What did they do? Nothing different. They have nothing new to offer, and so the people of Canada are disregarding them as the official opposition because they realize that the Conservatives are not an

Unemployment
opposition and that some other party is going to have to take their place if we ever expect to have-


Mr. Trainor:: What is your policy?


Charles Edward Johnston: Now you just wait; you are going to get it. We at least are going to do more than the Conservatives. We are going to tell you how this thing can be cured. We may be wrong but under a democracy we have a right to be wrong, and that is something a socialist can never understand. But we are convinced that our policy will give the desired results.


George Harris Hees: Go right ahead.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The right to be wrong is your fundamental freedom.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is a function of democracy. Of course I would not expect you socialists to recognize it.


Clarence Gillis: Give us your policy, one, two, three.


Charles Edward Johnston: The Conservatives do not even have anything to offer, right or wrong.


An hon. Member:: No right to be wrong.


Hazen Robert Argue: They have so little that they joined Social Credit.


Charles Edward Johnston: The government can increase public works but that is not going to be sufficient, and they are going to find that out. They will have to encourage private enterprise to take care of this job. I have heard some of my socialist friends here say, what about your program? I want to refer to the socialists before I say what Social Credit will do.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is five minutes to ten.


Charles Edward Johnston: Now, Mr. Speaker, let us have a look at the socialists.


Clarence Gillis: Your time is almost up.


Charles Edward Johnston: There is only one country in the world in which socialism is practised where they have full employment, and that is Russia.


Clarence Gillis: Oh, nonsense.


An hon. Member:: Didn't you know that before?


An hon. Member:: You said that you had the freedom to be wrong.


Charles Edward Johnston: They have full employment because of war and preparation for war. If we refer to New Zealand we will find it too had a socialist government. It failed and the people kicked it out.


Mr. Ellis:: What about Sweden?


Charles Edward Johnston: Do not class Sweden as being socialists of your type.


An hon. Member:: What about Norway?


Charles Edward Johnston: What about Australia? They had a socialist government which failed miserably and was kicked out. Then England a few years ago had a socialist government. We used to hear about what the socialist government in England was doing. Well, it proved to be a miserable failure.


An hon. Member:: Did it?


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, and it was
kicked out. Private enterprise put the country back on its feet.


Clarence Gillis: Churchill hung on to everything they did.


Charles Edward Johnston: Let us come a little bit closer to home. Let us take the province of Saskatchewan as an example. What has the socialist government done in Saskatchewan? Well, Mr. Speaker, anything that Saskatchewan has was achieved by the efforts of private enterprise.


Hazen Robert Argue: Nonsense.


Charles Edward Johnston: Let us just take a look at it. Just wait. I am talking to you now and I want you to listen.


Hazen Robert Argue: What about automobile insurance?


Charles Edward Johnston: Let us take a look at oil in Saskatchewan. One of the greatest prospects for prosperity in Saskatchewan is in the development of oil, but what did their minister say in that regard? He said that any government which would take its own money to develop its oil resources would soon face bankruptcy. What did they do then? They went over to Alberta, and we showed them how to do the job. They went back and copied us, and now they are having some success in that field. That is private enterprise.


Clarence Gillis: What are you going to do about unemployment?


Charles Edward Johnston: Private enterprise, Mr. Speaker. Again let us refer to the Saskatchewan socialist government. What about agriculture? Would any of my friends who are sitting on my immediate right say that agriculture is socialistic? That is one thing they do not like to say. Mind you, one or two of them have gone on record in this house as saying they would even socialize agriculture, so let them not say they would not socialize agriculture if they got the opportunity. I am pointing out that one of the

greatest sources of revenue of the province of Saskatchewan is its agriculture, a private enterprise. Then, Mr. Speaker-


Hazen Robert Argue: Tell us about Alberta oil.


Charles Edward Johnston: -Saskatchewan gets a great deal of its money from family allowances. That too is derived directly or indirectly from the benefits of private enterprise.


Clarence Gillis: Socialist legislation.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is one thing this government did for which I think they deserve a great deal of credit, and it is my belief that it is one of the things which is cushioning the effects of unemployment. If it were not for family allowances and the payment of unemployment insurance and increased supplementary benefits we would find the situation much graver than it is now. However, that is not sufficient grounds for the government to say we will sit back and they will take care of our problem.
Let us go back to the socialists in Saskatchewan and discuss these people who condemn private enterprise every time they stand on their feet. Look at the millions of dollars, Mr. Speaker, that the socialists in the province of Saskatchewan have got from P.F.A.; and that too is a result of the achievements of private enterprise.


Hazen Robert Argue: The farmers paid for it.


Charles Edward Johnston: Oh, Mr. Speaker, those people who condemn private enterprise and are so ready to stand on their feet to condemn it; look at them.


An hon. Member:: At least we do not stand on our heads, like some other people do.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, some of the wealthiest men in this House of Commons are socialists, and they have made their money from private enterprise. We have some farmers who are socialists. Some have the finest farms stocked with pure-bred cattle. This too is private enterprise. Some of them own large areas of timber and have sawmills on their property; private enterprise again. Then those same members have the audacity to stand up in this house and condemn the very hand which is feeding them.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Tories are still with you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You have one minute in which to tell us what you are going to do.


Charles Edward Johnston: No, I have more than one minute in which to tell you what I am going to do. Although it is close to
Unemployment
ten o'clock I still have 15 minutes, and I intend to take my full time in this matter because this question of unemployment is so serious.


Alfred Claude Ellis: You are not talking about that.


Charles Edward Johnston: Oh, yes, I am. I am talking about where the cure for unemployment will be found, and it is not going to be through socialism. The records will show that. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to again'-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Give a good minute's worth.


Charles Edward Johnston: -if I have another minute or two-*


Clarence Gillis: Tell us, one, two, three.


Charles Edward Johnston: In Saskatchewan and these other places socialism has been a failure. Let us take a quick look at those places where Social Credit governments have been in power. Take the province of Alberta. We started in 1935 from nothing at all.


Hazen Robert Argue: The oil companies took it.


Charles Edward Johnston: We have risen now to become one of the most prosperous provinces in Canada. That is recognized by everyone.


An hon. Member:: Oil.


Charles Edward Johnston: It does not make any difference whether it is oil or what it is. We have done it through the efforts of private enterprise. Then there is British Columbia coming right along in the development of her natural resources, in following the principles of Social Credit.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Edward Johnston: They are going to be the second province in Canada that has made such great achievements.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He has not told us anything yet.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Johnston (Bow River) moves, seconded by Mr. Quelch, that the debate be now adjourned.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Some hon. members say "Go ahead". I heard the hon. member for Bow River state that he had 15 minutes more and that he intended to take them all. Is it the wish of the hon. member to conclude his speech this evening?


Charles Edward Johnston: I should like to call it ten o'clock.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Go on, answer tonight.
1642	HOUSE OF
Business of the House


Stanley Howard Knowles: He needs time to think it over.


An hon. Member:: Give us the answer tomorrow.
On motion of Mr. Johnston (Bow River) the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Rowe:: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that in view of the importance of this issue we might proceed with this tomorrow by unanimous consent. I think I speak on behalf of the official opposition in saying this, and if the other opposition parties would agree I would suggest that the government might welcome the opportunity to proceed with it tomorrow.


Mr. Low:: Mr. Speaker, I think the importance of this topic is such that I suggest we continue the discussion as soon as we can. I think the public will expect us to complete this debate and endeavour to find some solution to the unemployment problem. I would suggest we continue the debate, if it is agreeable to the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the leader of the house is considering this suggestion, we would like to hear what he has to say. I hope he has in mind that if any change is made, the same number of private members' days will be retained as he had planned to give to us.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, with his usual wisdom the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has put his finger on the problem.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: You mean he upset the applecart.


An hon. Member:: The applejack.


Walter Edward Harris: It was the intention of the government that tomorrow and a week from tomorrow would be the remaining private members' days. We would like to have priority after a week from tomorrow. If hon. members wish to give up tomorrow to continue this debate we shall be glad to do so.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 2, 1955