1955-05-19

Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake) moved: that the second report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on Tuesday, May 17, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


ARMED FORCES


Mr. Harkness:: 1.	From the start of the Korean war to March 31, 1955, what has been the total number of releases on account of desertion, or absence without leave: (a) from the navy; (b) from the army; (c) from the air force?
2.	What was the largest number of men posted as deserters or A.W.L. at any one time and what was the date?


Mr. Campney:: Stand.


Mr. Harkness:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, in connection with this question. I wonder if I might ask that this question be answered in the immediate future? It is a question which I am quite sure the Department of National Defence could answer within three days, but it has been standing on the order paper since April 5.


Ralph Osborne Campney: The answer is being prepared. I can assure the hon. member that it was not possible to compile the answer to this question within anything like three days. I hope, however, to have the answer shortly.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.



PER CAPITA DEBT

Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: 1.	What is the per capita debt in Canada for the latest date available?
2.	To whom is this debt owed and under what terms?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	The white paper tabled in the House of Commons on April 4, 1955, showed that the liabilities of Canada at March 31, 1955, were estimated to total $17,944,100,000; the net debt (total liabilities less active assets) was
estimated at $11,264,200,000 and the unmatured funded debt was estimated at $14,487,800,000. On the basis of an estimated population of 15,482,000 the per capita figures are $1,159.02, $727.57 and $935.78 respectively.
2.	As a large proportion of the funded debt is in bearer form it is not possible to state to whom the debt is owed. The monthly return of assets and liabilities of the chartered banks of Canada shows that on March 31, 1955, the chartered banks of Canada held government of Canada treasury bills in the amount of $434,980,000. The Bank of Canada held government of Canada securities in the amount of $2,139,000,000 on the same date.
The maturity dates and interest rates on the funded debt of Canada are listed in the white paper.



FOREIGN LOANS AND MUTUAL AID

Mr. Nicholson:: 1.	To what countries did Canada grant financial assistance during world war I as (a) outright gifts; (b) credits and loans?
2.	To what countries did Canada grant financial assistance during world war II as (a) outright gifts; (b) credits and loans?
3.	What was the amount advanced to each country under the above-mentioned classifications?
4.	How much is still outstanding on loans and credits?
5.	How much has been expended under the Colombo plan and United Nations agencies?
6.	How much has been spent on mutual aid to NATO countries?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	(a) None, (b) United Kingdom.
2.	(a) United Kingdom, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Australia, China, France, New Zealand, India, British West Indies and Greece; (b) United Kingdom and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
3.	During world war I, credits were extended by the United Kingdom to Canada and by Canada to the United Kingdom. At March 31, 1919 Canada owed the United Kingdom $214,133,333.31 and the United Kingdom owed Canada $443,795,649.67. A settlement of these balances was arranged in the early 1920's.
Loan to the United Kingdom under the War Appropriation (United Kingdom Financing) Act, 1942-$700,000,000.
Loan to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under the War Appropriation Act, 1942-$10,000,000.
Payments made under the War Appropriation (United Nations Mutual Aid) Acts.

Questions
United Kingdom, $2,870,978,000 (x); Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, $159,113,000; Australia, $91,119,000; China, $26,597,000; France, $23,629,000; New Zealand, $15,278,000; India, $18,826,000; British West Indies, $5,518,000; Greece, $12,000.
(x) Includes $1,000,000,000 authorized by the War Appropriation (United Kingdom Financing) Act, 1952.
Gift of wheat to Greece under the war appropriation acts-$ 19,382,079.19.
4.	$112,500,000.
5.	Administrative contributions to United Nations organizations, $21,463,000; grants and loans for Colombo plan and United Nations agencies (including UNRRA), $298,397,000.
6.	$1,176,000,000.



CIVIL DEFENCE, ONTARIO-HOSE COUPLINGS

Mr. Brown (Brantford):: What progress has been made under the civil defence agreement between the federal government and the province of Ontario to standardize hose couplings in that province?


Mr. Robertson:: The federal government agreed to pay one-third of the cost of the hose coupling standardization program in Ontario up to a maximum of $367,000, and has recently completed payment of this amount to the province.
The program in Ontario is approximately 90 per cent complete and the balance-in sparsely populated sections of northern Ontario-will be completed this year.



VOCATIONAL TRAINING GRANTS

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What are the total amounts granted to each of the provinces by the federal government for vocational training?
2.	When did the program commence?
3.	Is it now in effect, and if not, why was it discontinued?


Mr. Gregg:: 1.	The vocational schools assistance agreements entered into by the government of Canada with the provinces under the authority of the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act provided federal government financial assistance to the provinces for the development and carrying on of vocational training at a secondary school level. These agreements, which were entered into in 1945, ran for a ten-year period to March 31, 1955, and provided federal financial assistance to the provinces of approximately $30,700,000 over the ten-year period. Of this amount, $10,304,950 was allotted specifically for building and equipment projects for the extension of training facilities, and the balance by way of annual grants of $2,070,000 was provided

to assist the provinces in meeting operational costs of vocational schools, as well as for buildings and equipment.
The amount allotted over this period to each province pursuant to these agreements and payments made to the close of the fiscal year 1954-55 thereunder are as follows:
Payments to
Province	Allotment	March 31/55Newfoundland 	$ 689,450	$ 594,020Prince Edward Island	338,400	329,092Nova Scotia 	1,567,100	1,208,738New Brunswick . ...	1,351,300	1,340,200Quebec 	9,319,500	9,319,500Ontario 	8,947,000	8,723,185Manitoba 	1,952,600	1,169,911Saskatchewan 	2,488,000	2,176,669Alberta 	2,149,600	2,094,669British Columbia ..	1,884,100	1,847,329Northwest Territories	21,100	4,866Total	$30,708,150	$28,808,179
The federal commitments to the provinces with respect to the amount of $10,304,950 specifically allotted for building and equipment projects has been met and provision was made by the governor in council under date of March 12, 1955, for the extension of the term of each of the aforesaid agreements to March 31, 1956. Provision has been made in the estimates of the Department of Labour for the fiscal year 1955-56 for payments to the provinces pursuant to the provisions of these agreements to the amount of $2,070,000 in the fiscal year.
2.	April 1, 1945.
3.	Answered by No. 1 above.



CANADIAN REPRESENTATION, UNITED NATIONS

Mr. Gagnon:: 1.	Who represented Canada at the general assembly of the United Nations in 1953 and 1954?
2.	What was the amount of expenses incurred by this country for each of the Canadian representatives?
3.	Is it possible to obtain a copy of the proceedings in which they took part?
4.	If so, where may it be obtained?


Mr. Pearson:: 1 and 2. Representatives: Hon. L. B. Pearson, $1,051.00; Hon. A. Cote, $1,720.00; Senator S. S. McKeen, $1,800.00; Mr. D. M. Johnson-Permdel-New York; Dr. G. F. Davidson, $1,476.00.
Alternate Representatives: Dr. G. S. Patterson, $1,003.00; Mr. S. D. Hemsley, $1,585.00; Mrs. J. Caldwell, $1,754.00; Mr. Alan Macnaughton, $1,224.00; Mr, G. B. Summers, $1,610.00.

Representatives:	Hon. L. B. Pearson,
$447.00; Hon. Paul Martin, $1,317.00; Senator C. B. Howard, $1,868.00; Mr. D. M. Johnson- Permdel-New York; Mr. G. D. Weaver, $1,694.00.
Alternate Representatives: Mr. L. Cardin, $1,632.00; Mrs. K. G. Montgomery, $1,931.00; Mr. Charles Stein, $1,534.00; Mr. K. P. Kirkwood, $798.00; Mr. S. D. Hemsley, $1,462.00.
3.	Yes.
4.	Verbatim reports of plenary sessions and summary records of committee meetings are available in the parliamentary library.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Bell:: 1.	Have any park superintendents been transferred in the national parks branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources since January, 1953?
2.	If so, who, where, and for what reasons?


Mr. Lesage:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(i) Mr. B. I. M. Strong was transferred from the position of superintendent, Prince Albert national park, to the position of superintendent, Banff national park, effective May 10; 1953. Mr. Strong succeeded1 Mr. J. A. Hutchison who was promoted to the position of director, national parks branch.
(ii)	Mr. J. D. B. MacFarlane was transferred from the position of acting superintendent of Cape Breton Highlands national park, to Ottawa in September 1953, and then to the position of superintendent, Prince Albert national park, effective December 1, 1953. This move followed Mr. Strong's transfer to Banff national park.
(iii)	Mr. C. E. Doak was transferred from the position of officer in charge, Point Pelee national park, to the position of superintendent, Cape Breton Highlands national park, effective September 15, 1953. This transfer followed the move of Mr. MacFarlane.
(iv)	Mr. K. B. Mitchell was transferred from the position of assistant superintendent, Banff national park, to the position of superintendent, Riding Mountain national park, effective March 6, 1955. Mr. Mitchell's transfer was a result of Mr. O. E. Heaslip's retirement.
(v)	Mr. J. A. Pettis is to be transferred from the position of park engineer, Yoho national park, to position of superintendent, Kootenay national park, on the retirement
Inquiries of the Ministry of Mr. F. A. Bryant, superintendent, Kootenay national park. Mr. Bryant's retirement is to be effective July 7, 1955.
It is the department's established policy to move park superintendents from one park to another at intervals of approximately five years. This ensures that the superintendents will gain wide experience and will have the opportunity to develop their abilities to the fullest extent. It also ensures that a new viewpoint will be brought to the problems of administering each park at reasonable intervals, and at the same time helps to achieve uniformity in the handling of administrative details which are common to all parks.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: May I
ask the Prime Minister if the government is contemplating the appointment of a royal commission to review the basis of regulation and control of radio broadcasting in Canada?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I can say to the hon. gentleman that the government is contemplating the appointment of a commission, but that does not mean that any decision about an immediate appointment has been reached.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: May I
ask the Prime Minister a second question? Is the government contemplating either the abandonment or modification of the so-called policy of single station coverage with respect to television, that is to say the policy of local monopoly of television in Canada?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The question is not one to which a categorical yes or no can be given. The policy has never been that there would be, for all time, only one station in each locality. The whole matter is under constant consideration, and the question as to when it will be deemed proper to declare that applications for duplication of service will be entertained is part of that consideration. It may very well be that no decision would be arrived at before the appointment of the commission to which the hon. member referred in his previous question.

Inquiries of the Ministry CUSTOMS TARIFF



CLASSIFICATION OF CANNED MIXED FRUIT AS PEACHES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the government not prepared to let the court decision stand that mixed fruit is not peaches; or are press reports correct that the government's representative at Geneva has been asked to sound out other GATT countries as to whether the tariff on mixed fruit might be raised? How does that square with the government's low tariff policy?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: One of the rules of GATT is that tariff negotiations are conducted in strict secrecy. It would be impossible for me to say whether tariff discussions included mixed fruit, if I knew the answer, which I do not. If the matter of mixed fruit was referred to GATT it was referred by the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for tariff matters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the Minister of Finance comment on the press report that the government's representative at Geneva has begun sounding out other GATT countries on this issue?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minisier of Finance):: No, I was not aware of the press report; and I agree with my colleague, who says that these matters are conducted in secrecy.



REMISSION OF HIGHER DUTIES COLLECTED ON MIXED FRUIT

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue. Has anything been done by his department to pay back the higher duties collected on mixed fruit during the period of time between the date when the government classified mixed fruit as peaches and the date when the court made its final decision that mixed fruit is not peaches?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Yes; the matter is being processed right along and, to date, we have paid back more than half a million dollars.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of

the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the announced boost of 50 per cent in doctors' fees in Ontario, will the minister boost by 100 per cent his efforts to persuade the cabinet that the time has come to bring in nation-wide health insurance?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not give me notice of his intention to ask his question. However he knows perfectly well that not only the minister but the government as a whole always boost good causes.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
173. Departmental administration, $685,605.
The Chairman:: I would point out to the committee that the item is found at page 31 of the main estimates, and the details appear at page 246. Shall the resolution carry?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Chairman, I am never quite sure whether hon. members would prefer to have me make way at once for members to discuss my estimates, on the one hand, or whether they would like a short statement concerning special items of interest, on the other. I am prepared today to follow either course. It is only in the hope that it might expedite the passing of my estimates that, unless someone objects, I shall choose the latter.
The main estimates of the department and the unemployment insurance commission for 1955-56 total $69,542,295, as compared with $72,874,271, including supplementaries, for 1954-55, or a reduction of $3,331,976. This is accounted for partly by a reduction in the estimate of the government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund, and partly by the fact that the Department of Public Works has been given the responsibility for building, maintenance and rental of premises for the unemployment insurance commission, costs which before were largely borne by the commission.
There is also a reduction in the item for vocational training capital expenditures, because our commitment under the agreement with the provinces has been fulfilled. There is a reduction in the services covering the movement of immigrants for work on farms and to fill other unsatisfied labour demands. These are the main items that cause the reduction in the vote; there are, of course, others. There are some slight increases in certain items which I shall refer to when I come to them.

On the question of staff, there is a slight change from last year; a reduction of 12 positions in the Department of Labour, partly owing to curtailment in certain fields of operation. But it will be noted from page 262 of the blue book on estimates that there is an increase of 304 in the establishment for the unemployment insurance commission. The increase is caused by the fixing of larger continuing establishments for many offices, owing to the increase in work load resulting from an increase in benefit claims.
At this point I should like to express my recognition and appreciation of the excellent work which the staff of both the Department of Labour and the unemployment insurance commission have continued to render. I think they are deserving of high praise, and are a credit to our public service.
Now, to comment briefly on some of the activities for which these estimates provide, let me deal first with the annuities branch, item 175. There are at present 350,000 persons covered by Canadian government annuities. Approximately 68,000 of these people are actually in receipt of their annuities, to a total of $32 million a year. Annual premium income for the year ended March 31, 1955, was about $66 million, which is an increase of around $2 million over the previous year. The annuities fund, as at March 31, 1955, amounted to $864,543,038. During the past year there has been an increase in sales, particularly of individual contracts, which show an increase of 18 per cent over the previous year.
I need not emphasize the national importance of the work performed by the industrial relations branch, which covers conciliation services, administration of legislation governing wages and working conditions on government contracts, the development of labour-management co-operation, and many other lesser activities. These are in vote 176.
The moneys voted last year for these purposes were well spent. There were 80 industrial disputes dealt with during the past fiscal year. In 48 of these 80 cases, settlements of the disputes were secured by conciliation officers. In 25 cases conciliation boards were established during the year, and reports were also received from five conciliation boards established during the previous fiscal year. Settlements were made on the basis of the boards' recommendations in nine of these disputes. There were six disputes in the hands of conciliation officers, and 18 disputes referred to conciliation boards which were still being dealt with at the end of the fiscal year.
Aside from the cases I have mentioned as still pending, out of 80 industrial disputes
Supply-Labour
all except three were settled during the year. In two of the three legal strikes occurred, and the third was settled by arbitration.
This industrial relations branch is also responsible for the administration of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. This involves the functions of the Canada labour relations board and the administration of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act. These services are covered in the estimates under items 177 and 178.
The Canada labour relations board dealt with 65 applications for the certification of bargaining agents during the fiscal year, of which 53 applications originated during that period. Of the 65 applications mentioned, 34 were granted, 5 were rejected, 12 were withdrawn, and 14 were still being investigated on March 31. In disposing of these cases the board ordered 14 representation votes, which were conducted by officers of the department.
Last year I mentioned particularly the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, which was then a new piece of legislation, and stated that a broader program of educational activity was planned. As part of this program two series of radio talks, one in English and one in French, were arranged during the fiscal year just ended. Other publicity measures included a distribution of pamphlets and posters describing the provisions of the act. Between July 1, 1953, when the act came into effect, and March 31, 1955, a total of 11 complaints were made under the act. Of the 8 made during the past fiscal year, 6 were settled either by direct investigation and conciliation or by correspondence, and 2 were under investigation as of March 31, 1955.
It is proposed to continue the farm labour program which has been continuously in operation since world war II, and the funds required are shown in vote 181. Under this program agreements are entered into with the provinces to provide for the sharing of the costs of organized movements of farm workers to meet seasonal demands in different areas. The provinces have asked that the program be continued, and after consultation with them it has been decided that a program sufficient to take care of this year's needs can be carried on with a reduction of $75,000 from the amount provided last year.
In addition to the farm labour program, which is designed to make the most effective use of the farm labour force within Canada, it has been necessary from time to time to bring immigrant farm workers to Canada in organized groups. Similar organized group movements have been necessary to meet

Supply-Labour
labour demands in several other basic industries. Funds for services connected therewith are provided under item 190. Last year an amount of $325,000 was included for transportation costs. This year any transportation required for these movements will be provided from funds voted to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. For this reason, and because the movements this year are expected to be somewhat smaller, the amount provided in vote 190 represents a reduction of $411,385 from the amount provided in 1954-55.
Last year when the estimates were before the committee the director of the new women's bureau had just been appointed. I am now happy to say that the new branch has now been staffed and in operation for the past nine months. The director is Miss Marion V. Royce, a lady who is proving very well qualified by training and experience to give proper attention to the problems of women in employment. Ground work has already been laid for a survey to be undertaken of married women in employment. In view of the economic and social implications of the growing participation of married women in the labour force, the bureau regards this as an important area of investigation. It is also planned to undertake two additional projects of research during the coming year; a study of the occupational distribution of women in Canada, and in the field of women's earnings. The administrative costs of the branch are provided for under item 182.
I mentioned last year the initial steps that had been taken to establish a comprehensive plan for the rehabilitation of Canada's disabled. In co-operation with the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Veterans Affairs, and in close consultation with the national advisory committee on rehabilitation, the provinces and voluntary agencies, these plans are going forward.
Eight of the provinces are now making use of the agreement whereby a maximum contribution of $15,000 a year is made through my department, on a matching basis, toward the salaries and expenses of a provincial co-ordinator and his staff, and toward the cost of supplying certain rehabilitation services not otherwise provided for. This is shown under item 183. The province of Ontario, in addition, has appointed a director of rehabilitation services, and discussions are going forward with that province regarding the possible signing of this agreement.
During the past year eight provinces have appointed provincial co-ordinators of rehabilitation. In these provinces improved

facilities for rehabilitating the disabled through the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act are now being utilized, and my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare will be reporting to you that in nine of the provinces the new medical rehabilitation grant is being used to expand facilities and train the staff necessary for the medical side of the program.
While the program is new and much has yet to be done, a good start has been made. I am impressed by the calibre of the men selected by the provinces to head up this program, and you will be glad, as I am, to know that as experience is gained, more and more of our disabled will be equipped to live more useful and satisfying lives.
The vocational training program under the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act, which is provided for under items 184, 185 and 186, accounts for approximately $4,500,000 of our total estimates for the year, so I think it is deserving of special mention although there is little change in the program from last year. Hon. members are aware that this program is a joint undertaking with the provinces, and with few exceptions the projects are based on a dollar for dollar contribution.
I mentioned earlier in my remarks that our commitments under agreement with the provinces for capital expenditures on vocational schools had been fulfilled. I referred to the $10,300,000 federal allotment which had been made since 1945 to be spent over a period of years on buildings and equipment to assist the provinces to enlarge and improve their vocational school facilities. At the close of the fiscal year 1954-55 federal payments under this program amounted to $9,722,374. The small amount which is requested under vote 186 is intended to provide for a few delayed claims from the provinces, and is in fact a revote.
Other vocational training programs which have been in effect for some years and which will be continued in 1955-56 include the training of apprentices, for which there is an annual expenditure of approximately $1 million; youth training, training of unemployed workers, foremanship and supervisory training, training of workers for defence industries, training of disabled persons, training of persons for the armed forces, etc. The detailed money provision for these various projects appears on page 255 of the blue book.
Mr. Chairman, I am not attempting here to report on all the services which come under the Department of Labour. If I were doing so, of course, I would make special mention of the work of our economics and

research branch, government employees compensation branch-on which there is legislation before the house-and also the publication of the Labour Gazette, which attempts to present factual information on labour matters of special interest from month to month.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Before the minister goes on, I do not want to break into his argument but he gave a reply today to a question I asked regarding vocational training. He stated in that reply:
The vocational schools assistance agreements entered into by the government of Canada with the provinces under the authority of the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act provided federal government financial assistance to the provinces for the development and carrying on of vocational training at a secondary school level.
Have all the provinces entered into agreements for the next year, so the same provision will be made as has been made in the past 10 years?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, I shall be prepared to discuss this item in more detail when we come to it; but to answer my hon. friend's question, as he knows the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act has a large number of schedules. There is "M" for unemployed persons, there is "R" for disabled persons, and so on. All the provinces have now either entered into an agreement for this year on the same basis as last year or are in process of doing so.
I turn now, Mr. Chairman, to the estimates of the unemployment insurance commission. Since there is legislation concerning the act before the house I am not going into it as fully as I did with regard to the department. There are three votes, one for the administration of the act, one for the contribution of the government to the fund, and one for the transfer of unemployed workers to areas where jobs are available.
The vote for administration shows a decrease over last year of $1,014,342. During the fiscal year 1954-55 an agreement was reached with the Department of Public Works by which in their estimates they would provide the necessary funds for looking after the rental of office accommodation, necessary alterations in offices and the providing of office furniture for the unemployment insurance commission.
During the years the commission has been in existence the services of the trained employees of the Department of Public Works were largely utilized for these purposes, but the funds were always voted by the unemployment insurance commission. The decrease accomplished in this manner is offset to some 50433-247
Supply-Labour
extent by a careful review that was made during the year of the work load in all the offices, which resulted in a small increase in the basic fixed establishment for regular positions. As you will observe, they were increased from 7,406 to 7,710. With the increase in the basic fixed establishments for the various offices it has been determined that the need for casual help during periods of seasonal unemployment, such as the winter months, will not be as great and a lesser amount has been provided for this purpose for the fiscal year 1955-56.
During the 12-month period from April 1, 1954 to March 31, 1955, a total of $257,628,602 was paid out in benefits, and the number of beneficiaries was approximately 1,001,000. Total contributions were $190,632,050, with the government contributing $31,771,740 of this amount. On March 31, 1955, the balance in the unemployment insurance fund was $840,692,317, a decrease of $40,581,817 over the balance on March 31, 1954. This decrease in the fund was due to the increased claim load during the period.
The most important function of the commission, of course, is the operation of the employment service. The value of this work cannot be overemphasized. During the last fiscal year 842,993 placements were made by our national employment service through its various offices across Canada.
The item for the transfer of labour also shows a decrease of $100,000. This item is designed to assist in the transfer of unemployed Canadian workers to places where employment is available. Expenditures made are recovered where possible from employers who are willing to pay the transportation cost of these transfers, and to that extent provide a revolving fund of working capital to aid in the movement of workers to jobs. Where such refunds cannot be assured, and where the minister finds that conditions in an area are such as to warrant such action, he may use this vote to assist unemployed workers in meeting the cost of moving to jobs elsewhere. The amount provided for the fiscal year 1954-55 was not required to the extent at first anticipated, owing to arrangements made with employers to refund the cost of transporting employees who were available for work in new localities.
That, Mr. Chairman, concludes my introductory remarks.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Chairman, the remarks the minister has made will probably help clear up some of the points on which we would undoubtedly have asked questions. However, there are still some things that are not particularly clear. I refer particularly to

Supply-Labour
the government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund. I think we shall want more explicit information on that matter.
The reason I had not intended to go into the matter of unemployment insurance at this time is that, as the committee knows, the standing committee on industrial relations is even now sitting and considering amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. There will therefore foe plenty of opportunity, I take it, for the committee to consider the various clauses of the new act and the administration of the old one, and also to ask such questions as we may wish at that time.
I was interested to hear the minister's report on the administration of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, and in particular to learn of the few complaints which had been received by the department. I think this is a point we should all consider. I recall that when we had before us the bill which became the act, speeches were made which sought to disparage the necessity for this type of legislation on the ground that in the various provinces in which it had been put into effect there had been so few complaints that is was thought the enactment of such legislation was scarcely necessary.
However, I like to take the other view and think that Canadians, generally speaking, are law-abiding people. When legislation is brought down the average Canadian reacts to it in a law-abiding manner, even if heretofore he has had different views and has acted in a manner different from the requirements of the act. He now pulls in his horns a bit and says, "After all, this is the law and I must abide by the law." I believe that is why, once legislation of this sort is enacted, we have so few complaints.
I am sure the minister will agree with me that even where we have complaints, a great many of them are readily settled by bringing the two parties together, or sometimes merely by a telephone call to the employer who had not realized that he had offended. Likewise, the complainant sometimes is at fault and when it is brought to the attention of that person he or she will readily admit that possibly he or she has imagined some of the things about which complaints were made. I know this has been the case in some instances, and I am sure it is the case with regard to many of the instances which come to the attention of the department by reason of the administration of this act.
This is a rather momentous year, Mr. Chairman, in labour matters in Canada. We are told that it will not be long now until two

major labour congresses in this country join in one large organization. I am sure that is a step we all welcome. I think it is not so much a matter of joining as it is a matter of admitting to themselves that, after all, they have the same objectives and must operate together under one head.
However, this amalgamation of interests in itself presents problems to the government, just as it will undoubtedly present problems to the two congresses themselves and to their local affiliates. I think this would be an appropriate time to draw attention to the fact that the government has not yet got down to a review of our labour laws. We in this party urged such action as long ago as the special session which was held in 1950, at the time the whole country was much upset over the strike of the railway workers. At that time we took particular exception to the institution of compulsory arbitration.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, for the sake of the record to quote briefly some of the comments which were made during the debate that took place on the bill brought down by the government at that time in an effort to form a basis for the settlement of that strike. Hon. members of this house who were here then, and others who are here now and who must have followed the deliberations of parliament on those very contentious matters, will recall that the clause in that bill to which we took particular exception was the clause which instituted a type of compulsory arbitration. Speaking on that occasion the Leader of the Opposition had this to say in part, and I quote from page 26 of Hansard for August 30, 1950:
Section 5 definitely and without any reservation provides tor compulsory arbitration.
Then he went on:
But compulsory arbitration, which is a principle that has not been regarded as acceptable in labour legislation in this country, is not something which, it seems to me, should be suddenly introduced in dealing with an emergency of this kind.
That, Mr. Chairman, has been one of our difficulties right along, that we wait until an urgent situation is upon us and then all of a sudden we try to solve it by some means or other that presents itself to us, without taking into consideration the long-term view.
On that same day the Leader of the Opposition had this to say:
Compulsory arbitration! That is a moderate term. I do not believe that any legislative body in this country, federal or provincial, would ever in its cool and calm senses consider for a moment the introduction of compulsory arbitration of this kind with no definition of the terms under which it was to be carried out.

Later that same day, after an amendment had been introduced, I find these words at page 61 of Hansard:
Over the years there has been free collective bargaining between the representatives of management and the workers in our great railway organizations. It is highly desirable that the principle of free collective bargaining be retained.
I quote now from page 72 of Hansard for the same day, when the Leader of the Opposition said:
The amendment now before us is simply a further attempt to carry new principles into legislation which at some future date may operate as a precedent, and those who find that being done will regard it as very unsatisfactory indeed. This section neither assures to the Canadian public the continued operation of the railroads in the months and years ahead, nor does it assure the workers the basic right of collective bargaining_
Then I skip a couple of sentences, and he went on:
I wish to make it quite clear that I regard it as something that is not only unsatisfactory to those directly affected by the limitation imposed by this section on the long established principle of collective bargaining; it is also unsatisfactory to the people of Canada because the bill offers no assurance that this will not happen again. It offers to the workers none of the assurances that their rights are going to be protected in the years ahead.
Then, Mr. Chairman, I should like to quote one short sentence from my own remarks on that same date, which will be found on page 75. I said in part:
I cannot see how those in the house, regardless of the party leadership they follow, who in their hearts believe in a system of free enterprise, to which we give unlimited lip service, can vote for a section like this which disrupts the management-worker relationships which have been built up in this country over a period of 50 years.
I have quoted those few short sections_________
and I could have quoted at much greater length, but it is not my desire at this time to delay the committee-in order to place on the record a few excerpts which will show the stand we in this party took at that time. We then asked for a review of Canadian labour legislation. We had some reason to expect that such a review might be undertaken. We asked the government to bring together the representatives of labour, management, and its own officials to consider a revision of the labour code. The government failed to act and now, some five years later, almost nothing has been done in this direction. Here we see another example, Mr. Chairman, of government stagnation in matters of national importance.
A couple of years ago in the industrial relations committee we were assured by the minister that the department was at work on a revision of the labour code. Last year I asked again when we could expect some
Supply-Labour
action. We have had no intimation whatever to date that such a revision will be forthcoming or even, I might add, any indication that the department is actually working on it, other than the hints which have been thrown out from time to time, none of them, I might say, very concrete.
In speaking of the necessity for a revision of the code, I should like to draw attention to the fact that conditions in this country have changed. The conditions under which workers find themselves employed today are far different from those under which they were employed a few years ago. The hours of work have been radically reduced; rates of pay have been changed, and as I mentioned before the amalgamation of the two great labour congresses is now imminent. Types of labour-management negotiations have evolved which were unheard of a few years ago. As a matter of fact, I might almost say that a very few years ago some of the labour negotiations which are taking place today would have been regarded as revolutionary. Today they are accepted.
Women have taken a much more important part in the production of goods and services in this country than formerly. In this regard I might point out that despite the fact that women have entered more and more into the labour market of Canada, there are still no women commissioners on either the civil service commission or the unemployment insurance commission. I know all the excuses which are given to this house for that lack. I cannot believe this situation could not be corrected, one way or another. However, the excuses still hold and not a new one has been added in the time I have been in this house.
There have been a few women appointed to committees, under certain circumstances, but those committees have been called only spasmodically or not at all. The reason given has been that there were subcommittees at work day by day and week by week. Eventually they will have a report to make about this particular situation or that, and then the committee will be called together to hear the report. In many instances the reports were not received and the main committees were not called together. Once again we see the old technique of appointing a committee and then smothering it.
Since I have already spoken of the participation of women in the labour force of this country, I should like to make a few remarks with reference to statements made by the minister when he mentioned what had happened to the women's bureau. He mentioned that the bureau has now had some nine

Supply-Labour
months of full operation. I look back at previous estimates and I find that in the estimates for 1953-54, in which the appropriation for the women's bureau was first set out, the amount set aside was $21,560, but that only $2,560 was spent during the year. Then last year, with the appointment of a director imminent, the minister budgeted for $24,090. Shortly after the estimates were passed the director was appointed and commenced her duties.
I am sure the first few weeks must have been confusing to her, and she must have had considerable difficulty in deciding just what required her attention first. In any event, when we come to the end of the year we find that instead of having spent $24,000, only $9,107 had been spent.
This year, with the bureau fully staffed and prepared to go ahead, has the appropriation been raised, or is there any provision for accelerating the activities of the bureau? No; the appropriation is approximately the same as last year, at $24,600. We would like to know what the bureau is doing and what are its plans. What are they going to do? The minister has said they have already undertaken a survey of married women who are working. I saw something in the newspaper to that effect over a month ago. About April 1 it was stated in the press that a questionnaire had been sent out to women's organizations.
I realize that women's organizations do tremendous work, and I am sure that from their ranks valuable information could be secured. But, after all, we have the women's division of the national employment service serving right across the country. These offices are well staffed with qualified personnel who undoubtedly could provide that information at what might be described as the professional level, rather than the hit-or-miss result which is bound to follow from a casual distribution of questionnaires sent out only to persons belonging to women's organizations. I do not approve of the method used in this instance. It is far from efficient, and I cannot see where it will produce the desired information.
I heard subsequently that this scheme had been dropped. Very soon thereafter I saw the article in the newspaper, so I presume this is a sort of off again on again procedure. The minister now says there is to be another survey in connection with occupational distribution of women workers, and a survey concerning their earnings. No doubt these surveys will produce interesting figures and information. But if they are to be undertaken in the same manner as the other survey I cannot see how we can hope to obtain
[Mrs. Fairclough.l
definite or conclusive results. Further, I do not see how it can be done on the very small amount of money appropriated for this bureau for the ensuing year. It is my impression that the bands of the bureau are tied, because I do not see how, with such a small appropriation, any plans could be carried out.
I would draw attention to the fact that we now have in Canada a labour force of 5,391,000, and that women comprise 22-33 per cent-almost 25 per cent-of that total labour force. In other words 1,204,000 women are gainfully employed in Canada. Their numbers have more than quadrupled in the last 10 years. Yet in the budget for the Department of Labour, amounting to something more than $6,500,000, the sum set aside for the women's bureau is only $24,600. I realize full well that the research facilities of the department are available to the bureau, arid that it would not be efficient for it to set up its own research facilities. I would hope the existing facilities are available to the director and her staff to the extent required. I must say, however, that the overall picture seems to show that the government attaches very little importance to women in employment.
The other big item of news on the labour front this year has been the extent to which unemployment reared its head during the past winter. We have had several debates in the house on the subject already. I heard on the radio first thing this morning that it was expected the presentation of the minister's estimates would precipitate another allout debate on unemployment. So far as I am concerned it is not my intention to dwell at length on that subject. I have already spoken on it on several occasions, and what I said still stands. I do not intend to take back a word of it.
However, in spite of debates we have had we have seen no action. In March, the last month for which figures are available, we saw the number of unemployed swell to an unheard of total of 632,900. The April figures should be due today or tomorrow. I dare say the minister has them on his desk right now, but we do not have them. The figures last month came out on the 19th, and several times the figures have come out on the 20th.
I have been wondering whether the date of bringing down the unemployment figures has anything to do with the discussion of these estimates today, rather than following the plan which had been proposed a few days ago by the leader of the house. We had expected the estimates of another department would be brought down first and that the estimates of the Department of Labour would follow. However, as time got short and

other debates in the house consumed a little more time than had been anticipated, perhaps the 20th of the month looked uncomfortably close, and it may be that the estimates of the Department of Labour are brought down now in the hope of disposing of them before it becomes necessary to release the number of unemployed persons for the month of April.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I can assure my hon. friend that consideration had nothing to do with the fact that we are discussing the estimates of this department today.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am sure the minister would not expect me not to have my suspicions.


John George Diefenbaker: Quite a coincidence.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: As the hon. member for Prince Albert says, it is quite a coincidence, in any event.
However, regardless of whether that was the reason for hurrying up these estimates- and I do not know the answer-we should ask ourselves what can be done. All through the debates on this subject one party or another has accused the members of other parties of having no consideration for the plight of the workers, of making no suggestions for their relief and offering no plans for the future.
Despite all those remarks, Mr. Chairman, I remember quite clearly hearing a number of good suggestions. Some of them even came from the supporters of the government itself; some came from members of this party; some came from other groups in this house. Surely all these suggestions taken together could not be discounted. Whether they would be workable is another matter. But I do not think any group in this house can point a finger at any other group and say you have no regard for the workers of this country, and you have made no constructive suggestions. I maintain that constructive suggestions have come from every quarter of the house, suggestions which have shown the concern which has been felt by hon. members over the situation in which we found ourselves last winter.
We might almost ask ourselves whether a debate on unemployment is just something that must be endured with the best possible grace by the government, after which it will resume its usual indifferent way. Ottawa, after all, like other capitals, has a rather synthetic quality, a quality which is very often present when a city is built as a capital. As we were told last evening at the dinner which was given by the federal district commission to the students who came here on the Rotary venture, Ottawa was built to house the
Supply-Labour
government. It has practically no industry but government. Not too long ago I came across an article in the Hamilton Spectator. In commenting on this state of affairs the writer had this to say, in part:
This is perhaps why its view of what is happening in the country at large is so often abstract and seems sometimes so downright unrealistic.
He was referring to Ottawa. He went on to say:
But a man standing in line at the employment office, without work . . . cannot be expected to look at things from a long, abstract perspective. His thinking cannot be expected to stretch to the nation's broad prospects for next year or the year after; it is bounded inescapably by his own immediate prospects for next week's food bill and next month's mortgage payment. He is simply up against a harsh and immediate reality.
The article then goes on to speak of the gap which exists between the point of view of the man in the unemployment queue and government officials who sit here in Ottawa, and it says:
Precisely because of the heartrending gap that exists .	.	. between things as they should be
(and one day will be again) and things as they are [DOT]-he and his fellows have every right to look to their prime minister and their government for a great deal more concrete help than they are today receiving.
With respect to concrete help, Mr. Chairman, I do not think for a moment the writer of this article was talking about handouts; he was not talking about the size of the unemployment insurance payments which those workers may receive if they qualify for benefits. He was talking about the broad picture of planning which it is undoubtedly this government's duty to undertake to ensure that this will not happen again.
As I said-and it was said last evening also-here in this building we are insulated against the reality of the day to day existence of some 15 million Canadians. We are unable to see the queues at the national employment offices across this land. We are insulated to a large extent from the distress of individuals. Their first thought is of their families. Here in this place an unreal atmosphere exists. It is the duty of every hon. member to dig beneath the superficialities, to come to grips with the task which is before them and to urge and urge until this government finally does take some steps to make sure that we shall not have a repetition of the situation which we endured last winter.
Several years ago a national advisory council on manpower was set up. Some very important people were appointed to that council, Mr. Chairman, and they met a few times. What happened to them I do not know. Rumours flow around these buildings like

Supply-Labour
water over a dam. I have no intention of being a rumourmonger. I know what must have activated some of these people. In an attempt to find out what happened, early in the session-as a matter of fact on March 3, at page 1675 of Hansard-I asked the minister whether the national advisory council had met this year at all. The minister replied that it had not yet met in this calendar year, but that it had met last year. The following day, having felt that he was in error, he proceeded to correct that statement and said, at page 1717 of Hansard:
This past year there have been meetings and activities of committees responsible to the council.
This bears out the remarks I made a few minutes ago about appointing councils and committees and then letting subcommittees do some of the work, but they never report to the main committee. Perhaps I had better quote the reply all over again, since I interpolated a remark, Mr. Chairman. The minister's remarks were these:
This past year there have been meetings and activities of committees responsible to the council she mentioned, but the last meeting of the full council itself was held on November 5, 1953.
The last meeting of the national advisory council on manpower was held a year and a half ago. Since that time we have had two bad winters of unemployment. It is quite true, Mr. Chairman, that the committee was probably not set up to deal with the problem of unemployment, but I submit that the ladies and gentlemen who sat on that committee were admirably suited1 to undertake just such a task. They also constitute the council, and it would have taken very little adjustment to have them change their pace and consider very seriously the problems which were before Canada. What better work have they to perform than to analyse the employment situation? Why should they not supply us with answers as to how we can create jobs? What figure is dangerous in the unemployment position? What industries in this country present the greatest problems? What plans should be made for the future development of Canada, population-wise and industrially? Where does the production of raw materials and their ultimate processing fit into the picture? How much food do we need? Can we produce all of it or what proportion of it? Can we produce it with the farm labour that is available in this country at the present time?
These are questions to which we must have the answers. It is not enough to ride the tide, be it full or ebb. Experiments are costly. The government is in urgent need of

detailed answers to these problems, answers which should be supplied before another winter confronts us.
As I said the other day in another debate, now is the time, in this spring of the year, when employment has started to pick up, when the edge is off the urgency, to be planning for next winter. Now is the time when the government should be undertaking these two main projects; one, the finding of answers to the problems which confront us in the field of unemployment, and two, a revision of the labour laws under which our people work today.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, I am going to try to be specific and as brief as possible. During this session we have gone into many aspects of the minister's department, and I do not see any point in discussing them again. Some of the things I might talk about at this time are being worked on, which is much more important than just talking about them. For example, the Unemployment Insurance Act is now before a committee, and we will have a chance to discuss that act in all its details.
Another matter I might go into at some length on the minister's estimates is the general condition of the coal mining industry in Nova Scotia and its relationship to unemployment. However, I am not going to do that at this time because a conference is commencing tomorrow in Halifax at which all the dignitaries of state will be present, including the Minister of Labour and representatives from the industry and the union. They will make a general examination of the industry and its future, and I hope will come up with some answers.
One of the matters to be considered is the proposal to close one of the major collieries in the Glace Bay area which will affect some 750 men. To that extent unemployment will be created which will have considerable effect on a large community. I mention that because I know the minister is going to be asked what he is going to do about those who will be added to the unemployment rolls if this colliery closure actually takes place. Personally I am in hopes that it will not.
This matter of anticipated further unemployment raises the question of vocational training. While the minister was making his statement I took a look at his estimates and got some idea why the Minister of Finance went into deficit budgeting. Apparently the Minister of Labour tried quite hard to help make up the anticipated deficit in the budget by cutting his estimates in a field which has much to do with the matter of unemployment. I was really surprised as I think

this is the very time when expenditures in that particular field should be increased.
If you look at the estimates you will find that the grants to provinces for vocational training purposes have been cut by $109,000, while the capital grants for the purpose of assisting in the providing of vocational schools have been cut by $651,450. I have said this a good many times in the house, but apparently not much attention is paid to what we say on this subject by the experts who do the figuring. I contend that if there is one field in which we are short in Canada it is the field of vocational training.
In justifying the cut in the estimates for vocational training the minister said they had met their commitments. They may have had commitments over the last five years under the agreements with the provinces, but that does not alter the fact that the need is greater today than it was when the agreements were first signed. The agreements have to be renewed, and the way to renew them is not by cutting out the money which was necessary in the past to maintain them.
I suggest seriously to the minister that this is something he will have to consider. We should stop and think of the great need in this country for vocational training of the boys and girls who are coming out of school. We have been very shortsighted in this whole field. Of the school population across Canada, about 40 per cent go through high school, and about 10 per cent of that 40 per cent get to university. Ninety per cent of our school population go into the ranks of the employed every year with nothing to sell. If these people are to become citizens able to make a maximum contribution they must be trained in trades or other lines of work for which they may be fitted.
These young people are citizens of Canada; some of them will be running this country in the future. Instead of recognizing the need for retraining in connection with industries where thousands and thousands of people are becoming unemployed every year, the minister's department is cutting the estimates. The needs for vocational training are very great today.
If the minister will stop and think for one moment he will realize that the greatest contributing factor to unemployment in Canada, and in the United States as far as that is concerned, is automation, the displacement of man by the machine. This word "automation" is being used to make it sound a little better, but all it means is that the employer is improving his machinery so he can get more production from fewer men.
Supply-Labour
Some day we will have to answer the question whether the machine is going to be the servant of man or man the servant of the machine.
Within the next few years we are going to find that automation will be putting more and more men on the street and we will be faced with the problem of retraining men for some other gainful occupation. Instead of doing that we are cutting down the very organization that is needed to train our men and women so they may make a contribution to the country. Instead of training people who might become displaced, we are going into reverse and practically cutting out these grants.
I was surprised and disappointed on looking at the estimates to see the extent to which vocational training was being disregarded at this time. I hope the minister will give further consideration to this matter and provide a vote in the supplementaries to offset the decreases in the estimates at this time. Before his estimates are finished I should like the minister to tell us why these reductions in the vocational training votes have been made. Were the provinces not interested in continuing them? Surely there must have been some correspondence with the provinces in regard to the agreements and their renewal. I should like to know what position was taken by the province from which I come, because one of the crying needs in that end of the country is a vocational training program, and this is particularly so in the face of automation.
The trouble in the mining industry in Nova Scotia today has been brought about largely by the introduction of new machinery. The Sydney steel plant was modernized, and a great deal of noise was made about the amount of money that went into that program. But this company was able to maintain the ratio of production it had in 1939 and through the war even though it got rid of 1,600 men in the process. They joined the ranks of the unemployed and moved to some other part of the country. They became displaced persons. If there had been some kind of retraining program they might have had an easier time finding other employment.
I have recommended to the minister many times something I think should be done. Whilst the advisory council on employment may serve a useful purpose, I do not think it is as practical as the kind of thing I think should be done. The men and women on the advisory council for employment are largely people who live in the city and have offices here, and they are out of touch with the industries as they exist today across the

Supply-Labour
country. I may have worked in the mining industry some years ago, but it has changed. The men who are on that council may have worked in an industry some years ago, but that industry has changed.
I have recommended to the minister a good many times the type of organization I think he should have. I believe what are known as industrial councils should be formed. I believe the minister should have a council for the automobile industry, for example, of men who work in and around that industry, so that when a proposal is made by the automobile employers to make a change-over in their equipment or machinery, before that happens he can sit down with men who are aware of what the impact of that particular change is going to mean in the community with regard to unemployment. Perhaps the industry and a representative from the union, from the men themselves who understand the situation, sitting around with the minister's advisers and counsellors, would be able to work out some formula that would offset the impact that particular change-over may have in the community.
In the way things are done today, where the employer is allowed to throw into the street two or three thousand people without any thought of their investment in the community, in my opinion he is accepting no social responsibility whatsoever. Through these industrial councils the minister's department, employer and employee can sit around and discuss the question. Then the government, which is expected to handle unemployment when it happens, will have some knowledge of what might be done, before it is all tangled up and just hopes something may happen to cure the ills of that particular industry.
You have an industrial council in the building trades. That industry has had one for years. It has sat down with the minister's officials from time to time and worked out formulas that have prevented difficulties and troubles in that industry over the years. If it is good for that industry, why is it not good for the automobile industry, for the textile industry, for the mining industry, for all these basic industries across the country in which there is dislocation because of automation? You would have firsthand information from people who are involved, from people who could give you much advice on the handling of the matter.
We can talk about unemployment as much as we like, but I do not think the government, in making cuts in the labour department estimates, is recognizing the situation at all. The trend is to reduce further the machinery that has been set up under the

minister's department in that particular field. I notice also that the administrative cost of the unemployment insurance commission is being cut at this time by $1,014,000.


Mr. Philpotl:: Maybe we are getting more efficient.


Clarence Gillis: I am not so sure of that. That will be answered in the future. You are just making this reduction. I do not think the burden of that commission is becoming less and less.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Perhaps my hon. friend would not mind my interrupting him. Most of that was due not to a cut in the services but rather to a change-over to the Department of Public Works of responsibility for the costs of buildings and maintenance of buildings, which we used to carry in our vote.


Clarence Gillis: It might cost more in the long run. I am not going to argue the point, but I am just mentioning the fact that there is a cut. On the other hand, the hon. member for Vancouver South interjects that they are becoming more efficient. Maybe you are not paying enough wages to the people administering that act. I know the local people with whom I have contact from time to time, the managers of offices, the people who prepare claims and the insurance officers who adjudicate the claims, who are all very efficient, are very poorly paid considering their qualifications. If the minister had a million dollars to play around with, instead of cutting it off and giving it to the Minister of Finance to offset the deficit he thinks he is going to accumulate this year, it would be better if the minister used that money to increase the salaries of those who administer the act, and who do a very good job.
In that way the minister would be putting additional purchasing power in the hands of a certain section of the public, which might create jobs and offset unemployment in some industries. It is false economy to say simply, "We are not going to spend it this year; we do not need it", and let the Minister of Finance take it and maybe use it to pay the interest on the national debt to the banks. I cannot see it in that way. You should never let that amount of money get out of your hands. There are many places where you can use it in your own department.
I notice that this year there is a reduction of $100,000 in the vote for the transfer of labour. I do not think good judgment is shown in reducing that vote. If the maritime provinces continue the way they are going you may have many displaced persons on your hands in that part of the country

whom you may have to ship out to British Columbia or somewhere else to find employment. Instead of reducing that grant it should have at least remained as it was, until such time as the minister was convinced that we are going to get some stability in employment and are not going to have this shifting mobile labour reserve that is developing. We call it unemployment today; others used to call it something else. But with the number of unemployed there is today that transfer of labour vote should have remained at least as it was.
Seasonal unemployment was the main theme of a very long debate in this house. The minister said, "There is not much unemployment; what we have is seasonal, and there is not much to it". Well, he is going to fight that next year, and he is appropriating the huge sum of $25,000 to combat seasonal unemployment. In my judgment, the estimates of the minister's department this year are the most unrealistic I have seen for a long time. The reason may be that the Minister of Finance has made certain promises that he is going to balance the budget at all costs and he may be going to do it in this way. But I think it is the wrong way to do it.
I have suggested a few times in the house that part of the answer to many of the problems that plague us from time to time is the guaranteed annual wage. The last time I talked about that-and I am not going to go into details now-I suggested to the minister that there are two problems which confront this North American continent in the future. One of them is the question of automation. The fact is that the big industrialists who work on the resources of this country say when there is going to be employment or unemployment. It is a heritage of the system. The minister is not going to be in any position to cure that situation until he has some say in the regulation of those who work on the resources of this country.
Machinery is being improved all the time. As machinery is improved, you are automatically going to get more and more unemployment. Accepting that proposition as a fact- and it is a fact-the next question you must face is this. You are either going to have a guaranteed annual wage, under which the employees of a given industry are going to have an income the year round, or you are going to have to amend your Unemployment Insurance Act in order to cover everybody in the country. It is one thing or the other. The guaranteed annual wage is the preferable way of doing the thing because it will make industry contribute its fair share to the maintenance of their employees. You do not just take a horse and throw it out on the 50433-248
Supply-Labour
street. You do not just feed it when it is working for you. You must feed it all the
time.
I suggest that there is no one who today has a formula that he can say is workable or practicable. There are a great many people studying the matter. I myself have a number of ideas on it. However, I suggest that the minister should have an interdepartmental committee-and he has many qualified people in his department-who would sit down and make a detailed study of just what the guaranteed annual wage would mean in the basic industries across this country.
The automobile industry is one where you get three months of unemployment every time there is a swing-over in the model of a car. To some extent the mining industry in eastern Canada is seasonal because there is a slack period during the winter months when the St. Lawrence river is closed. The same thing is true in the steel industry. I believe the minister's department is perhaps the most capable organization in Canada to sit down and work out the details-and honestly to work at the thing-as to whether the guaranteed annual wage is a practical proposition or otherwise.
We in this country are beginning to meet problems that we are going to have to face up to. In the past we solved our unemployment problem and our automation problem by getting into a couple of wars. We do not want to do it in that way any more. As the international situation is today, it looks as though the hydrogen bomb and the atomic bomb have frightened people at least into the position that they are not going to have war. If they are not going to have war, let us not breed revolution by failing to provide at least food, clothing and shelter for people.
When you take a look at the conditions that are described from time to time in some of the booklets you pick up, which are put out by social workers who are obliged to work in the various communities and who see the impact of unemployment on family life in this country, you find that the situation is really staggering; it frightens you. I am not going to read from this publication. It is the Social Worker for April and it sets out the problem in Toronto from that particular angle. When you read it you say to yourself, "War is over, we hope. Now we face the realities of life as to whether we are going to produce for use or whether we are going to produce just in order to make millionaires". You are faced with that question. You have two contending orders of society. One is saying, "Your kind of society will not work", and we are saying, "It will work; cling to your freedom".

Supply-Labour
You cannot tell that kind of story to a fellow who is hungry, who is unemployed, who has a wife and four children whom they have taken from him because he is not able to feed them, who has been evicted from his home and has had his family broken up. You cannot tell that fellow that he has freedom, democracy and the right to work for a living. It just does not work. To him any change is welcome. We are getting all too many people across this country affected in that way. I know it is not a particularly easy thing for me to go back to my own part of the country and stand up and talk to a bunch of people who want to work, and who are hard-headed realists. All they want out of life is just a home and the right to look after their families. But if they are working two days a week, or are not able to do that, there is no use telling them to cling to the present system, that it is the best thing for them, because we have been telling them that now for 50 years. We must start to make some fundamental changes.
As I said before, I believe one of the changes we are going to have to make-and it is fairly well advanced in the United States today-is the establishment of the guaranteed minimum wage. I know about the fellow who wants to make $3 million a year for himself. He is not going to like that change. But it is not the taxes you pay or that kind of thing that matters; it is what you have left. These fellows will not be hurt too badly in the long run. Their homes will not be taken from them. They must be made to realize that the resources of this country belong to all of the people of this country.
Governments also must begin to realize that they are the custodians of the resources, that they hold them in trust and they must see that they are managed in the best interests of all of the people of this country. It is our responsibility to see that that is done. The government sets a good example in the matter of the guaranteed annual wage. All the permanent civil servants get it. Members of the House of Commons get it. All the managerial staff in industry get it. All the white-collar workers and the managers are paid whether the plant is working or not. The only people who are not paid are those who really produce in industry.
Another thing we are going to have to face up to is this matter of the age limit on getting into an industry today. If you are 40 years of age you are through working. For the benefit of the minister, inasmuch as he is going down to that conference in Halifax, I might say I am reliably informed that in that No. 1-B colliery that you are going to be asked something about, at least 60 per cent of the
[Mr. Gillis.l
men employed are over 40 years of age. When you are thrown out at that age you are not only unemployed; that is the death sentence, you are through living.
I believe the government could take a cue in that matter themselves, because under their civil service regulations they also enforce that kind of thing. They keep out of employment in the civil service men and women who have reached that age, and who merely want to go in to do office work. In my judgment they are more capable at that age than they are at 20. It would not be a bad idea if the government changed the regulations in that respect. There are a great many people they could employ but who cannot find employment because of that 40-year age limit in the civil service regulations.
Mr. Chairman, I have talked for longer than I had intended. As the minister's estimates are discussed item by item we shall likely have many more things to say to him. I shall just sit down and say no more now.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to carry on a debate at this time. Some of the other hon. members have made that same statement but have carried on probably for their full 40 minutes anyway. I do not intend to do that. Most of my speeches are short.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Charles Edward Johnston: They are as short as the occasion demands; let me put it that way. I think the Department of Labour of late has been doing something which has been long in coming, and which is going to result in a good deal of benefit to the working people of this country. I have in mind the rewriting of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Probably that is one of the most important things that will come before the House of Commons during this session.
We have been spending a great deal of time in the committee going over the Unemployment Insurance Act. I know we had quite a sitting on it this morning, and last week we had quite a go at it. We are going to have another go at it next week. Therefore I take it that it would not be appropriate to carry on any discussion on this occasion with regard to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Some reference has been made to items in these estimates where there has been a decrease. The hon. member for Vancouver South a moment ago suggested that maybe that decrease was due to increased efficiency. I would hardly agree with that statement, because this department has to deal with

unemployment. If there has been that increase in efficiency, so the department is better able to handle that problem, then I would suggest to members on the other side of the house we should be having a decrease in unemployment rather than an increase. This year has shown a tremendous increase, and I do not think the prospects are any too good for next year. Certainly the fact that we have had such a tremendous increase in unemployment would not indicate that the department is being handled any more efficiently in that respect. I do not mean to imply that the minister is not capable, and I shall mention that later in the few remarks I have to make.
Some suggestions have been made concerning the expenditure on vocational training. I am quite concerned about vocational training. I feel that is something to which a good deal of attention should be paid, but I cannot see much sense in training people to do a job when, after they have completed their training, there is no job nor any prospect of one. I am not for a moment minimizing the fact that people should be trained. This is a period of specialization. Nearly all the industries across this country are demanding specialists because we are coming to that point in our industrial expansion when, as the member for Cape Breton South indicated, we are seeing greater production by machines. There is only one result that will follow from the increased use and increased efficiency of machines, and that will be increased unemployment. There cannot be any other answer.
I am not one who would suggest for a moment that we should decrease the use of machines in order to keep people at work. I do not think that is the purpose of civilization. I believe we should increase the use of the most technical machines to the point where, if the whole operation can be performed by pushing one button, so much the better. The hon. member for Cape Breton South seems to be concerned about that, at least to the point where he suggests something is going to have to be done. Of course it is. We in the Social Credit party have advocated for years that the solution is to take away the earning power of the machine and give it back to the people the machine displaced, so the people will be able to purchase the production of that machine. This philosophy is just beginning now to slowly seep into the minds of some, and as yet it has not permeated the minds of others.
Some may say, "Well, now, that is silly; you cannot do that." We are being forced to it gradually, but in the process of being forced 50433-2481
Supply-Labour
to it this year we have had over 632,000 unemployed. These people are not receiving enough to give them the standard of living to which they are entitled. We have family allowances, and what is that but a method of redistributing purchasing power? Certainly it is not done on a scientific basis. It is only a redistribution of the existing insufficient amount of purchasing power. Unemployment insurance is another means of distributing purchasing power to those people who are not actively employed in the production of goods and services. This principle is going to have to be continued. Another method is through the distribution of old age pensions.
This year we did increase the supplementary benefits under unemployment insurance for a limited period. As soon as that period is exhausted, then the worker is right back into the old rut. You have people with insufficient purchasing power who can buy only a limited amount of goods, and that reduces the amount of goods produced, so there is a still further decrease in the production of goods. Surely that is not such a deep secret that the members of this house or the officials of the minister's department cannot cope with it if they really get down to business.
It seems to me the minister's department is being placed in a very unfavourable position. He is being criticized for something over which he has no control. I believe we will have to consolidate two or three departments with the Department of Labour, such as trade and commerce and the department which deals with development of our natural resources.


Mr. Blackmore:: And finance.


Charles Edward Johnston: And finance, if you like, but particularly the three I mentioned. If we do not have developments in the Department of Trade and Commerce which result in extending our markets and our trade, then of course we should produce less goods for export. If we have no development of our natural resources to make available the goods and services this country can produce, then the Minister of Labour is being forced to look after the inefficiencies of the other two departments. The other departments say, "Here are these unemployed who are the result of the inefficiency of our departments; you look after them." He has no way of solving that problem. In fact, even if he were to go to the government-he can correct me if I am wrong-and ask for an increased appropriation to give these unemployed a decent standard of living, what would treasury board tell him? They would

Supply-Labour
say, you just cannot have any more money. How is the minister going to efficiently care for the ever-increasing number who become unemployed as a result of the inefficiency of other departments in the government over which he has no control.


John Horne Blackmore: Including finance.


Charles Edward Johnston: It seems to me that when we are talking about the labour department it is directly connected with these other departments I have named. The other day I said I thought there was no minister who ever headed that department who was more sympathetic to the problems that are facing him than the present Minister of Labour.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am not going to pat him on the back too much, because I think he should listen to what I have to say and then get after these other ministers who are really responsible for the unemployment problem. In this house we indicate by our actions and our speeches that the Minister of Labour is the one who is responsible for unemployment. That is not true. He may be responsible for keeping the unemployed, for maintaining them while they are unemployed, but that is all. He has said, and the government have said, that this unemployment is only a seasonal condition; after a few weeks the unemployed will be taken care of. That is not true. Even the Minister of Labour and the government have to recognize that this tremendous increase in unemployment that we are experiencing today is not seasonal. It is something that is going to stay with us for quite some time.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South indicated that in the past the solution to this problem has been the intervention of war. He indicated, further, that probably because of the H-bomb people were becoming fearful of the results of war, and the nations of the world were not going to war because of the fear of extermination. I am sure everybody would be pleased if that were true. If it is true we will not have war to come to our assistance and bolster up the old, outmoded, orthodox system that has always failed in cases of emergency. The only time it has ever come through is when we have had a major catastrophe such as war.


An hon. Member:: Making a good C.C.F. speech.


Charles Edward Johnston: The socialists are having more trouble, where socialism is practised in any other part of the world.


John Horne Blackmore: They cannot get production.


Charles Edward Johnston: My hon. friend says I am making a good socialist speech. God forbid! Even they themselves prosper from the fruits of private enterprise. They would not do away with it for the world. Of course no sensible person would do away with private enterprise, particularly when we look around us and see that we have more production than this system knows what to do with. How can we blame industry for our present position?
What I have said shows the thinking of socialist members in the house. I have great respect for the hon. member for Cape Breton South, but only a few moments ago he said industry was supposed to take care of the unemployed, that it was supposed to give jobs, to guarantee annual wages, to give family allowances, and all the rest of it. I do not think any sensible person will contradict me when I say that the purpose of industry is to produce goods. In the operation of producing goods jobs are made automatically. It is the government's job through the financial system to provide markets, and one of the best markets we have is our market right here in Canada, among our own people. The higher we raise our standard of living, the more industry will produce to meet our requirements and the more jobs there will be. Social Credit has given the solution.


Mr. Winch:: The hon. member says it is the responsibility of private enterprise to produce and that of government to supply the market.


Charles Edward Johnston: The government has to supply the market, whether it be through foreign trade or in some other way by the application of their financial policies. Government policy must involve going out and finding markets for our exportable goods. Government policy will do this, in conjunction with private enterprise.


Elmore Philpott: If that is not socialism, what is it?


Mr.   Johnsion@Bow River: This is done through control of the financial policy. The other day the hon. member for Acadia gave a good example of how the government could extend our markets by the acceptance of some of the soft currencies. It was not long ago that most hon. members voted against that suggestion. Through the manipulation of that financial policy the government could extend our markets, and through

the manipulation of the financial policy the government could make it possible for the people of this country to have sufficient purchasing power, whether through increased wages or salaries, increased family allowances, or national dividends, as we have suggested. I am not going to argue about national dividends at this time.
It is the responsibility of government to see to it that the people have the purchasing power to buy the goods industry is producing. When that falls down-as it has fallen down-the Minister of Labour finds himself in a helpless position. I am quite sure that if he were to ask treasury board for more money to take adequate care of the unemployed he would be told he could not have it. If I am wrong I stand to be corrected, but I do not think I am wrong. I would like to see the minister do that.
I said a moment ago that I was not going to speak as long as others have spoken. I may have exceeded my 15 minutes by a half minute or so, but I shall conclude by saying that during this session the minister has given sympathetic attention to the hearings in committees. I believe he is trying to do a good job, regardless of the handicap from which he suffers.
As the items are called I may have something further to say.
(Translation) :


Mr. Maltais:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit to the consideration of this house, on this occasion, a few remarks on a problem of interest to every Canadian citizen, that of the difficult position of our older workers in the labour market of this country.
During the past few years, recurring periods of seasonal unemployment have made all the more evident the difficulties and worries experienced by this very important part of our working force.
The plight of our older workers is not something peculiar to this country, but economic and social considerations would lead us to think that labour and employment conditions in their case will grow worse unless remedial measures are taken, and taken soon.
We all know that the population of this country is gradually increasing. Every year the Canadian nation as a whole is also growing more mature, and the number of our people who are over 45 years of age is daily growing larger. At the same time the proportion of young people under 20 is growing less.
Supply-Labour
In 1881 the number of Canadians over 40 years of age made up 20 per cent of the population of this country. Now this same group makes up practically 33 per cent of the same population.
At the turn of the century, there were 15 adults under 65 for every person aged 65 and over, whereas now there are only 7 adults under 65 for every person aged 65 and over.
In a survey conducted by the Department of Labour, which I have completed with other statistics, it is shown that the population of Ontario, which, allowing for certain adjustments, is fairly indicative of the general composition of the population of the whole country, was made up in 1881 of 16 per cent aged 45 and more, 38 per cent being under 20.
In 1951 this same population was made up of 31 per cent aged 45 and above, only 24 per cent being under 20. A survey of trends observed throughout the development of the Canadian nation over the past fifty years shows that, by 1971, 38 per cent of the population will be made up of people over 45 and that those under 20 will represent 17-8 per cent.
In other words, then, the increase in population and maturity in Canada is accompanied by a marked increase in the number of workers over 40.
But as the older element of the population increases another trend becomes increasingly noticeable. Casual observation reveals that employers of labour show a marked preference for workers under 40. That trend creates a feeling of insecurity, among older workers, all the more so in the wake of revolutionary changes which have occurred in our economy as a result of advanced and accelerated technology and the resultant acute competition in both our domestic and export markets.
Statistics issued by the unemployment insurance commission show fairly well how hard it is for older men to find jobs. For instance, in 1952, 36-5 per cent of the total applications for work received by the commission offices, everywhere in Canada, were from people over 45. The curious fact that this percentage remains practically constant throughout the year shows what restrictions exist for older workers with respect to job opportunities.
In the light of those figures, a fact stands out: not only must careful consideration be given to ways and means of helping older workers but, at the same time, employers themselves should seek to solve that national problem.

Supply-Labour
Many reasons have been given-most of them based on preconceived ideas-to explain the limits imposed upon the employment of older workers and the increasing difficulty with which they can share in the production of our national wealth.
In certain quarters it is said that this change which industry has undergone following extreme mechanization and application of the mass production principle has led employers to believe that older workers were slower in adjusting themselves to the new techniques and that accidents and absenteeism were more frequent among these older workers.
In this mad productivity race we have even been led to believe that older workers were slowing down production.
On the other hand, many industries have training plans which involve quite a large investment, and they have the preconceived idea that it would not be profitable to let older workers train for a job they would hold for a limited time.
Elsewhere, these same workers who are looking for work are handicapped on account of pension plans already in operation in many industries. It is claimed that to employ these older workers would make such pension plans more costly.
But, I think that the greatest wrong inflicted on our older workers is to be found in the common saying that the general public prefer and seek younger workers.
It would take too long, Mr. Chairman, to analyse both sides of the arguments I have just mentioned.
However, I think everybody will agree that during the second world war, when we had to call upon all the resources of our nation, the Canadian worker, whatever his age, did the job well, to the benefit of our Canadian nation.
Mr. A. R. Mosher, in a statement made in 1952, gave a brilliant account of the very important part which our older workers have played and of the valuable contribution they have made to victory. I would like to read that statement into Hansard. I quote:
Nobody will suggest for one moment that a worker whose faculties are weakened by age or other circumstances has a right to a job which he cannot fill efficiently. On the other hand, in each plant there are numerous jobs which do not require the same deftness of hand or eye as would be expected of a young worker. During the war, when we sought the services of everyone who could be useful, with or without training, we found that older people could make a valuable contribu-

tion to our war effort. They were more stable and more responsible; their attendance record was excellent and they were capable of doing quite satisfactorily the work entrusted to them.
Sure, the work given older people had to be of a particular kind and they were not asked to do work requiring too much skill, unless they could prove by tests that they were capable of doing that work.
It has been clearly shown that older workers have a great ability to adjust themselves to a new trade and that they derive much pride and satisfaction from doing their work because their capacity is recognized.
Moreover, it is to be noted that although industry and governments have set the retirement age at 65, many people who work for themselves, such as merchants, wholesalers and garage owners are still able to earn their living and manage their own business even to the age of 80.
That applies equally well to farmers who, generally speaking, can still look after their farms at a ripe old age.
A change of attitude towards older workers is essential. I sincerely believe that if an older worker still wishes to contribute to the nation's productive capacity, he should be permitted to do so.
Mr. Chairman, so far governments have done much to improve labour conditions. They have passed legislation on minimum wages, workmen's compensation, unemployment insurance, retirement benefits in the industry and limitation of working hours. Nevertheless, the situation of the older workers has become a very important problem. Unless steps are taken to help older workers, especially if the industry persists in allowing the increased discrimination which is being shown against such a large proportion of our manpower, the present standards of our welfare legislation will soon have to be changed in order to ensure to those Canadians the security to which they are entitled.
The ever-depressing effects on the older men with dependents of a lack of work and security not only affects his own family but becomes a threat to the welfare of the people.
Canadians who are having serious difficulties in finding employment are now resorting to palliative measures of relief, such as unemployment insurance or a pension system which only partly meets their family needs.
At the rate at which our population is now increasing, we may expect requests for very drastic social legislation, if the labour market for older men keeps on shrinking, compelling those over 50 to cope with more or less protracted periods of unemployment or to give up their employment altogether when they reach the age of 60 or so. As a matter of fact, I can see the day, Mr. Chairman, when the government might be forced to alter the

present scale of old age pension as a result of those conditions.
It is estimated that in 1961 there will be in Canada 689,300 people 70 years old or more in receipt of old age pension at a total cost of $417 million. And as this pension could possibly become payable at age 80, if working conditions of our older workers are allowed to remain as they are today it will then cost the state close to a billion dollars to support legislation of that kind.
Of course, the additional burden of this increase will have to be paid by people in the lower age group, who will also continue to assume all other costs of government administration. If this assumption is pursued a little further, we might even come to the point where all Canadians between 20 and 45 would have to carry the whole burden of our national economy. Our way of life could certainly not stand up to such conditions. The problem of older workers therefore needs the urgent attention not only of the governments but of the people themselves.
Several means were suggested in order to prevent such a situation, but I do not think it could be altered from one day to the next.
Can the guaranteed annual wage improve the position of the older worker by ensuring him either a definite income or a secure period of employment?
Could it be said that a more satisfactory birthrate might, one day, establish a better balance between the various age groups of our people? I dare hope so, Mr. Chairman.
At all events, I would like to submit to this house the opportunity of introducing in this country a national contributory pension plan where payment of a pension would solely be based on the age factor. To my mind, adoption of such a proposal would help the older worker overcome the feeling of insecurity which is becoming his lot, in view of a reluctant labour market with regard to employment possibilities.
A number of firms already have pension plans for their employees and the Department of Labour is associated with many of these programs. Any experience acquired by industry and government in the operation of these plans could serve as a basis for the study of a universal industrial pension plan. This pension plan should be flexible enough to allow an employee to transfer to another job while keeping his pension rights.
Supply-Labour
A measure of that kind has already been adopted in England following the Beveridge report and Canada should explore this new avenue of social security in order to avoid the disastrous consequences which may arise from the situation of older workers.
It is not the only means available to remedy this situation fully. But I am convinced that a study of such a pension scheme will give us an opportunity to work out an over-all plan which will include our whole employment policy regarding industry.
(Text) :


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Chairman, I propose to deal particularly with the requests which have been made on earlier occasions, and which were repeated today by the hon. member for Hamilton West, that there be a general review of the labour relations act and labour legislation generally. This has been under discussion now for five years; it may have been under discussion before, but it came particularly into focus in 1950 at the time of the railway strike when a bill was introduced in this house during the emergency session to deal with the situation resulting from that strike.
It will be recalled that at that time we proposed a method by which the emergency could have been dealt with and the rail services put into immediate operation without introducing the principle of compulsory arbitration. At that time we emphasized, as we have on subsequent occasions, the need for recognizing that the situation which then became a national emergency was one that called for careful examination with a view to the solution of similar difficulties in the future, that departure from the established practice not being an acceptable precedent.
Five years have passed. As the hon. member for Hamilton West pointed out this afternoon, we have had vague assurances from time to time that the labour legislation is under review. We have not seen any evidence of it; we have not been given any assurance that this is being given the consideration that it requires. Therefore this afternoon I propose to deal with this matter from the point of view of the inadequacy of the legislation as it is today and the new emphasis which has been placed upon the need for a thorough examination of labour legislation and appropriate changes which will bring our labour legislation up to date and make it an effective instrument for the exten-

Supply-Labour
sion of good will between the organized workers, management and those responsible for the enforcement of our laws.
At the time the emergency measure was before the house on August 30, 1950, at the conclusion of my remarks in which I had put forward an alternative which would have avoided the necessity of compulsory arbitration but nevertheless put the rail services into operation, I reviewed the situation and concluded with these remarks, as reported on page 31 of Hansard of August 30, 1950:
We are sometimes inclined to exaggerate the number of disputes. If there is a strike, naturally it is noticed by everyone. What is often ignored is the vastly greater number of friendly and cooperative solutions that are reached by the system of collective bargaining that has been worked out through long years of trial and error. In finding a solution for this problem, let us not create equally great problems for another day.
In a spirit of good will, and with a desire to bring into operation these vital arteries of the life of Canada as soon as possible, we can solve this problem in a way that will protect the rights of all our people, the rights of every part of our community, will continue the efficient operation of our great railways, and will be to the best advantage of the nation that we love.
Those remarks preceded subsequent requests that our labour legislation generally be reviewed under a procedure similar to that which had been found so satisfactory when the national war labour board was set up under the chairmanship of the Hon. C. P. McTague in 1943 with instructions to inquire into collective bargaining and related problems. Without seeking to rub salt in a wound that sometimes seems sensitive, may I point out that the very uncertain attitude of this government toward public inquiries is emphasized by the number of occasions on which public inquiries instituted by this government have proved satisfactory along with the number of occasions on which they have not.
Once again may I point out that the government has given the best possible evidence that public inquiries instituted under the Inquiries Act can be most beneficial. One outstanding example was the inquiry conducted by the board under the Hon. C. P. McTague because the report brought in as a result of that inquiry produced the labour regulations incorporated into P.C. 1003 passed on February 17, 1944, which undoubtedly had much to do with the splendid team work that has existed between management, labour and the agencies of government during these critical years.
That inquiry emphasized the fact that with the changing conditions there are of neces-

sity changing requirements, but that there are certain basic principles which do not change and which are fundamental to the strength of labour organization and peace within the whole community in relation to problems which affect our workers. The two principles which are the bedrock of good labour relations are union recognition and collective bargaining.
I have no intention of embarking on what might be regarded as a political speech in regard to this subject, but I cannot refrain from making comment about the extent to which the Liberal mythology has extended, even into this field. I was present at a dinner given by the Trades and Labour Congress as a farewell testimonial to that great representative of organized labour in this country, Percy Bengough, just a few months ago. On that occasion the Minister of Labour, for whom personally I have the highest regard as a result of our long association, made a speech which I can only hope was furnished to him from records out of this mythology. On that occasion I heard the minister tell about what purported to be the beginning of understandable labour relations in this country. According to that mythology everything that really was good began with the Liberal governments in this country. Mr. Chairman, the applause from the other side, which cannot be reported in Hansard but to which I should like to pay notice, merely indicates the extent to which this mythology has extended into the minds of the members opposite. Here is another occasion where it does indicate that perhaps members of parliament themselves might well do a little reading of their own history from time to time. If ever there was a fabricated mythology, it was the suggestion that recognition of the rights of unions and collective bargaining began with the Liberal governments in this century, and particularly with the Liberal government under Mr. Mackenzie King.
I have in my possession an attractive souvenir. It is a gold case presented on July 1, 1872, to Lady Macdonald. On that gold case are these words:
Presented by the International Working Men's Unions to Lady Macdonald as a testimonial of their respect for the wife of Canada's greatest statesman, July 1, 1872.
What was the reason why the international working men's unions-the word "unions" is in the plural-were giving this beautiful box to Lady Macdonald on that occasion? It was not merely a gracious gesture to the wife of the prime minister; it was in recognition of the fact that it was the government

of Sir John Macdonald that in 1871 introduced the legislation which gave unions recognition, the right of collective bargaining and the right to strike. At that time-


Mr. Dickey:: They did not keep it up.


George Alexander Drew: I did not hear that interjection. I wonder if it could be repeated?


An hon. Member:: It was not worth listening to.


George Alexander Drew: I always like to hear some
of these interjections. They are usually so illuminating as evidence of the extent to which Liberals themselves have been fooled by their own propaganda.


John Horace Dickey: I said that it is too bad they
did not keep it up.


George Alexander Drew: The hon. member now says
loud enough to be heard, "It is too bad they did not keep it up". It just shows that he has not read the elementary history of Canada, because they did keep it up and I could go on for some time through the record of subsequent legislation. He does not know, of course, that in 1890, following the conviction of certain Hamilton bricklayers who went on strike in 1888 because of a local situation there, a law was passed which protected the workmen from any prosecution for conspiracy in refusing to work with or for any employer or workmen. It would be well if the hon. member for Halifax would just go back and read a little history. Perhaps also he might go back and read something about what happened under Sir Robert Borden when in 1918 he dealt with these very problems and at that time laid down certain principles which have become established principles within our labour organizations in this country, and principles, I might say, that the Minister of Labour before his political conversion would have reason to remember.
These are things that have gone right on through the piece. Since the hon. member for Halifax exemplifies the extent to which the Liberal mythology has been swallowed by some of the hon. members opposite, may I remind him that a great milestone in labour legislation and in the rights of labour came with the treaty of Versailles and the incidental features of that treaty. The labour organization of the league of nations was provided for and through the general council of that organization draft conventions were established for setting up wage machinery, hours of work and days of rest and other matters of that kind. These conventions were signed for Canada by a Conservative prime minister, Sir Robert Borden. Then
Supply-Labour
the ratification of those conventions stood through the whole period of Liberal government from 1921 to 1930, and it was the Bennett government that ratified those conventions. So the hon. member for Halifax will find the record fairly clear as to the extent to which the Conservative party has continued its interest in matters of this kind.
I would also point out that, in so far as these rights are concerned, it would be helpful if we all dealt with this on the basis of the record; and, with the friendliest emphasis, may I suggest to the Minister of Labour that in future, when dealing with the rights of labour in collective bargaining and matters of that kind, perhaps the position of Sir John Macdonald should not be forgotten.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I was dealing only with the present century.


George Alexander Drew: But I am afraid that the minister omitted to read out that reservation when he made his speech, because I was there. However, it is made, and we shall take it as an amendment that would have been very appropriate at the time. Mr. Chairman, the fact is that the wartime labour regulations that were adopted following the McTague report were a very satisfactory basis of labour legislation in this country. True, there were certain features which did not meet with unanimous approval, but on the whole they did find general approval.
May I recall one interesting incident in connection with the adoption or the passing of P. C. 1003 on February 17, 1944. As some of the hon. members know, I was in the Ontario legislature at that time and in the session of that spring we introduced legislation there which applied in toto P.C. 1003 to the industries in Ontario for the life of that order in council. I may say that, not only did Ontario adopt P.C. 1003; so did Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Therefore over a large part of Canada there was uniform labour legislation by agreement, not by any arbitrary imposition of that legislation by this government, but by agreement and by the approval of the provinces of legislation which had come forward fully digested and carefully prepared as a result of this report that had been presented by Mr. Justice McTague. I should say, so that the record will be complete, that there were three members of that board; two signed a majority report and one signed a minority report which disagreed with the majority report in certain details.

Supply-Labour


Mr. Marlin:: Was Mr. J. L. Cohen one member?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. J. L. Cohen.


Murdo William Martin: And the third one?


George Alexander Drew: Since the minister has mentioned it, I shall mention the other members. The majority report was presented by the Hon. Mr. Justice C. P. McTague and Mr. Leon Lalande. The minority report was signed by Mr. J. L. Cohen. That report followed a long and extensive inquiry during which the labour organizations, social organizations, individuals and organizations representing management, as well as individual representatives of management, had an opportunity to present their opinions and to discuss their views with the members of this board.
I have mentioned that today because I think we can all realize that the more generally certain basic principles become established, the more clearly will they become known to the public generally, and the more firmly will be built into our society that measure of continuing co-operation between management and labour and the representatives of all governments which will assure that type of industrial good will which should be the objective of every elected member of parliament and of the legislative bodies throughout this country.
This is not something in which those who have been engaged in the active ranks of organized labour alone have a direct interest. This is something in which every Canadian has an interest. The rights of organized labour, the recognition of unions, assured collective bargaining that is really free collective bargaining, as the basis of the advancement of relations within our industrial communities are things that are very much part and parcel of the good society we are trying to build. This is something which is just as much in the mind of one member as it is in that of another. In fact, it should be the desire of every member to see this type of legislation advanced to the highest degree in this country of ours.
It is with that thought in mind that I have risen to refer back to what happened in 1950 and to recall that the government resorted to compulsory arbitration at that time. I have emphasized the fact that on that occasion we pointed out to the government that this is an unsatisfactory principle that should not be adopted as a precedent. Since that time we have continued to urge another inquiry similar to that conducted in 1943 under the Hon. C. P. McTague.
I close these remarks with the earnest appeal to the government to end the shillyshallying with regard to our labour legislation.

We have continued to ask for a general revision of this legislation to bring it up to date in the interests of organized labour, management, our whole society and our economic strength which will depend so largely upon the good will and harmony which produces industrial efficiency and has a good deal to do with our ability to sell in the highly competitive markets of the world today.
Before concluding may I repeat my request, which I believe is a reasonable one. I ask for the appointment of a committee with the full powers of reference conferred upon the Hon. Mr. Justice McTague and his associates in 1943. I have no hesitation in saying that I would even hope that the government would again appoint Hon. C. P. McTague, who showed such great wisdom and judgment on that occasion. But whether it be Mr. McTague or someone else similarly qualified, with others representing management and labour and such others as the government may deem fit to sit upon such a board of inquiry and proceed as soon as possible to examine this whole situation, I ask that such a committee be again appointed.
The need for examination of our legislation and an up-to-date code which would appeal to all Canadians becomes more obvious as we see this great association of two major labour congresses in Canada which will bring together a large part of organized labour in this country. It will be to their advantage, and it will be to the advantage of management which has such a great responsibility not only for the welfare of organized labour but also for the strength of our trade, internal and external. It would be to the advantage of the whole economy if at this time we now could have a comprehensive review and report by a committee which would examine the whole subject and make recommendations upon which up-to-date, modern and progressive legislation could be introduced into this house at the next session of parliament.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I have just a brief word to say. I have listened attentively to the statement made by the Minister of Labour. I do not think it is fair for anybody to suggest that that statement was shillyshallying. It shows splendid co-operation between the minister and all his workers and he paid his tribute to them.
Somebody said that there was not any bringing together of labour and management. I am going to give a concrete example in Fort William where the Minister of Labour, through his representative, brought labour and management together. In the strike of the elevator workers things were at a standstill when the Minister of Labour appointed

Mr. Taylor of Toronto, and it was not long until that strike was settled. I think this is a splendid example of how the Minister of Labour and his representatives can bring labour and management together.
I appreciated the suggestions made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. He says some things that are good and some things that are maybe a bit better. But when he emphasized vocational training, as others have done, I think he was wise. He also said that perhaps the officials in the minister's office are not paid enough. I am going to speak of these two things.
With regard to vocational training, I have spoken before of the things that have been done in Fort William to help labour. This vocational training is something that is being practised in Fort William today. The board of education takes high school pupils out to the Canadian Car plant. They will take them down to the vessels and to the elevators. They will take them to the fire halls. Perhaps one of the last groups to place their case before the high school pupils was the engineers. It is a well known fact that today there are not enough engineers in Canada to fill the jobs available. Therefore the engineers took this opportunity of placing before the high school pupils this need. The high school pupils were taken to McKellar hospital to see the work that the doctors and the nurses are doing. They were told that there is a great demand for nurses. This is putting the thing into practice. What are the other cities of Canada doing to put across this vocational training program? I should like to know. I should like to hear somebody say what is being done. Do it first, even before you tell it.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South said that perhaps the officials were not paid enough. I know this is true. I know in our vocational training office in Fort William the employees are not paid a living wage. Perhaps I should not say that, but it is a fact. I know of the case of one young man with a wife and family. He ran into debt. There was not much hope for him, but he obtained some help some place. I do not think a young man should be obliged to work in any office without getting in that office at least the same pay as that received by those in the income tax office.
I have another matter I want to mention. In Fort William we now have a strike in progress at the Canadian Car plant. From reports in the papers, according to the mayor of Fort William attempts are being made to settle this thing as soon as possible. The minister of labour from Toronto is up there. I should like to see the Minister of Labour
Supply-Labour
called on for his assistance. If that is done, I am convinced that soon management and the union will come together and the strike will be settled. I just pay my tribute to the minister, not because I sit close to him but because I admire the way he does his work, without bluster or noise and not very much advertising.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Minister of Labour has had quite a number of suggestions laid before him this afternoon, Mr. Chairman. It is my purpose to underline some of these suggestions and to add to the list. There are, indeed, a good many problems that require his attention and his study and I hope that action by him will be the result of that attention and that study.
However, before I go into the list of items I want to lay before the minister in one way or another, I must confess that when the Leader of the Opposition made his speech this afternoon it prompted me to send to the library for a certain volume of Hansard and also brought back to my mind certain facts of history. The Leader of the Opposition twitted my hon. friends across the way about what he called Liberal mythology. I have some Liberal mythology here which I shall come to when I get through with the Leader of the Opposition.
First, I want to talk about history, and this is not mythology. I come from Winnipeg. When a Winnipegger hears a Tory talking about the great love of the Conservative party for labour, he remembers 1919. He remembers a certain telegram that a gentleman by the name of Arthur Meighen sent to Winnipeg suggesting that certain people should be deported and that the legislation would be introduced afterwards. The volume of Hansard for which I sent to the library contains a record of what went on in the House of Commons on June 6, 1919. Sir Robert Borden, presented today as the friend of labour, was prime minister. I find that on that day the House of Commons was discussing a bill which had to do with government purchasing methods. As a matter of fact, Sir Robert Borden was speaking. The statement he was in the midst of making was broken off on page 3211 of Hansard for June 6, 1919, with a dash, whereupon he said:
My colleague the Minister of Immigration tells me that there is a very important bill to which the attention of the house should be directed at once with a view to its being assented to this afternoon. I would therefore ask that this debate be adjourned to be resumed again this day, if the house will consent.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
I ask hon. members who are interested in history, and interested in what has gone on in this house in days gone by to get this

Supply-Labour
volume and just look at the four pages 3211, 3212, 3213, and 3214 of Hansard for June 6, 1919. Most of us know, because we sometimes measure the number of pages it takes to record our own speeches, that it takes about seven or eight pages of Hansard to cover 40 minutes in this house. This means that a page of Hansard is equivalent to about 5 or six minutes. I am asking members to consider what happened under a Conservative government as it was reported on less than four pages of Hansard. Now, members can do their own arithmetic, but that looks like 20 minutes or so, although it might have taken a few minutes more in view of the trip to the other place that was included in that period of time.
Starting near the bottom of the second column of page 3211, the house proceeded to give first reading to a bill to amend the Immigration Act for the purpose of deporting certain people from Winnipeg. On that page and on the next two pages, you will find that the bill was given first reading, second reading, considered in committee of the whole and given third reading and passed. What was the next item? Did they go back to this other business they had interrupted? No, a message was delivered by Colonel Ernest J. Chambers, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, and the house went over to the Senate where royal assent was given to a batch of bills, including the bill that had been put through that day.


Mr. Michener:: With consent?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, the Liberals consented to it, and Mr. D. D. McKenzie was the Leader of the Opposition at the time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What did Mr. McKenzie say?


Stanley Howard Knowles: He did not say very much.


Paul Joseph James Martin: He did not say, "With consent"; the interjection was wholly unwarranted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the Minister of National Health and Welfare know what Mr. McKenzie said? I think the minister should get this book and read it before he interjects.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have read it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. McKenzie said:
I have no desire to obstruct the minister but would he say in what form this legislation comes before the house?
There was no attempt to hold back the bill. It took unanimous consent to go through these three readings all in one day. There was connivance apparently, so far as the Liberals were concerned. But surely it is apparent

that the real villain of the piece was the government of the day, the Conservative party, which put through that legislation in that fashion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has said that so far as the Liberals were concerned there was a certain amount of connivance. There is nothing in the record that justifies that observation.


Mr. Brooks:: You should have said that there is nothing in the record.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister can speak for himself, but if an attempt were made while I was a member of the house to put through legislation of that kind, with all three readings in one day, and I did not object, I would take some measure of responsibility for it. Most members of this house know I certainly would object. My point is that when the Leader of the Opposition sets out to give the history of the Conservative party with respect to its attitude towards labour, I think he should include all the items and not overlook this one to which I have just referred. I might mention also the attitude that was taken by another Conservative government towards unemployed people during the period 1930-35.
I agree with the view expressed by the hon. member for Hamilton West and the Leader of the Opposition that there should be a review of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. I think the time has come for a further look at our labour legislation. But I suggest that Canadian labour is not going to be fooled by this interest in the academic side of the labour problem, particularly when spokesmen for the Tory party make two speeches this afternoon without making any reference to the really important issues that are of concern to labour today such as the guaranteed annual wage. If the Tory party wants to address itself to Canadian labour, I suggest it should deal less with the history of the past, less with academic matters, and should concern itself more with the issues that are of concern to the working people of this country today.
As I indicated when I rose to my feet, I wish to underline some of the problems which have already been laid on the minister's desk and I wish to urge that he give them very serious study. He has under him a number of boards and commissions and officials who are well qualified to help him with this study, well qualified to do some of it for him. In the final analysis any decisions as to policy would have to be taken by the minister in conjunction with his cabinet colleagues. But meantime I urge that he seek the advice of his

officials and the members of the various boards and commissions which come under his direction, in the hope that some real headway might be made in dealing with some of these problems.
As has been already indicated, one of the most serious problems on his desk is that of unemployment or, to put it in other words, the necessity of achieving full employment in this country. I agree with those who say that this is not a problem solely for the consideration of the Minister of Labour. It is a problem for the consideration of the entire cabinet. But it does seem to me that it is the particular job of the Minister of Labour to bring before the cabinet as a whole the urgent need for full employment; and it is also his job to bring to the cabinet suggestions as to ways and means by which full employment might be achieved.
One of the suggestions we have made from this corner a number of times was made again today by my colleague the hon. member for Cape Breton South, namely the institution of the guaranteed annual wage. We were interested in the valuable speech made on this question some weeks ago by a member on the government side of the house, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). His suggestion was that the time had definitely come when the Minister of Labour should make a very thorough study of this question with a view to making a start on the guaranteed annual wage in some sector of the Canadian economy at an early date.
Since this suggestion came from one of the members sitting behind the minister, I was disappointed that he did not see fit to deal with this question when introducing his estimates today. However in that regard he did no worse than the hon. member for Hamilton West or the Leader of the Opposition. I would remind all three of these hon. members that this has become a most important issue, so far as the workers in this country are concerned. I remind Liberals and all other members in the house that the idea is certainly growing in Canada-and it is right that it should-that workers have just as many rights as business, industry, capital and all the other factors that make up our economy.
I said I was going to go along with the Leader of the Opposition by making some references to Liberal lore. I have in my hand an interesting book which I shall identify in a moment or two, and from which I shall read a paragraph or two. A certain gentleman was making a speech in support of a certain resolution, and this was what he said:
Not only does the resolution recognize that the labour problem is a world problem; it recognizes
Supply-Labour
also that the labour problem is a human problem. The resolution is based on the assumption that human personality is more important than any considerations of property.
I could not agree more. But to say that human personality is important, and to leave it only as a matter of words, is not good enough. I go on with the quotation where, referring to the resolution, he said:
It is founded on the belief that ethical and human considerations ought to stand above considerations which are purely business or material. It is an expression of the belief that industry exists for the sake of humanity, not humanity for the sake of industry.
I am sure some hon. members will now know the author of these words, although they do not come from a certain book to which hon. members might think they could trace them. Rather I am quoting from a speech delivered at the last national Liberal convention but one-the convention held in Ottawa in 1919. This speech was made by Mr. Mackenzie King who, on that occasion, was proposing to the convention a resolution on labour and industry.
In support of the resolution he went on to ask some rhetorical questions as to what was in the minds of those who had come back from overseas; and in that connection he said this:
They have interpreted the unrest of the world today in words the workman himself is using; they are saying that "man does not live by bread alone", that while wages may be one thing, wages in themselves are not enough. It is not enough to have work one day and unemployment the next.
Mr. King said that in 1919. It is true today; in fact under today's conditions it is even more staggering a blow for people to have to go through periods of unemployment and insecurity, be they short or long.
Mr. King went on to say:
It is not enough to have work one day and unemployment the next; to have work at one time and then, when sick, to be helpless in the matter of meeting the great problems of invalidity, of dependence and the like, where these things arise through the organization of industry as it is, rather than through the fault of the workers themselves.
So taking the resolution as it is drafted, the purpose as I have said is to recognize that as between the different provinces and the dominion we must endeavour to co-operate in working out a new industrial order, whereby, for the multitudes of men and women who spend their lives in industry, there may be a greater measure of economic and social freedom, and a larger measure of social justice.
Mr. Chairman, our contention today is that those words uttered by Mr. King in 1919, and others like them, should be put into something real and concrete in the form of full employment and a guaranteed annual wage, together with some other points which I shall mention in a moment.

Supply-Labour
But since I have quoted from what Mr. King said when he was proposing the resolution on labour and industry at the last national Liberal convention, but one, I would invite hon. members to look at Mr. King's speech and at the resolution itself. The resolution is found at pages 204 and 205 of the book put out following the convention. It is a lengthy resolution, but I would note just in passing-and I call this to the attention of the Minister of Labour; and perhaps the hon. member for Hamilton West will be interested in it, too-that one of the points laid down in that resolution 36 years ago was the principle that men and women should receive equal remuneration for work of equal value.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: How long ago was that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just 36 years ago; don't ask the Liberals to do anything in a rush. They don't do things overnight. This, of course, was also the same resolution in which it was proposed-and remember that this was under the heading of labour and industry, so that, as Mr. King put it, workers might enjoy a greater measure of economic and social freedom and a larger measure of social justice-this was the resolution which included such things as an adequate system of insurance against unemployment. Note that it refers not just to unemployment insurance, with capital letters, but to "insurance against unemployment". Mr. King was referring to insecurity from any conditions which were beyond the control of the workers themselves.
It also called for insurance against sickness, dependence in old age, and other disability. It called for old age pensions, widows' pensions, and maternity benefits which should be instituted by the federal government in conjunction with the governments of the several provinces. And so on, and so on. As I say, it is a lengthy resolution. But my point is that it was long ago laid down-and we believe that the Canadian people agree with it completely-that human personality should come ahead of considerations of property, and that it is the job of government, supposedly of the people, to plan our economy so that instead of unemployment and periods of sickness without income, instead of insecurity, there will be full employment and something of the order of a guaranteed annual wage.
I call upon the minister to give more active and more vigorous study to the question of full employment than in fact has yet been done. I call upon him before these estimates are passed to tell us what studies he has given to the question of the guaranteed annual wage.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Will the hon. member permit a question? I have followed his advice and sent for the volume of Hansard and I now wish to ask him a question regarding it, if he will permit me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The hon. member did not recall to our minds the situation which existed in Winnipeg at that time, such as I think has never existed in this country before or since, when law and order were threatened in a way they have never been threatened before or since. The hon. member greatly emphasized the fact that legislation was passed in this house in short order. It was passed by responsible people. He will agree with that. I should like to read briefly the legislation that was passed-


Harold Edward Winch: What is the question?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -and ask the hon. member whether he agrees that this legislation, which was directed against what we now call communists, was justified or not in the circumstances. I shall read briefly from page 3212 of Hansard of 1919.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have no objection to this so long as it does not come off my 40 minutes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I read:
Section fifteen of the act to amend the Immigration Act passed at the present session of parliament is repealed, and the following is substituted therefor:
"41 (1) Every person who by word or act in Canada seeks to overthrow by force or violence the government of or constituted law and authority in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or of Canada, or of any of the provinces of Canada, or the government of any other of His Majesty's dominions, colonies, possessions or dependencies . . ."
And then, later on:
-or by word or act, creates or attempts to create any riot or public disorder in Canada, or who without lawful authority assumes any powers of government in Canada-
I just want to ask the hon. member whether, in view of the situation which existed, he considers that legislation which included words of that kind was unreasonable legislation at the time and whether he feels it necessary to be so critical of responsible men who, in the circumstances of the moment, and with the danger which faced them, thought it reasonable to pass legislation quickly at that time.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. For fear that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should attempt to answer in as many words as the question was put, I would ask the committee whether they consider an extended discussion on what after all is an amendment

to the Immigration Act which was passed 36 years ago is strictly relevant at this time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I think I can answer both you and the hon. member for Greenwood at the same time. Although what was under discussion formally at that time was a bill to amend the Immigration Act, it was directed against certain labour leaders in the city of Winnipeg. Those labour leaders included persons like John Queen, William Ivens, A. A. Heaps, George Armstrong and J. S. Woodsworth, as well as others whose names stand high in the history of my city. So far as the question about responsible gentlemen is concerned, I stake my claim that this was irresponsible legislation on the fact that in due course these people were elected to responsible positions by the people of Winnipeg. History has given its verdict against what was done here on June 6, 1919.
I suggest to the hon. member for Greenwood that even if, which I do not admit, he could make a case for the legislation having any validity at all, surely his own respect for the rule of law and for parliamentary procedure cannot permit him to condone what was done on that occasion. Instructions were sent by wire to Winnipeg with the advice that legislation would be passed afterwards, and parliament overrode all its normal rules of procedure to put that legislation through both houses in one day.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South is asking a question that would take me off into another debate that you, Mr. Chairman, might not like. I suggest that he can pick up the debate on the Criminal Code of a year or two ago, and he will see where I dealt with this whole question much more fully than I should on this occasion.
Hon. members are aware that the reason I raised this very dark chapter in Canadian history was the incompleteness of the report on his party's attitude toward labour that was made by the leader of the Progressive Conservative party.
To get back to the list that I had when I started, I urge the Minister of Labour to give serious attention to two or three other matters which are of real concern to working people of this country. One of them relates in part to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Because it can be discussed under that act I shall mention it only very briefly here. He knows what it is because he heard the questions that I asked the delegates from both labour congresses at the committee meeting this morning. I feel very strongly that the time has come, and labour feels this way, too, that the Unemployment Insurance Act should be
Supply-Labour
amended so as to provide for unemployment insurance benefits to include what is sometimes known as a sickness benefit. If I may go back to Mr. King in 1919, it is just as serious to be unemployed and without income because of illness as it is to be without income because there is no job.
The minister heard the delegates from the labour congresses say this morning that labour would be willing to pay its share of the extra cost to provide that kind of coverage. I am awfully disappointed that the proposed amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act which are before us do not include an extension of this kind. I urge him to study this matter thoroughly and vigorously. If it means that he must have discussions with his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I am sure that colleague is always available for discussion and for help and advice. He told me earlier today that he always boosts good causes. Here is one to which he can give a real boost. I dislike the statement that was quoted to us, but this is one that I know is correct, because I have heard it from the Prime Minister, namely that the Prime Minister has told at least one of the labour congresses that sickness benefits included in unemployment insurance might be regarded as a case of bringing in health insurance through the back door, and that could not be done without an amendment to the constitution.
I admit that a sickness benefit could be one aspect of health insurance. If so, and if a constitutional amendment is necessary for health insurance, then that argument has validity. But I would point out also that sickness benefits for workers under the Unemployment Insurance Act could be regarded as a form of unemployment insurance.
When the Liberals met in 1919 they did not talk about unemployment insurance; they talked about insurance against unemployment. Mr. King presented the resolution and said that so far as the workers were concerned loss of income because of illness is just as serious as loss of income from any other cause. I suggest that a constitutional amendment is not necessary to include sickness benefits in the Unemployment Insurance Act. It would be part of the Unemployment Insurance Act and would be a step forward in giving the type of coverage which I think all Canadians should have. Here is an opportunity for the Minister of Labour to give real leadership in connection with a very important social advance that is needed in this country.
Again I suggest that the minister study this matter with the officials of his department,

Supply-Labour
with the unemployment insurance commission and with all others who have material on it and I hope he will come up with something of this nature at the very earliest possible date.
I wish also to urge the minister to study the question of the mobility of pension rights. I think he is in a particularly strong position to study this question, for two reasons. First, he is the Minister of Labour and is concerned with collective agreements and all conditions involved in labour arrangements in this country. He is also the minister who has charge of the Government Annuities Act so that he has experience which could be brought to bear on this other question.
I need not go into it in detail as the minister knows from the discussions we have tried to precipitate in this house before just how we feel. Some of us feel that one of the things needed for labour at the present time is the right for a worker to move from one employment to another and carry with him his pension rights. Many a worker is frozen in his job even though he may be able to get a better one because he cannot afford to lose his pension rights. On the other hand many industries fail to take in employees over a certain age because of the pension rights problem.
I do not want the minister to say that this is exclusively a problem for the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Minister of Finance. They should be involved in it also, but this is a problem which is on the desk of the minister. It is an extremely important one and I urge him to give it active consideration.


Elmore Philpott: I know the hon. member would not want to leave a false impression by the statement he made today about the attitude of the different parties toward the emergency legislation at the time of the Winnipeg strike. I am rather surprised that the hon. member did not make reference to the speech made by the hon. member for Quebec South, who made one of the finest speeches of his career in defence of the Winnipeg strikers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, despite your attempt to keep me away from the 1919 strike my friends on all sides seem to want to keep coming back to it. I am pleased to note their interest, and I have no objection to the interjection made by the hon. member for Vancouver South. It is good to know that there was one Liberal with a capital "L" who had a little small "1" liberalism in his soul at that time, and I believe that hon. gentleman, the member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), still has.

If I can get back again to my list I want to say a word about a question which did get mentioned by the hon. member for Hamilton West and by the Leader of the Opposition, namely the procedures involved in the event of a labour dispute. Those two hon. members referred to what happened in 1950, all of which is a matter of record and familiar to most of us. I do not intend to go into that, but I would remind the minister that on January 11 of this year, as recorded on page 64 of Hansard, I asked this question:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister been made aware of the concern felt by the railway workers of Canada over the loss of their right to strike? Is the government taking steps either to assure these workers that they still have that right or to establish a satisfactory alternative?
Perhaps I had better be fair to the minister and read his answer in full, which was as follows:
This question, I think, divides itself into two parts. In the first place the Minister of Labour has been made aware of the concern which would be felt by the non-operating unions of the railways in the event they were deprived of the right to strike. In the second place I am sure my hon. friend has noted that the general conference committee of the non-operating unions of the railways have been meeting in Montreal recently and are discussing questions directly related to the second part of his question. In due course the Minister of Labour would expect to be told about the conclusions reached at these discussions and I do not think that in the meantime the Minister of Labour should anticipate these reports.
That was on January 11; it is now May 19. I hope that during the discussion of these estimates the minister will bring us up to date on that question. It is a question about which I could speak at some length, but I am going to boil it down by reading a few sentences from the minutes of a railway union meeting held in Vancouver in the early part of this year. I do so because the sentences which I shall read express my own views and seem to me to deal most cogently with the matter. I would point out that these are the views of railway workers who might be inclined to be prejudiced to their side of the case and therefore hon. members should note the fairness and objectivity of this approach, particularly as indicated in the last sentence which I shall read. First of all, I note in these minutes this statement:
A lengthy and representative discussion in which all delegates participated was summarized by the chairman who pointed out that the glory of the English law was its predictability. Men and organizations could determine in advance whether a proposed activity was legal and within the law, or otherwise.
There then followed some discussion as to what happened in the matter of the strike

which almost broke out in 1954, but for the threat made by the Prime Minister, and then I read this:
For a government to stand idly by during a long and protracted period of negotiation and fruitless arbitration and then suddenly intervene with the purpose of changing the law in order to deny its protection to one side in a dispute is the ultimate in caprice and despotism, in no manner different from the unpredictability of the law in ancient and modern dictatorships. As a very learned Englishman once pointed out:	A despotic prime
minister and a rubber-stamp parliament do not add up to a democracy. Other countries when confronted with a similar situation still find it possible to intervene in the public interest-
Note that "still find it possible to intervene in the public interest''.
-without threatening the destruction of the freedoms of common people. They do so by taking over and administering a threatened and essential industry until the disputants themselves reach an accord.
I wanted to read those sentences because it seems to me that they do two things. They point out how strongly the railway workers feel about what happened in 1954 when they felt that their right to strike was taken away from them. The other thing that those sentences do is to point out that these same railway workers put forward at least one alternative suggestion. It is in that spirit that I lay this problem before the minister as I thought I did by my question on the orders of the day on January 11 of this year.
I feel most strongly that the right to strike must not be set aside unless some more satisfactory way of dealing with labour disputes can be found. Any other way would have to be satisfactory to all concerned. I call upon the minister to give more serious attention to this question and I ask him to deal with it during the course of the discussion on these estimates.
There were other matters on my list but I think I have given the minister enough for now. If he solves these problems, then I will give him the others.


Mr. Starr:: Since it is about seven minutes to six, I wonder whether I can call it six o'clock. If not, I am prepared to carry on till six.


William Alfred Robinson: Is it agreed that I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Alfred Robinson: There does not appear to be unanimous consent.


Michael Starr: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The estimates of the labour department as presented here today and as they have been presented in past parliaments give members of this house an opportunity to bring to the
Supply-Labour
attention of the Minister of Labour certain things that they feel should be corrected and certain things that they feel should be injected into the labour code in order to improve the working conditions of the labouring force of this country. At this moment I should like to deviate from the severe criticism of the Minister of Labour and inject a pleasant tone by saying to him how much I have appreciated his co-operation on the many matters I have brought to his attention and the expeditiousness with which he dealt with those matters, entirely to my satisfaction and to the satisfaction of those who were very much concerned.
During the past year we have been faced with a great deal of unemployment in Canada, more so probably than in any other year for a number of years. I had the opportunity to express my viewpoints on that problem in Canada, and it is regrettable that the government did not see fit to endeavour to remedy that situation. As a result, unemployment has not decreased to any extent, but has increased. Certainly, if not throughout Canada generally, it has worsened in various parts of this country. I feel that the Department of Labour and this government should make strenuous efforts to alleviate the present condition of those who find themselves unemployed.
There is a particular subject that I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. I suggest that he ascertain whether his department can institute some laws to rectify a situation where management in certain instances in Canada, in requisitioning labour from the national employment offices, makes very stringent requests as to the type of employees it is willing to take on its payrolls. I feel that this stringent type of requisition discriminates against a great many of our people. In certain industries at the present time a person who is over 35 years of age cannot obtain a job. If he weighs less than 160 pounds, he is not wanted in that industry. If he is less than five feet 10J inches tall, he is not employed for that particular reason. Some of these requirements also apply to the female help in these particular industries; they must be at least five feet four inches tali in their stocking feet.
It is no fault of anyone that they happen to be born of short stature or that they are over 35 years of age. There are a great many Canadians who at the age of 55 are very capable workers and are able to perform their labours very satisfactorily; and they are of mature age, so that they probably carry out their duties in a more comprehensive manner. The weight requirement is one that seems to be very strongly urged, and I see no particular reason why a man weighing less

Supply-Labour
than 160 pounds is not able to do certain jobs. Nevertheless, it is a fact that industries are discriminating in some instances, because of their requirements in the categories of height, weight and stature.
If at all possible some labour law should be implemented whereby the provinces could model regulations after this law, in order to bring about a discontinuance of this type of discrimination. The result is that those who have established themselves in particular municipalities where this industry is functioning, and have purchased homes and raised families, find that they are unable to secure employment. Certainly they cannot dislocate themselves from their communities and families and go elsewhere looking for jobs. On the other hand, this type of industry is requisitioning labour from other parts of Canada, thereby creating a situation that is worsening the present problem of the municipalities in regard to the provision of homes and every other facility required. At the same time those people who are residents and already established in those municipalities cannot secure employment.
I notice that in the estimates there is a substantial decrease over the estimates of the previous year-over $3 million. Of course, the two main items are under unemployment insurance. I am quite satisfied with this decrease, as we have urged time and time again that spending should be cut, but I am a little worried about the decrease in vocational training, and I hope that every consideration has been given in regard to this decrease so that the work of that particularly worth-while department is not hampered in any way.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I shall only take five more minutes.


An hon. Member:: Let him go ahead.


Michael Starr: I also suggest to the Minister of Labour an amendment to the B.N.A. Act which will make the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act applicable in all provinces of Canada be considered and be instituted. As the leader of the official opposition has said this afternoon, our labour laws are antiquated. I feel that as soon as possible the government should consider the revision of all labour laws. This should be done in co-operation with management, labour unions, and the government, all of them sitting down and exchanging their ideas on what would be best for the working men and women of this country. The aim of the labour department should be one of providing steady work and steady pay all

the year round. Of course, the co-operation in this respect should come as a result of labour and management working together towards that end. But the important thing is that the government should institute economic policies which would ensure steady work and steady pay. I feel that the government should reconsider its economic policy with a view to stimulating industrial expansion and a reduction of cyclical unemployment. Everyone is satisfied that much of the recurring unemployment, which brings suffering and hardship to our people as well as substantial losses in production, is not all attributable to seasonal climatic factors. With this in mind I urge the government to take vigorous action to remedy the situation and to aid through scientific and financial means the development of new processes and new industries which will tend to maintain high levels of employment and production throughout the entire year.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this item gives the opportunity for a reference to several matters of importance of this kind. The situation in which labour finds itself is one that is challenging to the imagination and one that demands the utmost courage in the administration of those things that require to be done in order to maintain employment. The degree to which Canadian labour is mobile today and to which our population in general is mobile is indicated by the statistics given recently by Gilbert Jackson and his associates, to the effect that 50 per cent of Canadians change their addresses between each ten-years' census, that 18 per cent move to another address within their province and that 9 per cent move to another province. Indeed, the vast magnitude of the problem is indicated by the fact that of the civilian labour force of 5J million persons 3-3 million dropped out of that labour force in 1954 and 3-4 million entered it. In other words, it is a changing scene in the field of labour relations.
This afternoon, as I listened to my friend the hon. member for Cape Breton South referring to the dangers of automation, I thought he but repeated the age-old fear that has always been with man since the beginnings of the industrial revolution; in each generation, as inventiveness makes possible a greater production through the medium of mechanization, man fears the

change for many people believe it brings about continuing and extensive unemployment.
In our own time we have had experience with the vast changes that have taken place in the production of plastics. As machinery has developed and national production has increased, further and more extensive fields of production have been opened and vistas of employment have resulted that could never have been anticipated otherwise. Indeed, in an examination made by the Brookings Institution some time ago, it was estimated that by the year 1980 the average weekly hours of work will be down to 30 but that the gross national production will have been increased during that period in the United States by some 65 per cent.
While each generation fears that mechanization will reduce employment, each generation in succession has found that while mechanization has expanded to a degree beyond the belief of anyone of even 50 years ago, nonetheless employment has been extending by the extending field of other production. I think it was Professor Wener of Harvard University who recently made the prediction-and he is an authority with a world-wide reputation-that by 1980 there will be few factories with 100 employees and less, and that by that time one person pushing a button will have taken the place of 100 employees in the present state of mechanization. On the other hand, he predicts that in the extending field, as man's standard of living under private enterprise expands, the extent of employment will be maintained at a reasonably high level.
I should like the minister to have dealt somewhat more extensively with the unemployment situation, even though it was dealt with recently at length. What are the figures today? What have been the results in the last three or four weeks? All of us know that there has been a reduction in the actual amount of unemployment but is that reduction not slower than it was last year and vastly slower than it was at the same period in 1953 and in 1952? What is our economic position? Are the departments of government operating each in a closed section peculiar to itself? I ask that question because some reference was made to it by my friend the hon. member for Hamilton West in what I thought was one of the best speeches that she has made, if not the best, since taking over the responsibility of speaking on behalf of this party on labour problems. She covered the situation thoroughly and dispassionately but with a realism that is often absent in
Supply-Labour
the discussion of a problem which permits of an emotional impulse such as does that of unemployment.
What about this advisory council on manpower? My hon. friend the minister was kind enough today to give me a list of the officers and members of this council. It is one that is made up of outstanding men and women. The joint chairmen are R. B. Bryce, secretary of the privy council, and A. H. Brown, deputy minister of labour. Labour is represented by Percy Bengough, formerly president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada; Donald MacDonald, secretary treasurer of the Canadian Congress of Labour; Gerard Picard, Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour, and J. B. Ward, Railway Brotherhoods and joint legislation committee; the employers by outstanding industrialists such as Hugh A. Crombie, Philip Gruchy, William Mainwaring and Allen Ross; the women by representatives of the National Council of Women, Mrs. Allen Turner Bone and Mrs. Flora D. Jutras; the veterans by Colonel Baker of the National Council of Veterans Association and Mr. Kennedy of the dominion command of the Canadian Legion; industry by the president of the Canadian Industrial Preparedness Association, Mr. McRea; and the president of the Canadian Metal Mining Association, Mr. Fraser.
These people operate or were intended to operate in co-operation with the representatives of the departments of national defence, labour, agriculture and other departments of government in which manpower plays a large part. But at a time when unemployment is rising, why does this council not meet? What is it? Is it window dressing or decoration, outstanding names without the use of their ability and capacity? What is the explanation? At a time like this, when a council such as that with its vast experience should be utilized for the benefit of the Canadian people, why is it kept in cold storage? I should like the minister to answer that when he replies. What is the manpower situation in Canada? Surely, there must be some body that brings together the statistics on immigration, agriculture, the labour force and the like. Yet we have never been able to secure any authoritative statistics on the subject.
Even on the question of unemployment the government cannot agree with itself. One department says there are 630,000 unemployed up to April, and another department says 390,000. The minister has a revised version that does not even equal the lower figure of the two. Surely, there must be some body that would bring together in proper relationship the manpower situation in our country.

Supply-Labour


Milton Fowler Gregg: May I ask the hon. member a question? To what does he refer as the "revised version"?


John George Diefenbaker: I have never been able to get an exact figure from the minister. The figure he gave was much lower than the figures given by the unemployment division and by the bureau of statistics. Is the minister now prepared to give us what the revised version is?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am prepared to say that I have never given any version lower than that of the dominion bureau of statistics figure.


John George Diefenbaker: In any event, the minister did not accept the higher figure that was given by one department of government. I have never heard from his lips an authoritative statement as to what the proper statistic was in reference to unemployment.
I should like to ask him this. Is it not a fact that his department has been looking into the question of a national registration for Canadians in order to determine the manpower of this country, and in order to determine the degree to which immigration either increases or decreases job opportunities, as is contended in certain circles? What happened to this national registration episode of a few months ago? Is it not a fact that the government had a plan at that time? Did the plan not actually go forward to the extent that the entire machinery for the registration of manpower was built up, including the printing of the necessary registration forms and certificates? What was the purpose? Does the government have any intention of proceeding with the plan which the officials of his department were engaged upon for so long in the preparatory work? Does the minister consider today that national registration is necessary in order to determine the degree to which manpower is available in industry, in agriculture and in general for the economic development of our country, as well as for defence production and the like? Will the minister place before the house and the country the general plan that his department had in mind in the preparation of this comprehensive system?
Is it because of the fact that this council recommended the national registration that it has not been used or its prestige drawn upon since November, 1953? These are questions that the Canadian people would like to have answered. Certainly, the degree to which chaos is present in labour matters in this country indicates that the Department of Labour lacks direction, lacks system and lacks, not authority but direction. I ask the minister when he replies to state what has been

done in this regard and what was the reason for the preparations for a national registration. Has it since been decided to discontinue the plan? When was that decision made and
why?
Having asked the minister that, I pass on to one particular field of unemployment that has aroused a great deal of ill feeling, and properly so, amongst Canadian National Railways employees in this country. To what degree does the Department of Labour co-operate with Canadian National Railways in order to assure that the men who find themselves out of work are offered alternative opportunities of jobs? Recently I was in Nova Scotia for that great event when the first train crossed the causeway and Canada became annexed to Cape Breton. As a result of this accomplishment, a considerable number of Canadian National Railways employees find themselves out of work. What is the plan, and what is the attitude to be? What is the degree to which the Department of Transport cooperates with the Department of Labour in connection with this very important problem? Certainly, so far as Canadian National Railways employees are concerned, they strongly resent being pushed around as they are today. They believe, and I think properly, that there have been too many men without actual railway experience promoted to high positions. This has caused deterioration in their morale, and that is understandable when they see promoted to high positions men whose experience in the railway world is either little or non-existent. I ask the minister: To what degree is there co-operation, or is each of these departments-transport, agriculture and defence production-a closed compartment operating on its own?
There is one means of providing many jobs across this country, a means which would require an attitude of co-operation between the Department of Transport and the Department of Labour, and I go to the province of Saskatchewan for a moment for an example. The same situation prevails in the maritimes today. The people find themselves in a position where, as a result of a lack of power, they are unable to have the industry to which they are entitled. This incontrovertible fact applies equally to the western provinces, particularly Saskatchewan.
During the days of the expansion of our defence facilities there was a tremendous centralization in the central provinces. Today as a result of the development of atomic energy we expect that by 1963 power can be produced for civil purposes by atomic energy at a price comparable to the present production by coal. Within the next 10 years there

is a possibility that atomic power will be produced at a price comparable to the cost of producing hydroelectric power today under the best circumstances. Is there any cooperation between departments of government to that end? With the resources in the maritime provinces, is there any reason why an atomic energy pilot plant to produce power for civil purposes should have been set up in the central provinces rather than in the maritimes or in western Canada?
One of the major responsibilities of government today in maintaining employment will be the degree of co-operation between those in charge of atomic energy and those in industry. What we have to do today, above everything else as I see it, is to decentralize our industry and to give to the have-not provinces the opportunity to have atomic energy for civil development, and thereby bring about an economic situation in Canada in the near future where atomic energy will be put in overalls for the benefit of the Canadian people. That is one thing, in the great over-all plan, which I believe should be evolved in order to ensure jobs and employment in all parts of the country.
Secondly, there is the question of discrimination in freight rates. That is a matter that is holding back employment in various parts of our country. While I do not have the latest figures before me, I do know that, strangely enough, in Saskatchewan, with a socialist government in power, we have there a higher degree of unemployment- or have had during the months of January, February and March-than in any other part of this country. And when my hon. friends of the C.C.F. tell me that only their hearts are moved for the man who works, I ask them to go to the province of Saskatchewan and see what has happened there on more than one occasion.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Put down the figures.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend is
aroused. I say to him that I gave the figures only a few days ago and I do not like to offer repetitious argument by placing the same statistics on the record day after day. I gave them the other day. Once they are on Hansard, then they are on Hansard, and can be read. And if my hon. friend cares to look back to a time about three or four weeks ago he will find that I set out in detail the comparable figures from Saskatchewan.
Indeed, when I listen to my hon. friends assuming the garb of piety, I ask myself why was it that, in some of the government
Supply-Labour
industries operated in Saskatchewan by the government of that province, as soon as the profits went down and the losses rose the man who worked for the government was immediately put out of work and put on unemployment insurance, or arrived there ultimately.


Mr. Poulioi:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what happened there. I dislike mentioning this, but I think the record should be clear in that regard, that by whatever organization a business is operated, whether by a state or by private enterprise, it operates to maintain jobs only when there is a profit return. And there are no jobs in losses, no matter whether the operation is government owned or privately owned.
I mention Saskatchewan-and this example could apply to other parts of Canada -because we have vast pulp resources in northern Saskatchewan. A very large concern has been desirous of opening a pulp and paper mill in northern Saskatchewan capable of employing a very large number of men. Yet that pulp and paper mill finds itself in a position where it cannot do so. Power is available; the market is available; but the freight rates, discriminatory as they are, deny the opening of that industry.
In that connection I am going to make one or two quotations, because I have a suggestion to make to the minister in connection with the manpower council. These are the representations made to the Prince Albert chamber of commerce on this matter, and what is said here would be applicable to all parts of our country that are subject to the discrimination that freight rates schedules impose on those parts of the country that should be developed. The presentation I have here states that the Prince Albert chamber of commerce are . . .
. . . seriously concerned about the present stalemate in the negotiations for a freight rate schedule that would make the operation of such a plant economically feasible . . .
Establishment of a pulp and paper mill in the area would not only provide permanent employment for several hundred people but would provide additional employment for woods operations during the winter season, such employment coming at that season of the year when the unemployment peak in Saskatchewan is at its highest level.
Then it goes on to mention a matter in the minds of people generally across Canada, as we export employment in the form of our raw materials processed in another country and irreplaceable here. Then it goes on to say:
Canada has already attained the reputation of being an exporting nation of her raw materials rather than an exporter of the finished product. Many thousands of cords of pulpwood are exported

Supply-Labour
annually from Saskatchewan to mills in the United States because facilities for processing are not available in this province.
The same argument applies in the maritime provinces where exactly the same situation exists in the matter of freight rates. The brief continues:
We contend that a long range view of the whole matter must be taken into account.
It goes on to point out that the development of the natural resources in our country should be on an equal basis in all parts of the country.
Then there is this singular circumstance in regard to the freight rates schedule:
Another point that appears to us very inconsistent is that the freight rate-*
That is, the rate from Prince Albert.
-to Chicago is $16.56 per ton while Winnipeg, an intermediate point and approximately one-third of the total distance, is $26.40 per ton.
Now, the effect of that is simply this, that it is better, it is cheaper and it is more economical to ship Canadian pulp into the United States to be manufactured there. It is $10 a ton cheaper to do it that way than to ship it to Winnipeg, which is only one-third of the distance, as compared with the distance to the American market.
The brief continues:
Surely the railways cannot justify this variation on the basis of per mile haulage costs . . .
We are of the opinion therefore that the Canadian National Railways, as a national railway, should be prepared to assume a share of the risk and make its contribution in a venture that will contribute materially to the development of the country and the establishment of secondary industries to manufacture our products.
I ask the minister this: To what degree are there negotiations between his department and the Department of Transport to encourage production in Canada, fabrication in Canada and processing in Canada of resources such as these which, at the present time, are produced here, and shipped over to the United States which, as I said before, is a process of shipping employment to the United States at the expense of the Canadian workers?
I ask the minister this: Will he outline in general something of the comprehensive picture, something by way of a general plan that operates in the minds of the government today to meet this problem, one that is so serious to those who are unemployed and so serious to the future development of this country?
These are but one or two matters that I thought might be of some interest, and upon which the minister, with his wide knowledge of his department and of the plans that his department is making to meet this situation,

would be able to comment to the committee and to the country. These are some of the things that, in my opinion, deserve attention. I ask the minister these questions once more, and I ask them in order. Why has this manpower council been laid aside? What was the reason for the work done by the Department of Labour on a national registration plan? Is it intended to launch such a plan? If it is not, how much was spent on the proposition before the decision was made to discontinue any further consideration of national registration to meet the competing claims of industry, of defence production and of agriculture and all the other claims upon the manpower of our country?
Finally, to what degree is there a relationship between his department and that of the departments of agriculture, transport and the like, to the end that in a community of council employment may be secured for many who are unemployed today?


Mr. MacDougall:: Supply-Labour
the time not arrived when we should consider this whole problem in the light of modern conditions and in the light of the atomic age into which we are entering? The hon. member for Prince Albert, who just preceded me, referred to what might happen in the immediate future with respect to atomic power. I am quite happy to go along with him and I hope sincerely that his predictions are correct.
But I do suggest that if suddenly overnight we were to develop atomic power for civilian use in the various cities, towns and communities across Canada, we would throw into a complete tailspin the economic development that has been brought about by the use of hydroelectric and other forms of power. I am sure that none of us would want to see that; I am sure that we are all desirous that this process be a progressive one and that we will be able to start in a small way and bring about this atomic development to the point where we can use it to its greatest extent for peaceful purposes across the length and breadth of our land.
When I last spoke on this matter of people being thrown into retirement because of age the Ottawa Journal quoted what I had said. I do not intend to quote my words in full, but I should like to refer briefly to that article, as follows:
"In my opinion, the sooner that wrong is rectified, in respect of these men and women, the better it will be for the people of Canada and for the service they receive from their civil servants; the better too will it be for the government that makes the necessary corrections."
After his address, Mr. MacDougall told the Journal that to bar men in the prime of life from the civil service on account of age was "rank discrimination against experience".
I reiterate that sentiment tonight. I do not intend to make any accusations, but following my previous remarks on this subject I had an official statement that one reason why men of 40 or 45 years of age could not be taken into federal employment was that it would be actuarially unsound to do so because of the pension plan. I was sceptical at that time about the pension scheme. I recognized of course that if a man or woman was brought into federal employment at 45 years of age naturally at 65 years of age he or she would not be able to draw as large a pension as would the person who had come in at 25 or 30 years of age. I had a confirmation of that from one who ought to know his statistics with respect to these things, because he has offices in many places in western Canada. The Vancouver Sun published an editorial on this subject on

April 21, 1955, under the heading "Pension Bogey Exposed". I quote:
The letter which The Sun reprinted Wednesday from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer-a wife's broken-hearted story of a husband "too old at 43" to get a job-told a story altogether too common in industry and business. And altogether too unnecessary.
One of Canada's leading actuaries and pension plan experts states that this sort of tragedy is unnecessary. He is William M. Mercer, head of William M. Mercer Ltd., Vancouver.
The stock excuse for turning away the over-40 applicant for a job-no matter how experienced he may be or how able-is "you are too old to fit into our company pension plan."
"But it is only an excuse," Mr. Mercer tells The Sun. "It's nonsense to say it. The real reason why employers and personnel managers are reluctant to take on middle-aged applicants for jobs is that they are usually married and have children. It's not so easy to fire such a man if he turns out a misfit, as it is to fire a young man."
I would hate, Mr. Chairman, to think that the reason there is completely defined, but I believe in all conscience that there is some reason for believing the statement made by Mr. Mercer. If by any chance any of us in this house who are today 40 or 45 or more were to be suddenly thrown upon the labour market, I am quite sure that under the present regulations a great number of us would be told precisely what the married man of 40 or 45 is now being told in the various personnel offices of industry throughout the length and breadth of Canada. To me that is a very unfortunate circumstance, for surely if a man is in his mid-forties, is married, has a family and is desirous of educating his children, it is unchristian-if I may use the word-that he should feel in his heart that, though he has had years of experience, because of the fact that he is a married man with a family, he is unable to gain employment in many of the industries throughout the length and breadth of Canada.
I do not think we can blame industry entirely. Of course, industry is the great hirer of men and women, and thank God that is the case; but it seems to me that we in this parliament and this government have some responsibility with respect to this very issue of which I speak. Maybe industry will not follow our example, if we set a good example, but if industry did not follow our example at least we would have the satisfaction of knowing that we set a good example for it to follow. That example would be set if the government made a study of this situation and were able to announce in the very near future that men and women of 40 or 45 when they apply for positions in the federal civil service would in future receive similar treatment to that given to men of lower ages today.

There is something that can be said over and above what I have already said with respect to men and women of that age. We all recognize that, as far as physical vitality is concerned, younger men and women have it all over us; there is no argument about that. On the other hand, we have to appreciate that experience is one of the great teachers, and the experience of men and women in various vocations in life has steadied them, matured them and, like Scotch whisky, has aged them all for the better. They are in a preferred position because of that experience and their desire to raise their families and educate them, whereas younger men and women have not yet reached complete maturity and stability in respect to the vocations that they are going to follow in the later days of their life. I wish to plead emphatically that the administration give this problem its earnest consideration now-not next year or the year after, but now. If they set a good example for industry and for mercantile establishments throughout the length and breadth of the country, and draw into service men of the categories of which I have spoken, I am quite sure that the results to the taxpayers of Canada will be most happy and most satisfying.
It might be slightly out of order, Mr. Chairman, but it will save time in further discussions if I conclude with another request that is of paramount importance in the area that I have the honour to represent in this house. It has to do with the Department of Labour. I believe that men and women who wish to save for a rainy day and are not fishing around to get on unemployment insurance after we have completely revised the act, men and women who have gone into semiretirement, can today procure up to $1,200 a year. It seems to me that for many of those people throughout Canada it would be a fine step if we amended the act so that those who were desirous of participating to a greater extent than they are now allowed to do under the law might be able to procure SI,800 per year instead of $1,200 per year.
The people in my riding are not all numbskulls by any manner of means, though some of you might think they are when they send me down here, but the fact remains that there are some deep thinkers there. I know at least a few hundred people to whom individually and collectively this is a very important matter. If it is important in the riding of Vancouver-Burrard, I am sure that it must be important in dozens, and even hundreds, of ridings throughout Canada. Again I would ask the government to take this suggestion under advisement so that if 50433-249
Supply-Labour
those people of whom I have spoken are desirous of investing in the future welfare of Canada to the extent of $1,800 in annuities per year, the government may make it possible for them to do so.
Many of those people in that range of which I have spoken are men and women who have saved for a rainy day and they believe in the future of Canada. They believe in the soundness of investment with respect to government annuities. When they hold that belief, I think it is our duty in this House of Commons to give them every opportunity to invest to the maximum according to their desire.
I was going to quote from an address delivered in the other house by the junior senator, Hon. Nancy Hodges, on the question "The challenge of present-day estimates of old age." I am not going to take further time of the committee in giving to you some of the points that she raised. However, to my hon. friends to my left I will say this. If they want further information on it, and do not want to look up Hansard, if they will apply to Liberal headquarters and get the Liberal Advocate of February 15, 1955, they will find the address there.
The problem of age in this era, the problem of men and women living much longer than they used to live, is one that must be given consideration. I think I am safe in saying that when I was in skirts, with long golden hair hanging down my back at four years of age, the average length of life in Canada at that time was 45 years. That was a long time ago. Now, with modern medicine and modern scientific development in drugs, physiotherapy and all the various other aspects that make it easier for men and women to live longer, we have come to a state where, according to the actuarial statistics of insurance companies, it is expected that men will reach not only the biblical three score and ten but three score and ten plus two. I believe the age expectancy is now 72.
I recall that, not more than a few days ago, a gentleman in the House of Commons with whom I was speaking was telling me about his father who had retired from the publishing business when he was less than 70 years of age. The publishing company were lavish in their praise of him and they presented him with a purse. The amount of coin that was in the purse was not divulged to me, but I do not suppose it was very heavy. But they said to him, "You have been a great employee of this paper and for the excellent service that you have rendered in the part of the country where this paper is located, we are going to give you

Supply-Labour
a life subscription to the paper." He was 68 years of age when he retired. He is now touring the Mediterranean at 83 or 84. When he reached the age of 72, his old paper wrote to him and said, "Your life expectancy has been reached and your life subscription is herewith cancelled."
That is the sort of thing that makes me feel strongly on the subject that I have discussed tonight. I conclude by hoping and even praying that the administration will not only give this matter serious consideration but that, having seriously considered it, they will forthwith take off their mitts and dig in order to bring about the things that I have been advocating.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, the question of unemployment has been thoroughly discussed in this chamber, and the views of this group are on the record. The question of unemployment insurance was discussed when the bill was under consideration, and that bill is now before the industrial relations committee. I am therefore not going to take the time of the committee to discuss those matters that have been so completely dealt with. However, for years I have been greatly interested in vocational training, particularly of the young and displaced employed persons who require it, in the rehabilitation of the disabled and in finding suitable employment for our older workers. I listened with a great deal of interest to what the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard has just said. I might say that I heartily support his plea on behalf of the older workers at this time.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South this afternoon dealt effectively and, in my opinion, fully with the question of vocational training. Like him, I regret to see this reduction of $200,000 in the estimate for that purpose. Like him, Mr. Chairman, I believe that, instead of reducing that estimate, under present circumstances in Canada there is every need to increase it.
While we have a serious unemployment situation, I have noticed from time to time in recent years that there is a growing shortage of skilled workers such as first-class carpenters, plumbers, decorators, painters and of artisans generally who have thoroughly learned their trades and are capable of undertaking the particular kind of work in which they are trained. Industry in this country, such as the construction industry and those engaged in housebuilding and other types of building, need increasing numbers of skilled persons if they are to carry on with the programs they have in mind. If we are going to use to advantage

the human resources that are available in Canada, we must extend greatly our vocational training program.
Personally, in this day and generation, 1 think it is a crime to allow the natural capacities of many Canadians to go undeveloped and unused just because we fail to provide the machinery to see that they get the necessary training, guidance, leadership and opportunities. I think it is an injustice particularly to our younger people who seek opportunities. I think we should do everything possible to provide those opportunities by means of a considerable expansion of our vocational training program. Such training is an advantage to the young persons or older persons concerned, and in the long run it is certainly an advantage to Canada and will pay good dividends. That is all I am going to say on that point because I do not want to take the time of the committee at this stage to deal at length with these questions that I want to mention because they are of concern to a number of my constituents and because I have been particularly interested in them for some years.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South also mentioned the great technological improvements that are coming about in all countries at this time. I think it is safe to say that technological advance is now developing at a furious rate, a tempo that was never conceived of prior to the last five years.
About six weeks ago I had the opportunity of having a discussion with a young man from Great Britain who was interested in labour problems and who had made a considerable study of them. He brought to my attention the studies that are being undertaken in Great Britain in this respect to meet the problem which it poses, even in a country where they give more attention to this question than we have in Canada so far. He gave me one illustration to show what planning can do in relation to a technological advance that displaces a large number of workers. He told me about the Lyons catering people-they are the people who have the tea shops all over Great Britain-who recently introduced one bookkeeping and cost accounting machine into their headquarters in London that was capable of doing in less than three hours the work that 250 clerks would do in a week. There was a tremendous displacement of personnel when they introduced this machine into their offices. For some months prior to putting the machine into operation the management of the company and the employees considered the whole problem, so that when the machine was

introduced every one of those 250 displaced clerks was re-employed in some other position.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think that is an example that we could very well follow in this country on a larger scale. In my opinion the question of technological improvement has not been scientifically approached by government, by employers or by organized labour. It is not sufficient to get up and complain about the question in this house or in the country. It is a very complicated thing that requires a considerable amount of study, and a considerable amount of understanding of the problems of management and labour. It will require some technical advice and scientific information. I suggest that if we are going to meet this question of technological improvements successfully in the years to come, we have to set about doing something seriously now. I suggest to the minister that we should have some form of special committee established to deal with this problem of the displacement of workers as a result of technological improvements. This committee should be composed of the representatives of government, management and industry, representatives of the employees and possibly scientific or technical advisers, economists from the universities or other sources in this country.
It is a complicated question. It is not going to be solved overnight. I believe we have to give it very serious study. I am not acquainted from firsthand knowledge with the technological advances that are taking place in most industries in this country. I am, however, acquainted with the technological improvements that are taking place even in the operation of the small lumber companies in the interior of British Columbia. For 50 years these companies have been content to operate with the standard type of mill and one type of woods operation. They employed about the same number of people to produce 1,000 feet of logs or 1,000 feet of lumber. Technological improvements, even in some small industries employing not more than 10 men, have been necessary in order to produce lumber competitively.
I can think of one small mill now where within the last five years technological improvements have taken two men off the carriage, which is now automatically operated; three men have been taken off the pond where they serve the jack ladders; two or three men off the cutoff saws and edgers, and another dozen men have been displaced in the piling operations in the yards. All this has taken place in quite a small industry. So far as the woods operations are concerned, power saws, bulldozers, heavy trucks and 50433-249i
Supply-Labour
big equipment are today making it possible to produce the same amount with fewer men. A few years ago the production of 1,000 feet of logs per day per man, on the skidway and ready to roll into booms, was considered good. Today they are producing 3,000 feet of logs per day per man. These developments have taken place in a very small section of the industry which has not developed to anything like the same extent the larger industries have. It indicates the problem we are facing at this time. I do suggest to the minister it is a problem that should receive serious consideration, the problem of the displacement of labour as a result of technological improvements and advances.
I should like to say a few words with respect to the employment of older workers. As I said before, I fully support the remarks made by the previous speaker. This is a very serious problem. I know dozens of older workers, men with excellent experience and training in various trades who, because of their age, are at the present time unable to find employment. I know this is a difficult problem. I want to say that the officials of the national employment service in my constituency do everything they can to find employment for this type of person. I know the managers in Nelson and Trail make a point of visiting employers and doing everything they can to find employment for these people. In the smaller centres it is particularly difficult to find employment for these people who are so well able to earn their living and whose experience, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard said, is so valuable and who could make important contributions to the production of this country.
Here again I do not think the government, government departments, the civil service commission or employers have really done all that it is possible to do to solve the problem. In this respect the minister knows that on several occasions I have brought to his attention the fact that the civil service commission refuses to place applicants in various departments because of their age. Only last fall I brought to the minister's attention the case of a veteran, almost in the prime of life so far as physical condition was concerned, and with many years' experience in bookkeeping. He had been employed for six or seven years in the Department of Veterans Affairs, but had to leave when the department was subject to economy cuts. In this case the man is capable of making an excellent contribution but because of his age the civil service commission failed to recommend him for a position, although he passed with high marks and had excellent qualifications.

Supply-Labour
At this moment I want to say that I will have more to say about this when the civil service estimates come before the committee. I have come to the conclusion that the methods of the civil service commission are the methods of the horse and buggy days when today we should be using the methods that suit the tempo of today's activity. I think government departments have been reluctant to do all that is possible with respect to placing older people in the government service. I might say that I have heard about political patronage when it comes to the appointment of persons to the public service. I have not experienced much of that since I have been a member of this house. I have not seen much of it, but I have seen a good deal of what I would call departmental patronage. I have seen positions held vacant for five or six months. People who have been ready to step in, and were No. 1 on the list, have become fed up and disgusted, and got other jobs; and in those circumstances those whom the department wanted to have the jobs were placed in those positions. I bring this fact to the minister's attention.
I do not think we are doing enough by way of providing employment for our older citizens. There seems to be a certain prejudice against employing older persons in some sections of industry, and also on the part of individuals who employ labour. As I said before, studies have been made in Great Britain in connection with technological improvements and advances, and studies in connection with the employment of older workers. Studies have been made in the United States by various groups concerning the capacity of older workers to provide a satisfactory service.
A most interesting study was carried out last year by the University of Illinois. In this connection I would quote from the Ottawa Journal of March 19, 1955. This article is most informative, because it seems that some employers seem to be impressed with the view that only the younger people can deliver a full day's work. They overlook completely in many cases the value of experience and maturity of judgment. This article bearing the heading "Older Workers Serve Well", and with a Chicago dateline, states:
The Civil Service Assembly says a new study shows the older workers are as efficient or better than employees under 60.
The assembly cited a study made and evaluated by the University of Illinois, which rated a sampling of workers on over-all performance, absenteeism, dependability, work quality, output and ability to get along with others.
The university contacted supervisors in 20 companies who told what they thought of the competence of 1,025 workers in their 60's and JO'S.

In over-all performance, supervisors rated 16 per cent of the older workers as excellent, 32 per cent very good, 36 per cent good, 15 per cent fair and 1 per cent, poor.
The supervisors reported that 70 per cent were absent less often than younger workers, 23 per cent about the same and 7 per cent more often.
On dependability, 50 per cent were judged more dependable than younger employees, and 6 per cent less dependable.
Comparative percentages for work quality were 36 per cent better, 57 per cent about the same and 7 per cent poorer.
More than 75 per cent of the older workers had production records equal to or higher than those of younger workers.
Thirty-three per cent get along with others better than younger workers do, the study showed. Sixty per cent are on a par with younger employees in this standard and 7 per cent do not fare as well.
I think this study clearly indicates the capacity of these older people, on the whole, to perform satisfactory service. I do urge the minister's department to do more than has been done in the past, not only to aid the government in employing more applicants in this age group, but to obtain greater cooperation from industrial and individual employers so that these older people who are found more often in the smaller towns and cities will receive employment. In many cases they are not old enough to receive pensions. However, they are anxious to work; and I ask the government to do everything possible to give as many as possible of these people the opportunity to do the work they are anxious to do and who, in performing this work, would be self-supporting, in conformity with their personal wishes.


Mr. Hosking:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak for a moment or two regarding the construction of vocational schools, because today these schools are more essential than ever before. Today many of the students from academic schools go directly to the assembly lines in factories, and from their first day of employment receive very fair remuneration. In those trades that require training and skills this is not the case; so we have vocational schools filling a need in this country which cannot be filled in any other way.
With costs of education as they are today, many municipalities are unable to supply the new schools required in those communities. The program we had in the past, of making grants in conjunction with the provinces in which these schools were located, served as a source of encouragement to the municipalities and the provinces to build the schools required.
This evening I am asking the minister to do everything within his power to continue this very important work in connection with

the construction of vocational schools. Under the British North America Act the building of schools is the responsibility of the municipalities. However, I do not think the fathers of confederation ever realized just to what extent the cost of education of the children in this country would increase. I do not think they ever visualized that every child in this country of ours would have an opportunity to attend a high school or a university; but that is the situation we have today. Indeed, I think we have advanced far beyond the wildest hopes of the fathers of confederation; and in advancing that far the costs of education to be borne by the municipalities have increased to a point where they are unable to carry the load by themselves.
I would ask the minister to take a good look at the requirements in Canada in respect of the building of vocational schools; and I hope he will be able to tell me that the usual grants will be continued for another year.
(Translation):


Mr. Dufresne:: Mr. Chairman, consideration of the estimates of the Department of Labour affords an opportunity, especially for those of us who have the honour of representing labour constituencies, of making known to the house our humble opinion, which is undoubtedly also the opinion of those we have the pleasure of representing, namely the working people.
On several occasions, the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) gave the house statistics from his department. He has often accused us of quoting exaggerated figures, especially as far as unemployment is concerned. I have often been personally accused of quoting figures which did not correspond with those of the Department of Labour. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that the statistics of the Department of Labour, now as always, do not give a true picture of the situation in Canada. These statistics are supplied to the department by the various offices of the unemployment insurance commission in Canada and deal only with people who are looking for employment or periodically draw unemployment insurance benefits. If the department would only care to consult the different labour unions throughout the country, it would find that the statistical data given to us and the public are equivalent to 20 per cent of the actual number of unemployed. If the poten-
Supply-Labour
tial of our manpower in Canada is around 5,300,000 workers, I do say and maintain that actually about 15 per cent of these workers are unemployed.
May I be permitted a suggestion, Mr. Chairman? What would prevent the department from setting up a committee which could be called an advisory committee and which would include, for instance, representatives from the labour unions, management associations, the Canadian manufacturers association, the Canadian retailers association and the various boards of trade. These public bodies might meet from time to time and, with the information they are able to get, give the department a true picture of employment in Canada. In this way, the government would have more reliable statistics; it would be acquainted with the general situation and we would not be irresponsibly accused of quoting exaggerated figures. Moreover, it would make the government realize that there exists at the present time in the country a most alarming situation to which the government can no longer remain indifferent.


Auguste Maltais: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow me a question?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Certainly.


Mr. Mallais:: Does not the hon. member know that an advisory committee such as the one he is now advocating is already in existence?


An hon. Member:: He does not know. He was in Florida when that committee was set up.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, it is very gratifying to be entrusted with the task of looking after the interests of our constituents but it is a pity to have to hear the nonsense coming from the members in the rear of the house who seem to represent their constituents only through their interjections, and their foolish and silly remarks.


Mr. Habel:: We are stating facts!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The hon. member for
Charlevoix asked me if I knew that such a committee already exists. If there is one, the department never mentioned it to us, and it never published any report nor any statistics.
The advisory committee I just suggested would be very efficient and be of assistance both to the minister and to his department.

Supply-Labour
Coming back to unemployment, I was going to say when I was interrupted that the government evidently is relying upon the passage of time for a solution. Although the situation remains most alarming everywhere in the country, especially in the city of Quebec and in the riding I represent, in spite of the many representations I have made for nearly two years, both in the house and elsewhere, in spite of the requests made by the various public bodies of Quebec city, the government remains deaf and does nothing to solve this alarming and sad state of affairs.
With respect to Quebec city most particularly, as I said, nothing is being done, no plan is being made. The Prime Minister, who, however, represents a riding included in the very city of Quebec, where such a great number of unemployed can be found, does not seem to be moved by the poverty which is rife, and is not even thinking of putting into effect any program of sufficient importance to cope with the situation. And what is more, hundreds of workers who during the war and since then had been employed in different arsenals, especially those of Valcartier and Quebec, have been laid off since January, which, of course, has not helped a situation that was already critical.
I know that when I inquired about that from the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Dickey), I was told that there were no contracts. That may be so. Let us hope that we will have no contracts and that another war will not claim once again the pick of our youth.
But, why not, for instance, turn these wartime industries into peacetime industries? If we were able to find money to make ammunition for war purposes, we should be able to find some now to prevent our people from dying from starvation and to safeguard in particular our human resources. So much could be done in these industries which, little by little, become empty, as unemployment increases, plunging our families into poverty and threatening to dislocate completely our local economy in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, this does not agree with the numerous promises we have heard made during the last general election, when the Liberal spokesman, with the Prime Minister taking the lead, were promising employment to all Canadians.
The Prime Minister even went around the world in a gesture of friendship and good will.

Nobody blamed him for it, but one day during his journey he met a large group of Canadian soldiers and told them that they would soon have the privilege to return to their country where they would find enough employment to ensure their own livelihood and that of their families. However, what happened? Many veterans came back here either from Europe or Korea, and now we see a good many of these poor men, who risked their lives for their country, gave their best years and sacrificed themselves, still waiting for their reward. They lead an aimless life, not knowing what to do, and the government, which had promised them heaven on earth, has not yet awarded them the promised subsistence, well deserved though it was.
There has been talk of a dominion-provincial conference in the fall, where this delicate problem would apparently be discussed. But, meantime, what are the thousands of people going to do who have nothing to eat and are living on public welfare funds, that can no longer stand the strain?
Yet, Mr. Chairman, projects are not lacking, particularly in the city of Quebec. I have mentioned two of these projects in particular in the two years I have had the privilege to sit here. I spoke about the reclamation of the Lairet river and urged the deepening of the St. Charles river. These are two far-reaching projects which, no doubt, would provide work for hundreds of workers.
My proposals fell on deaf ears. Not only were my representations set aside but not the slightest regard was paid to the requests of the authorities of the city of Quebec, of the chamber of commerce of Quebec as well as a number of other similar important organizations.
Mr. Chairman, why should the implementation of these two projects be refused? Not on account of a lack of urgency; not because these two rivers are not, as I have said, a constant threat to public health; but I am now inclined to believe that this request is being rejected because it has been made again and again by a member of the opposition and because they want to play politics with us, even with the hardships of our own people.
However, in 1930, Mr. Chairman, a depression arose following a too long term of the Liberal party in office. This crisis was equally felt in the city of Quebec, but in order to help the unemployed, we carried

out a big enterprise at l'Anse au Foulon, which, at a certain time, employed at least 3,000 workers from my riding. This project was achieved under a Conservative government. I only wish that this example could be an inspiration for the Liberal party.
Mr. Chairman, we are told that the government took many steps to help the unemployed. In my opinion, unemployment insurance is only a palliative and a poultice for the cancer which is gnawing at our population.


Mr. Boisvert:: A poultice is not meant for cancer.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I did not know that my hon. friend, the member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert), knew so much about medicine. I thought of him rather as a lawyer.


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: It is simply a matter of common sense.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: However, I see that he is a member of the Liberal party. I merely wanted to tell him that the Liberal party has never resorted to anything but poultices and it is still the case.
Mr. Chairman, public works are advocated. Such undertakings can only bring temporary relief under conditions such as we are now going through, but they have become necessary owing to the serious condition in which the workers of Quebec city now find themselves and which is a source of hardship for our working people's families who do not have enough for their maintenance.
The working people are not the only ones to complain. Merchants are also complaining and making efforts and sacrifices which I would say go beyond human capacity in order to avoid bankruptcy. Those that deal in the necessities of life are at this time carrying a greater amount of credit than they can really afford to. But those who are a little better off, with that kindness of heart which is characteristic of our people, as everybody knows, have taken over the government's job and have been feeding the hungry. I have already said so and I repeat it now. Unemployment is entirely a matter for the federal government who should be courageous enough to face up to the facts. As I was saying the other day, this is no time for palavers, for conferences. We must help those who are suffering, those who need help. That is the government's duty.
Supply-Labour
Mr. Chairman, when one looks at the government's actions, one wonders, sometimes, what logic there is in them. I have already praised here our part in the Colombo plan. Once more I express the hope that this plan will continue and be augmented as much as possible. What exactly is its purpose? To provide employment through large scale undertakings carried out in India, Pakistan or other Asian countries.
The lack of logic in all this is abundantly clear. Millions are given to various Asian countries in order to give employment to people who live thousands and thousands of miles away. And yet, nothing is found to give to Canadians. Not only are no jobs created, but those that existed have already been done away with. Such has been the case of Quebec city arsenals.
With regard to my own district I have already given the reasons why unemployment is worse in Quebec than elsewhere. I would like though to say that there is another reason, one which is possibly more important than any which I have already indicated.
Unemployment in this country is, in my opinion, due to the sharp competition of goods brought into this country from various foreign parts, particularly from countries with a living standard far lower than ours.
I am no political economist, but the least observant mind, the man in the street, could tell us that when it is possible to buy in Canada imported goods twice as cheap as we can produce them ourselves, we are facing unfavourable competitive conditions which are gradually stifling our industry and thus creating unemployment.
I think it is the duty of the government to take drastic but necessary measures in order to protect our industries, and especially our labour market, in such fields as textiles, electrical appliances, footwear, rubber goods, etc.
In the city of Quebec the basic industry has been for a number of years the footwear industry. Now in 1954 it seems that, on the basis of information available to me, we imported from England almost 2 million pairs of shoes, while several of our manufacturers in the city and district of Quebec were compelled either to close down or, in the case of those who could stand the competition, to stay open only two or three days a week.
How can we meet competition and create employment when certain products, which are now coming from Hong Kong, are sell-

Supply-Labour
ing on the Canadian market for $1.05 less than they cost us to produce?
For instance, shoe merchants are now importing from Hong Kong running-shoes that children and sportsmen wear in the summer time at the price of 90 cents. On the other hand, the Canadian rubber industry, which is one of the most important and gives employment to a great many people, on account of our living standard, which is, as we all know, superior to the living standard in Hong Kong, cannot produce a shoe of similar quality and sell it for less than $1.95 to retailers. It can therefore be said that, while selling both products for the same amount, the retailer prefers to buy the goods cheaper, even if he has to buy them abroad.
This, to my mind, is unfair competition, because the Canadian people cannot be asked to reduce their living standard to such an extent as to equal that of Hong Kong and other Asiatic countries.
The other day, I heard this somewhat surprising remark from the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe): "We must buy in order to sell." And I also heard the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) reply to this announcement as follows: "My mother always taught me that it was necessary to sell in order to buy." This is very logical, Mr. Chairman. If you have not the necessary money, you cannot buy. If you cannot buy, there will be stockpiling. If there is stockpiling, manufacturers cannot pile up more stocks from day to day, and there will necessarily be unemployment.
I therefore ask the government to undertake a very serious inquiry into this situation which is getting somewhat hopeless in certain parts of the country.
I ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) to speak on behalf of workers who are begging for work and are asking the government's assistance; I ask the minister to make his colleagues of the cabinet understand that the situation is serious and cannot be tolerated any longer, especially in Quebec city.
I know that the members of the cabinet are human beings and that when they have been acquainted with the deplorable situation prevailing in our district they will be bound to look for a solution. Under such circumstances, the solution does not lie in mere poultices, but in important steps that will bring about work first and then prosperity.
We hear about communism. As I stated the other day, communism, especially in Italy, was the result of misery and poverty. Here we fear communism and we have

reason to do so. We must fight communism and I believe one of the best ways of doing so is to feed all those who are hungry, by giving them work.
Canada is enormously rich and it is illogical to see some of our fellow citizens deprived of everything while near at hand there is abundant wealth.
Mr. Chairman, I repeat my request to the hon. minister. I know that he will take my remarks in good part and that he will strive to alleviate hardship in the homes of many of our fellow citizens.


Maurice Boisvert: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Again?


Maurice Boisvert: As I am interested in the welfare of the unemployed, would the hon. member tell me how many people were without work in the city of Quebec on January 1, 1955, and how many there are now?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Chairman, it is a very interesting question to which I will most willingly reply. There were, on the 1st of January, 1955, in the city of Quebec, more than 20,000 unemployed and at present the number is about two or three thousand less. While some of those who were out of work at that time have been able to find jobs, either in construction or in some other industry, this decrease has been almost offset by all those whom the government has dismissed from the Valcartier and Quebec arsenals.
(Text) :


Lauréat Maltais: I wish to rise on a question of privilege. A moment ago the hon. member who has just resumed his seat was advocating the creating of a committee to advise the Minister of Labour on labour conditions in this country. At that particular moment I rose and asked the permission of the member to ask a question, and he agreed. My question was to this effect: Is the hon. member aware that such an advisory committee has already existed for a few years? I then took my seat and did not say another word. Some hon. members from different quarters of this house said that the hon. member was not aware of the fact because he does not attend the session and was not aware of what was going on.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I rise on a point of order.


The Deputy Chairman:: We cannot hear two points at one time. I shall hear the hon. member for Charlevoix. I will decide on

any question of order before leaving the chair. I shall hear the hon. member for Charlevoix and then the hon. member for Quebec West.


Auguste Maltais: The hon. member, speaking very good French, used some qualification, saying he was very interested in those remarks, and he used the French words "niaiserie" and "niaiseux", which according to the dictionary would imply a simple fellow or the kind of man who is foolish. Since I did not say anything regarding the hon. member, I would say, Mr. Chairman, that it is not fair to call me a niaiseux; it is unparliamentary.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I have
heard the hon. member for Charlevoix, and I have had the advantage of having the French expression used translated for me already. It is not up to the Chair to decide whether remarks are complimentary or pleasing, but to decide whether they are unparliamentary. I find myself unable to rule that the expression used by the hon. member for Quebec West is unparliamentary.


Harold Edward Winch: I move the adjournment of the debate under standing orders. It is now ten o'clock, and I ask you to call it ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.
Supply-Labour


Harold Edward Winch: I have asked you to call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: The hon. member for Quebec West raised a point of order before ten o'clock and I will hear him.


Pierre Gauthier: He did not raise a point of order.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I was raising a point of order, Mr. Chairman, just in order to mention the fact that there was no question of privilege in the few words that the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais) was saying.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Whether or not
there was a question of privilege involved was, in my opinion, for the Chair to decide. It being ten o'clock, shall I report progress and ask leave to sit again?
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, should the Department of Labour be completed tomorrow, we will go on with agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
39S5
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 20, 1955