1955-03-16

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 243, to incorporate Caledonian-Canadian Insurance Company.-Mr. Hunter.


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Were any contracts awarded by the federal government, or any department or agency thereof, to the appellant company in income tax appeal board case No. 227, heard in November, 1954, or to its subsidiary, as referred to in the judgment of the board concerning this case, in any of the following years: 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952?
2.	If so, what was the nature of such contracts, and what was the total amount of such contracts in each of the years indicated above?


Mr. McCann:: Mr. Speaker, this question calls for an oral answer. On investigation I find that the records of the privy council reveal that no contracts were authorized to be entered into with the appellant company in case 227 during the years 1940, 1941 and 1942. The following, however, touch on relevant information:
(1)	In 1941, an order in council authorizing the acquisition of land in the province of Quebec, on which there was to be located a storage building for filled ammunition under agreement between the United Kingdom government and the appellant company. There were three amendments to this order increasing the amount to be paid for the land.
(2)	In 1941, an order in council authorizing the acquisition of land in the province of Quebec, on which there were to be built storage facilities for storage of ammunition under agreement between the United Kingdom government and the appellant company. As will be seen from the foregoing, the Canadian government was simply acting as agent for the United Kingdom.
(3)	In 1943, a contract with the appellant company, in which capital assistance not exceeding $1,000 for alterations and additions to a government-owned plant in the vicinity of Montreal, was awarded by the department of munitions and supply.
(4)	In 1944, a contract for capital assistance not exceeding $60,000 was awarded by the department of munitions and supply to complete construction of storage facilities for filled ammunition at a location in the province of Quebec.
You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot give more definite locations with reference to this. On account of the secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Act I cannot give anything that will disclose the identity of the appellants.
With reference to the two aforementioned orders in council, a review of the records of the chief treasury officer of the department of munitions and supply, and of the crown company, Allied War Supplies Corporation, revealed:
(a)	That the payments in question related to construction work performed by the appellant company in respect of crown-owned munitions facilities operated on a management-fee basis by Defence Industries Limited, under direction of Allied War Supplies Corporation, a crown company.
(b)	That the payments covered relatively minor additions to larger construction contracts originally entered into by Defence Industries Limited, on behalf of the United Kingdom government, with the appellant company.
(c)	That the payments in question did not represent capital assistance to the appellant company, but formed part of the original investment of the United Kingdom government in plant and equipment operated by private contractors, Defence Industries Limited.
(d)	That, at the end of world war II, the facilities in question were taken over and maintained by Canadian Arsenals Limited, a crown company, or turned over to War Assets Corporation, now Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, for disposal.
There were no contracts in any of the following years up to and including 1954.
Part 2 of the question is answered by the foregoing.
Thus it will be seen that the appellant company has never, since 1940 to date, had any direct contract with the federal government. I think it will be seen that the witch

Questions
hunt that was put on to attempt to show that there was a scandal has been entirely futile.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I rose to call the Minister of National Revenue to order the moment I heard his comment about the alleged witch hunt which had been put on. That comment has no connection with supplying an answer to the question of the hon. member.
While I am on my feet I should like to point out that the reply to this question is rather lengthy. While the minister may be commended for having decided to give an oral answer because the question is indicated by an asterisk, I would like hon. members to consider that whereas an hon. member who wishes to have an oral answer to a question may indicate that by an asterisk, standing order 44 states that no matter which method is used, if the answer would be of a lengthy nature the minister may still make it in the form of an order for return.
Hon. members can very well see that the purpose of standing order 44 would be lost if hon. members were to place several questions on the order paper all being indicated by asterisks and all requiring lengthy answers. They can see how long we might be spending in having such questions answered. Therefore the answer to be given to a question indicated by an asterisk should not be lengthy. If it is, the minister may take advantage of the provisions of paragraph 4 of standing order 44 and table an order for return.


James Joseph McCann: On the question of-


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a question of privilege, do I understand that the words "witch hunt" have been withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I think at the very moment I heard the word I rose and called the minister to order. There was no qualification with respect to the word. Does the hon. member think that it is offensive to him? Otherwise, what would be the purpose of asking that it be withdrawn?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe it is unparliamentary to refer to the questions of any hon. member that are on the order paper as a
witch hunt.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the minister went so far as to indicate that. All I heard him say, after he had replied to the question, was: "This indicates a witch hunt that has
been put on". That is all I heard. To what does that refer? Considering the mood of the house at this moment, and knowing that the minister is always ready to oblige, I do not think he would want the word to remain on the record if it would please the member for Winnipeg North Centre to have it withdrawn.


James Joseph McCann: The word was not applied to an individual. Had I wanted to apply it to an individual I would have included people not far away from me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On your own side of the house? Does the minister mean the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Justice?


James Joseph McCann: I shall have occasion on some future date to take up the demand for my resignation.


RAILWAY BUSINESS, HANNA, ALTA.
Mr. Quelch:: 1.	what was the total revenue earned by the Canadian National Railways at Hanna, Alberta, for the years 1952, 1953 and 1954?
2.	During each of the years 1952, 1953 and 1954, what was the number of carloads of grain and livestock shipped out of Hanna?
3.	What was the total amount of freight shipped out, excluding the above?
4.	What was the total amount of express shipped out?
5.	What was the amount of freight shipped in to Hanna for the years specified?
6.	What was the amount of express shipped in to Hanna for the years specified?
7.	What was the total revenue derived from each of the above shipments for the years specified?
8.	What was the total revenue derived from passenger service to and from the town of Hanna for the years specified?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: The management of the Canadian National Railways advise that it is not the practice of the company to disclose such statistics, on the grounds that it provides useful information to their competitors.


UNEMPLOYED NOT DRAWING BENEFITS
Mr. Michener:: 1.	What is the estimated number of unemployed employables who are not now drawing any benefits from the unemployment insurance fund?
2.	How is this estimate arrived at?


Mr. Gregg:: Information is not available on the total number of unemployed employables not drawing unemployment insurance benefits. There are statistics on the number of persons claiming unemployment insurance benefits and on the number of persons registered for employment with the national employment service. Although it may appear that the difference between these two figures provides a measure of the number of unemployed employable, it does not give a reliable indication. This is because at any

one time there may be persons claiming unemployment insurance benefits who may be found not to qualify. There may be others serving their waiting days. There are usually persons who have found jobs on their own since registration who have not notified the local office and there would also be some workers who might be considered as unemployed employables not registered with the national employment service, and no information is available on their number.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS, N.S.  HEATING
Mr. Buchanan:: 1.	How many buildings are at present under construction by the federal Department of Public Works in the province of Nova Scotia?
2.	How many of these will be heated by coal?
3.	How many buildings are owned by the federal government in the province of Nova Scotia?
4.	How many of these are heated by (a) coal; (b) oil?


Mr. Bourgel:: The hon. member spoke to me about this question and it has been agreed that the information requested in part 3 of the question will be limited to those buildings under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works. The question is being answered accordingly as follows:
1.	Seven.
2.	All these buildings will be heated by coal.
3.	Seventy-two.
4.	(a) Sixty-four; (b) eight.


GRANTS TO UNIVERSITIES
Mr. Hanna:: 1.	How many universities are receiving financial assistance under the federal grants program?
2.	What is the total amount of such financial assistance paid to date to Canadian universities?
3.	To what extent has the university of Alberta benefited under this federal grants program?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	87.
2.	$22,742,382.
3.	$1,945,484.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many air incidents involving infractions of air regulations by aircraft flying into airways have been reported to the transport department, since the Moose Jaw disaster?
2.	How many of these incidents involved military aircraft and at what point did they occur?
3.	In how many cases has disciplinary action been taken by the Royal Canadian Air Force?


Mr. Pinard:: Return tabled.
Inquiries of the Ministry MOTION FOR PAPERS


UNEMPLOYMENT
Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of all communications from or on behalf of organizations dated at any time since July 1, 1954, received by the government, or any minister thereof, respecting the unemployment situation in Canada, and for a copy of the replies thereto.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. friend would allow this motion to stand. I would point out to him that it would involve a great deal of searching. Perhaps I can have a conversation with him to find out what information in particular he would like to have.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion stands.


MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Why does his department refuse to publish in French the new official map of Canada which was printed in English in 1951 and reprinted in 1953?


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, our
department has been giving serious consideration to the publishing of certain maps in French. We do have difficulty in deciding that it is in the interests of Canada to translate place names. It is a difficult problem and we are giving consideration to it and a decision will no doubt be reached in the near future.


Léon Balcer: Can we expect a decision in the near future?


An hon. Member:: He said that.


INCOME TAX
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue arising out of the answer he gave a few moments ago. Were all the orders in council to which he referred in his answer tabled?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, I presume they were. According to custom, orders in council are either tabled or published in the Canada Gazette.

Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION


CANADIANS ALLEGED TO BE DISCOURAGED FROM RETURNING TO CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance but in his absence to the parliamentary assistant. Has the minister or his department given any consideration to having tariff items 705 and 705a of the Customs Tariff changed so that Canadians who have been away from Canada and residing in foreign countries-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid we will have to wait for the budget to be brought down before we can ask if any changes are to be announced.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, this is a most urgent question because Canadians who have been residing abroad for two or three years are not now allowed to return to Canada as settlers and therefore are being discouraged from returning to Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member must realize that when he asks if the government has given consideration to changing a tariff item regardless of whether or not it has done so the announcement of the change will not be made until the budget has been brought down. The obvious answer to his question therefore is that if any changes have been made they will be announced when the budget is given to the house.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should have asked if it has been brought to the minister's attention that Canadians residing abroad for two or three years or more are not now permitted to return to Canada as settlers as they were before and as immigrants from foreign countries have been allowed to do for years. Some of these Canadians residing abroad are top men in their fields and should be allowed to return to Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: In putting his question as he has, the hon. member has given us a great deal of information for which we are grateful. The purpose of questions at this stage of the proceedings is to ask for information.


AIR TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Have aircraft storage charges been increased for hangar storage of aircraft at government civil airports? If so, what is the nature of the change, and for what reason has it been made?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take my hon. friend's question as notice and shall reply to him as soon as possible.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has any representation been made to him about naming the new C.N.R. hotel in Montreal the Chateau Maisonneuve, and what are the intentions of his department?


George Carlyle Marler: Representations have been received by the Minister of Transport on this subject, and they have been referred to the management of the Canadian National Railways.


Léon Balcer: I wonder if the minister could advise me if he received any answer to these requests from the management of the Canadian National Railways?


George Carlyle Marler: No.

The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mrs. Fairclough.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, last evening just before the house adjourned I began to speak about the problem of unemployment. My approach was that this is a problem which might be solved in Canada by putting more purchasing power into the hands of consumers. Naturally the question would arise, where would the money come from with which to put the additional purchasing power into the people's hands?
I asked the Prime Minister five questions last evening-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: -the fourth of which was reported-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the conversations which are taking place, but then perhaps I am not interrupting. I would ask hon. members to observe that we have now embarked upon the orders of the day and that the hon. member for Lethbridge is attempting to make a speech.


An hon. Member:: Attempting.


John Horne Blackmore: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
You may have observed also that the
Hansard reporter was attempting to record

what I was saying. I asked the Prime Minister five questions, the fourth of which is recorded on page 2068 of Hansard for March 15, 1955 and reads:
Will the Prime Minister agree that Canada created much of the money with which she rendered financially possible what she achieved during world war II?
The answer to that question, of course, had to be "yes." We developed that question by quoting from A. F. W. Plumptre last evening.
The fifth question which I asked is recorded at page 2069 of Hansard and is as follows:
Would the Prime Minister be willing to create money now in order to provide Canadians with adequate employment? If not, why not?
The general purpose of that question of course was to give the Prime Minister an opportunity of showing the country how deadly in earnest he is in his effort to solve the problem of unemployment.
If we could create money for the conduct of war then obviously we ought to be able to create money for the conduct of peace. If not, an explanation should be forthcoming.
May I proceed to ask the Prime Minister certain other questions? Question No. 6 will be this: Does the Prime Minister know how well equipped the government of Canada is for creating money through the instrument known as the Bank of Canada? It just may be that he has not had time in the course of the busy life he has lived to probe into this matter. May I read a statement concerning the Bank of Canada which appears in a book entitled "The Canadian Banking System" by James Holladay, published in 1938 by the Bankers Publishing Company, Boston, New York. Holladay is a professor of importance in the southern states. The quotation appears at pages 140 and 141 and is as follows:
Credit Expansion Under the Recent Acts
The Bank Act of 1934, however, sets up a specific quantitative reserve which the chartered banks are required to hold against their deposit liabilities. In form, this reserve must consist of a deposit in and notes of the Bank of Canada. In amount, it must be equal to five per cent of the deposit liabilities in Canada. As a result, the chartered banks as a group, can legally create deposits amounting to $20 on the basis of a one dollar reserve. A much larger secondary expansion is made possible, however, for the Bank of Canada is required to hold only a 25 per cent reserve against its liabilities, which in turn constitute the reserves of the chartered banks. Consequently,-
May I draw particular attention to the following words for the benefit of those who are worried about funny money?
Consequently, the Bank of Canada can expand a dollar into $4 of liabilities which, if borrowed by the chartered banks, will enable them to lend an aggregate of $80 against a primary deposit of one
Unemployment
dollar. This compares with a possible legal expansion of $28.50 under the federal reserve system in vogue in the United States.
Hon. members will understand, of course, what that means, but there may be those throughout the country reading Hansard who will be interested in knowing the meaning of those words. They simply mean that the Bank of Canada can take $1 of gold and, on the basis of that $1 in gold, can print four $1 bills. This would mean that behind each $1 bill of the Bank of Canada there would be 25 cents in gold.
Now, any bank in Canada, the Bank of Montreal for example, can take one of these one dollar bills and legally lend to people $20 of credit on the basis of that one dollar bill. The ordinary ratio is not $20. They ordinarily lend on a $1 bill only about $10 or $11 of bank credit. But $20 of credit is the amount they legally can extend. Suppose the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks of Canada are working to the limit of the law. Then they can take $1 of gold and upon that create $84 of paper currency and credit. Those who worry about sound money can calculate about how much gold there is behind one of those $84 built up from the original $1 of gold. If, instead of using $1 of gold, they use $1 of bonds, then they can calculate what is behind Canada's money that makes it sound or that makes it "unfunny". I think most people will be quite surprised to find just what it is that is behind our money.
Let them contemplate this fact also. Since 1933 it has been impossible for anyone to go into a bank and demand gold, even the 25 cents of gold behind a $1 bill in Canada. Consequently, from the standpoint of the ordinary citizen, there is simply no gold backing whatsoever behind Canada's money. Let all those who like to talk about funny money learn this fact and do a little bit of serious thinking.
Obviously from the standpoint of getting money, the Prime Minister has no anxiety whatsoever. The only question he needs to ask himself is this. How much of this money can we safely create and lend into circulation in order to produce the result which we desire, which in this case is to give employment to the people?
The next question we have to ask ourselves is this: Is there any reason why one of the dollars created by the Bank of Canada must be loaned into circulation? Is there any reason why the Bank of Canada cannot, for example, take a $1 bond or $1 of gold and, upon that, create four $1 bills and give the Canadian government the four $1 bills to

Unemployment
spend into circulation, for example in paying old age pensions or in supporting the price of agricultural products or in doing almost anything else that it may desire to do as, for instance, building the trans-Canada highway or erecting any other project?
I am not sure that we can be certain that the Bank of Canada is capable by law of doing that thing. But if it did, the government would have money which it could spend into circulation free of debt. It would be what I have always called debt-free money, money which the Bank of Canada created and gave to the government without expecting the money back.
Let me raise this question. If this were done, if the Bank of Canada created four $1 bills on the basis of a $1 bond and gave those four $1 bills to the dominion government, and if the dominion government spent them into circulation, would one of those four dollars be any less sound than they would be if the Bank of Canada lent them into circulation? It is difficult to see how they would be, except that in the case where money is lent, it is expected that ultimately the loan will be repaid with interest, a process which takes the money automatically out of circulation.
A most important matter to raise is this matter of the capacity of the government to create money which can be spent into circulation. As the Prime Minister probes around, this suggestion will give him a start, or will give him something to work on. I hope that long before he makes any reckless statements like some of those he has made about Social Credit from time to time in the past, he will give this matter mature thought because he is in an extremely responsible position, as I am sure no one needs to tell him.
Does the Prime Minister know that Canada at one time had a mechanism by the use of which she created money to spend into circulation? In case the Prime Minister has not had this fact brought to his attention, may I point out to him that in 1914, at the beginning of world war I, there was set up by our fathers an instrument called the Finance Act of 1914? The Finance Act of 1914 enabled Sir Thomas White, the minister of finance of those days, to create and spend into circulation great quantities of money. For example, he created and spent into circulation $26 million on one occasion for the purpose of defraying part of the expense of the war. At another time he created $50 million with which he bought wheat and other goods in Canada and sent them over to Britain in order to help conduct the war.
The Prime Minister will be interested to know this. In case this matter has not been

brought to his attention, he will find an account of all this in the report of the royal commission on banking and currency in Canada published in 1933-which I believe is recognized by everybody as being authentic-at pages 21 and 22, and particularly in paragraph 47. Then if he will read on a little bit further, he will find that, as recorded at pages 22 and 23, Hon. W. S. Fielding-who, I think, probably was just as good a finance minister as any man who has ever been Liberal finance minister in Canada-reintroduced the Finance Act of 1914 as the Finance Act of 1923. This is what Mr. Fielding said concerning this act:
The act (Finance Act) was adopted as a war measure, and no doubt was exceedingly useful in the financial operations during the war. It may be said that the war being over we no longer have any need for the act, but experience has shown that the act is still required; indeed, I am inclined to think that something of the kind will have to become almost a permanent part of our financial system.
I am sure the Prime Minister will find a good deal of enlightenment and encouragement in those words of Hon. W. S. Fielding, remembering that Fielding was right back there where he had seen this act in operation.
May I ask another question of the Prime Minister? Does the Prime Minister believe that a government should be ready and willing to create money to spend into circulation to the extent necessary to balance the productivity of its national economy? If not, why not? As the Prime Minister, of course, readily recognizes, I am asking the question whether or not he believes the government should be ready and willing to create money to spend into circulation to restore employment to the people by balancing the production which is extant in the country. I am sure the Prime Minister will not have to go far among his members to find someone who will say, "No; that is all nonsense. You cannot do that.'* The Prime Minister will then be fortified by knowing of a little passage which I shall now read to him.
Right Hon. Reginald McKenna, chairman of the Midland Bank in England, was for long years recognized as a highly respectable authority in matters pertaining to finance. As the Prime Minister will find, if he goes down to the files in our library and gets the January 30, 1936, issue of the Times, Mr. McKenna used these words:
Additional currency, however, can now be furnished by the authorities, if they choose to exercise their powers without reference to the central bank's holding of gold. Thus the nineteenth century, which brought into general use a means of payment hitherto scarcely known outside London, brought also the machinery whereby it could be subjected to intelligent control. ...a

May I interpolate this remark. So many people say, "You cannot control money if you turn on the printing presses." I am told that the Minister of Trade and Commerce not long ago before the farmers out in the west made some exciting remarks about "turning on the printing presses", implying that the process could not be controlled. All I point out is that Right Hon. Reginald McKenna appears not to have been worried about that matter and seems to have thought there is a means of intelligently controlling it. I continue with the quotation from Mr. McKenna:
We learnt that a shortage of money may be just as vicious in its effects as an excess, though deflation has still a touch of virtue about it in the minds of many people.
Nearly all Liberals are that way, I know.
Nevertheless it is becoming more and more widely recognized that greater productivity-
We have it in this wonderful age; we have potentially a superabundance of everything. -calls for an increased supply of money, for otherwise prices will fall-
As farm prices are now doing.
-business will stagnate, and the growing productive capacity will be unused.
If there are 600,000 men unemployed in Canada the productive capacity of 600,000 men is unused, with all their potentialities for creating wealth and well-being in this nation. In addition, all the plants, all the machines, everything that these men would be working on and with, are unused. That must strike any ordinary sensible person as being next to a crime, and as being far, far short of the honourable and responsible discharge of the duties of the government. I continue:
For money to be truly "sound" there must be enough of it to finance an ordinarily growing volume of trade, yet not so much as to give rise to an inflationary movement of prices.
In my opinion that statement conveys a message of the most profound importance for the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) today, and for all the Canadian people. May I comment on one very serious thing that is going on today? There are plenty of people in Canada today, and they are in all parties except the Social Credit party, who believe that the rise in prices that has taken place in Canada since 1946 is inflation. The first thing the Prime Minister must get into his mind is that that rise was not inflation. That was a deliberate upward manipulation of prices, not inflation at all.
If I remember correctly, three of the steel companies of Canada approached the government in February, 1946, and asked that they be permitted to increase the price of steel $5 a ton. In April, speaking from memory, the government granted them the 50433-132
Unemployment
right to increase the price $5 a ton. That was not inflation. That was a deliberate upward manipulation of the price. Anyone who calls that inflation simply is irresponsible. The result was that the prices of everything into the construction of which steel entered, which means practically everything that we produce, were forced upward. By too much money? No, by manipulation of price by the steel companies of Canada.
Then the steelworkers went on strike saying that if the steel companies were going to have an increase of $5 a ton in steel they wanted their share of it. The Prime Minister will remember very well how they remained on strike in 1946 for 82 days until they finally had their way. They were granted an increase in wages. This increase in wages resulted in corresponding increases in wages from one end of Canada to the other. Because of money? No, because of a deliberate manipulation upward. The result was there was an increase in the price of everything by reason of increased wages.
I hope we can get people out of the habit of calling what has happened to us since 1946 inflation. Inflation is a rise in price which results from too few goods in the markets of the country in relation to the money in circulation. Before the Prime Minister begins to think this matter through he must get that concept clearly fixed in his mind.
I then ask the Prime Minister this question. Has the Prime Minister read what Vincent Cartwright Vickers has had to say? Vincent Cartwright Vickers was a very outstanding man in Britain. Here are some of his qualifications. He was educated at Eton and Oxford. He was deputy lieutenant of the city of London, director of Vickers Limited for 22 years and director of the London Assurance Company, resigning in January, 1939. He was made a governor of the Bank of England in 1910 and resigned in 1919. He later became president of the Economic Reform Club and Institute. This was no ordinary man! What does he say in his book, "Economic Tribulation", published in 1941? At page 75 there are these words:
Any additional supply of money should be issued as a clear asset to the state-
Not a debt, not a loan.
-so that money will be spent into existence, and not lent into existence.
According to Vickers' idea, we could create the money with which to build the trans-Canada highway. As long as we have goods enough and men enough so we shall not have scarcity, we can create the money with which to do a great number of things. We could build storage bins on the farms,

Unemployment
for example, in which the farmers could store their wheat. They would then have approved farm storage and we would be able to pay farmers for wheat in approved storage. All of that could be done with money which would be created in accordance with Vickers' idea.
Here is a statement by Mr. Vickers which I believe is worthy of the most serious attention of every person in North America today. At page 59 of his book, which by the way he finished on his deathbed, he says:
Unless we can contrive and design and establish an improved and reformed financial system, which is the first essential towards a new and better economy in our own country, no satisfactory outcome of the war is possible; for where there is still widespread injustice and discontent-
Where could you have more injustice than in unemployment?
-there can be no ending to that war, unless it be a tangle of internal revolts and revolutions.
Again, at page 65 of his book he says:
Strenuous efforts have been made over some 25 years to patch up the money system in an attempt to make it last a little longer; but it has stood, and now stands, in the way of progress and social betterment, thereby creating universal unrest and a tendency to obtain by force what cannot be obtained otherwise. For the sake of our children let us take warning in time. Let us discard the policy of inaction and pretence and boldly face the fact that it is not the inevitable smoke of the galley-stove which assails our nostrils, but that a fire is raging in the hold and that the ship of state is in imminent danger. Our democratic system and our existing financial system can no longer live together. One of them must give way to the other.
The reform of the financial system, Mr. Speaker, must take this form; that there shall be a government agency or instrument through which the government can create an appropriate amount of money to spend into circulation to enable the people to have enough money in their hands to buy the production which is available for people to buy so that producers can go on producing and can employ men in the process. I believe sincerely that this line of approach will provide the basis for a satisfactory solution for the unemployment problem, and no other approach will.
Last night we heard the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) give a very fine talk on the whole matter of employment. The Prime Minister missed a treat in not being here. But that hon. member envisaged a wide variety of controls of all kinds and I suppose government ownership of industries and all that sort of thing such as have characterized the socialist state and which is intensified and intensified until it results in a communist state. It seems that he envisaged all that.
IMr. Blackmore.]
That would be the destruction of democracy. It would be a heavy price indeed to pay to provide employment for the people. Nevertheless the people of the country will rise and demand that, in order to secure employment, unless something else is done. This is the thing that I think Mr. Vickers had in mind when he said that our present democratic system and our present monetary system cannot exist together and that one will go down.
Now, if we are wise we shall change our monetary system in respect of this one item, so that, in case the Bank of Canada cannot provide such money, we will set up a mechanism like the Finance Act of 1914 or of 1923, through which our government can create money and spend it into circulation, give price supports and use it in various other ways to the end that the people will be able to buy the product of our industry, and industry will be able to go on producing and absorbing the unemployed. May we not wait too long.


Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, this debate has been carried on for quite some time. Many of us had hoped it might have been concluded at an earlier date, but it now appears as though it may go on for several hours more.
I have listened to a great many of the speakers who have taken part in the debate. There was one speech in particular, that of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees), which, to me, seemed to have been more or less a jocular speech. He mentioned the words "hope" and "grope" in that speech, and also referred to shadow boxing. Then he threatened to eat his shirt and bet his shirt and went on to use the word "gobbledy-gook". Further on in his speech he has this to say-and it is to this last paragraph of his speech I would direct attention this afternoon.
In his closing remarks the hon. member for Broadview had this to say:
I call upon the government to consider these suggestions and to think of what our leaders did in the past; of the plans they developed and the courage they had; and to remember that we need a return to the courage of the past to build the Canada of the future.
And just at this point I would like to mention his statement in which he made reference to shadow boxing; because in listening to this debate the greatest example of shadow boxing I have ever seen has been the effort of hon. members in the official opposition to keep away from any mention of the depression of the thirties, or the way in which it was handled. It has never been mentioned during this debate; and all the shadow boxing I have seen has been in connection with that particular subject.


Mr. Rowe:: The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) mentioned it last night.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I wish to go back to a period just 10 years ago, when I first came to the House of Commons. I so well remember those who spoke from the opposition ranks at that time; I remember so clearly the gloom they were forecasting. That was ten years ago-when they were saying that hundreds of thousands of Canadians would be unemployed within a matter of months. They were saying that there were a million men to come from the armed services and that there was nothing for them to do. The government was told that it had no plans whatever for the post-war period. I remember their forecasting starvation and suffering in Canada beyond anything in our past history. In fact we were given to understand that we might expect general chaos and calamity.
Mr. Speaker, that was ten years ago. Then I remember the budgets that followed, in that ten-year period. On every occasion the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), financial critic for the official opposition, informed us that the government was too optimistic, that conditions could not improve, that we were faced with all these dreadful things they had predicted. Regardless, however, of his great foresight and financial ability, and I believe sometimes much to the indignation of these gloomy forecasters, Canada continued to grow and prosper. Every prediction and every forecast made by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was found to be an underestimate of the prosperity and growth of our country. It was even greater than they had predicted.
At last, however, in 1955 we do find some unemployment in this country of ours. But I hasten to say it is not of the extent that some members have described it during this debate. This fact is borne out by a recent statement by a Progressive Conservative M.L.A. in the legislature at Toronto. I should like to place his statement on record, because it is only brief. This item appeared in the Toronto daily Star of March 4:
H. F. Fishleigh (P.C., Woodbine) said unemployment has been over-emphasized. "I made 1,000 calls in my riding, which is a working class riding. In every case the breadwinner was working." he said. "I'm satisfied in my own mind this talk in the papers about unemployment is all propaganda. There may be a few poor souls out of work."
I suggest that since his riding and that of the hon. member for Broadview are very close together, they should get together in this matter and compare notes-because there is a very great difference between the 50433-132J
Unemployment
description given in the House of Commons by the hon. member for Broadview and the statement made by the Conservative M.L.A. for the constituency of Woodbine in the Ontario legislature.
In another article appearing in the Toronto press at that time the premier of Ontario acknowledged that unemployment was the responsibility of the provinces. I might also add that in that same issue of the Toronto Star there is this headline "Ottawa Jobless Program Sound, Frost tells Labour". I agree with Premier Frost in that regard, because I believe it is sound. And since Premier Frost very recently was able to announce expenditures of $700 million in Ontario this year, surely no one can say this province is in need of financial assistance, so far as unemployment is concerned.
This amount, I take for granted, is a normal expenditure, for I am sure no Progressive Conservative government, federal or provincial, would ever consider overexpending in an election year. We have heard the criticism by Progressive Conservative members in the house, when they have referred to bribery budgets, and the like, of this Liberal government. Surely, in the light of that, a Progressive Conservative government, whether it be federal or provincial, could never stoop to such an act.
And when one considers that the expenditure in Ontario this year is a greater amount than our federal budget in 1939, or prior to that, it makes one realize the fact that $700 million is an enormous amount of money.
I agree with Premier Frost that unemployment is a provincial responsibility, and that his government is in a position financially to deal with the problem without federal assistance.
I wish now to return to the want of confidence motion moved by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough). In moving this motion, and in the speeches of Progressive Conservative members that have followed, I have been greatly surprised that no member of the official opposition has suggested the Bennett formula to solve unemployment. Many of us will remember the thirties, and that conditions were grave. We remember very well that young, healthy and ambitious men were taken off to work camps, to receive 20 cents a day. That is still fresh in my memory because I went through that period of time.
It appears hon. members sitting in the official opposition have always supported that formula, because they have always insisted that the Bennett regime was something that

Unemployment
should go down in history as a most famous one. Thus far however, in this debate, they have been silent on the subject, so far as constructive criticism is concerned. I have yet to hear a speech from the official opposition in which they have made a single suggestion that might be helpful in solving the unemployment problem.
In a question and answer period a few nights ago over the radio the hon. member for Hamilton West was asked what she would do if she were Minister of Labour to improve the unemployment situation. Her reply was that this was a deep secret. Surely this kind of an answer could not be described as constructive, educational or helpful in any respect. It may well be, however, that work camps were uppermost in the mind of the hon. member at that particular time.


Mr. Cardiff:: Don't put words in her mouth.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Liberal members are frequently accused of boasting of the accomplishments of Liberal administrations. It is to be regretted that we never have an opportunity of returning this compliment. Tories are never too boastful of their record of the past. As always, they rely entirely on promises for the future.
Since those gloomy, hungry years of the early 1930's, this government has gone a long way in alleviating the suffering and hardship among the low-income groups. The social welfare services which have been put into effect are a great buffer against unemployment: old age security, old age pensions, family allowances, pensions for the blind, unemployment insurance, pensions for the totally disabled. All these services were put into effect by a Liberal administration. These services have been completely ignored during this debate. If the same services had been available during the Bennett regime, conditions would have been very much different. No credit is given to this government, however, for their honest efforts in distributing the wealth of this country as fairly as possible.


Mr. Brooks:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Surely.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Whose policy was it that threw all the people out of employment in Milltown, New Brunswick, in the hon. member's own constituency, a few months ago?


Andrew Wesley Stuart: I would say that there is one answer to that question, Mr. Speaker. In my personal opinion, the textile industry priced itself out of the market. If it were wages, if it were inefficiency or just what it was, I would not like to say, because I do not know, but they priced themselves
[Mr Stuart (Charlotte).]
out of the market because that same commodity can be bought over the border for one-third or two-fifths of the price in Canada. Because of that you cannot expect to have the business you had during the war.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It was the policy of the government.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: 
Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: In contrast with the hon. member who has just spoken and who seems to look to provincial governments to solve the problem before us, I should like to examine briefly the duties of the government which is responsible to
Unemployment
this house in the matter which is the subject of this amendment. There are two aspects of unemployment, and in order to save time and to make myself clear I think I should state what I consider to be the division of the problem. First, there is the problem of maintaining those who are actually unemployed. That is a short-term and immediate problem. Then there is the longer-term problem of maintaining an even level of employment throughout the economy.
The short-term problem comes down to the task of maintaining the men and women who are now out of work, and their families, until they are able again to be employed.
I at once separate the unemployables, as there is no suggestion on. my part that they are a responsibility of this government. What I wish to emphasize is the duty of this government toward those who are employable and who are not now working.
The Unemployment Insurance Act does provide in a measure for the maintenance of these men and women and their families. The claimants as of the end of January were 543,366 according to the dominion bureau of statistics. I have tried to ascertain how many are not covered and I had on the order paper a question which the minister found as difficult as I did. I asked the estimated number of unemployed employables who are not now drawing benefits under the unemployment insurance fund and how that estimate was arrived at. I thank the minister for his answer but in effect he says he is unable to answer the question. He can say how many are drawing unemployment insurance benefits and he can say also with an approximation how many unemployed there are, but he says that the difference between these two does not necessarily give the answer and indicate the number of people with whom I am principally concerned today.
How many are covered or are not covered, what their number is, is not to me the crucial point. The fact that there are such people and the question of governmental responsibility is the issue which I wish to lay before the house again by way of reinforcement of what has been said already. There is plenty of evidence of the seriousness of the situation and I should like to refer to two or three specific items which have come to my attention.
First, there was a delegation from the city of Toronto, of which I have the honour to be a representative, headed by the mayor and made up of controllers and welfare officials. They indicated that they were having serious trouble and facing financial problems in maintaining those who are

Unemployment
unemployed. Then the Ontario welfare council, an organization which brings together all those municipal church and charitable organizations which work with people who are in need, has been most vocal in its proclamation that this is a serious problem. I have a copy of their letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) dated January 28. Then the Canadian association of social workers are interested in this problem and the most recent letter I have is one which came today from the welfare council of Toronto. This is addressed to me under date of March 14 and reads:
At the regular meeting of the board of the welfare council of Toronto and district held March 9, the matter of the present serious problem of unemployment in the greater Toronto area was given full discussion. I have been requested by the board to again bring to your attention our grave concern about the unmet needs of jobless people in this community.
The welfare council of Toronto regrets that no definite action has been taken by the various levels of government in order to reach agreement on a plan for dealing with this serious and demoralizing problem. We felt encouraged when we learned that there was to be a debate on the question of unemployment in the House of Commons, and followed with interest the reports on the debate. We were also very appreciative of the responses which we received from Toronto members of the House of Commons in reply to our telegram. Nevertheless, we wish to record our deep disappointment that there has been no indication that the debate in the house resulted in any proposed action on the part of the federal government.
What is the responsibility of this government? Which government is responsible? Is it a matter of joint responsibility? Perhaps it will be found that there is a good deal of joint responsibility. I wish to point out the clear assumption of responsibility which the federal government took in this matter. In 1945 the federal government claimed the exclusive use of the big, progressive fields of taxation in order to maintain a high and stable level of employment and income, as they expressed it. As the house will remember, that was at the time of the termination of the wartime tax agreements, which had put the federal government in that exact position.
That claim was reinforced by a projected theory of public finance, to which we have heard reference, a cyclical budgeting program by which surpluses would be accumulated in good times and deficits would be expected in bad times. In order to meet and to recoup large deficits which might be entailed in an attempt to deal with unemployment at this level the federal government claimed at that time that it required these progressive tax fields or it could not meet its responsibilities. That position was & clear and understandable one and I think
one which accorded with the fiscal or financial thinking of the time, thinking which perhaps is not quite as popular today as it was then.
In any event that was the theory and program put forward. What follows is that the federal government does now in fact enjoy the exclusive use of these tax fields. So the federal government has acquired what was its premise or basis for its assumption of responsibility for the general level of the economy of the country. The specific program which was presented has been partly carried out and I should like now to refer to two items.
The first is what I would call the unfulfilled program of that time. There was a proposition of public investment for the purpose of maintaining high levels of employment. I shall leave health insurance for the moment. Then there was the promise of unemployment assistance and that is what I wish to refer to particularly. Before doing so I should like to say a word about public investment.
The federal government was to direct and time capital expenditure so as to stabilize employment and income and to offset fluctuations in the business cycle. This was to be accomplished by planning grants. We recall that this government was to pay one-half of 7 k per cent of the cost of planning a project which would create employment. Then there were timing grants under which would be paid to the provinces and through the provinces to the municipalities 20 per cent of the cost of works undertaken at a specific time with the precise intention of creating employment through public expenditure. That was the second item.
Then it was suggested that up to 50 per cent of the cost would be paid by the federal government in connection with certain projects such as non-access highways and things like the trans-Canada highway. Then the federal government was to have its own program. The other day the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) referred to the "shelf" of public works. I take it that this is the shelf which could usefully be turned to as required by the federal government. Finally there were the joint provincial and federal undertakings for the same purpose.
There has been very little progress made in any of these fields except the field of joint federal and provincial expenditure, notably in connection with the trans-Canada highway.
The second item in that program about which 1 now come to is that of unemployment

assistance. At that time the government proposed that with respect to employable people who could not find work it would pay 85 per cent of the current unemployment insurance benefits. Now, that is a rather specific promise and a specific program which was to have a limit of two years of continuous unemployment. Nevertheless, it was this government's answer at that time to the problem which is facing the municipalities again today.
I suppose the answer to what I have been saying is that these proposals were conditional and that the conditions have not been met. My claim is that any question of condition was removed by the minister of finance of that day, the Right Hon. J. L. Ilsley, in his budget address in 1946. He said, and later the late William Lyon Mackenzie King confirmed, that the holding in abeyance of these particular programs would only be done until there had been sufficient acceptance by the provinces of the tax rental agreements which were proposed as a substitute for a general agreement in 1946. On that basis it is clear today, with nine out of ten of the provinces having signed and accepted agreements, as has been the case since 1952, the basis on which these promises were made has been met and their fulfilment ought to be expected by the provinces; and there is now no real justification for not implementing the undertaking.
It might be said that the government was both overoptimistic and overgenerous when it advanced that proposal. I would like to remind the house that the proposals were made in 1946. In the few years which have elapsed since that time the gross national product, which has been the measure of the settlements made between the provinces and the dominion, has risen from a figure just over $12 billion to a figure over $24 billion annually. While the gross national product has doubled, the capacity of this government to raise funds by taxation has increased to $4J billion, as evidenced by the budget of last year.
Without waiting for the proposed conference between this government and the provinces, there is nothing to stand in the way of the federal government making a declaration today that it recognizes the promise it made in 1946 to contribute 85 per cent of unemployment insurance benefits to all municipalities which are administering aid or giving maintenance to unemployed employables.
Not only is there no obstacle which would prevent the government carrying out its promise, but a fulfilment of the promise would be welcomed by every municipality. It is exactly
Unemployment
what the municipalities have been asking for; it is an obligation of this government.
To my mind, the course of dealing was such that a lawyer would have described the position of this government as being one of obligation by estoppel.
We expect the course of dealing between governments in Canada to be on a high level of good faith. If a government acquires the benefits of a proposal which are conditional on the assumption of certain duties which could be carried out only with those benefits, then it seems to me that it is a necessary part of the responsibility of that government today to carry out these conditions. As I have said, it is apparent that the full benefit of what was laid down by this government as a condition for the assumption of this responsibility for unemployment has been received in the course of the intervening years.
What we look for is action, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Erhari Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this debate on unemployment it appeared to me that most of the fire of the opposition was directed toward the Department of Labour and the minister of that department. I regretted that happening, because I have always felt that the work of the Department of Labour is to administer such things as the Unemployment Insurance Act and other acts passed by this house relating to labour matters. The matter of providing employment really has very little to do with the Department of Labour except in so far as the Minister of Labour is one of the ministers who comprise our government.
I feel that the Canadian people are generally fairly well pleased with the work that is being performed by the many able civil servants in the Department of Labour. I am thinking now especially of those civil servants who have the responsibility of looking after the many unemployment insurance offices in Canada. When one has only limited physical facilities available and men have to line up outside the building in a queue which is sometimes a block long, the tempers of the men are pretty well on edge by the time they reach the desk of the civil servants; and I think it speaks highly for them that we do not have far more complaints than we receive at present.
However, I am particularly interested in the amazing ability of some of the higher-ups in the civil service to make gross understatements. I am referring to those who have developed over the past 12 months a unique ability to make a rising flood of unemployment appear to be a slight increase. This is being done, Mr. Speaker, by a manipulation of words. I remember reading one dominion

Unemployment
bureau of statistics bulletin which referred to a decrease in the rate of the increase of unemployment. A year and a half ago when there was a rise in unemployment, there simply appeared the honest statement that there had been an increase in unemployment that year.
I notice that this tendency has increased of late, and that even the Minister of Labour has adopted some of that language. I would like to place on the record the statement he made, which is recorded at page 1613 of Hansard for March 1, 1955. He said:
Between December and January of this year the percentage increase in unemployment was the same as last year although, of course, the absolute increase was greater. Between November and January the rate of increase this year was considerably smaller than last year, being 85 per cent last year and 70 per cent this year. I am not bragging about this; I am Just stating facts.
That is the end of the minister's statement. A little later on he admits that there has been an increase in unemployment, which was actually what we wanted to know; whether or not there actually had been an increase in unemployment.
I was very pleased to observe that soon after the debate began no less a person than the minister of the Department of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) took part in it. I feel the main responsibility for keeping a watchful eye on the economic life of the nation lies with this department of the government. The minister of this department has the authority and power to recommend to his colleagues in the government that action be taken when he feels action ought to be taken. I regret that the Minister of Finance has not as yet seen fit to enter the debate, and I hope we shall hear from him before it concludes, because his department is also connected to a marked degree with the matter of unemployment.
Throughout Canada there is a growing suspicion that the old theory that was adopted by the Canadian electorate in the return of this government on several occasions, namely the theory of cyclical financing, has been given the heave-ho and that now, when we most need its implementation, we are to hear no more about it. We sincerely hope the Minister of Finance will set us right on that matter and, through his actions, will make it known that he intends to implement the economic policies that were endorsed by the electorate and that are now so badly needed.
However, I am greatly disappointed in that during the whole of this winter we have not heard a concrete and forthright statement on behalf of the government of Canada, given to the people of Canada by the leader of the government, namely the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I would ask this Liberal

government and especially the Prime Minister this question. Where is the great man? Where is this wonderful leader of the Liberal party? Where is his leadership to the nation at this time when the nation is so anxiously looking to him for a clear-cut public statement on government policy and government intention?
At the time of the last election, economic conditions were not yet as difficult as they now are, and the people of Canada believed the Liberal party when they assured them they were keeping a watchful eye over the economic life of the country and they had nothing to worry about; that if forthright action was necessary to relieve any hardships that might occur they could count on the good intentions of the Liberal government to take the necessary measures.
At this time I think the Canadian people must feel sorely disappointed that the pledge that was given to the Canadian provinces in 1945 has apparently been abandoned. I am not one who places the blame for our unemployment on the managers or owners of Canadian industry. If I were a manager of a Canadian industry I feel that my responsibility would be with respect to the successful and efficient operation of that enterprise, in order to justify my position to those who hired me. I feel that we shall look in vain if we are going to look to private enterprise to solve our unemployment problem. I do not think it is their responsibility to do so, and I have never yet seen them willing to assume that responsibility. The responsibility lies with the only people who are able to deal with the situation, namely the people who form the government of our nation.
I have lately thought that maybe this government is unable to act in this matter of unemployment. If this government has not the constitutional or other authority it needs in order to meet this situation I feel that the Canadian people should be taken into the confidence of the government and be told by the government that it is unable to meet the situation. I think they should also be told why the government is unable to deal with the situation. We feel that the government is able but that it is not willing.
We notice a statement made that this government has not been asked by any of the provincial governments for help in meeting their unemployment situation. I have before me, Mr. Speaker, a brief that was presented on December 14, 1953-that is almost one and a half years ago-by the government of the province of British Columbia. In the brief they asked for many things that would help a great deal, if implemented,

to solve our unemployment problem in British Columbia. Our group in the house have long advocated that what is needed is a public investment program. I can remember my leader pleading a year ago for the setting up of a national investment board. I should like to read only one part of the introductory section of the brief presented by the British Columbia government. It states:
... a joint program of public investment is here proposed.
It goes on to advocate joint action by the two levels of government on the extension of the P.G.E. railway, on a highway program, and on a program of forest resources conservation. I have yet to hear of a formal reply to this brief. I must have missed that news release, because I have not seen or heard of a reply. First of all, I think it was an insult not to send a formal reply and to let the general public of Canada know what that reply was. I think it is wrong to insinuate that appeals for co-operation have not been made.
I am told that some time ago the government of the province of Saskatchewan also asked the federal government to join with it in such a public investment program as, for example, the Saskatchewan river dam. I feel that co-operation on the part of the provincial governments will not be slow in forthcoming.
The reply in regard to the April conference is, "Sure, we will talk about unemployment if asked to do so by one of the provincial governments". I contend, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the sort of leadership the Canadian people have the right to demand from their government in Ottawa. We should not wait until we are asked. Being the government of the nation as a whole, this government ought to broach the subject and come forward at that conference with some concrete proposals which could be amended or adopted there.
Even if this government is unwilling to concede the correctness of the approach taken by the C.C.F. to this whole matter of the economic welfare of the nation, especially as it relates to unemployment, I would plead with the government to at least take some steps to implement the things the government itself has advocated or, shall I say, the Liberal party itself has advocated to the Canadian people in years gone by. I have said on the public platform, and 1 say it now in this house, that this government under the leadership of our present Prime Minister is rapidly receding from the liberalism-with a small "1"-that it was advocating and planning for
Unemployment
a goodly number of years, and is becoming in truth a conservative government in everything except in name.
The government can, if it so wishes, do a great deal to alleviate unemployment. 1 do not think the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) would be very much opposed if surplus Canadian products were placed at his disposal in order to combat communism in the undernourished sections of the world. I think that action would go a long way toward solving our unemployment problem. I do not think the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) would seriously oppose other members of the cabinet recommending to him that he embark upon a vastly expanded public works program. I do not think the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Lesage) would have any serious objection if the rest of the cabinet were to ask him to spend more money in the development of Canada's northland.
To go back to the Department of Trade and Commerce, I feel that here lies the main problem. In my view the attitude and actions of the present Minister of Trade and Commerce have been working against the welfare of Canadian producers of wealth for a goodly number of years. They have been against the best interests of the producers of farm products and also of the workers in Canadian factories. Because of our obstinate and stubborn refusal to engage in any trade with nations behind the iron or bamboo curtains we have by deliberate design separated ourselves from almost half the markets of the world. In addition, by stubborn insistence on payment for our goods in United States dollars we have alienated many markets in the remaining half of the world. This has caused the ruination of our markets for farm products and for the products made in our plants.
I was very much heartened when I received representations not long ago from four major labour unions in my riding pleading with me to give every support in the House of Commons to any measure that would raise the incomes of Canadian farmers. It may be that the day is over when workers in factories blame the farmers for their difficulties, and I hope the day is over when farmers blame high wages of factory workers for their difficulties. The cause of the Canadian worker, whether on the farm or in the factory, is the same. I think a good deal of unemployment has been caused by the Minister of Trade and Commerce ruining the local fruit, vegetable and poultry industries in Canada.
I do not want to be accused of being a high tariff man. If it is a question of raising tariff

Unemployment
barriers against nations that have need for the products of Canadian farms and factories, I am against such tariffs. However, we must realize that the Americans only buy from us those things they have to buy, and it is doing a wrong to the Canadian people to make our country a dumping ground for the surplus production of the huge American industrial machine. When speaking of high tariffs, I think it makes quite a difference whether you are speaking about high tariffs against countries that need our goods or against countries that only buy from us what they have to buy.
One way in which unemployment in my riding might be relieved would be if the branch oil pipe line to Ferndale, Washington, were to be closed. Some years ago there was quite a battle in this house to have a pipe line built through the interior of British Columbia. We were all looking forward to vastly expanded employment opportunities in the oil refining industry. What happened? No sooner was the pipe line built than a branch line to Ferndale, Washington, was authorized, thus robbing us of hundreds of jobs. I do not think we can afford much longer these pious trips to Washington to plead with our powerful neighbour to please give us a break. I think we have to set our own house in order, know what we want and be realistic in our dealings with our neighbour to the south.
I should also like to emphasize our great social needs that are not being met at the present time. I have noticed that to build 100,000 homes in Canada in one year requires a labour force of 250,000 men. If we could raise our rate of house construction to 200,000 new housing units per year that alone would do away with most of our unemployment difficulties for some years at least, until rents ceased to rise. We have a great need for more health personnel. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) said not long ago at a public meeting that we cannot have national health insurance until we have much larger numbers of trained health personnel. I suppose he meant doctors, nurses, laboratory technicians and what have you. I feel that his department and the government might make an effort to assist people who would like to be trained in health work but are unable to take such training through lack of money. If we are never going to train the necessary health personnel we shall never have them and we shall never have national health insurance.
There is a great shortage of teachers in Canada. There is a great shortage of technical men, scientists and engineers of different kinds. The government is making no real effort whatsoever to meet these urgent needs.
[Mr. Regier.l
Every man we train for one of these professions means in the long run one person less unemployed. In the throne speech debate the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) made a forceful plea for federal participation in a national highway program.
I should like to see the government give more encouragement to self-help among the Canadian people which is the real essence of democratic socialism. Again no leadership is being given to the Canadian people.
The Minister of Labour referred to the easing of unemployment in the city of Ottawa by the trades and labour council sponsoring a large housing program. He did not point out to the house what leadership the Prime Minister or the Minister of Public Works had given to this undertaking in the first place to make it possible. In my opinion it was worry about unemployment in the minds of the union labour leaders that was responsible for the initiation of the undertaking. I think it is well worth while, and something that could be imitated in other centres in Canada.
I have yet to hear of any serious efforts made by the government to encourage year-round employment so as to remove some of the difficulties brought about by seasonal employment, about which we hear so much. I should also like to put in a word for the many unemployed who are not listed in the records of the Department of Labour. They are the forgotten people as far as the dominion bureau of statistics and the Department of Labour are concerned. They are the many people over the age of 40 who have ceased going to the local offices of the national employment service because they have long since realized that it is useless to look for work there.
I should like to make a plea for the many untrained people who are unemployed, and at the same time put in a plea for the right of a married woman to a job. In my opinion the day is long past when we can get away with telling a woman that because she is married she is forever condemned to stay at home, regardless of her ability as a homemaker. My mother had a family of seven children. She helped my father in his occupation throughout the days of her life. She looked after her family as well as any other mother looked after hers. Today, with the modern amenities of the kitchen and the like, the modern mother needs something to occupy her time while the family is away from home. Especially is this true during the long hours of the day. The married women in my riding resent the continued insinuation that, simply because they are married, they no longer have the right to make a contribution to the economic life of the nation.

In British Columbia we have gotten away from the procedure of automatically dismissing school teachers the moment they get married. Today in that province if a lady teacher gets married she is permitted to continue in her position. We have thousands of married women in British Columbia who are thus rendering a worth-while service to the nation. It is time someone attempted to stop placing the blame on married women for our unemployment problem. There is enough work to be done in Canada, and everybody who wants to work ought to be able to do so.
While I intend to vote for the Conservative amendment when we reach that stage, I feel we can have no confidence in it. To my mind, on this subject of unemployment there is no basic difference between the Progressive Conservative party and the Liberal party. It is just a matter of talk, talk, talk. The only solution I have heard from the ranks of the Progressive Conservatives in the House of Commons is that of tax reductions for big corporations. How in the world they expect that to provide employment I do not know.
I feel that while their amendment is good, it certainly is not specific enough. We have to have an amendment that will call for immediate implementation of the word given by the federal government that they will look after the employable unemployed, and we should have a long-term national investment program that would meet the urgent social needs of the Canadian people.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden):
That the amendment be amended by inserting therein immediately after the words "this emergency", the following words: "including the immediate implementation of the federal government's promise of 1945 to make adequate provision for the employable unemployed"; and also by inserting therein, immediately after the words "a long-term program", the following words:	"of
public investment and economic development".
The amendment, as amended, would then read:
in the opinion of this house, because of the grave state of unemployment in Canada as disclosed by the joint statement of the Department of Labour and the dominion bureau of statistics on February 23 last, the government should immediately give consideration to the formulation of plans to deal with this emergency, including the immediate implementation of the federal government's promise of 1945 to make adequate provision for the employable unemployed, and to the necessary steps to establish a long-term program of public investment and economic development for expanding employment to be presented to parliament during the present session.
(Translation) :


Mr. Yves Leduc (Verdun):: I do believe,
Mr. Speaker, that my remarks will be some-
Unemployment
what shorter than the subamendment that has just been read.
The house was pleased to learn from the speech from the throne that, during this session, the government planned to introduce legislation designed to assist all classes of our population, to reduce local and seasonal unemployment and to stimulate business in general.
Immediately, therefore, I would even say traditionally, the government acted upon its desire to promote the country's economic development, to develop its foreign markets, to maintain its position in the forefront of the international scene and to spread optimism and the joy of living in the hearts of the people.
At the opening of this session, in my remarks to the opposition, I expressed the wish that their members be of genuine service, that their thoughts, speeches and approach be "constructive" and based on good faith. I have at times been greatly disappointed. The advice I ventured to give in this connection does not appear to have been heeded by all. It does seem clear that habit grows from a constant repetition of certain acts until, in due course, it becomes second nature. And, as far as I can see, the second nature of certain hon. members opposite consists in loud protests, in magnifying the seriousness of our national or international problems, in spreading doubt and confusion in the minds of the people, in preaching defeatism, in practising pessimism and in making light of the explanations, advice and generous efforts of their friends on this side. Are these merely political tactics? I merely point out the existence of this mentality, and of these baleful reactions, and refrain from passing judgment.
However, in their approach to this problem, which they loudly proclaim to be one of generalized and acute unemployment, and which we ourselves call a local or seasonal drop in employment, we regretfully realize their traditional pessimism and the unfortunate and demoralizing effects of this regrettable attitude on public opinion. So much so that, at the start of this debate, the gloomy speakers argued that there is unemployment in this country while the more moderate ones acknowledged Canada to be prosperous.
Is it logical, Mr. Speaker, to say that unemployment and distress are rife in Canada when its economy remains buoyant, when salaries and the standard of living are high? Can anyone deny that nations are economically interdependent and that, as an example, the commercial activity of Germany, Great

Unemployment
Britain and several other European nations has steadily increased, with the result that the international markets have become more competitive? While there is local and seasonal unemployment this winter, we cannot argue from the particular to the general and talk about economic regression when progress is everywhere and when this Canada of ours can boast of gigantic achievements and the brightest of prospects.
Along that line, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if our hon. friends opposite have already forgotten the laments they voiced when we were faced with post-war problems. However, their gloomy forecasts were disproved by the exceptional development that took place in our economy in recent years! Is it not natural that, at this time, we should be going through a period of stabilization, of adjustment and, if I may say so, of improvement? Who can deny that Canada, in spite of a business recession in certain sections of our economic expansion, is now and will remain one of the world's most prosperous countries? Let not thirst for power prompt anyone to cry blue ruin, or indulge in sly attempts to spread confusion or to sow seeds of discontent among our good people.
Such is not, Mr. Speaker, the policy of the party in power. Over the pessimism of the opposition, or that at least of some of its members, the government is spreading a sound optimism; in contrast with their defeatist outlook, the government displays energy, strength, courage, work and victory; against useless talk, it shows action, tangible achievements, and a cheerful outlook. To purposeless criticism, it opposes numerous accomplishments, the result of hard work, of efficiency, and of a determination to fulfil the social mission entrusted to them by Providence for the welfare, peace and happiness, not only of our young people, but of humanity as a whole.
This is proved, from a social point of view, by the recent amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Disabled Persons Act, by larger allowances to the blind, the increase in veterans' allowances; and, from the industrial and economic angles, by the vast housing projects, the undertaking of numerous public works throughout the country, among which, not to mention other programs, I may only recall the stepping up of the gigantic St. Lawrence seaway development.
All this, Mr. Speaker, will act as an invigorating tonic on our still strong and healthy economy; it also means timely action on the part of a wise and far-seeing government.
In the interest of this nation, of domestic peace, of the happiness of our people, it is essential, I think, to do away with that
[Mr. Leduc (Verdun) .1
unsound and gloomy outlook and, everywhere and always, give expression to a fearless optimism.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this humble opinion may act as a stimulant for the many.
(Text):
Our country is going through a period of great changes, Mr. Speaker. Not only is industry becoming more and more specialized, but more and more machinery is displacing labour in the manufacturing processes. Our natural resources are being shipped in increasing amounts to world markets, helping to raise the standards of living everywhere. Canadian commerce and industry are ever expanding. In view of all this, Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe we Canadians should be optimists.
(Translation):


Mr. Paul E. Gagnon (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) who might not know it, I would like to say that, in the county which I have the honour to represent, there are unfortunately a few thousand unemployed. If I were to be asked the causes of this abnormal and sad situation, I would probably find it more difficult to answer in a simple sentence than to suggest ways to deal with it, at least temporarily.
While it is true that, each year, about a thousand longshoremen become unemployed during the early winter months, when the navigation season is over and that the lumbering industry does not provide as many jobs as it did at one time, as a result of the adoption of new techniques and the fact that unemployed are coming from other areas, it is still obvious that, in my area, the number of unemployed has been increasing considerably since the end of the second world war.
In any appraisal of the present difficult situation, the coming into our Canadian cities of immigrants and their families and the excess manpower brought about by the 19391945 crisis should certainly be taken into account.
It will be remembered that, when the needs of industry required more workers than could be procured locally, official agencies encouraged migration, and the transfer of workers necessary to the national effort.
The federal government, being responsible for war and for the immigration policy, must prevent a breakdown of our Canadian economy.
Foresight must be one of its functions, but I do not think that the present administration has attached sufficient importance to this matter. As representatives of the people we must, on occasion, remind it of this.

It is absolutely inconceivable that a country such as ours, chock-full of unsuspected or, at any rate, undeveloped riches, should have to deal, each year, with a problem as heartrending as this one is for its innocent victims, the workers.
It is obvious that the welfare paradise that our leaders were holding out during the last war to our fighting men at the front, and to the civilians back home, and that the plans for full employment were but a figment of the imagination and a talking point of the then Liberal leaders, who are still sitting on the government benches. The hon. minister of reconstruction (Mr. Howe) said in 1945:
The central task of reconstruction, in the interest of the armed services and civilians alike, must be to accomplish a smooth, orderly transition from the economic conditions of war to those of peace and to maintain a high and stable level of employment and income. The government . . .
The minister continued:
. . . approves this section as the first objective of its policy.
In seeking a high and stable level of employment and revenue, the government is not aiming at anything easier than "full employment". For the government knows that employment and revenue will reflect the fluctuations of international trade, which cannot be entirely and immediately corrected, and it also knows that seasonal fluctuations resulting from our climate and trade practices cannot be overcome without attention requiring much patience and ability.
Apparently, Mr. Speaker, our ministers of the crown were totally lacking in those attributes.
With regard to work and revenue . . . government expenditures are of three sorts:
So the minister of reconstruction and defence production said.
(1)	Current expenditures for goods and services;
(2)	Transfer payments, such as pensions, allowances and similar payments;
(3)	Public capital or investment expenditures for buildings, equipment, roads, airfields and other durable developments and improvements. The last are, to a degree, capable of being timed so as to contribute to employment as needed.
The government also announced its intention to spend money when needed to create:
Alternative sources of income in regions affected by fluctuations on the export markets, so as to face most of our economic crises where they occur instead of waiting until they have spread to our entire economic system.
For the past ten years, Mr. Speaker, the population of Canada, and particularly the unemployed in my riding, have been waiting for positive acts following those smooth Words and those rosy promises.
Unfortunately, we are governed by opportunists who rely on time and seasons to cure the ills that beset us. As soon as there appeared to be a possibility of settlement
Unemployment
of the Korean war, there was talk in high financial circles of an economic depression.
It was an implied, unspoken recognition of the instability of the Canadian economy, an instability which caused a further rise in unemployment.
So it is not exaggerated to state that unemployment has become the most serious problem facing governments at this time.
Workers suffering from unemployment demand that the government do all that is required to stave off this scourge. The duty of those who manage the affairs of the nation is to provide each citizen with, the opportunity to exercise the sacred right to earn a living.
It is their imperative obligation.
The sight of these good people, full of health, energy and courage, who are condemned to idleness is a sad one indeed. The state, whose spending they have helped finance through their taxes and sacrifices, is far less solicitous of their welfare than of the standard of living of the peoples of Asia.
We must recognize that over the last few years the government has improved the Unemployment Insurance Act by increasing the rates of the benefits, granting additional benefits and reducing the waiting period.
Unfortunately, one lives poorly on unemployment insurance and miserably when family allowances provide the only money for food. In fact, Mr. Speaker, what is an unemployed, besides being a statistical figure? It is in most cases a man with a wife and children.
If you break down this concept of family and assume that each unemployed has a wife and one child only, which is very little considering the fact that the poorer classes in the cities are always the most prolific, you then get the figure of 600,000 multiplied by three, that is 1,800,000 human beings, our brothers who cannot eat to their fill, who suffer from cold and endure all kinds of hardships in a country which claims to be the granary of the world.
The lack of balance of our present economic system is undoubtedly the result of many past errors, but in my opinion the agricultural and industrial transformation of our country is the source of all our troubles and of the spasmodic disorder which affects the vital forces of our population. Alas, how many people have abandoned agriculture for industry since the turn of the century! In

Unemployment
1900, two out of five workers were employed on farms, while the ratio is now one out of five.
In 1946, 74 per cent of Canada's active civilian population was working in industry. In 1953, the proportion had risen to 83 per cent, although it varied much from one province to another, ranging from 62 per cent in the prairie provinces to 95 per cent in British Columbia. Since 1946, the active agricultural population has decreased by almost 30 per cent. According to the 1951 census, one-quarter of our people were employed in the manufacturing industry, one-fifth in services and 16 per cent in agriculture.
Capitalism is responsible for having uprooted thousands of men who previously had modest but assured means of livelihood; it has transformed the farmer into an industrial worker and very often into an unemployed.
Immigration has also increased our difficulties. In 1951 and 1952, we admitted to Canada nearly 360,000 immigrants of all nationalities, while in previous years the average number had been in the neighbourhood of 75,000.
That intensive and no longer selective immigration policy has had detrimental effects not only for Canadians, but for the immigrants themselves.
In fact, immigration has been much less selective than we have been given to understand.
For instance, in 1952, out of 85,029 employable immigrants, nearly half were unskilled workers, clerks and domestic servants.
On the other hand, among the skilled workers numbering 22,034, a good proportion were construction workers and that industry already has a sufficient manpower reserve.
It should be pointed out that, contrary to the policy that ought to be followed normally, most immigrants land in Canada during the fall, when economic activity is slowing down. Unemployment is thus increased which is detrimental both to the immigrants themselves, disappointed at not finding what they were promised, and to our own Canadian workers who fear lest they should lose their jobs. As far as we are concerned, immigration might not be a direct cause of the present unemployment situation, but, nevertheless, it has created trouble in the labour market. Thousands of immigrants, improperly selected and advised, have increased the total of the unemployed, although
[Mr. Gaenon.l
our purpose in attracting them to this country was to increase consumption and, especially, production.
We must create new outlets for our products we find it so difficult to market and of which we have large surpluses.
The finding of export markets for our agricultural and manufactured products is necessary for our survival.
In this respect the provincial governments have no influence whatever. It is up to the Ottawa government alone to stimulate, help and protect our industries so that they may be in a position to meet competition. It is the federal government alone who can legislate on tariffs and maintain import quotas.
It must find markets in order to find work for Canadians.
That is, in my opinion, the solution to the unemployment problem.
In my constituency, should the federal government wish to do something to counteract these periodic crises, it could, for example, eliminate the level crossings in the town of Chicoutimi, construct retaining walls along the Saguenay river and erect public buildings wherever they are needed and I might also add, with pleasure, go ahead with the construction of the St. Felicien-Chibougamau railway.
I ask the federal authorities to look upon the sufferings of the people they are crushing under a heavy load of taxation, and to find work for the unemployed, work they ask for and are entitled to.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Boisvert:: I wonder if the hon. member would allow a question?


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Yes, if it is brief and sensible.


Maurice Boisvert: It may be rather long, but it will be clear enough. Has the hon. member used the following expression: The government is responsible for war? If he did use it, did he mean then that the federal government was responsible for war within the meaning of section 91 of the British North America Act-


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Mr. Speaker-


Maurice Boisvert: Please let me finish-which confers upon the Canadian government the power to legislate in matters of national defence and to conclude treaties of a defensive character with allies? I trust that this is

the meaning the hon. member had in mind when he used the expression referred to at the beginning of my question.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: The hon. member understands French. Therefore, he must have got the meaning of my remarks. In my view, his comments were pointless and his question was out of place.
(Text):


Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: The hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Leduc) who spoke a moment ago concluded his remarks by saying that we should be optimistic about the situation which exists in Canada today, in relation to unemployment. I imagine it would be quite easy for a man in his position to be optimistic about the unemployment situation; he has a comfortable position here and a fine business in Verdun which is conveniently located close to parliament. But the unemployed man who has a family and probably some debts, who is looking for work, whose unemployment insurance benefits are running out and whose chances of obtaining employment are gradually diminishing year by year as the seasons roll around and the unemployment situation grows more serious, is not particularly encouraged by these factors to be optimistic.
I think the hon. member has reflected in his remarks the attitude of the government concerning unemployment. I wish to draw this attitude to the attention of the house, and I wish to condemn it. Simultaneously, however, I urge this government to take hold of the situation as it exists today and busy itself in an endeavour to solve this problem. This is a problem which requires more effective solutions than those which have been presented thus far.
We have a higher percentage of unemployment in Canada than we have had for 15 years. Surely this is sufficient proof that either the economy is falling down or the government is falling down; perhaps it is a combination of these things. At any rate it is an indication of our position in relation to the rest of the world. At a time when most of the countries of the world are enjoying a period of prosperity and full employment, Canada must be singled out as the country with the highest percentage of unemployment among the greater nations, with 600,000 looking for work.
It is because the government cannot find a solution to the problem. They tell us they
Unemployment
are doing their best, but what are the results by which we can judge what they have accomplished? The universal declaration of human rights which was accepted by the United Nations and proclaimed and adopted in 1948 states that employment is one of the most certain foundations of peace and progress. Article 23 of the declaration says:
Article 23.	(1) Everyone has the right to work,
to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2)	Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3)	Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
A society which fails to provide for that right is failing in its duty as a nation. Six hundred thousand Canadians are seeking employment; an indication that that right is being denied to far too many of the people of this country today. This parliament is responsible to the people who elected it for finding a solution to that problem.
The problem can be divided into two parts. The first part is an immediate problem and affects hundreds of thousands of unemployed people who cannot find work, whose unemployment insurance benefits are running out and who are in a position where they no longer can provide for their families. The second part of the problem concerns the economic structure of this country, which should provide work for the unemployed. If the condition is allowed to continue there is going to be serious internal trouble in Canada.
I watched the group of men in Vancouver who began a march toward Ottawa during the thirties. The situation is not so acute today because we have an unemployment insurance fund with a backlog of about $1 billion which has eased and cushioned the shock of unemployment and provided the government with an opportunity to find a solution to the problem and a means of preventing it from becoming more serious. In that regard the records prove that this government has failed. We have a recurrence of the situation which existed prior to the first war. This is one reason why we can-| not be optimistic.
I remember the unemployment situation, which existed in the city of Moose Jaw prior to 1914. I recall that following the first war there was a period of prosperity, followed by a gradual sinking back into a condition of

Unemployment
unemployment which reached its peak in the thirties. Practically the same excuses were given in this house tor the failure of the government of that day to solve the unemployment situation. Neither the Liberal government which was in power until 1930, nor the Conservative party which gained power by saying that it would blast its way into the markets of the world, could find a solution to the problem. When the present government came into power in 1935 it also failed to find a solution, and the unemployment situation continued until the second world war, when prosperity increased.
The people of Canada are looking- to this government for leadership in finding a solution to this problem. The Canadian people are looking to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the other members of the cabinet who sit in the front benches of this house to assume leadership in finding a solution to the problem of unemployment. This government alone and unaided cannot find a full solution, but it must take the first steps in that direction. The policies of this government determine whether or not our country shall be prosperous.
If our trade is expanding and our goods are being exchanged with other countries then employment opportunities are opened in industry. If there are markets for our farm products farmers will have purchasing power with which to buy equipment and machines, and this provides work for the people in the cities. Within our internal economy, if the city workers have purchasing power they are able to purchase farm produce. The present trade situation certainly is not encouraging or conducive to optimism. We find we are depending more and tnore upon the United States for what is called a favourable trade balance with that country, but We have an unfavourable trade balance with countries in the sterling area.
Irrespective of what might be said to refute this statement, we must face the fact that Canadian goods on foreign markets are high priced. Our goods are also high priced in Canada because our economy is high priced and the cost of living in this country is high. A high cost of living means that labour must have more money in order that the workers may live. If the cost of labour increases then the cost of the product is higher. This government must accept responsibility for failing to maintain price control which would have kept down the cost of living and maintained Canadian goods in

world markets at prices which could meet world competition and keep our industries going. The matters of exchange and trade all work into this problem of unemployment. Because of that responsibility Canada looks to this government first.
There is little reason here for optimism. Last year we brought to the attention of this government the fact that the situation was serious. Again and again we emphasized that there were rough seas ahead in this country unless it changed its tactics and unless the economic picture improved. What were we told? As reported at page 2106 of Hansard of last year the Minister of Trade and Commerce at that time told us this:
The transition from a seller's market to a buyer's market is always difficult. Certainly the worst way in which to meet a transition of that kind is to curtail government investment. That is the old theory that did not work so well back in 1931 . . . That is not the time to cut government spending.
Then in another paragraph he said this:
In the investment field our economy will be reinforced by two large projects. One is the St. Lawrence waterway project, which we fully expect to be under construction before the end of the year. The other is the longest pipe line that has ever been built anywhere, namely the gas pipe line from Alberta to Ontario and Quebec . . .
This has caused a great number of applications for employment that really do not represent men out of work . . .
I simply mention these things to indicate that both employers and employees have their responsibility in this transitional period.
Then he said this:
I can assure the house that the government is doing everything it believes can be done to improve the situation . . . We believe that we have the situation in hand. In January of 1950 there was very serious unemployment, more serious than today, while in June of 1950 there was practically full employment, and we believe that the pattern of 1950 will be repeated in 1954. I believe that as the season opens up we can expect a return to the employment conditions that we have had for the last several years and that we must have if Canada is to be a prosperous country.
With that promise or assurance of the Minister of Trade and Commerce we left the house last year. But apparently his economic advisers were not advising him very well, because the situation did not turn out as he had predicted. In the spring the figures on unemployment were even higher than they were, the previous year. If the government did everything it believed could be done in 1954 and ended up with more unemployment than we have ever had, then I say the situation today cannot be one which encourages optimism. How can we hope for the successful handling of the unemployment situation on such a record as this?
I wonder if those in this house realize what it means to have in Canada probably 120,000

families without the breadwinner bringing home a pay envelope, seeing his unemployment insurance benefits gradually dwindling away and not knowing how they are to be replenished. Families are losing their lifetime investment. They have saved money and bought a house and are making their payments month by month. What happens to that house? What happens to that saving? What happens to the saving of the man who has put a little bit aside hoping to retire as he gets older, or hoping he can put a little bit aside to educate his family, to send the boy to university or the girl to college? Fathers are having to go home and admit to their families that they cannot earn a living for them.
Fear now stalks those homes, and is felt even among the employed. When there are 600,000 people seeking work in Canada, even those who are employed realize that the bell is tolling for them also. What hope is there for. the future? When are the 600,000 people seeking work in 1955 going to obtain redress? This government, or at any rate a Liberal government, told the people of Canada a few years ago that we were fighting a war for four freedoms, and one was the freedom from fear. But fear stalks Canada today when these conditions exist. I should like to read to the house just a few words from the proceedings of the dominion-provincial conference of 1945, when the government went to the provinces with the proposal with regard to the tax rental agreements. These are words taken from the text at page 5 of the plenary conference discussions. The then prime minister said this:
The proposals which the federal government is placing before the conference are directed to attaining a progressive and secure standard of living based on remunerative employment for all who are able and willing to work, and expanding markets at home and abroad for efficient agricultural and other primary industries . . .
Above all, we aim at the maintenance of a high level of employment and income. In no field are the interests of dominion and provinces more thoroughly one than in the maintenance at all times of a high level of employment. The fear of war is undoubtedly the worst of all fears in the minds of men today. But next to the fear of war, the greatest fear for most men is the fear of unemployment. There are men and women who almost dreaded the coming of victory because they feared that depression and unemployment might come in victory's train.
He also said this in another paragraph further down the page:
We also believe that, under modern industrial conditions the state has an inescapable responsibility to provide, through unemployment insurance and assistance, a minimum of livelihood to those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves without work.
The government accepted those as its responsibilities. I maintain that this government is failing in that responsibility in view
Unemployment
of the condition that exists in 1955. In the matter of financial arrangements, at page 113 we find that this is what was said:
The financial proposals which the dominion government makes must be assessed by these requirements and against the background of the other proposals in this brief-proposals which are aimed at carrying out within a federal system policies for the maintenance of a high and stable level of income and employment and which would have the effect of maintaining provincial government revenues, relieving provincial and municipal governments of the menace of heavy unemployment expenditures, and assisting them in the extension of their services and in the conservation and development of their resources.
Those were brave words. Those were the words of the government which went to the provinces with arrangements under which they could carry on the kind of government, or the co-ordination between governments, which would end the kind of thing which has now developed in Canada. In the light of all that I maintain that they have failed badly. One of the things for which I condemn government policies as much as anything else is that in the face of the facts as given to the people of this country with regard to the unemployment figures and the situation in Canada, the Minister of Labour stood up in this house on March 1-and I quote his words-in this debate and said:
. . . while there has been a recognition of growing need in this area I have been talking about-
That is unemployment.
-it has not led to any mutual understanding between federal and provincial governments as to the action that should be taken in the matter. This government has not been unconcerned about the problem. Notwithstanding the primary responsibility of the provinces in this field, the federal government is prepared to discuss with them the problems of this group of unemployed workers, as an item on the agenda of the forthcoming federal-provincial conference, if the provinces request that that be done. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that that will be the answer to the hon. member for Hamilton West who said that the problem she mentioned has been juggled around between governments. As far as this government is concerned, we do not want it juggled around any longer.
This is just a little bit too late for such a situation to be permitted to develop. That is the point I am making. With the situation as it has been in Canada for the past three years, with that figure of unemployment growing and growing, surely it is evident to the members of the cabinet and the members of this house that something should have been done two years ago. In the face of the delay and the procrastination, what is the actual situation existing today in some of the municipalities in this country?
Facts and figures have been placed on the record by members on the government side of the house. The other day the hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. Reinke) referred to the fact that in the city of Hamilton alone

Unemployment
something like $17,000 a month was being spent by the city on unemployed employables. These are men who cannot find work, but as they are employable the province apparently has not accepted full responsibility. The matter is left to the municipality. The municipalities of Canada cannot carry this burden.
What is the result? Liberal members have told the house that in some cases where unemployment insurance benefits have run out and the family has been unable to qualify for relief assistance as indigents, the father has been compelled to leave his wife and family, and having done so they then qualify for direct relief.
Surely it is evident to the government at this time that this problem has become more than acute. If that situation exists the municipalities cannot carry the burden. The provincial governments cannot carry the burden. As has been pointed out, some of our provinces are have-not provinces. They do not have the facilities. They are not producing the wealth to permit them to carry the burden of unemployed employables. In this field the federal government stands condemned. Because of the failure of the government in this field I think it is the responsibility of parliament to stay here until the problem is solved. We should make sure before the session ends that something adequate has been done to meet the situation. That is why we would amend the amendment to the motion by adding these words:
. . . including the immediate implementation of the federal government's promise of 1945 to make adequate provision for the employable unemployed . . .
With conditions as they are we cannot end this session of parliament and face the Canadian people. As far as this group are concerned, we are going to continue to demand action on the part of the government. We want the government to face up to the problem of getting the 600,000 people who are looking for work back into employment. Not only the government is on trial today, but also the economic system under which this country operates. If the government fails the people at this time, then there will be changes in the economic system that will recognize the right of men to employment as set forth in the universal declaration of human rights.
If the government cannot and does not meet that right of the working people of Canada who through no fault of their own are unemployed then we must see to it that the unemployed are able to exercise that right. The government has already recognized this and has stated that, with the economic and technical development of today and the organization

of our society, the man who has only his toil to offer must be given the right to work.
Because that right is not being given, we are making a protest. In Canada today there are soup kitchens in cities like Vancouver. Difficulties are being experienced in meeting the demand for relief for employable unemployed. British Columbia is fortunate in being fairly wealthy, and is attempting to deal with the problem of unemployment among the people of that province. The province is accepting 80 per cent of the cost and the municipalities 20 per cent. But they will not accept responsibility for those who are not citizens of that province. Whose responsibility are they?
At this date, March 16, 1955, in spite of the situation that exists, arrangements have not been made between the federal and provincial governments for a proper sharing of the responsibility and, as has already been proved, fathers must leave their families in order that the wives and children can qualify for direct relief as indigents. In entering into the tax rental agreements to collect the taxes the federal government did so on the basis that it would assume this responsibility. When they fail to do so they are failing the people of Canada.
There are other provinces which are completely unable to carry this burden to any appreciable extent. My own city of Yorkton is a small city of about 10,000 people. In that area there were 2,833 people seeking employment in February of this year compared with 2,051 a year ago. It is an agricultural region. The people of the city depend largely upon the purchasing power of the farmers. It is a distributing centre covering an area in the northeastern part of the province. Net farm income has been reduced by 70 per cent. Farmers bought cars, tractors and combines a few years ago when things were looking better, and now they are being repossessed. The farm implement business across Canada is suffering because the farmers' income has decreased. Farm implement industries in Hamilton, Woodstock and Toronto are finding it difficult to maintain employment. They are not selling their machines.
A most deplorable aspect of the situation was brought to light a few weeks ago in a report in the Toronto Star. It was indicated that one large manufacturing concern in Toronto in making application to the national employment service for men to carry on its work specified that these men should be (1) not over 40 years of age;
(2)	not less than 5 feet 7 inches tall, and
(3)	must weigh 140 pounds or more. What

kind of discrimination is this? Just because a person is 42 years of age he is excluded from the labour market.
It is difficult to restrain one's language in describing practices of this kind, but let us say it is a disgrace that such a condition should exist in Canada. It is certainly a black mark against private enterprise when it will take advantage of a labour situation of this kind and treat labour as though it were a commodity to be bought and sold on the market. I am reminded of the stories in "Uncle Tom's Cabin", when slaves were exhibited in order to see what their muscles were like and whether or not they could stand a long day's work. This kind of thing is not good enough for Canada.
Then there is the unplanned immigration policy of the government. We have brought a million people to Canada since the war. Did the government consult with industry and labour before bringing in these men and women? Did it investigate the problem with organized labour within Canada and find out how many unskilled men were available who were capable of taking training for skilled positions? Did the government analyse the situation with employers and labour unions to determine that certain types of men were needed in certain industries and then bring those people here?
With the situation that exists today that is one of the first things that should be done. Technical advances in modern production are such that a whole industry can be wiped out overnight. In the steel industry alone production increased tremendously last year while the number of men employed was reduced by several thousand. Technological development in industry makes employment the responsibility of the state. I do not see how this country can long continue with today's state of affairs, without serious trouble.
Hon. members in this group are going to press the government to implement its promises of 1945 to the Canadian people. We are going to press the government, as long as this session lasts, or until they bring into the house effective measures to take care of those two situations. The first of these would be to take care of the unemployed employables in Canada-and this would have to be an immediate program. And we will insist upon a program which will do something towards seeing that this crime against society in Canada is wiped out, so that there will be restored to those who toil, the right to work.


Mr. Charles Henry (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, in this debate we are met with an amendment
Unemployment
from the official opposition by way of nonconfidence in the government, based upon the unemployment situation in Canada.
Coming from the city of Toronto, my attitude is one of genuine concern, because we have there more substantial unemployment than we wish to see. However, I am very clear on this; that in the 1949 election, and again in the election of 1953, I received a mandate from my constituents to keep Canada moving under Liberal leadership. If anything I would say that at the moment we would like to see Canada moving a little faster "jobwise", but that is all. In my view faith in Liberal leadership remains firm.
I was pleased by the speech of the Minister of Finance on February 21 in which he outlined for Canadians the capital investment position in Canada describing it as being high and as producing well for home markets and for markets abroad. In addition to this he indicated that at home there was a good rate of consumer expenditure. As he pointed out in his speech, Canadians spent 3 per cent more in 1954 than they did in 1953. Indeed, this is a gesture of confidence by Canadians generally in their own domestic economy. In addition to this, Canadians built more houses in 1954 than they have ever built before in a single year. They also mortgaged more of those houses, showing a confidence on their part in their own economy.
At the end of his speech the Minister of Finance spoke with confidence, pointing out the basic strength of the Canadian economy, and I agree with him as to this. However, he tempered that observation with remarks to the effect that he trusts the economy shall remain a low-cost, efficient economy. Then he indicated that there may be problems facing us in the future, and concluded his remarks with the admonition that no one should sell Canada short.
Let me point out that the budget speech will be given shortly by the Minister of Finance. It must be kept in mind that the budget has become a well recognized economic balance wheel for the good of the nation. It has been used in the past by this government, during the period of my membership in the House of Commons, to take the steam out of inflation. I say Canadians accept the idea that it can be used to liven employment. In my view at this time a lump of deficit financing is warranted to cure the slump in employment. Canadians ask, in addition, that all possible fiscal and monetary measures be taken to help make more jobs, in so far as these policies can be effective in the circumstances.

Unemployment
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has reported fully to the house in this debate on matters affecting trade and commerce. Our foreign trade increases, and we note that the increase has been particularly good in the last few months. Conditions in the United States, in terms of business, are on the upswing. These are matters which we feel are good for the Canadian economy. These are matters which in my view engender confidence in the immediate future and the long-term policies of the government. The feature about the Minister of Trade and Commerce which impresses me most is that in many respects over a long term he does seem to have mastered the art of balancing to a nicety public and private enterprise; and I think he can be relied upon to stand behind Canada and its economy in the future as he has in the past.
However, I would like to say a word about public works. The white paper of the Department of Trade and Commerce was tabled in the house, showing that capital investment in Canada for 1955 will increase to the extent of say 10 per cent. This would seem to be a good foreseeable increase in this sector of the economy. I note that while some labour leaders have said they would like to see a greater emphasis on public works, of late there has been some decrease in the demand for public works by organized labour. I think organized labour leaders have in mind the low labour content in public works as we know them today, and the use of machines as labour saving devices. We know, too, that work in the construction industry is seasonal in some respects in Canada, a factor worth mentioning when one refers to public works as a means to relieve unemployment.
Dealing further with the attitude of organized labour, I was interested in the speech made recently, in my own city, by Claude Jodoin to the Canadian Club. As hon. members know, he is president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. Speaking calmly, as I felt, in the circumstances he said:
Canada is headed neither for depression nor extended recession.
He looked forward to what he described as "a bright 1955". To, say the least, using the words of the Minister of Finance, Mr. Jodoin does not sell Canada short.
Then, turning to the attitude of organized labour in my home city of Toronto, within the last week or so an attempt was made in city council to pass a motion of censure of the federal government based upon its policy and attitude in respect of unemployment. It is noteworthy that this motion of censure was
TMr. Henry.]
launched by one of the members of the C.C.F. party who is also an alderman in Toronto. In reply to the motion a most unusual statement was made by Controller Brand, who is also a member of the C.C.F. party. Controller Brand said the motion was senseless, and we have not heard of it being advanced before city council. My understanding is that it has [DOT] been withdrawn.
I should like to turn to the matter of defence production legislation as a means of aiding employment in Canada. I regard this legislation as the industrial arm of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization applied within the confines of this nation. It is a hopeful source of employment. The legislation has been criticized in the house to a limited degree on the ground that it is said to offend the rule of law as we know it in parliament. It has been said further that the legislation jeopardizes the freedom of the individual; and, in the broader sense, it is implied that the legislation is the right thing being done in the wrong way.
There is nothing new in this criticism; but I do believe that in this parliament we agree upon the preservation of the freedoms as we know them, the freedoms of individuals at home and abroad. I believe this legislation promotes employment for Canadians and has the benefit of helping our NATO partners overseas. That is why I am anxious to see the defence production legislation maintained in its present form and not see it weakened administratively. In my view this legislation has served Canadian industries well and has done us credit with our NATO partners.


Mr. Fleming:: On a point of order, the hon. member appears to be discussing questions pertaining to the resolution that was before the house in recent days preceding the measure to extend the life of the Department of Defence Production. If the hon. member wants to speak on that department of course there will be opportunities for him to do so on second reading of the bill. He had opportunities on the resolution stage which apparently he did not use. That is not a reason for remedying what may have been an oversight by obtruding into a debate on unemployment views in regard to the propriety of extending the life of the Department of Defence Production.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Apple whaite):: Order. I was listening to the hon. member for Rosedale. He did introduce his reference to defence production legislation with a statement that he was referring to the impact of defence production legislation on employment. At the same time I, too, was of the opinion that he was coming at least dangerously close to arguing the merits of another

resolution on the order paper, and I think we are justified in asking him to confine his reference to defence production to its impact upon unemployment.


Charles Henry: I shall be pleased to do that. I can understand the sensitivity of the hon. member for Eglinton because I was referring to the rule of law as we know it in this parliament, and I can now correlate the rule of law to unemployment problems specifically.
Under the constitution as we understand it in layman's language I think we can summarize the obligation of making money payments arising out of unemployment. Under normal conditions Ottawa confines its obligation to unemployment insurance, and the province is called upon to look after welfare by unemployment relief. This is the situation unless a national emergency arises and the provinces, or even one of the provinces, finds it financially impossible to discharge provincial obligations. At the moment, under existing circumstances, there is no national emergency in the sense that any of the provinces find themselves financially unable to look after unemployment relief.
That is particularly so in relation to the province of Ontario, and the hon. member for Eglinton will understand when I say that I find it utterly impossible to understand the attitude of the premier of the province in sending representatives of the city of Toronto to Ottawa at a time when he, the leader of that government, was in possession of $18 million by way of surplus on current account for the year.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Charles Henry: I am sorry; I will not permit a question, Mr. Speaker. I must go on. I have a shortage of time. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it turns out something like this. The city of Toronto is the corporate child of the premier of Ontario, who heads the government of that province, and when the city of Toronto was in financial need the father sent the child to its grandfather in Ottawa for assistance. The premier did so when he well knew that it is the father who pays under normal conditions.
I say that in Ottawa every possible thing should be done by the federal government to promote trade, commerce and consequent employment for Canadians. But we know that in 1945 there was a provincial conference. At that conference the government of the province of Ontario and the government of the province of Quebec, then led by provincial premiers well known to my hon. friends of the Progressive Conservative party
Unemployment
opposite, had an opportunity to change the constitution by agreement, and to change the rule of law, if you like, in the matter of unemployment insurance and unemployment relief. History has recorded over and over what took place. If my hon. friends opposite are repentant today over what happened then, that is not the fault of the government of the day. We can well understand, in the light of hindsight, how they wish that something had been done in 1945 to change the rule of law in regard to responsibility for this matter. However, it was not done, and we must take the law as we find it today and carry on.
Then years later, in 1955, another provincial conference is to be called. It will clarify, to say the least, the matter of legal responsibility for unemployment in its broadest sense, and if it does that it will do a lot. There will be a restatement of the legal position on the opening day of the conference, I assume, and the responsibility will be made clearer as to what the provinces should do as to this matter of unemployment relief. It will shock, if you like, Mr. Speaker, the unwilling provinces into fulfilment of their responsibility in this matter.
I say to the hon. member for Eglinton he might well discuss the matter of unemployment relief in his party caucus and lay plans now to promote greater co-operation on the part of the provincial premiers than we had in 1945. He could, for example, consult with Premier Duplessis of Quebec and Premier Frost of Ontario, who are the two dominant premiers in so far as population content of their provinces is concerned. I say he could do Canada a service if he and his colleagues would enter into some kind of consultation to promote a better attitude on the part of the provinces than we experienced in 1945.
I, too, like all members from Toronto, have received submissions from welfare organizations as to the misunderstanding, if you like, and the impasse that exists in relation to unemployment relief, and these have been passed on to the government for sympathetic consideration.


Donald Methuen Fleming: And the federal government has done nothing about them.


Charles Henry: There has been earnest consideration of the matter, Mr. Speaker; and if the Progressive Conservative party is more anxious in 1955 to meet to the full extent their obligations on the levels where they hold responsibility, I suppose we can look forward to a greater degree of co-operation in 1955 than we had in 1945. I would say this to the hon. member for Eglinton, though. He might well take up with Premier Frost the difficult question as to why no relief was

Unemployment
given out of the $18 million surplus in 1955 when Toronto, the principal city of Ontario, was confronted with far more unemployment and far more hardship than anyone would want to see. Why did the premier of Ontario remain so close with the purse, and why did he fail to answer the plea of those voluntary organizations within the framework of the Red Feather organizations and otherwise? It is unthinkable to me that he should not have stepped into the situation.
I mention in particular that when the city of Toronto came here, represented as it was by the mayor and his colleagues, they indicated that Toronto proper had spent in two years something in the neighbourhood of $40,000 on certain unemployment relief. The city of Toronto was concerned, naturally. They told us they had been sent to this level of government by the premier of Ontario. After a conference and two hours of discussion with four cabinet ministers present, the mayor and his colleagues went home substantially satisfied as to the legal position, and that the proper place in the circumstances to petition for assistance was Queen's Park.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If you believe that you will believe anything.


Charles Henry: I noticed press releases to this effect, and I noted also that they have gone to the provincial government, which is their proper recourse at this time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the hon. member permit a question at this point?


Charles Henry: I wish to mention the record of this government in the matter of unemployment in the last year or two. In the winter of 1953-54 this government gave $12 million in supplementary benefits by way of unemployment insurance over and above the regular allowances of the act. At this session of parliament special legislation was introduced in the early days to give further supplementary benefits this winter in the amount of $24 million. I understand that additional broadening provisions are to be incorporated in the act at a later date this session.
I would remind hon. members that in the field of social security we are spending $1,000 million annually. According to the Minister of Trade and Commerce these payments are increasing at the moment at the rate of 10 per cent. Then in the field of tax rentals, with special reference to the province of Ontario, this government pays Premier Frost and his government over one-sixth of a billion dollars yearly, which assisted him to achieve the good financial position which he indicated he had in 1954, with a surplus of some $18 million.

In conclusion I say that we on this side of the house recognize just as much as do hon. members opposite the importance of the freedom of the individual. Political freedom, yes. Are we on the government side of the house not successors to William Lyon Mackenzie, the father of responsible government in this province? As to freedom from want, are we not the successors of William Lyon Mackenzie King, the father of social security? We are the descendants of Laurier, too, who led us into Canada's twentieth century. In the present Prime Minister we have the father of the North Atlantic pact.
I say we should place primary responsibility at all times on all phases of legislation that will make for a more buoyant economy. I have particular interest in defence production legislation, and I do hope hon. members will give all support to the government in making it an effective instrument for a better Canada and a better world.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, in spite of all that has been said in this rather lengthy debate there are still a few points which I think should be emphasized if we are going to face this problem honestly and squarely, and if we are going to give our people a true picture not only of the causes of unemployment but also of what can and what cannot be done about it.
We are all concerned about the steady growth of unemployment during the past three years and the serious proportions it has now attained-a situation which is all the more serious because it has occurred during a period of expanding economy and general prosperity. We all appreciate what this means to the unemployed in terms of human misery, suffering, privation and agony of mind and spirit, as well as the moral disintegration which so often results. Our human resources are the most precious of all our resources, and our humanitarian instincts demand that no stone be left unturned to' solve this problem and prevent its recurrence.
When I consider this problem I cannot help thinking about the thousands of fishermen and their dependents in my own riding who,, although they are not included in the unemployment totals, are nevertheless out of work due to the seasonal nature of their occupation and who find themselves forced to endure the same conditions as the jobless elsewhere. In many cases their position is even worse because they have toiled all year for little or nothing, and do not even enjoy the benefits of unemployment insurance.
What makes this unemployment problem so difficult is the fact that there are so many contributing factors and it is impossible to-

measure the influence of any of them with any degree of accuracy. To explain it by saying that our labour force has expanded faster than our economy is in my opinion an oversimplification. Unemployment is the result of many forces, all of different strength and direction and all interrelated, interreacting one upon the other to produce a sort of chain reaction of higher costs, decreased exports, lower farm income, reduced retail sales and unemployment.
We have learned from the speeches made by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Trade and Commerce that these forces can be classified under four main headings. First, there are the forces of nature, of climate and geography which practically control our seasonal industries and affect even industries like the construction industry. These cause great fluctuations in seasonal and regional employment. There are also the vagaries of weather, of frost and drought, which along with plant diseases and insect plagues produce a serious effect upon the agricultural component of our gross national product.
Second, there are industrial forces which are at work inside the industry itself. Foremost among these are labour-management relations, because strikes contribute to unemployment in supplementary industries which manufacture parts and accessories. Under this heading we must also include the forces of technological progress, such as more efficient machines and improved methods and processes. Being squeezed between the pressure of higher costs of labour and materials on the one side, and the pressure of foreign competition and consumer sales resistance on the other, management is compelled to find ways and means of increasing output without increasing the number of jobs.
In the long run this turns out to be a good thing because greater efficiency and a stronger competitive position make possible expansion which provides more jobs later on, but during the transitional period this expansion has to be paid for by an increase in unemployment.
Third, we have the economic forces which fall into two groups. The first group constitutes the external or foreign forces, while the second group is made up of the internal or domestic forces.
Among the external forces we include the trend of foreign trade, the fiscal policies of the countries which constitute our most important markets, and the upward or downward trend of their economies. The fiscal policies of these countries include tariffs,
Unemployment
quotas, currency regulations, convertibility and restrictions against dollar goods.
Among the internal forces we have our own trade policies, domestic and foreign; our fiscal policies in the form of tariff protection; the availability of credit and money; tax policies; public investment, encouragement to private capital and investment; subsidies and subventions to industries; price supports and assistance to consumer purchasing power through social security payments.
Finally, we have what might be described as human forces. We have mentioned already labour-management relations under the heading of industrial forces, but we must not forget the forces of greed, selfishness and comparative honesty which affect the unemployment situation to a far greater degree than many of us perhaps realize.
I have enumerated all these forces, Mr. Speaker, for three reasons. My first reason is to show how difficult and complicated the problem is, and to emphasize the fact that because of these complications no simple, easy or quick solution is possible.
My second reason is to point out that of all the numerous forces which tend to create unemployment, only a few can be controlled or influenced by the federal government or indeed by any other level of government, be it provincial or municipal.
My third reason is to emphasize that we must be extremely careful not to mislead the public into thinking that there is any quick or simple solution to this problem, or that any rapid improvement would occur as the result of calling a federal-provincial conference. That is not to say that a conference would not be useful; indeed, it would be well worth while if it did nothing more than define and clarify the different spheres and levels of responsibility. If it succeeded in creating teamwork that would result in a commitment to joint action and co-operation in attacking the problem, then so much the better.
It should be clearly explained to the public that the majority of the forces which tend to create unemployment fall outside the influence or control of the federal parliament or of the provincial and municipal governments. Let us consider me forces of nature, for example. What can any level of government do about nature, the vagaries of the weather or its effect upon the amount of grain or butter which will become a part of our gross national product?
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) called attention to the fact that unemployment and a decrease in farm income always occur simultaneously, and he

Unemployment
suggested that the former was a direct result of the latter. I do not think this point can be proved. I feel it is far more logical to assume that both unemployment and lower farm income are the direct results of other factors. Furthermore, if the cure is to increase farm income there is a limit to what the federal government can do in this regard, because the federal government is limited by What the taxpayer is prepared to pay and also by the competitive position of Canada in the foreign market. The government is already doing what it can to protect farmers against these contingencies and to help stabilize their purchasing power.
In addition to what has already been done to accomplish this, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) has made some constructive suggestions to encourage the construction industry to expand its winter operations. Although he referred particularly to housing I think his suggestion could also be applied to the shipbuilding industry, and possibly to the construction of public buildings and even hospitals and schools,
Let us consider the industrial forces. What control has the government over technological progress, wage disputes, strikes, etc.? Both the federal and provincial governments are doing an excellent job in the field of labour-management relations, and it is difficult to see what more can be expected.
Let us also consider the economic forces. What control has the federal government over the economy of the United States or of the United Kingdom or of any other country which
constitutes an important market for Canadian goods? What control do we have over the foreign tariffs, the currency restrictions or the foreign competition of those countries?
As far as the internal economic forces are concerned the government does have some measure of control. In fact this is the only sphere where the federal government can exert direct influence to any great extent; but even in this field their ability to exert influence is often limited by outside forces. In this respect the government can be compared to the operator of a control panel. The government turns one dial here and another dial there in an effort to keep our internal economic forces in balance with each other. At the same time these internal forces must be prevented from getting out of balance with the external forces, so that our Canadian economy can always be easily adjusted to changing influences.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock?
On motion of Mr. Carter the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Sinclair:: Tomorrow we shall proceed with legislation. First will be item 23, the resolution on the Municipal Grants Act; then item 4, the resolution on grade crossings; then item 5, the resolution on the Radio Act; then No. 12, and Bills Nos. 183, 184 and 195. If we have time we shall then consider the resolution concerning national parks.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 17, 1955