1955-01-11

Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 5, to amend the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.


Mr. Knowles:: Explain.


James Garfield Gardiner: The purpose of the amendment is to make the act consistent with existing ministerial authority to enter into contracts for sums up to $15,000 as contained in the Financial Administration Act and regulations.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



YUKON ACT


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Yukon Act to increase the indemnity and the living allowance to be paid to members of the Yukon council while in attendance at a session of the council and to provide that under certain conditions a member shall be deemed to be in attendance at a session.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house*


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Northwest Territories Act to increase the sessional indemnity of elected members of the Northwest Territories council.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Railway Act following the "Report on the Railway-Highway Crossing Problem in Canada", made by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada to provide for an increase in the annual appropriation to the railway grade crossing fund from $1,000,000 to $5,000,000 and for certain changes in connection with the administration of the fund.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Financial Administration Act to provide that the Auditor General shall out of the consolidated revenue fund be paid a salary of twenty thousand dollars per annum with effect from July 1. 1954.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Defence Production Act to increase the

Proposed Legislation
salary of the Minister of Defence Production from ten thousand dollars per annum to fifteen thousand and to repeal section 41 which provided for the expiry of the act on July 31, 1956.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act to extend the benefits and the application of the act, and to provide further for certain changes in consequence thereof and also in connection with the administration of the act.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon.  L. S.@: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act to extend the benefits of the act to certain persons in the service of Her Majesty who are not paid a direct wage or salary and to persons locally engaged outside of Canada: to provide for additional benefits where an employee dies as the result of an accident while absent on duty from his usual place of employment; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the Canadian forces to amend the

National Defence Act to provide for the reinstatement under certain circumstances of a member of the Canadian forces who has been released, to place members of the Canadian forces in the same position as civilians in respect of judicial process, and to make certain other amendments to the act; also to amend the Defence Services Pension Act with respect to the payment to women of pensions or gratuities under certain circumstances, to extend the provisions relating to the augmentation of pension on re-enrolment, to extend the time within which an election may be made to count prior service, and to make certain other amendments to the act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act to amplify the definition of "historic place", to change slightly the representation of the board, and to provide further for changes in the method and amount of payments to members appointed by the governor in council, of living and travelling expenses and to provide for the payment of stenographic allowances.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the Canada Grain Act to amend the statutory grades of western grain and eastern grain with respect to the grade No. 3 amber durum wheat and all grades of soybeans as recommended by the committee on western and eastern grain standards; to provide for the appointment of four in lieu of three assistant grain commissioners and to increase the annual salaries of the chief and other two commissioners from fourteen and twelve thousand dollars to fifteen and thirteen thousand five hundred dollars respectively.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Proposed Legislation
RADIO ACT	He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with amendments respecting radio antennae and the subject matter of this resolution, recom-ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES	mends U to the house.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Radio Act to control the mechanical features of radio antennae for safety purposes and to provide for the appointment of inspectors in relation thereto; and to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a bill respecting the New Westminster harbour commissioners to authorize the Minister of Finance to make total loans of $200,000 to the corporation for the purposes mentioned in the said bill.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to implement the convention on great lakes fisheries between Canada and the United States, signed at Washington on the 10th of September, 1954, and to provide that the governor in council may make regulations for carrying out and giving effect to the provisions of the convention and anything done by the great lakes fisheries commission to be established thereunder.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act to provide that a withdrawal allowance payable under the act will include certain of the interest that has been paid on contributions and to provide further that where a member or a former member dies certain of the amounts which he may owe under the act will not be recovered.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: By agreement announced last night by the acting leader of the house, it was agreed that today we would take up the first resolution in the name of the Minister of Labour in committee of the whole. Is it agreed that I do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole?


Mr. Fulton:: Could we have orders of the day?


Mr. Harris:: We might consider it as a government order and postpone it until orders of the day have been called.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES REFERENCE TO REPORTS OF NEAR ACCIDENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has received the report or has had his attention drawn to reports to the effect that pilots of T.C.A. have reported a large number of near accidents of a nature similar to that which was reported at Moose Jaw recently.

Inquiries of the Ministry If so, has the hon. gentleman anything he would care to add to the statement he made yesterday?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: I may say that we have received none of the complaints to which the hon. member has alluded. If complaints are made by responsible individuals, we shall be glad to investigate them.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES INQUIRY AS TO SETTING UP OF CANADA COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: I should like to address to the Prime Minister a question of which I think he will not require notice. Has the government decided upon the setting up of the Canada Council as envisaged by the Massey report? If so, what progress has been made in that direction?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government has not yet decided the question referred to by my hon. friend.



WATER POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the pollution of the North Saskatchewan river is again at full height, is the minister in a position to advise what happened during the conferences between the dominion government and the provincial governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and also whether the people living on the North Saskatchewan river can expect any legislation at this session to make it an offence to cause wrongful pollution of interprovincial streams?


Hon. Siuarf S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: With regard to the first part of my hon. friend's question the answer is yes. With regard to the second part, no decision has been reached as regards such legislation at this session.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister been made aware of the concern felt
by the railway workers of Canada over the loss of their right to strike? Is the government taking steps either to assure these workers that they still have that right or to establish a satisfactory alternative?


Hon. Millon F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: This question, I think, divides itself into two parts. In the first place the Minister of Labour has been made aware of the concern which would be felt by the non-operating unions of the railways in the event they were deprived of the right to strike. In the second place I am sure my hon. friend has noted that the general conference committee of the non-operating unions of the railways have been meeting in Montreal recently and are discussing questions directly related to the second part of his question. In due course the Minister of Labour would expect to be told about the conclusions reached at these discussions and I do not think that in the meantime the Minister of Labour should anticipate these reports.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has any minister of the government of British Columbia informed the minister, or any minister of the government of Canada, of the details of the proposed agreement between the government of British Columbia and the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation for the construction of a dam on the Arrow lakes?


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: I wish to
thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. As far as I am concerned, the answer is in the negative. As for my colleagues, I have inquired and as far as I can ascertain the, answer is also in the negative.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Can the minister tell the
house if the Canadian section of the international joint commission has received any information as to the details of this proposed agreement?


Jean Lesage: According to my information the chairman of the Canadian section of the international joint commission, General Mc-Naughton, received a telegram dated September 17, 1954, from Mr. Sommers, minister

of lands and forests of British Columbia. It was sent in the afternoon and reads as follows:
Government of British Columbia proposes to enter into agreement with Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation allowing said company to erect dam on lower Arrow lakes to store 3 million acre feet of water. Payment for same to be 20 per cent of power generated on American side delivered free to British Columbia.
According to my information, General Mc-Naughton answered this telegram on the morning of the 18th and suggested that no action be taken before the British Columbia government receives a copy of the report of new topographical studies of the Columbia system which were being made. The very same day Mr. Sommers answered General McNaughton by telegram telling him that British Columbia and Kaiser had already executed the agreement. I think that was the wording.



FINAL PAYMENT ON 1953-54 WHEAT POOL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister say whether, as a method of helping to relieve the critical cash shortage amongst western farmers, the final payment on the 1953-54 wheat pool will be made at an early date?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Final settlement will be made when the wheat from that crop is sold. I cannot give the date of the final sale of that crop but I assure the hon. member that no time will be lost when the sale of the crop is completed.



RATES ON MOVEMENTS THROUGH VANCOUVER AND OTHER PORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: Yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall) asked me to make a statement about the pricing of wheat as between various Canadian ports and I am now prepared to do so. On February 16, 1954, the wheat board announced a new pricing policy which involved quoting separate prices daily for wheat in store Pacific coast ports, in store Fort William-Port Arthur and in store Churchill. At that time the board described its new policy as follows:
As a measure to establish more equality in wheat shipments from various parts of the prairie provinces, the board, for such period of time as may be necessary, is adopting a policy of making board wheat generally competitive in overseas markets irrespective of the port of shipment. Pursuant to 50433-5
Inquiries of the Ministry this objective the board will take into account not only internal costs of moving wheat to seaboard positions but also the various ocean freight rates involved and such variations in the foregoing costs as may occur from time to time.
Pursuant to the new policy, on February 16, 1954, the price of wheat in store Fort William-Port Arthur was lowered by 7 cents per bushel under the price for wheat in store Vancouver. It was obviously not the intention of the wheat board at that time to establish a fixed differential between Fort William-Port Arthur and Vancouver. The purposes of the revised pricing system would have been absolutely defeated by such a policy. Actually the price relationship between board selling prices for wheat in store Fort William-Port Arthur and in store Vancouver has materially changed since February 16,	1954. Fort William-Port
Arthur prices have been increased and Vancouver prices have been decreased, the result being that at the present time the in store Fort William price is only one cent a bushel below the in store Vancouver price on grades 1 to 4 northern and is identical with Vancouver on No. 5 wheat, No. 6 wheat and feed wheat.
In my opinion the board has been carrying out the policy enunciated last February of endeavouring to keep Canadian wheat generally competitive in overseas markets irrespective of the port of shipment. Daily price comparisons are made. The last comparison I have is for January 6. On that date No. 1 northern in store Fort William was $1.72 and in store Vancouver $1.74, a two cent spread as of that day. However, based on the cost of ocean freight that day the price of No. 1 northern shipped from Vancouver and landed in the United Kingdom would be $2.21 a bushel whereas the same grain shipped from eastern ports would be $2.22| a bushel. On that particular day there was obviously a price advantage out of Vancouver. This does not necessarily mean that all purchasers would buy their wheat from Vancouver because there are other problems such as time of delivery and ability to find vessels willing to make the long voyage from Vancouver to the United Kingdom with wheat whep just now higher revenues can be earned on shorter hauls. In order to keep rail freights on grain to a minimum it is necessary to keep all Canadian ports reasonably competitive in our principal European markets. Obviously, for shipments to Japan or South Africa or South America, Vancouver has a natural advantage that eastern ports cannot touch.
Let us look at the figures. During the current crop year from August 1 to December 29, of all Canadian wheat shipped to overseas destinations 33 [DOT] 6 per cent was shipped from
66	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Vancouver-New Westminster, -7 per cent from other Pacific ports, 12-7 per cent from Churchill, 49-4 per cent from St. Lawrence ports and 3-6 per cent from Atlantic ports. It must be remembered that during the next few months the Vancouver and Atlantic percentages will rise since St. Lawrence navigation is now closed until late April. Obviously, too, the Churchill percentage of 12-7 will go down steadily since there can be no further shipments from that port until navigation opens there again late next July.
These figures follow the normal pattern of distribution between Canadian ports. For the crop year 1952-53, 32-6 per cent of the movement was from the west coast and 51 per cent from St. Lawrence ports. The three crop years prior to 1952-53 show much the same comparison. The crop year 1953-54 was abnormal because it took a good part of the crop year to clear up the aftermath of the long Vancouver strike of grain handlers which had occurred the previous spring, and because Vancouver prices were temporarily out of line with eastern seaboard prices on account of abnormally low ocean freight rates.
The wheat board is charged with the duty of marketing all prairie wheat to best advantage for the producer. Obviously all prairie wheat cannot be moved to advantage through either a western port or an eastern port. Internal freight charges can quickly offset any advantages gained by lower selling prices at any one port. The purpose of the board must be at all times to see that returns to the producer for prairie grain are the maximum obtainable.
My own opinion is that the Canadian wheat board is succeeding very well in keeping prices competitive between our ocean ports. Proof of this is the percentage of the business which is presently moving from our various ports.


Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: May I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce a supplementary question on the statement' he read? I was wondering if his reference to eastern Canadian ports included the Atlantic ports or merely the great lakes ports. Could he, at some later date, make available the comparative figures for Halifax and Saint John which he gave earlier in his statement for Vancouver?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The only Atlantic ports, for the period I mentioned, are the ports of Halifax and Saint John. I think if the hon. member will read my answer in Hansard
IMr. Howe (Port Arthur).]

he will find the comparison I gave for January 6 is the comparison for which he is asking.


George Clyde Nowlan: The minister referred to eastern Canadian ports at one time and Atlantic ports at another, and I was not sure what the differentiation was.



GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: May I
ask the Prime Minister if a recent decision of the income tax appeal board has been brought to his attention concerning expenditures in improving a certain residence that is reported to be used to entertain certain government officials during contract negotiations? Has the Prime Minister a statement to make on this subject? Can he tell us what steps have been taken by the government to investigate the use made of such a place in relation to this purpose? If no investigation has yet been made, does the Prime Minister not think it a proper matter for inquiry by a committee of this house?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: This morning I did see a report of a decision rendered by the income tax appeal board which very much surprised me in the statements that it contained. I have never heard any suggestion that it was considered to be necessary by anyone to have a residence to entertain government officials.
The report I saw seemed to indicate that this was the parent company of a concern that tendered for construction work for both government and private enterprises, and that this parent company had asked to have deducted from its income expenditures made on a place said to have been used for the purpose of entertaining prospective clients. I believe that the hon. gentleman is quite within the bounds of propriety in suggesting there should be some inquiry made as to how this came about. I gathered from the report it was something that went back to 1950 or 1951, but I think it is something that should be looked into.
I shall endeavour to have it looked into, first of all by ascertaining just what was disclosed before this income tax appeal board, and whether or not that would indicate that any officials of this government were being entertained in that way.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORTS OF DAMAGE IN NEWFOUNDLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnell (Comox-Alberni):: I
should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister a report to make on the severe storm damage to harbour installations, fishing vessels, etc., in Newfoundland last night, and will the government promise emergency assistance to get the harbours back into full operation as quickly as possible?


George Carlyle Marler: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. I have no report to make on the subject of storm damage in Newfoundland because the Department of Transport, up to now, has received no notification of damage to aids to navigation in St. John's harbour or any other part of that province. The hon. member, I am sure, will appreciate that I can answer only for the facilities that come under the jurisdiction of my department.



SUPERANNUATED CIVIL SERVANTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance? Has the minister, since he took over his new and important portfolio, received representations asking for increases in the pensions of superannuated civil servants, particularly for those whose pensions are in the lower and middle brackets? Has the minister given consideration to these representations?


Walter Edward Harris: The answer is, yes, I did receive a few representations. When I heard my hon. friend was going to ask the question today I read some of his remarks, not all, on the subject and felt I could not add very much to what the minister of finance at that time said in answer to the hon. member-that was on March 2, 1954.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then the new minister is no better than the other one was.



BRITISH COMMONWEALTH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: 

PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Is
the Prime Minister in a position to give an answer now regarding the resignation of Mr. Thomson and also whether a civil servant appointed under an order in council is in a different position from one appointed under the civil service commission in so far as his rights are concerned?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No; I have not yet obtained all the information I am seeking to obtain.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Milton Fowler Gregg: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to raise the rates of supplementary benefit to the present rates of regular benefit and to provide a minimum of sixty days' supplementary benefit to those who qualify.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am grateful to the members on all sides of the house, Mr. Chairman, for giving the right of way to this resolution today. The resolution itself, as it appears on the order paper, is practically self-explanatory so I am going to be quite brief. The purpose of it, of course, is to help to mitigate some of the hardships caused by winter unemployment. If we are to judge by last year's experience, this revision of the supplementary benefits will help a good deal.
Back in the early winter of 1950 my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), then temporarily acting as minister of labour, introduced for the first time these supplementary benefits, which came into effect in the late part of
68	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act that winter. At that time the amount of supplementary benefits was approximately 80 per cent of the regular benefits. Then, in the early part of the year 1952, I introduced to the house a number of general amendments to the act, and included in those amendments were some increases to the regular benefits. At that time I did not recommend any increase in the supplementary benefits because we had had such a very short period of experience with the supplementary benefits, namely only the winter of 1950-51. Since 1952 the supplementary benefits have averaged approximately 70 per cent of the main benefits. Under this resolution it is proposed to increase that to 100 per cent.
The other object of the resolution is to raise the minimum supplementary period to 60 days. That is of course within the limits of the general period of January 1 to April 15. At the present time the minimum would be somewhere about 18 days. The general period under this recommendation will remain the same, namely from January 1 to April 15.
The reason for asking that this small bill be introduced early is so that these new benefits may take effect right away, or as soon as the bill receives royal assent, to be dated from the Monday of the week in which royal assent is given. Then later on-and not too much later-I intend to bring in amendments With wider implications to the Unemployment Insurance Act. When they come forward these amendments will absorb automatically the ones I am proposing today. So there will be the advantage, if it is desired at that time, of having further discussion with respect to all these things which I am now proposing shall take effect immediately.
I am sure hon. members will feel the wider amendment that will come later should receive very careful study both in the House of Commons and in the standing committee on industrial relations. This I shall suggest.
Since these supplementary benefits were established in 1950 they have been very helpful indeed in our winter period of unemployment; and I am confident that with this improvement they will be very much more so during the remainder of this present winter.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Chairman, before I embark upon the comments I wish to make concerning this resolution I think it might be of interest to the house to know that today, January 11, is the 140th anniversary of the birthday of that great Canadian statesman, Sir John A. Macdonald-a statesman, T might add, who took a lead in recognizing the rights of workers of this nation. It is


most appropriate that improvements in labour legislation should be introduced on this date. No doubt the Minister of Labour had that in mind when doing so.
Mr. Chairman, the raising of the rates of supplementary benefits to those of regular benefits will remove the disparity which has existed heretofore. In the original instance the rates may have been calculated on the same percentage basis, but with the changes which have taken place, and to which the minister has referred, the percentage of benefits paid has now varied to the extent that they range all the way from 67-5 per cent to 81-25 per cent of the regular benefits, depending upon the classification into which one happens to fall.
As will be seen from the report for the year ending March 31, 1954, supplementary benefits form a very small part of the total benefits paid, and the increase from approximately 80 per cent to 100 per cent of the benefit rates will not affect the fund substantially.
We on this side of the house have hsked on several occasions for an increase in these benefits. Two years ago last July, when the regular benefits were raised, several members, not only in this but in other parties, asked that the supplementary benefits should be raised accordingly. Of course that was not done. It is interesting to note however that the reason given at that time and subsequently for not raising the supplementary benefits was that the beneficiary who received the benefits should be the same as the person making the contribution. I believe at one stage in the debate I remarked on what a ridiculous argument that was.
Today I have taken the trouble to make some calculations. I am sure hon. members will recall that when the supplementary benefits were introduced contributions were increased by one cent per day for the employee, and a similar amount by the employer, making a total increase of two cents per contribution. I find from available statistics that as of October 1, 1954, there were
3,219,000	persons insured; and on the basis of 300 contributions per year at this rate of one cent from the employee and one from the employer we arrive at the total amount of $19,314,000 paid into the fund to defray the expenses of supplementary benefits. Last year, when the heaviest strain developed on the fund for the purposes of supplementary benefits, according to the report which just came to hand yesterday the total amount paid out was $12,234,281. So the fund has been benefiting by more than 50 per cent in excess of the payments made to workers by way of supplementary benefits.

If any further proof were needed as to the justification for our claim, I am sure it could be found in the further figures or calculations which could be made to a more exact figure in connection with the sums received and the sums expended.
The minister has said that there will be further amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. These were indicated in the speech from the throne. He has said that the bill will be introduced shortly, and will be discussed in the house at an early date. As a matter of fact the newspapers are already making what might be termed informed guesses as to the contents of that measure. But I should like to remark that if the House of Commons had been called to meet last autumn, as the leader of this party asked, amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act could have been incorporated in one bill, brought down at one time and considered carefully weeks in advance of the time when the supplementary benefits would become effective. In this way the house would have had a better picture of the over-all effect of any amendments to the act. As it is, even the minister admits that if and when further amendments to the act come down we may wish to change the bill which will be placed before the house in the course of a couple of days. It seems to me that this is ample evidence that the Hon. George Drew was right in the first place when he indicated that there were certain things which should have been discussed in the autumn of last year, rather than waiting to throw them into debate in the first days of a session after the beginning of the year-and then on the ground that they are of such urgency that they must be dealt with immediately.
Certainly, they are urgent; certainly, they should be dealt with immediately. They should have been dealt with last October or November. Certain it is that welcome though increases may be, Mr. Chairman, they do not solve the distress among the unemployed persons of this nation.
I was interested in the remarks of the Prime Minister yesterday when he admitted there is some unemployment in Canada. He said, at page 33 of Hansard:
There is some unemployment in Canada. There has been some unemployment in Canada every year. At the opening of every session of the Canadian parliament for the last three or four years there has been considerable anxiety over the kind and extent of unemployment in Canada.
That is true, Mr. Chairman, because unemployment has been increasing every year for the last four or five years. The Prime Minister then goes on to say:
That situation has eased as the season advanced, and there is reason to expect that it will do so again.
Unemployment Insurance Act
I might remark, Mr. Chairman, that there is reason also to expect that we shall have serious unemployment again this year before the season advances far enough to ease the situation. I hope that in presenting his bill the minister will have more to offer to this house than the bland assurance that if we can sit the thing out everybody will eventually get a job.
I noticed in the last report, which has come jointly from the Department of Labour and the dominion bureau of statistics, that the increase in unemployment as at November 18 last, the period for which figures are available, was, in the province of Ontario, 23 per cent over the year before. In the city of Hamilton, my own city, which is an industrial centre, it was 26 per cent higher. It is true that if you take the nation as a whole the increase in unemployment over the year before was 11 per cent. If my memory serves me well we got dangerously close to the
600,000	mark last year. Therefore, even if it is 11 per cent more, taking the average over the nation as a whole, it is an extremely serious situation. I am sure that despite supplementary benefits or any other stopgap that may be brought in by the government, it must look like a long bleak winter to those without jobs, and this little sop of 25 per cent increase, while welcomed, will not supply what the workers want most, namely, jobs; nor will it solve the problem of those who are unemployed and do not receive benefits, those who have been in uninsurable employment, those who have insufficient contributions, those who have taken ill and were forced to leave jobs on that account, and other classifications. I might say, last and by no means least, it will not solve the problem of the municipalities who have for far too long now borne the weight of welfare costs for those who are classed as employables.
I speak for my colleagues in this house when I say we welcome any legislation which is going to ease this situation, no matter how slightly. We shall be interested to see this bill when it is available for distribution and we hope that it will have some effect in alleviation of distress of our workers. We still say the government has not gone nearly far enough in trying to supply what the workers want most, namely, not unemployment relief but jobs.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, there is not much one can say in regard to this bill, as it is not before us. We do not know just what is involved in it, but from the information we have we must welcome the measure. But, as the last speaker said, it will fail even to relieve, to any considerable extent, the situation with which we are now confronted.

Unemployment Insurance Act
I have attended meetings called by labour organizations in my own city, and this is one of the things that I find. Today we have people who have been unemployed for over a year. Once you have in this country two or three hundred thousand workers unemployed you are bound to have some of the workers unemployed for long periods. You are not going to have one lot of workers unemployed for a few months this winter and another different lot unemployed next winter. Seasonal workers are seasonal workers for years. They do nothing else but seasonal work. I am not saying that all the unemployment we have had during the last year and more is seasonal unemployment. In my own province there is considerable seasonal unemployment. But until last fall and winter we were taking that seasonal unemployment pretty well in our stride because the workers had sufficient to carry them over from one season to the next. Where they did not have that, the unemployment insurance helped. But we should remember that unemployment insurance is not a cure for unemployment.
I was in the house when the Unemployment Insurance Act was passed in 1940 and it was clearly understood that its purpose was to carry a person from the time he left one job until he got another one. Because of that, the weekly insurance payments provided were very small. You cannot expect anyone with a family in this time of high prices even to attempt to live on the amount provided by unemployment insurance, even at the higher levels of today.
While we welcome this-it is needed and it will help in some cases-if it is all that the government has to offer for unemployment then the people of this country-I attended a meeting where a man was unemployed for 15 months-have very little to look forward to.
I understand that the province of British Columbia offered to go 50-50 with the federal government in providing for unemployed workers in that province and that offer was turned down. The result is that the city of Vancouver and the other municipalities and the province of British Columbia are providing on a 20-80 basis to people who are resident and have been resident in the various municipalities. But unfortunately, in my province, and particularly in the coast section of the province, we get every winter a large number of people who come to the province because of a somewhat better climate and who add to the unemployed. It seems to me that when the federal government amended the British North America Act in


1940 to enable it to enact unemployment insurance it assumed responsibility for all unemployment.
It appears now as if the government is running away from that position; it is not meeting its responsibilities. I suggest to them that we should not today, after so many years of prosperity, prosperity for which the government took credit-I shall have something more to say about that at a later time-accept that as a reason why more should not be done to relieve the unemployment situation than seems to be proposed in this measure.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on this subject. I think we all agree that the government should have brought down legislation such as this long ago, but nevertheless I think we are all agreed that it will be welcome to the workingmen to have some form of relief coming through. The other day I was reading a brief which had been presented to the government in November by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. In referring to this particular subject they mention the very things which the government is now bringing forward in this amendment. They say:
That supplementary benefits be increased and the period in which they are payable be extended.
Then the next submission along this line was:
That supplementary benefits be paid to those who have exhausted their regular benefits, and in the prairie region this to continue until May 1.
I am not sure whether that had any bearing on the government's decision to amend this legislation at this time, but certainly that was foremost in the thoughts of the trade union people when they presented their briefs to the government. It has been said here, and rightly so, that members of all parties in this house, even some members on the government side, have brought this matter to the attention of the government on other occasions. We recognize that while this measure is going to be of assistance to people who are going to receive these benefits it will not be a cure-all by any means.
I do not think a year has passed, particularly during the last three or four years, during which the attention of the government has not been brought most strongly to this particular matter. It has been pointed out to the government that the unemployment problem was a continually increasing one and that unless we took some definite action in regard to the policies which are being put forth to solve this problem it would continue to get worse. That is what has happened.

I think the government has been most reluctant to admit that there has been any substantial increase in unemployment. However, they have had to recognize this on this occasion and now they have brought in this amendment.
I remember that last session the Minister of Labour went to great lengths to disprove the statements made by some of the labour unions in this country as to the extent of unemployment. He questioned the figures which they had used and gave his own particular figures in an effort to point out that the unemployment problem was not as serious as some of us were trying to indicate. Certainly this is an admission on the government's part that the unemployment problem is becoming serious. Believe me it is becoming serious for that portion of our population which is affected.
As I said a moment ago, this increase in the supplementary benefits will be some improvement but it will help only those who are qualified to receive regular benefits. As the last speaker pointed out, there are a great many people in this country who are seasonally unemployed and who have exhausted their unemployment relief payments. It is true that there is going to be a minimum period of 60 days during which they can receive supplementary benefits and this is something new in this type of legislation. While this 60-day provision will be of assistance it certainly will not take care of the problem of feeding the families of the unemployed after that period has expired.
This will be only a palliative. It will not be a solution to the problem. The Canadian Congress of Labour recognized that quite fully in November when they made their presentation to the government with regard to unemployment. They stated in their brief:
What we ought to do is put money into the hands of people who will buy what we can already make and can't sell.
It seems to me that in that instance labour hit the nail on the head.


An hon. Member:: They usually do.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes, they usually do, but unfortunately the government never seems to give too much consideration to the worth-while suggestions which are made to them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Even when they are hit on the head.


Charles Edward Johnston: This is one of the real needs to be considered. Our problem should be not merely to amend the legislation to get these people over a difficult period; the policy of this country should be
Unemployment Insurance Act changed in such a way as to eliminate unemployment if possible, or, if not to eliminate it, to reduce it most substantially.
When the Canadian Congress of Labour suggests that we should put money into the hands of those who need it so that they can buy the goods that we are producing but cannot sell they are in fact suggesting the very thing that Social Credit members have suggested and contended for some years past. If we would supply our people with the required purchasing power to buy those goods which we are now making and cannot sell- let me emphasize that-if we then would go further and provide employment by additional public works, if we would increase the purchasing power of the people by a reduction in taxation, then we would be doing something to help these people to help themselves.
No one in this country wants to receive unemployment insurance: there is nobody in this country who wants to receive supplementary benefits unless it is absolutely necessary. They would far rather have an opportunity to earn a livelihood. That is what the Canadian Congress of Labour meant when they said that what we should be doing is to put purchasing power in the hands of these people so that they could buy the goods that we make but cannot sell.
We have only to look around us to see that we are producing goods that cannot be sold. It is true that something better than 8 million is going to be spent in the form of these special benefits in addition to what has been spent already. That will be of some assistance, but when that has been spent we will be right back to where we were before. I think the government should come to the conclusion that this is not just a seasonal occurrence, that conditions point very clearly to the fact that it is a much bigger problem. Just before I came down to this house I was reading the Calgary Herald of Monday, December 20, 1954, and this is what they had to say:
U.S. production next year should run two to five per cent ahead of 1954 but nevertheless joblessness may increase, the U.S. chamber of commerce forecast Saturday.
And again:
But Dr. Schmidt told reporters the production Bains in prospect would be insufficient to prevent some increase in unemployment next year due to population gains and rising output per worker.
It is clear that because of the industry of the worker himself and because of our efficient way of producing goods, we are doing exactly as the Canadian Congress of Labour said: we are producing goods that we cannot sell. That is the problem we must solve in this country. We must make it

Unemployment Insurance Act possible for working people and others as well to get sufficient purchasing power, by some means or other, so that they are able to buy the goods we are making now but cannot sell and thus increase employment and do away with the necessity for these so-called supplementary payments.
We agree that under the circumstances there is every reason to pass this bill with haste sc that these people may enjoy the further supplementary payments, particularly those who have already exhausted their regular unemployment insurance payments, because they must be in a terrible position. But we say also that this should be a reminder to everyone, and particularly to the supporters of the government, that the time has come-and through this legislation the government recognizes it-when we must provide policies which are going to create jobs and thus increase purchasing power for the people who need it, and that will solve our problem. We would hope then that there would not be the necessity on another occasion for these so-called supplementary benefits. We support this legislation and we shall be glad to see the amendments which the government intends to bring down to the Unemployment Insurance Act which will still further assist the workers of this country.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway that, as we have not this bill before us, we cannot discuss it as well as we might. I do not think we should enter into a general discussion on unemployment insurance. That is something that will come on later. Neither should we discuss the big question of unemployment now. We should send this bill to the committee on industrial relations at once. The committee then will discuss it thoroughly. Then when it comes back to us we can speak intelligently.
(Translation):


Mr. Dufresne:: Mr. Speaker, we have noted with real gratification the unanimous approval which greeted the proposal made to us yesterday evening with a view to suspending the debate on the address today in order to discuss the matter now before the house. This satisfaction is not only felt here, by the members of this honourable house, but is certainly shared by the working people of this country. It must after all be admitted that for many years now our people
[Mr. Johnston (Bow River).)

have been subjected to what I might call the canker of seasonal or regional unemployment. Things had reached such a point that in the fall of each year and throughout a long winter stretching well into spring, thousands upon thousands of people were left without employment, of which several thousand again were even deprived of those unemployment insurance benefits to which they had nevertheless contributed, not having worked long enough during the summer to earn a right to them.
Members from this side of the house, as well as representatives of every labour union in this country, have asked that the government set this matter right. But the government have never deigned to listen to these representations. A while ago we were shown figures which, in this very house, were said to be exaggerated. And yet these figures are provided by the government themselves since now, as always, the only ones used are those that come from official sources. Now the unemployment figures given by the government are taken from the reports made to them by the various unemployment insurance offices and include only those people receiving benefits, whereas, in most cases, in the different parts of this country, we know that thousands more are not in a position to enjoy these benefits.
In the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and which is essentially a working class district, we have a certain type of worker known as a labourer. For a number of years, these labourers have been unable to find the work necessary to enable them to support themselves and their families except in the case of a few during the summer. It means then that, at the moment of leaving their work, these people suddenly find themselves in the most pressing need, not having earned enough money to accumulate some savings.
I remember that last year, in this very house, I put a question to the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg). I asked him if it would not be possible to do something immediately for the 22,000 people who were then jobless in the Quebec area. It was suggested that the figures I had quoted were highly exaggerated. However, it appears that the following week statistics showed the number of jobless to be smaller by a few hundred only, and these statistics were not for the whole Quebec district but for the cities of Quebec and Levis only.

Mr. Speaker, labour unions all over the country have been stirred more than once by the constant rise of unemployment, which is no longer seasonal or regional but has become in most instances permanent unemployment. It is permanent undoubtedly because of poor administration on the part of the government now in power. However, I am happy to note that, following numerous protests and representations, the government finally decided to bring some help to those who, at the present time, are most in need.
I wish to point out, however, that this measure is not in the nature of a permanent cure for the canker I spoke of a while ago. It is a mere poultice applied over a gaping wound, a poultice that will not heal the sore but will merely lighten the pain.
What our workers want, what they are asking and have never ceased to ask the government to do is to give them work. I know that the people I have the honour of representing have inherited if not material wealth, at least the will to work and the love for work of their forbears. They want to have the satisfaction of earning their daily bread by the sweat of their brows, as stated in the Scriptures.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the resolution now before the house will be of some help to people in need. However, I deem it my duty to say that the people of Canada and more particularly the workers of the constituency of Quebec West have not and never had the intention of begging anything from the government. What they are clamouring for is work because they want to keep up their reputation as work-loving people. In other words, what they want is sufficient work to enable them to provide for their families and meet their obligations.
Mr. Chairman, judging from what has been said in the speech from the throne, it seems that the government intends to spend more to help the unemployed and give them work.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the projects undertaken will not consist in repair or construction work given to contractors here and there, which can be undertaken by these contractors with the workers already on their payrolls. What we need is an extensive public works program which would provide employment for hundreds and thousands of workers. That is the only way of putting an end to the increasing wave of unemployment which is the cause of so much grief and sorrow in Canadian homes.
Unemployment Insurance Act
As far as the city of Quebec is concerned, Mr. Chairman, I have already had the opportunity on several occasions of asking the house to undertake the projects I deemed necessary to the welfare of our people. I intend to repeat my requests from time to time. For the present, I shall content myself with asking that the unemployment benefits mentioned in the motion now before the house be extended at least until May 1.
I mentioned a moment ago a group of workers known as day labourers. You undoubtedly know that in areas where winter lingers on it is not always possible to undertake any extensive work before spring. This happens very often where large numbers of workers, more particularly day labourers, cannot start working before the sunny days of spring. I therefore suggest that the proposed date, April 15, be extended to May 1, as a much greater number of people would benefit from the measure.
Another reason why we must press for work, jobs and employment for our people is that there is a constant influx of immigrants into this country. If we are now unable to give work to those who are commonly known as the native sons of Canada, why should we seek abroad other employees, when we cannot feed those who are already here. Perhaps, this government would, therefore, be well advised in taking the necessary steps to ensure that Canadians be supplied with the food and the clothing they need, and that our workers enjoy at home a certain measure of prosperity.
Mr. Chairman, those are the few comments I wanted to make on the proposed resolution. Needless to say that I am supporting the principle of the resolution and the bill, and that I intend in due course to ask the government to increase the benefits. However, I wish to repeat that we cannot cure a canker by simply applying a poultice, and the extension of unemployment insurance benefits is a mere poultice applied to the present situation.
Let us give jobs, and, I repeat it once more, the work-loving people of my constituency will see to it that this love of work is handed down to future generations.
(Text) :


Mr, Knowles:: Mr. Chairman, as my
colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, has already pointed out, we welcome this little bill but we cannot get very excited about it. It does seem to us
74	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act to be very typical of the way in which the present government approaches serious problems when our people are in need. The fact of the matter is, as I understand it, that no person who does not already qualify for regular benefits and supplementary benefits as well will qualify as a result of this measure. All the measure will do is to increase the amount of the supplementary benefits in the case of those who are already qualified for it and extend the period during which they can receive that benefit. In the light of the unemployment problem facing us at the present time we feel that this is a picayune answer. We welcome the measure but we hope that before the session goes very far something far more effective as an answer to the unemployment problem will be presented to parliament by the government across the way.
There is one assurance of perhaps a technical nature which I hope the Minister of Labour will be able to give us before the debate at this stage closes. He may recall, although he was not minister of labour at the time but was rather minister of veterans affairs, that when the bill establishing supplementary benefits in the Unemployment Insurance Act was introduced in 1950 it too was brought in in the very early days of the session and put through parliament in somewhat of a hurry. We understood before the bill was brought in that all it was to contain was simply the provision for supplementary benefits, but when we got the bill, without very much notice, we found that it had a lot of other items in it as well. Some of them were good and some of them we did not like. I refer, for example, to the provision making a difference in the case of married women which was tucked into that bill at that time. I hope the minister can assure us that so far as the bill to be based on this resolution is concerned there is nothing tucked into it apart from what is referred to specifically in the resolution.
I should like to say just one other word because, as all members realize, there will be an opportunity to discuss unemployment insurance generally later in the session and other opportunities to discuss unemployment itself. However, the word I should like to say at this time is this. Last session we learned that at the request of the national advisory council on manpower a study was being made by the national employment committee of the question of seasonal unemployment in Canada. Some of us liked the statements made by the Minister of Labour at that time to the effect that Canada should


not accept the difficulty of seasonal unemployment as a permanent one. His approach, as I understood it, was that we should try to keep away from the permanence of seasonal unemployment, and I for one dared to hope that when that report was made it would indicate that something was being done to alter the situation.
It is a very attractive report. I received it first in mimeographed form and later in a printed booklet. But as one goes through it it is not very encouraging. Really all it is is an analysis of the situation as it is. When one finds in a dozen places throughout the booklet the heading "remedies" he hopes that he will find some recommendations that may be acted upon. But such is not the case. These so-called remedies are simply reports from the various industries concerned as to what they are doing, successfully or otherwise, to try to minimize seasonal unemployment. I suggest that so far as this report is concerned it is merely an analysis of the picture as it exists. It does not represent that concerted attack on the problem of seasonal unemployment which I felt the minister was anxious to make. I raise that matter at this time because it seems to me it is closely related to this question of supplementary unemployment insurance benefits which, after all, are for a period of seasonal unemployment. I hope the minister will pursue that important question with real vigour.


Mr. Hahn:: I am somewhat concerned over the anxiety of the government, Mr. Chairman, that we should hurry this resolution through because I feel the government should have thought of that last fall and probably should have brought us into session at that time. This would have given us ample opportunity to discuss these problems fully as they merit. This model government has once again shown its hindsight is much better than its foresight.
As I see it there are two parts to the resolution. The first part mentions the raising of the rates of supplementary benefits to the present rates of regular benefits and the second part mentions providing a minimum of 60 days' supplementary benefits to those who qualify. Both of these objectives are commendable, and they are both needed at present. However, they are both worth more careful consideration. They are both right and will, therefore, meet with the approval of every member in this house.
However, I believe we should keep in mind that this is an insurance measure, and not a handout. The recipients of these insurance

benefits are not so anxious to receive the benefits as they are to have a job. I am pleased that the government has recognized that it costs the unemployed as much to live after their insurance benefits run out as it did before their regulat insurance benefits ran out. Certainly I would say these people require 100 per cent of the benefit and not just 70 per cent. I would, therefore, be ready to agree to the second part of the resolution. These men, however, probably find that their financial resources are completely depleted by this time, and therefore they require much more help. Possibly it might be desirable to increase their benefits so that they would have something worth living for.
The purpose of unemployment insurance, as I understand it, is to tide people over that short period between jobs when they are unemployed. The second half of the resolution is proof that the government now recognizes this problem is no longer a transitional one. There is no longer that short period when a man gives up a job to seek another. Today he finds himself in the awkward position of having no work. He cannot find a job. He has given up his former position, so he soon uses up his unemployment insurance benefits. This resolution is a recognition by the government that the problem is no longer a transitional one, nor is it a seasonal one. We have the continually growing problem of unemployment.
The need for assistance is not so much a need of financial assistance on a long-term basis as it is a need for the establishment of jobs. I wish, therefore, to heartily endorse what the hon. member for Bow River suggested when he said that these people require work. Now, morally and physically it is an obligation of this government to make jobs available by the adoption of an economic system based on a common-sense approach. We have the men, we have the materials and we have the means of transporting those men and materials. We have the money available. However, for some reason or other unknown to me we do not seem to be able to bring these groups together.
I would suggest to the government that they give consideration to an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act whereby it would be possible to utilize, let us say, $100 million of the fund to set up a revolving self-liquidating fund to be used only at times when such conditions as we find today are present. I would say that the purpose of setting up such a fund would be to make money immediately available to get the men, materials and transportation together to create jobs for these individuals. That is
Unemployment Insurance Act what they want. The creation of these jobs would take goods off the shelf, about which we hear our distressed merchants speaking so frequently.
These jobs might be created by building projects that the government had not seen fit to put in its estimates. In that respect, if the Minister of National Defence were here I would propose an armoury for the city of New Westminster. Such a project might well put a good number of men to work. One could think of the erection of hospitals, schools and other public utilities such as sewage and water plants for the smaller municipalities. These are the things that need to be done in this country. We have the money, we have the material and we have the men, but this government has not the ability to put them together. Therefore, while I am heartily in agreement with this particular resolution at this time I would urge the minister to consider introducing further legislation to set up such a fund with that purpose in mind.


Mr. Hees:: This measure is aimed at helping winter unemployment and seasonal unemployment; but as has been said by a number of speakers this afternoon, a great deal of the unemployment in Canada today is not of a seasonal nature. It is becoming permanent or semi-permanent in some areas. What I am interested in finding out from the minister, and I hope he will tell us when he introduces his bill on Thursday, is what the government expects people to do when their unemployment insurance credits expire before they are eligible for these extra benefits.
Now, as has been pointed out, these people have to eat, they have to feed their families and clothe themselves and their families, pay rent and so on. I want to know from the government what they expect the people to do, whose credits have expired early in the season, or because they have not contributed sufficiently long to become eligible for these supplementary benefits. This summer I found some communities where unemployment is certainly not seasonal. The first one I am going to mention is well known to the minister because it is in his own province. I know he has visited the community, and I know he is concerned about it, but being concerned and doing something about it are two different things. To be quite honest, I think the minister would like to do a great deal more than has been possible so far. I believe he has a genuine feeling of sympathy for the people concerned.
I am speaking of the people who live in Marysville, New Brunswick, where the whole community depends on one large textile mill.
50433-6J
76	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act As all of you know, I am sure, having read about it in the newspapers, a year ago in December this mill closed down. I visited that town this summer and talked to a lot of the residents. Frankly, these people are bewildered. It just breaks your heart to talk to them. They do not know what to do or what the future holds. It is all very well for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to tell the farm implement machinery workers, as he did about a year ago, "If you have not got a job, just pick up and go somewhere else." But you cannot do that. If you are a family man with six or seven children, with your house in a certain community, and the only trade you know is the one at which you have always worked, then you simply cannot just pick up and move. The people I spoke to in Marysville at that time-and I suppose it is even worse now-were in a bewildered and distraught state.
I would be interested some time to learn what the government has done and what effort it has made-I hope it has made some, and that it will reach a successful conclusion -to attract other industries to take over that mill and get that community on its feet again.
I also visited the community of New Glasgow in Nova Scotia and went down the Drummond mine, which is a very large coal mine in that province. The mine was due to close down permanently in October, so far as they could see. I was there in the latter part of July. It is hard to understand the feelings of those people unless one talks to them, because they just do not know what they are going to do. They are bewildered. They look at a future which, for them, does not exist. They are familiar only with the mining of coal, and they do not know where else to go to mine it. They know that unemployment insurance benefits are going to run out. This is the kind of future Canadians should not be asked to face. The people in these communities are good people. They want to work. They want nothing more than to work and to earn their own living so as to keep their heads above water. But, through no fault of their own, they are denied this, and to my mind it is a disastrous and worrying situation.
Surely someone must face up to responsibilities in cases like this, where unemployment is not seasonal. Quite demonstrably it is unseasonal; indeed, perhaps it is permanent. Certainly it is semi-permanent. I should like to quote briefly what was said by the late Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King with respect to this whole matter, when he was speaking before the dominion-provincial conference in 1951:
The transfer to the federal government of the whole cost of relief for the employable unemployed

and their dependents is the logical outcome of the experience of the past. It would prevent a repetition of the confusion, the inefficiency, the waste, the delay and the inequalities that have admittedly prevailed in relief since 1930.
When we see families who cannot get work, but who must go on living, families composed of good Canadians-good human beings-then I say somebody must take the responsibility for them. The municipalities simply cannot do it. They do not have the sources of revenue. Because we all know that year after year the annual conference of mayors and reeves makes it clear to the federal government that they simply cannot look after the people who are unemployed in their communities and who, through no fault of their own, are unable to find work.
I believe the opinion expressed by the late Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King is accepted on almost all occasions by this government as being the gospel truth. On this particular occasion, however, it seems strange that the government ignores completely what their late leader advised them to do, and said should be done without any equivocation. The government has disregarded that advice.
The opinion expressed by the late Mr. Mackenzie King is also that expressed by other authorities who have examined the matter. I have in mind particularly the Sirois report, the Marsh report, and the findings of the dominion-provincial conference of 1945- all of which come to exactly the sarnie conclusion on this question of looking after the needs of people who want to work but who, through no fault of their own, are not permitted to do so. All agree that this is the responsibility of the federal government. That has been the opinion of all who have made a study of this matter.
Despite this evidence however the government seems to persist-well, it does not "seem"; it persists-simply to duck its responsibilities in this matter, so far as the citizens of Canada are concerned.
I hope that when the minister deals with his bill later on he will explain some of these things to us, because we want to hear about them. The Canadian people want to hear. We want to know the attitude of the government toward these people. Let us remember that they are good Canadians, good citizens, human beings. They have the same needs as you and I: they need clothing; they need food; they need shelter. They have families. They are good people. They simply must not be cast adrift and be expected in some way or another to get along in some miraculous fashion.
As others have said, we welcome this measure as a partial move toward relieving
[Mr. Hees.l

distress caused by winter unemployment. But this measure does not go nearly far enough, because there are many people it does not help at all. And those people are worthy and deserving of help. I hope the minister will consider this matter seriously, and when on Thursday he speaks on his main measure, I hope he will give the house some indication of the government's attitude in this whole matter.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I hope before the discussion of this resolution is concluded the minister will give some statement as to what consideration has been given, if any, to the matter of the extension of the period of duration of supplementary benefits. It seems to me there are at least three main aspects to be considered when the matter of supplementary benefits is under review. One of these is the amount of benefits to be paid; another is the period under which those benefits will be available to persons qualifying; and the third is the duration of time during which the possibility of receiving those benefits will be in effect.
Only two of these matters is mentioned in the resolution before us. I for one feel that the other consideration is one of major importance as well. I would have hoped that when this measure was introduced at least some consideration would have been given to an extension of the duration of time in which supplementary benefits would be in effect.
To illustrate my point I shall mention briefly one important class of workers in British Columbia, namely the loggers. These workers are often subject to what one might describe as a dual period of seasonality in respect of their employment. In some years loggers in British Columbia are subject to long periods of lay-off during the summer because of dry weather and the possibility of fires; and in such times they exhaust their rights to regular benefits under the act. Then, if it so happens that early in the year winter conditions develop, in many cases they find themselves unemployed prior to the Christmas period and prior to the end of the year, and thus ineligible to collect regular benefits. Undoubtedly it would be greatly beneficial to that group of workers if the period of supplementary benefits were advanced so as to commence at least as early as the middle of December.
On the other hand, reference was made by one hon. member to a suggestion in one of the labour organization briefs to the effect that in certain parts of Canada there was need for an extension of that period at least to May 1.
Unemployment Insurance Act
I believe we must recognize that there are regional climatic differences in Canada, and that in so far as unemployment is due to climatic conditions, and in. so far as the application of supplementary benefits can be designed to cope with those conditions, the act should be designed so as to cover these periods of seasonality in unemployment resulting from climatic conditions. I can see no obstacle to an extension of benefits which would be related to regional climatic conditions. If it is desirable to extend the period in the prairie region so that it would apply to May 1, this might not be necessary in British Columbia or in the coastal area where, perhaps, the period of benefits might commence on December 15 and go through to the present termination date of April 15.
I would hope that the minister would indicate that such an extension is to be included in the bill that he proposes to introduce, following this resolution. I would hope that he would give us some explanation as to what consideration has been given to this important aspect of the application of supplementary benefits.


Mr. Pearkes:: I will delay the passing of this resolution by no more than a minute but I should like to ask the minister whether consideration has been given to extending these benefits so that fishermen, and men who are connected with the fishing industry but who are not perhaps actual fishermen, may receive coverage. As the minister knows, there are certain companies which are engaged in the fishing industry and which employ a large number of men who are not actual fishermen in that they are not employed in the catching of fish but they are connected with the lifting of fish from various fish traps which are established legally in the strait of Juan de Fuca. I refer particularly to men who are employed in such companies as the Sooke Harbour Fishing and Packing Company as pile drivers, and men who are employed in the repair of the leads which guide the fish into their traps. These men are not fishermen in the ordinary sense of the word. They do not go out in boats to catch fish. They are employed in the fishing industry but they are very definitely tradesmen of another classification.
As I say, there are men who act as pile drivers. These men, working alongside the pile driver hired from another company that is covered, find that they are not covered by this insurance. Has further consideration been given to extending the coverage to this class of employees?


Mr. Starr:: I fully realize that at this stage of the resolution to increase supplementary benefits a full-dress debate is not acceptable,

Unemployment Insurance Act and I do not intend to debate this matter fully. But as I read the resolution a doubt arises in my mind that I would convey to the Minister of Labour to see whether it can be clarified. There is no doubt that this is only a portion of the many submissions that were made in respect to the Unemployment Insurance Act by the Trades and Labour Congress, the Canadian Congress of Labour and hon. members during the last session of parliament, urging the government to make some changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act in order to make more benefits available to the working people of this country. An increase in supplementary benefits was only one of these, and it is certainly most welcome. It is our hope that the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act will bring some benefit when they are introduced in the house.
There is also no question of the urgency of this matter. That is borne out by the fact that the government has broken into the debate on the speech from the throne in order to introduce this resolution and the amendment itself, which leads me to believe that because of the urgency of the matter it should have been brought in at the last session of parliament so that the people who are sorely in need of assistance at this time would have received it by now.
The resolution and its contents are most acceptable. As I read the resolution, I find it suggests that the supplementary benefits be increased to the present rates of regular benefits. The present rates are as outlined in the act. Over the last number of years we have been urging this government to close up the gap between the supplementary benefits and the regular benefits, so that there would be no variation, since a person out of work certainly needs as much money in supplementary benefits as he would receive in regular benefits.
The doubt in my mind at the present time has to do with amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. When they are brought in will they include certain changes in the regular benefits? If so, after this resolution is passed and the supplementary benefits are raised to the present rate of the regular benefits, will there again be that variation between the increased regular benefits and the supplementary benefits as amended? If so, I do not think that the discrepancy should exist. The supplementary benefits should be again brought up to whatever increase is made in the regular benefits.
The period of time from January 1 to April 15 has proven to be of short duration. It is not sufficient to take care of the people out
	!

of work during that period of time. As an example, we in Oshawa found last year that when the rolls showed a decrease in the number of registered unemployed of something like 600 or 700 they were the people who on April 15 were cut off supplementary benefits, but work was still not available. Contracting work was not in progress and construction had not started. Therefore, those people were left stranded without any financial assistance whatever from April 15 to some time toward the end of May. I strongly urge that the Minister of Labour consider the extension of time for supplementary benefits beyond April 15; my suggestion would be to May 15.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Chairman, I was quite interested to hear the comments of the previous speakers on this particular measure. Like, I suppose, every other hon. member in this house, I welcome this very belated action on the part of the government, but I welcome it, Mr. Chairman, in the same spirit in which I receive gratefully an aspirin when I have a headache, being under no illusions whatsoever that it is going to cure the cause of the headache.
I must say I got a certain sardonic entertainment out of listening to the exponents of free enterprise standing on their feet here demanding that the government depart from the true milk of the word, of the religion of free enterprise. When I heard the hon. member for Broadview quoting the late Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King I thought it was a very risky thing for him to do because of course somebody coiild get up and quote the late Lord Bennett on the same problem of unemployment.
I think, sir, we shall have to recognize that we are now entering a period of history when these problems are going to continue and are going to become more and more acute, and we are going to have to do something else than merely provide bigger and better aspirins for the headaches that are going to afflict our economy in the future. It is like most of the measures of this very old Dickensian government; it is a Micawber-like measure. It is going to extend the benefits of unemployment insurance in the hope that something will turn up before the new extensions are exhausted. But no one suggests what is likely to turn up; no one suggests that anything should turn up; no one suggests that we have any reason to believe that this condition will improve by itself.
Like the hon. member for Broadview, I should like also to quote a departed Canadian statesman, another Liberal statesman, who

expressed a view that, like the late Hon. Norman Rogers, there is no cure for this problem except socialism.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, I think the committee would want me to refer -


The Chairman:: Perhaps the hon. member for Macleod might be allowed to proceed.


Mr. Hansell:: I was going to ask a question. Perhaps the minister will answer it when he replies. I might say that I was perhaps fortunate-that may not be the right word to use-in being on the committee of this house which was responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Act when it first became law in 1940. That was some years ago and I oan recall the meetings of the committee and the investigations which were carried out. Particular attention was paid to the actuarial soundness of the unemployment insurance fund. We had departmental as well as other actuaries who were purposely employed to study the matter.
The actuaries considered that the fund would be actuarially sound. The committee finished its work and I can recall the then minister of labour calling us together-we actually had our pictures taken-and saying that the bill would go down in the history of Canada. At that time it was hailed as a great advancement in legislation of this country.
As I say, a measure of full employment was realized and it continued over the war years. Naturally the fund became pretty healthy as it was a case of all the money coming in and not a great deal going out. But perhaps the picture is beginning to change. I should like to ask a question which the minister can answer now or when the bill comes down. I think we should know the exact state of the fund and what it has been over the years. Those figures must be somewhere. What was the income? What were the expenditures?
The government has decided that the present period of unemployment must be cared for in some fashion. The government must assume a measure of responsibility for the economic condition of the country. If there is a period of unemployment there must be some reason for it. There must be some background or some cause. I think we can conclude that the financial policy of the government is the reason. Financial policies govern the destinies of a nation, at least industrially.
A period of unemployment is now upon us. Previous speakers have said already that
Unemployment Insurance Act the solution of the problem is not to be found in the payment of unemployment insurance but in the establishment of full employment. That full employment depends on industry, and whether industry is continuing to function as it should. If it is not, then I claim it is because the government is pursuing wrong financial policies.
I rose not only to ask some questions but to indicate that this is not really something that the government is doing for anybody. The government has taken great pride in bringing in a measure concerning unemployment insurance, which measure has helped the worker when he has not been employed. But what it actually amounts to is nothing more or less than giving back to the worker that which in large measure belongs to him. He has been contributing to the fund for a good many years along with industry which employs him. But that part of the cost is not paid by industry in the final analysis; it is absorbed and paid for in higher prices to the consumer. That must be recognized.
When the worker pays into the fund he has not as much money to spend on his own livelihood. It is the consumer plus the worker who is paying for unemployment insurance. All the government is doing is to appraise the situation and decide how much he should have of his own money and when he can have it. That is really what is happening.
That is all I want to say. Once more I reiterate that this does not solve the unemployment problem. It will not be solved until the government pursues proper financial policies.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I shall confine my remarks to those words which have been directed toward this resolution rather than those which have been directed toward the unemployment situation generally. The hon. member for Hamilton West stated that this bill should have been brought in earlier at a fall session as part of the larger bill. Regardless of the merits of calling a fall session, I can assure her that if this particular little bill had been brought in in November as part of a larger one which I propose to bring in very soon I am doubtful whether or not its advantages could have been made to accrue to workers this winter.
The hon. member referred to the amount of supplementary benefits that would be paid out this winter.
As she correctly stated, in the last year the amount was approximately $12 million. The best actuarial estimate that we can get on this would indicate that if the number of workers drawing supplementary benefits this
80	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act winter should be about the same as last winter then the total amount paid out this winter in supplementary benefits will be in the vicinity of $22 million, or an additional $10 million over last winter.
The hon. member for New Westminster referred to this as being charity. I protest that it is not charity at all. As two other speakers have pointed out since, this plan was devised as an insurance plan just like fire or automobile insurance. The good risks pay for the poor risks. The benefits accruing to the insured are legitimate benefits and in no sense are they charity or handouts.
The hon. member for Quebec West referred to the official figures on unemployed workers as being those in receipt of benefits. I am sure he has made an error there. The official figures quoted by the bureau of statistics and the Department of Labour do not refer to total numbers in receipt of benefits.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has asked for assurance that there is nothing in the bill except the two items mentioned in the resolution. I can assure him that in the bill which will be distributed shortly there is nothing of any substance that is not indicated in the resolution. There will be minor things such as the date of proclamation and the probable dropping of a spent clause, but there is nothing of any substance in the bill except these two matters.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No jokers?


Walter Edward Harris: There never is in anything the government does.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, oh.


Milton Fowler Gregg: He also referred to the fact that he would like to have more information regarding what I had discussed last year on seasonal unemployment. I will grant that it is related to this bill in that it is hoped that it might work for greater stability amongst wage earners during the winter months. I can assure him that, following that report, in my opinion very good progress-even though it may be considered as modest-has been made. I am planning to bring in that report at an earlier period during another debate rather than during this one.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni suggested the extension of the duration of the whole period. That matter was mentioned also by the hon. member for Ontario. It is difficult to make it apply to every region. I think there must be standardization. I should like to point out that this question was given the most exhaustive study, but it is not incorporated in this legislation. The matter of the soundness of the fund, of course, enters


into it. At any rate, for the purpose of this bill we are sticking to the period from January 1 to April 15.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich suggested the point which he brings up from time to time with regard to fishermen and near-fishermen. While the general revision or planning has been under way, I can assure him that study of the matter affecting fishermen proper has been continuing with good hope that some results might accrue from it. I think I know what he means by nearfishermen; and that is something that is being studied as a side issue by the commission.
As to the hon. member for Macleod, I should like to congratulate him as one of the pioneers, who was here when this extremely useful act came into being. It has served and is serving a useful purpose. I should like to reassure him, as far as we can do so, that the fund is, in our opinion, still actuarially sound. It is our intention to keep it so. The figures he wants are readily available. I did not think that for this bill it might be necessary to put them on record. If other hon. members would like to have them, when the bill comes up for second reading or in committee after second reading I shall be glad to present them. In any case, the figures up to the end of the fiscal year 1954 are available and also the interim figures since then.
There is just one other point I wish to mention. It is something which I forgot to include in my first remarks. This bill has been submitted to the unemployment insurance advisory committee which is provided for under the act, and has been approved by them. Very shortly, of course, the larger bill will also be submitted to them.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Gregg thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 6, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, January 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Yves Leduc (Verdun) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. S. R. Balcom (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I feel highly honoured in following so closely the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the

Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) and the leaders of the other parties. I should like to join them in congratulating the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am sure the people at home must feel extremely proud of these two members.
I enter this debate because I consider that, representing as I do a large constituency and one of the two dual ridings in Canada, I should bring to the attention of hon. members the general situation as it now exists in Halifax.
Mr. Speaker, for those who want to see, there is in the speech from the throne much good material and advanced legislation. I should like to commend the proposed changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act. They will be widely acclaimed. The supplementary benefit program under which unemployment insurance is payable on easier terms in the winter months goes a long way to mitigate the effects of seasonal unemployment. This program is a desirable supplement to the ordinary unemployment insurance because of the nature of our climate and industrial development.
In Nova Scotia our primary industries, which are unavoidably subject to the weather and the seasons, are extremely important to our economy. It is unfair that the workers in such industries should bear the whole burden of the seasonal drop in employment. It is also unfair to expect the municipalities in which these industries are concentrated to pay unemployment assistance on a large scale. The federal government's contributions to the supplementary benefit fund are a most welcome "assist" to the municipalities in their welfare policies.
The government is to be congratulated for the leadership given in the efforts to lessen seasonal unemployment where this is possible. Needless to say, it is far better for people to have the opportunity to work than to have the opportunity to draw unemployment assistance; it is far better for the worker and it is less costly to the country. While the direct effect of government policy may not cover a large group of workers, it is a forward step and may well encourage action by industry on a wider scale.
Some reduction in winter unemployment is hoped for as a result of this campaign. This will benefit Nova Scotia and the other Atlantic provinces, but where the primary industries predominate there are limitations that cannot be removed by planning. The real answer lies in a greater diversification of industry; more manufacturing, which is
The Address-Mr. Balcom not affected by the seasons. This is an oft-stated objective and its achievement calls for an attack on basic factors such as problems of transportation, tariffs, marketing, and power, to name a few of the more important ones.
In this connection I should like to refer to an item which appeared in our local press last December. It was, to be sure, a rather disturbing item to Nova Scotians. The headline was "No Bank Aid to Province", referring to the province of Nova Scotia. On further perusal one learned that only two provinces, namely Nova Scotia' and Prince Edward Island, did not receive any financial assistance from the industrial development bank in the year ended September 30, 1954; and that the loans made to concerns in New Brunswick and Newfoundland were negligible in total. Of the money loaned in the fiscal year just past, close to 70 per cent went to enterprises in Ontario and Quebec.
Let me hasten to say that this is not a criticism of the industrial development bank as such. What concerns me is the fact that industry in Nova Scotia and in the Atlantic provinces generally has not called upon the credit facilities of the bank for development purposes. It suggests that the development which the government hoped to encourage through this additional source of credit may not be taking place in the areas where it is most needed.
The annual report referred to marked the first decade of the bank's operations. The industrial development bank was set up in the first place because the government recognized that smaller industrial firms had difficulty in obtaining money on a medium or long-term basis to finance plant and equipment they needed either to commence or expand operations. After ten years of operation the success of the bank has been acclaimed. In expressing his views on its work Mr. Graham Towers, then governor of the Bank of Canada, used these words:
. . . and if you believe, as I do, that the successful evolution of new enterprises is the very backbone of sound economic growth, you will understand my satisfaction over the experience of the industrial development bank.
If the use of these loan facilities is a barometer of sound growth, where do we in the Atlantic provinces fit into the picture? Concern over the situation revealed by this and other signs has prompted the formation of the Atlantic provinces economic council. This, as some of you know, is a council initiated, organized and financed by private enterprise, business and industry, to promote the economic well-being of the Atlantic
82	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Balcom region. I mention it here because it reinforces a conviction which has been growing in my mind for some time, a conviction that the federal government might have an agency whose primary and principal interest would be the regional problems of the Atlantic provinces. Spokesmen for other areas where a similar need may exist can present their own cases much better than I.
Four years ago, during my first session in the house, I tabled a question concerning the St. Lawrence seaway and its probable economic effects, with particular reference to the industries of the maritimes. The information or answers were not available at that time, and I understood why they ' could not be supplied. Doubtless it is much easier to give information on a definite engineering project than on the economic aspects of such an undertaking. Perhaps even 25 years from now conclusive answers on some of its results will still be lacking, but that does not say we should not be looking for them now and doing it with all the talent and energy we can muster. An informed policy can then be developed and corrective action taken before it is too late.
In the past, when general conditions or particular problems reached a critical stage, royal commissions have been appointed. At other times interdepartmental committees or interested persons have concerned themselves with regional problems. But these have been lacking in continuity. Their usefulness in solving or anticipating problems has been minimized by their transitory nature. It is my conviction that the federal government ought to make provision for a development unit in the Atlantic region either through the Bank of Canada or the industrial development bank, or as a joint operation of the two. The unit should be located in the area and staffed by people who have a continuing interest in the development of these provinces. The Bank of Canada's research department has an enviable reputation. Undoubtedly it has regional specialists who have a real understanding of area problems. The industrial development bank has industry specialists. I suggest that the government make provision for the systematic use of these facilities for regional development.
One immediate purpose that can be served is the provision of research facilities to provide some of the answers for the Atlantic provinces economic council. Such services would be a very useful complement to the promotional work of the Atlantic provinces economic council and of provincial departments concerned with industry and tourist development.


Second, and most important in the longterm, the constant scrutiny of national policies and programs from the point of view of their regional consequences is becoming increasingly necessary. The growing disparity among the provinces is painfully apparent, but the causes and the desirable remedies are not so easily seen. The problem of freight rates, to mention only one, is staggering in its complexity and magnitude. To those who think this would be just another expensive federal bureau I suggest that they examine the costs of the many royal commissions that have been appointed, and the results achieved. A report is filed, then the valuable experience and knowledge built up in the course of the inquiry are dispersed to the far parts of the country and forgotten.
I should like to refer now to the matter of immigration, which has also concerned me for some time. Being of the opinion that Canada's absorptive capacity in this regard is not as great as many people suppose, I would urge upon the government a cautious policy as to numbers, and certainly a highly selective one. I realize that such a stand leaves one open to charges of selfishness and lack of concern for people living under less favourable conditions than our own. But before anyone becomes too righteously indignant let him ask himself whether he would urge large-scale immigration from countries where population pressure is the greatest, the Far East, for example, where language, customs, religion and standard of living are very different from our own.
The arguments on this subject are varied. Those who favour large-scale immigration usually argue that more people mean a larger labour force and a larger market. But when unemployment befalls large numbers of the new workers the only place they can turn for help is the government. Yet the government is frequently assailed by these same proponents of large-scale immigration for the ever-increasing expenditures on welfare.
There is very strong argument, too, that it ill behooves a country of Canada's size and population to deny entry to those seeking a better life in the new world. Let me assure you that I do not deny the validity of this contention. In the present state of the world some movement of people is necessary and some immigration to Canada is desirable. I do not pretend to know how much nor do I know the answers to all the questions involved, but certain important things should be considered.
First, it must be remembered that Canada is not a homogeneous unit with a long history of strong attachment to a single national

authority. The formation of the Dominion of Canada was in many ways an act of faith. The political and ethnic balance which now prevails has given us a good foundation for growth, but I fear that the spectacular expansion of the past 15 years has given us delusions of grandeur. Many Canadians and many outside Canada seem to have become mesmerized by the idea of bigness. We tend to overlook the nature of our growth, with a thin line of people stretched across a continent and large concentrations of population only in a relatively few centres. Many forget that there are reasons for this sparse settlement. Perhaps I should qualify this by saying that we who live in the coastal provinces are keenly aware of some of the costs of nationhood. The problem of transportation alone is almost overwhelming.
To get back to the main point, suppose business conditions should take a sudden turn for the worse? Suppose United States capital stopped flowing into the development of Canadian resources? How would we keep up our standard of living? The truth is that as a trading nation we are very vulnerable. Our exports are still largely primary products, with a few commodities making up the bulk of the value. Our population is scattered and already divided into two major language groups. Can we risk the addition of a large number of citizens with quite different backgrounds and loyalties from our two major groups? The existence of pockets of people whose Canadianism has not had a chance to take root and mature could be a grave threat to our political stability in time of emergency, either domestic or external. What is more, I. question whether we are entitled to tackle with such wild abandon the development of our resources.
We think of Canada as a very large country, and so it is; but the supply of arable land, for example, is not inexhaustible. In fact we are told by our agricultural scientists that Canada will soon be importing more food products than she has exported. This day will be hastened if immigration and natural increase continue at the same high rate.
As to our mineral resources, may I refer you to the proceedings of the annual meeting of the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. The retiring president, Dean A. E. Flynn of the Nova Scotia Technical College told the engineers in attendance that they had a stewardship to protect the country's natural resources and the time was right now. I agree wholeheartedly with that. These facts suggest that the conservation of our resources should be receiving very serious
The Address

Mr. Balcorn study. It should certainly be taken into account in determining a desirable level of immigration for Canada.
There are other ways in which we can help to relieve the pressure of population on other areas. Canada has made a creditable contribution to the Colombo plan. The announcement regarding the proposed increase in our contribution will be welcome, and we should perhaps extend ourselves further in this program. To assist in the creation and enlargement of productive capacity in countries less developed than our own will accomplish more in the long term to raise the standard of living of the world's needy people than immigration can.
Another avenue we can pursue is in the direction of freer trade. Led by an able and farsighted Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), Canadian delegations have worked hard for the removal of trade restrictions. We have responsibilities in this regard, and the government is to be commended for its resistance to the special interests which from time to time seek increased protection from foreign competition. We have too much at stake in the enlargement of world trade to risk such action. Our fish, iron ore, lumber and wheat must be sold on the world market, and we must buy on that market if it is to remain strong and flexible.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is one subject which is close to my heart and that is housing. As we look forward into 1955 there are many encouraging things to think about. One of the most gratifying signs of progress in the current business picture is the increase in home building. I am sorry to say, though, that according to reports in our local press, the Halifax Mail-Star, dwelling construction in Halifax in 1954 was considerably below that of 1953, although the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been most cooperative in promoting the construction of homes.
It was only through the good offices of our own Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) in starting the new federal building for Halifax late in December that our construction figures kept even close to those of the previous year. I am not satisfied that all is being done that can be done, particularly by the municipalities. Quite apart from the significance of the increase in home building as a sign of prosperity is its meaning in terms of the wellbeing of our people, and there is still a great gap to be filled.
At the last census the average earnings of male wage and salary workers in Halifax county were between $2,000 and $2,500 a year.
84	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Balcom Applying the standard used by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, we find that the average worker should pay from $38 to $48 per month for housing, that is assuming that 23 per cent of earnings should go for rent. That, Mr. Speaker, is what the man with average earnings could afford to pay for rent. What about the large number of workers who earn less than $2,000 a year? Where can they look for adequate housing at the price they can pay? We all know that in most communities it just is not available.
Halifax is an area in which there are many old wooden buildings that are fire traps, lacking in sanitary facilities and improperly heated. Worse still, there are many areas where the children have no place to play except the dangerous streets or dark alleys. How can people maintain their self-respect in surroundings such as these? The wonder of it is that out of these surroundings have come many first class soldiers, sailors, and airmen. I realize that this is a many-sided problem, but we must face the fact that a man earning $100 or $150 per month cannot afford to pay half of it for rent. Somehow we must find a way to provide suitable housing for as little as $25 to $30 per month, not as a give-away but on an economic basis.
The federal government cannot solve this problem alone. Local governments must play their part as well and, most important, the construction and related industries as well as labour must recognize the challenge. Surely an industrial society which can produce so many things cheaply and efficiently can fill this most vital need at a reasonable price. Probably we need to change our ideas on design and purpose. We cannot expect to rent a $15,000 house for $35 a month. Perhaps our sights have been trained too high. When one considers the advances in technology in the past century, the design and production of suitable low cost housing does not seem an overwhelming problem. But whatever the division of responsibility as between governments or as among government, private industry and individuals, we must all stand together at the bar of history. It is not too much to say that our unfinished housing business, the existence of slums in the midst of plenty, is an indictment of our society.
Another aspect of public welfare which is a very real credit to the government is the progress made under our national health program. We are now on what might be called our second five-year plan. The results of the first five years amply justify an extension of the system of grants which has done so much to build up hospital and health facilities, to provide trained workers, to advance research


and to improve the care of children and the mentally ill. This work in the promotion of health and the prevention of disease is most important. The build-up of facilities and personnel is essential and a prerequisite of a nation-wide system of health insurance. Let us remember that these steps, in the words of the late prime minister, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, represent the first stages in the development of a comprehensive health insurance plan for all Canada.
It is true that in our federal system the provinces must participate in the administration of any such scheme. But the existence of federalism does not gainsay the essential soundness of prepayment for medical care any more than for any other form of insurance. Health insurance schemes have proved satisfactory to patients and doctors in many other countries. Can Canada with its abounding riches afford to withhold from many citizens the benefits of medical science?
While on the subject of medical care, may I draw to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) several items which merit consideration in relation to the Income Tax Act. The first is the treatment for polio and other crippling diseases, which requires the use of expensive drugs during the life of the patient. They are merely palliatives and not cures. Many of these treatments are very costly and while some, such as insulin for diabetes, have been specified as allowable deductions from taxable income, the coverage of this provision is in my opinion not broad enough.
Another cause of very real hardship which warrants consideration also is the complete invalidity of a spouse. Often in such a case the breadwinner must employ a housekeeper to take care of the invalid. I would strongly recommend that the cost of maintaining such housekeeper, at least the wages, be allowed as a deduction from taxable income. This would provide some measure of relief in what are at best most difficult circumstances.
To all our ministers we owe a debt of gratitude for the interest they have taken in our constituency, but I particularly wish to commend the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) for his action in making the Halifax airport a near reality, and for the great improvements being made in the Halifax harbour facilities. And I would like to mention here the splendid work accomplished over the years by the retiring chairman of the national harbours board, Mr. R. K. Smith,
Q.C. We would also commend the farsightedness of the government in appointing as his successor the former vice-chairman, Mr. B. J. Roberts. The members of the national

harbours board have vision and are very conscious that our national harbours, and particularly the great port of Halifax, should be ready not only in war but in peace to meet any emergency or any business that may offer.
The speech from the throne gives us hope that the elimination of level crossings will be widened in scope to include provision for the removal of underpasses. In Halifax we have the Fairview bottleneck, a menace to the safety of our people. This is in part caused by the Canadian National Railways, but while I admit that the initiative for the removal of this bottleneck lies with the city of Halifax itself, I nevertheless believe it is of sufficient importance that the Department of Transport and the Department of National Defence should also look into the matter of finding a remedy for this condition. While this dangerous exit from the city exists, all efforts of our civil defence organization are practically nullified. There could be no mass evacuation from the city under present conditions. So, Mr. Speaker, I express the hope and urge, that necessary changes will be made to alleviate such problems.
It is a source of great satisfaction to the people of Nova Scotia, Mr. Speaker, that the Angus L. Macdonald bridge linking Halifax and Dartmouth is about ready to open, and that the Canso causeway connecting Cape Breton island with Nova Scotia is in itself completed but will not be opened until the canal and locks are ready for use, perhaps in a year. These two projects show, sir, what can be done when the several governments concerned work together.
Would it be too much to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that when the time comes for the official opening of the Canso causeway the House of Commons, if it is sitting, adjourn, or at least that a strong delegation go to Nova Scotia where we will be led across the strait by a noble band of 100 pipers.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the announcement in the speech from the throne that the government is going to give consideration to paying municipal grants on the basis of value is very comforting to the municipalities of Halifax-Dartmouth and Halifax county. Halifax is very conscious of how dependent we are on the federal authority for our economy, and it is most gratifying to know that the federal government, in turn, is also conscious of the part they must play in the equalization of taxation.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that after the numerous compliments and bouquets tendered by the last speaker
The Address-Mr. Nesbitt to those on the government benches, hon. members opposite will not be disappointed if my remarks are not exactly in the same tenor.
Coming as I do from a constituency where dairy farming is the principal industry, I feel I cannot let pass unnoticed the fact that 2,250,000 pounds of cheese are expected to arrive from New Zealand in a very short time. I recall that during the last election campaign the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) informed the dairy farmers in my part of the country that they could eat their own cheese. Now he adds injury to insult when, in effect, he advises them that they will have to eat New Zealand cheese as well. I do not think that is a suitable arrangement.
I should like to refer briefly to the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in reply to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White). At page 20 the minister is reported as follows:
A verbal arrangement was made with New Zealand at a time when we were having difficultyexporting to the British market. New Zealand was asked not to ship cheese to this market. The circumstances under which the request was made have changed. New Zealand was pressing to be relieved from that verbal arrangement and there seemed to be no very good ground for insisting that it be continued.
Of course this whole attitude reflects a complete lack of consistent trade policy on the part of the present government-sometimes tariffs; sometimes no tariffs: sometimes verbal agreements to let products in; sometimes no verbal agreements. At the present time I believe there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 46 million pounds of cheese in storage in Canada, which is about a million pounds more than at this time last year.
I fail to understand how the Minister of Trade and Commerce can say that the situation has changed, or how he can intimate, as obviously he seeks to do, that the farmers are having no trouble in selling cheese in the British market at the present time. I think everybody in the house is or should be aware of the situation with respect to the export of cheese. In 1953 the Ontario cheese producers' association was able, through its own efforts, to sell 10 million pounds of cheese to Great Britain. I understand it was hoped some would be sold in 1954 but, so far as I have been able to learn-and certainly I have made inquiries-none has been sold yet. So I have great difficulty understanding the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he says that the circumstances under which the request was made have changed.

The Address-Mr. Nesbitt
I cannot understand why the importation of this cheese, apparently by the Kraft company, was allowed under the present circumstances, when there are such great surpluses of cheese in this country. What affects cheese is bound to affect all other milk products, in the long run; it cannot help it. I fully realize that we may very well have to import a number of things from New Zealand because of the delicate question of balance of payments. We are all aware that that is a highly delicate situation. But surely the government could have been more careful than to permit the importation of cheese at the present time and allow this verbal arrangement with New Zealand to be ended. There are many other things that New Zealand exports which I am sure might well be purchased by private persons in Canada, such as wool, chilled meats, frozen meats, lamb and so on. Of course, if no person was prepared to purchase anything from New Zealand, and the balance of payments had to be maintained, it might have been less damaging if the government had purchased something itself.
If the government felt it really necessary to purchase something from New Zealand to keep up the balance of payments and nothing but cheese was going to be purchased by private Canadian firms, possibly the government could have purchased something else. I , notice that there is some possibility of the implementation of the Massey report, which may provide an aquarium in Toronto. Toronto also has a couple of fine zoos. I understand that other cities have them also. The government might very well have purchased some kiwis from New Zealand to put in those zoos. They might have paid $72,000 each for them, as they did for those old pictures last year. If they did not care to do that they could purchase some tree ferns from New Zealand and put them in the conservatory in Bideau Hall where we could see them once a year at the garden party. I have no doubt that they are fairly expensive. If those were not satisfactory I suggest the government might very well purchase one of the live volcanoes on New Zealand's north island and, Mr. Speaker, I have a good suggestion as to where it might be put-right in the government lobby, because it might get a little action on some of the present problems such as unemployment and tariff policies.
I am sorry to see that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) has left the chamber. He has been here all afternoon. I should like to make some remarks at the present time that I hope he will take into consideration in the future. We have a problem on some of


the great lakes at the present time. I refer to lake Erie and also lake Ontario and lake Huron. A very serious situation has arisen there in the last few years. During the summer months there are thousands of small boats on these lakes. Canada has no coast guard service on the great lakes. There have been numerous unpleasant accidents and drownings on the great lakes. I do not wish to go into a recital of these accidents, but last summer a number of boy scouts and a scoutmaster from Oakville were drowned in lake Ontario. At Port Rowan on lake Erie a number of people from Hamilton were drowned, and the year before a person from Woodstock was drowned in lake Erie.
There are no storm signals to warn of impending storms on the great lakes, which become very rough very quickly since they are not as large bodies of water as the ocean. In addition, if there is an accident, or if there is some difficulty or people get lost, no one knows whom to go to or whom to get in touch with to do something about it. My understanding is that after the drowning of the boy scouts at Oakville last year no one could be contacted to do anything about rescue work. Nobody could be found to take any responsibility. There was no person to get in touch with to send any boats out. It was a very unfortunate situation.
I am not as familiar with the situation on lake Ontario or lake Huron as I am with the situation on lake Erie. Boats operate from Port Dover and Port Rowan and Turkey Point. There are hundreds of small boats on lake Erie operating from these ports. During the four months of June, July, August and September these boats go out all the time and it is only a miracle that there have not been more drownings and accidents. I hope the Minister of Transport will explore the situation and look into the possibility of trying to provide some sort of protection for people who use those boats. Perhaps it was not important a few years ago, but certainly it is now because of the number of small boats using the lakes. I am sorry I am not able to give any actual figures of the number of small boats on those lakes. There is no source of information from which to obtain those figures because boats are registered at different places, and move from one port of ownership to another.
The United States has excellent coast guard facilities on the great lakes. When Canadian boats are in United States waters they are adequately looked after if a storm is imminent. The coast guard does not allow boats to go out if a storm is impending, and if people are caught out in a storm which arises suddenly the coast guard goes after

them and takes them to a United States port. Canada has not the wealth or resources of the United States, and at the present time we cannot afford to have such an elaborate system as they have. But I feel that we can afford to have some sort of system during those four summer months when there are so many small boats out on the lakes. It would not be difficult.
I have a suggestion to offer to the Minister of Transport which I should like him to explore. Use could be made of fishing tugs. They have diesel engines and are of modern construction. They have ship-to-shore radios and their captains know the waters. During the summer some arrangements should be made with them to take turns as "duty boat" and some sort of meteorological service should be made available to them. This is a situation that is quite serious and is likely to become worse rather than improve, because people who live in the inland towns and cities of western Ontario are using boats more and more on the great lakes. Often their knowledge of navigation and seamanship is bad, and they should have some supervision and should be looked after by some type of coast guard service.
The last thing I should like to deal with is the amendment of the leader of the C.C.F. party, which reads as follows:
. . . have deliberately returned to the policy of uncontrolled and unplanned private enterprise which resulted in the depression and unemployment of the pre-war years, and that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to undertake the economic planning necessary to cope with the serious problems now facing the Canadian people.
I suppose that at the present time the biggest problem that faces everybody in the world is, what is the role of government? That is the basic problem. Is the government to be allowed to decide what we shall do; the goods that shall be manufactured, who shall distribute them, and so forth; or is the role of the government to be drawn from the philosophy of the nineteenth century, that of an arbitrator, the personage who regulates and keeps the various pressure groups in the country from becoming too powerful and facilitates the development of free human beings? Perhaps that is not expressed too well but it is basically the argument that we have in the world at the present time.
There are many, and particularly those to your left. Mr. Speaker, who are always advocating that the government should decide what is good for people, what remedies they should receive, if times are not good, and what should be done for them. But I still insist, Mr. Speaker, that provided the government makes facilities available, it is much better that when the need arises people
The Address-Mr. Nesbitt should look after themselves in their own way; because in circumstances such as these it is a question of what people realize they need themselves and not a question of what someone else thinks they need.
I refer particularly to the subject matter of credit unions. We often hear talk about capitalism and free enterprise. Unfortunately capitalism or free enterprise is usually personified as having a large fat stomach, striped trousers and a silk hat. Some people wish to personify capitalism in that way because it suits their purpose. I am afraid that sometimes this picture has gone over with the general public, but there are many facets and different aspects to capitalism. Sometimes we have capitalism that is not dressed up in a silk hat and striped pants, but in overalls. I think the credit union movement in this country is probably one of the best examples of capitalism in overalls.
Credit unions have arisen because of a need. The need was to obtain small loans at low rates of interest. Normally the people who need small loans are those who can least afford to pay high rates of interest. This is much the same as the mutual insurance companies. When the straight line insurance companies would not insure farm property the farmers' mutuals came into being because of the need. Credit unions arose much in the same way.
It is true there are loan companies, but they charge very high rates of interest. I do not blame them entirely as they have a heavy overhead, big staffs to keep up and so on. They have to make a profit. But the credit union movement grew as a result of this condition. Funds were made available for small loans at reasonable rates of interest. Credit unions charge the borrower a maximum of one per cent per month on the unpaid balance on a day to day basis with no extras. Many credit unions charge less than this. They are able to do so because the work of the credit union is done on a voluntary basis, and there is no overhead to pay.
Credit unions as we know them today started in Canada in the 1930's, although a similar organization known as the caisse populaire existed in Quebec prior to that time. At the present time there are about
3.000	credit unions in Canada and about
1.000	caisses populaires in Quebec. .The latter are set up on a parish or geographical basis, rather than an industrial or functional basis as the credit unions are. At the present time there are about 1,200,000 credit union members in Canada, while there are about 300,000 members in caisses populaires. The credit
88	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Nesbitt unions are regulated by provincial credit union acts, and most provinces have legislation of this type.
Credit unions have often been misunderstood and I think this is a great pity, because they perform a great service to the people of this country. Loans extended by credit unions are based on the character of the person who is borrowing. Since the credit unions are normally not too large the committee which extends credit knows the people personally to whom money is being lent. This is an advantage which the other lending institutions simply do not have.
People often say that there is no control over the credit unions, that anyone can take the money. That is not so, because the officers are bonded and reserves are set up to offset bad loans. The voluntary assignment of wages required by law when a person is given a line of credit is seldom used, as loans made by the credit union are made on a character basis. In the event of the death of a borrower whose loan is still outstanding the loan is paid off by an insurance company and not by the estate of the deceased. That is most important when a person of little means dies and the loan does not have to be paid either by his widow or his family.
The investments of a credit union are mostly in the form of loans to members, but credit unions can invest their surplus funds in securities approved under the Trustee Act of Ontario or the trustee acts of other provinces. Credit unions have been most successful in Canada, as only approximately one-tenth of one per cent of the loans extended have resulted in bad debts. This does not even approach the reserves which are required by law to be set up for bad debts.
Before I close I should like to touch briefly upon the benefits of credit unions. Whom do they benefit? They certainly benefit the persons who borrow money, because they are able to obtain small loans at low rates of interest without being badgered afterward by a sheriff or bailiff or officers of a finance company. Loans are granted to people who have real need of money. They may want to pay medical bills and so on; loans are granted "for any useful purpose". It has been the experience of credit unions that people who belong to this organization learn through budgeting to manage their affairs much better. It has been the experience that the biggest borrowers often become the biggest savers at later periods.
There are advantages that accrue to other people than those who borrow money. Advantages accrue to industry from the credit union
'Mr. Nesbitt.l

movement. This movement reduces the financial worries of employees, which in turn increases the efficiency of a plant. I have spoken to several business executives who tell me that this movement has been of great assistance in solving personnel problems in their plants. There has been a great deal of co-operation between management and the credit union movement, because it has been found that this results in a reduction in the number of garnishees of workers' wages and the number of requests for pay advances by employees. As a result the book work of a plant is reduced tremendously.
What about the credit unions and the banks? I have heard people say that the banks do not approve of the credit unions. That is not so. Credit unions do not compete with the commercial banks. They deal only in small loans. I have it on fairly good authority that small personal savings accounts are uneconomic as far as the banks are concerned. A bank will look after such accounts as a matter of public service and because it is obliged to do so, but they are more of a nuisance than anything else. The credit union collects and consolidates its small deposits and puts them in the bank as one large deposit. Therefore the banks are saved needless book work. All credit unions deposit their funds in the chartered banks. The credit unions supplement the services of the banks in the personal loan field.
The credit unions are of one other indirect benefit to the country. In times of business recession, or business depression as some people prefer to call it, the credit unions do not curtail the extension of credit as do the commercial banks. The credit unions extend credit just the same in bad times as they do in good times. This cannot help but buoy up the general economy of the country.
In my own county of Oxford there are more credit unions than anywhere else in Canada. We have a good stable type of economy in that county. Three out of five workers in the county belong to credit unions. The success of this movement is largely due to the efforts of a businessman in Woodstock by the name of Earle Heed. He has done a great deal of work in this connection and his name is known from one part of the country to the other wherever the credit union movement exists.
In conclusion I would say I have gone to great lengths to deal with the credit union movement because I feel it illustrates, as I have pointed out before, what people can do on their own without the help of any paternalistic government. The great success of the credit union movement has been achieved

The Address-Mr. Knowles
without the interference of government agencies. When people to my left get up and say that everything must be under government auspices I would refer them to the credit union movement as a glowing example of what people in Canada can do on their own without government assistance or interference.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a copy of a recent issue of a daily newspaper published not far from here which contains what I regard as a very delightful human interest story. This was written by one of the members of the press gallery, Mr. Gerald Waring, who writes a column under the caption "Capital Comment". This is a story of how we finally got pensions for disabled persons. It is not my purpose at this point to rehash the debate we had on that question last session, but if hon. members have not had this article by Gerald Waring drawn to their attention I believe they will be interested in hearing its details.
According to this columnist there is a young woman about twenty-two years of age, whose name we do not yet know, who lives in Sherbrooke, Quebec, to whom considerable credit should be given. It appears that in July, 1953-when most of us were extremely busy, as hon. members will recall if they think back to that time-the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was in the midst of his election campaign. He visited Sherbrooke and spoke there at what I am sure was a large and enthusiastic meeting. The parents of this young woman to whom I have referred attended the meeting and, according to Mr. Gerald Waring, in order to break the monotony of their daughter's day-for she is tied to a wheelchair, being disabled with a spinal ailment-they took her to the meeting; and he says, if I may quote him in part:
She was intensely interested in what the great French-Canadian leader had to say.
Mr. Gerald Waring points out that the theme of the Prime Minister's speech had been the Liberals' record in the field of welfare legislation. As this young woman listened to the Prime Minister's glowing reports of what the Liberal party had done, she wondered why this government had not done something for people like her. According to the story as set out in this column, the idea stuck in her mind for several weeks, and shortly after the election on August 10 was over, she decided to do something about it, so she wrote a letter to ithe Prime Minister.
There is nothing unique about that procedure. Many people write letters to the Prime Minister, and many more would like to do so. Indeed, this columnist says there is no question but that many letters have
been written to the Prime Minister across the years asking that something be done in the direction of pensions for disabled persons. But most of those letters had been intercepted, apparently, by the Prime Minister's efficient secretarial staff, and in the past the routine was that those letters were sent over to the Department of National Health and Welfare where, for many years, the stock answer was sent out that, although the people at Ottawa were interested, this was really a provincial matter.
But this young woman whose name we do not know, instead of writing to the Prime Minister here at Ottawa-apparently she knew that he was having a little holiday after the strain of the election campaign-addressed her letter to him at his summer home at St. Patrick in the province of Quebec. It appears, therefore, that this young woman's letter, stating her plight and her view that, if the Liberal party believed in a program of human welfare, something should be done for disabled persons, came to the Prime Minister's personal attention.
As I go on and read the story I find that the Prime Minister was greatly impressed by this young woman's letter to him and accordingly, so Gerald Waring says, he wrote back to the young lady assuring her that the government would bring in disability allowances legislation at the next session of parliament. Then this columnist goes on to say that, on the Prime Minister's personal instructions, legislation was hastily prepared, presented to parliament and enacted.
As we also recall, when this legislation was before us last session the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) paid a tribute to the Prime Minister's personal interest in this question. The Minister of National Health and Welfare said that interest was indicated to him in a letter which the Prime Minister wrote to the Minister of National Health and Welfare shortly after the election of August 10, 1953.
Whether or not this story is apocryphal, I do not know. It certainly has the ring of validity about it. As I said in my opening remarks, I regard it as a delightful human interest story. This columnist to whom I have already referred says that he made strenuous efforts to ascertain the name of this young woman. He even went down to Sherbrooke and interviewed a number of people, but he has been unable to learn her name. In his column he expresses the hope that sooner or later the Prime Minister will dig out that letter and let us know the name. I agree with Gerald Waring. I think

The Address-Mr. Knowles this young woman should be given credit tor having written the final letter, the one that did the trick.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, that was an extremely interesting routine that was pursued, and we are all delighted that at long last the efforts of many other people to get something for disabled persons bore fruit because of the writing of this letter by this young lady.
I think hon. members will realize that there is in my mind a question. I should like to know who could write the Prime Minister a letter asking for health insurance that would do the trick. Apparently the Prime Minister is -a human being. Apparently when the plight of people is really presented to him in a way that impresses itself upon him, he uses his authority as Prime Minister to say "Something must be done about this". Apparently the appeals of members of parliament on the floor of the House of Commons and the appeals expressed in motions that have been made across the years by this party-and which are now made by the Progressive Conservative party-do not have the effect on the Prime Minister that we think they should have. I hope my having told this story of a letter from a young woman in Sherbrooke that did the trick with regard to disability pensions will have the result that someone in this country who feels personally the need for a national health insurance program will write to the Prime Minister personally the kind of letter that he will see and that will do the trick.


Mr. Blair:: You write it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Lanark suggests that I myself write the letter. I should be glad-


Mr. Rowe:: Let the same girl write it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It does not matter who
writes the letter. What we want is to get action on this important question.
I congratulate our friends to the right, the members of the Progressive Conservative party, on having added a nation-wide program of health insurance to their amendment which they presented to the house yesterday. Despite the fact that in the past they voted sometimes one way and sometimes the other on this question, I dare to hope that this time they will vote for it and that that will impress upon the government the fact that there is in this country a growing feeling that the time has come to have a nation-wide program of health insurance.
I noticed the answer the Prime Minister made to this request yesterday. It is the same answer he has made on a number of occasions. Referring to health insurance as


requested in the amendment before the house, as reported on page 34 of Hansard he said this:
It certainly is something that is highly desirable. It is something that we would all like to see done. However, our progress in the development of welfare services in Canada has been fairly rapid over the last few years.
That is his view, not mine. It seems to me that it has taken a long while to get such progress as we have achieved. The Prime Minister continued:
Any further implementation would require the spending, through government agencies, of a larger portion of the incomes of individuals. That is something which will come, but the timing of it will depend upon the circumstances of the Canadian economy generally.
Mr. Speaker, I think it has been demonstrated by those who have gone into this question-it was brought out in the report of our old age security committee of 1950, and you can find it in material that has been produced on this subject by the Department of National Health and Welfare-that if you establish a nation-wide program of health insurance you are not going to spend much more money in the total than is now being spent on the health of our people, but rather that you are going to spend it in a fairer and more logical manner, and that you are going to see to it that people get health care according to their need for it rather than according to the state of their purses.
I suggest that if the Prime Minister can say as he did yesterday, with regard to a plan that will bring health services and hospital care to all Canadians, that it is something that is highly desirable; if he can say it is something we would all like to see done, he is the same man who, when he received the letter from this young woman in Sherbrooke, realized he could do something about that problem. He can do something about a nationwide program of health insurance this session, and I call upon him to do so, certainly in the life of this parliament.
I make once again the appeal that many of us have been making in the house, that we in this group have been making persistently throughout the years, that this is the step in the field of welfare legislation that must next be taken; and that if we are going to claim to be a modern, progressive, civilized country it should be taken without further delay. I congratulate the Prime Minister on his response to the appeal that came to him in the letter from that young woman in Sherbrooke. I hope he will realize that there are thousands of Canadians who are looking to him to do something about this important question of health insurance, and on their behalf I call upon him to do something about it at this session of parliament.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I seem to be picking up newspapers today, and I have another one in my hand. This is the issue of December 31, 1954, of the Winnipeg Tribune, a newspaper published in my own city. There is something on the front page, again of a human interest nature, which I enjoyed reading as I am sure all did who saw it when it was published on New Year's eve. The Winnipeg Tribune has followed the practice in recent years of inviting its readers to send in nominations as to who should be given the fictional title of "citizen of the year for Winnipeg". For several years they have been carrying on the practice and various people have been named. The newspaper has simply followed the practice of awarding that title to the person whose name is sent in by the largest number of its readers.
This year the title of citizen of the year was given by the Winnipeg Tribune to a very good friend of mine, a chap with whom I went to college years ago, the Rev. Fred Douglas, minister of old St. Andrew's United church on Elgin avenue in the heart of the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre. This minister of the United Church is indeed a very fine chap in every way; and in his own right, being the kind of person he is, and in view of the kind of service he renders, he deserved beyond question the honour which was accorded to him not just by the Tribune but by the readers of that paper. I think hon. members will be interested to know why the Rev. Fred Douglas was awarded the title of Winnipeg's citizen of the year. It was because of something he organized, something he did for old age pensioners.
Two and a half years ago a few little homes for old age pensioners were built under his leadership where couples who had nothing else on which to live but their $80 a month- in that case it was always a couple that had to go into the quarters-could find a place to live. It took a good deal of hard work on his part, a good deal of going around to people who had a bit of money, to get them to help him out. He was able to get other people to donate various services-and they, too, deserve credit-and he was successful at that time in getting that first project under way. It was recognized by everyone as such a good move, drop in the bucket though it was, that Mr. Douglas was encouraged to go on and do something more.
During 1954 he was successful in opening another of these projects near the church of which he is minister, right in the heart of my constituency. This time he was able to build two rows of houses that are joined together to provide accommodation for twelve single old age pensioners and also adjoining
The Address-Mr. Knowles quarters in which a married couple live who look after the premises generally. In addition there is a common room where the people who live in the individual units can get together. The arrangement is that only people who have nothing but their old age pension to live on are given an opportunity to live in these homes. Single persons pay just $12 a month but, in view of what has been put into the project, that covers the cost of maintaining these homes.
I will not take further time to give additional details so far as the homes are concerned. What I think is interesting is that this service to old age pensioners, this attempt to provide homes for these people, was so widely recognized in Winnipeg as one of the finest pieces of work done by anyone in our city in 1954; hence the overwhelming number of those who took the trouble to write the Winnipeg Tribune as to who should be citizen of the year said that this was the man, this friend of the pensioners, this man who did something to make life a little better for at least a few of Winnipeg's older citizens.
I want to pay my personal tribute to what Fred Douglas has done, and I pay a similar tribute to other individuals and organizations in Manitoba and other parts of the country who, here and there, have done something to provide homes for senior citizens. I know of other projects in Manitoba. I know of a project in Vancouver and of one in Windsor. No doubt there are others, though they do not come to my mind at this moment.
The point that impresses itself upon me is that citizens generally like to see something done fbr old age pensioners. What a fight we have had across the years to try to get the old age pension in the first place, to get the means test abolished, to get the amount up to $40 a month and to get something paid at age 65. This government acts as though the people of Canada did not want their money spent in that way, but in that view the government is wrong.
I say these letters of tribute to Fred Douglas show that the people of Winnipeg feel that something should be done for old age pensioners, and I am satisfied that the people of Winnipeg are no different from the people of Canada from one end of the country to the other. I say to the government that I feel it is not responding to the good will of the Canadian people. It is not aware of what is in the hearts of the Canadian people when it sits back and thinks it does not need to do anything more about old age pensioners, and can just let things remain as they are. The only word about old age pensions we see in* the newspapers is that
92	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Knowles the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) is wrestling with the question of whether or not he should increase the rate of the old age security tax. There is no suggestion in such stories of what is really needed, namely an increase in the pension itself.
It is a fact that stories are published in financial papers about the old age security fund being in the red, but nothing is said about what some other services may be costing. Any other item of expense, whether it is on defence, public works, harbours or what have you, is a cost. There just does not happen to be any tax that is particularly earmarked for these expenditures, so the figures are not set side by side. In this case there happens to be what is called an earmarked tax, but it does not mean that the country is in the red because it is paying old age pensions. Not at all. So long as there is money available in the treasury, so long as there is available out of the gross national product of the country money that could improve the lot of old age pensioners, we are not in the red because we do something for our senior citizens.
I insist, as I have in other sessions, particularly since 1949 and 1950 when the figure was set at $40 a month, that we are not playing fair with our senior citizens and we are not playing fair with ourselves as Canadian citizens if we leave the pension at $40 a month. It should now be raised to not less than $60 a month. I call upon the government to shake off its lethargy, its indifference, to shake off the notion that they solved this problem years ago. They only took a step. The problem is still there. If we regard ourselves as a civilized people we have to do more than we have done thus far for our senior citizens. I urge that something be done about that question at this session of parliament.
Like other members who have spoken thus far in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I too welcome most heartily the announcement in the speech from the throne that there will be legislation amending the War Veterans Allowance Act. I welcome in particular the precise information that whatever amendments are brought in they will do at least two things, increase the basic rates of the allowance and raise the level of permissible income. I am not going to get mixed up in the argument that has already taken place as to who is responsible for this action. Perhaps some veteran somewhere wrote a letter to the Prime Minister that really reached him, like the letter from the young lady in Sherbrooke which was sent to him at St. Patrick in 1953.
	*

We do not worry about that. What I do hope, Mr. Speaker, is that when this legislation is brought down it will not be a disappointment. In my view, as has been stated by members on all sides of this house in the last year or two, the Canadian Legion has been very responsible, very conservative in its requests. It has asked that the war veterans allowance be raised to not less than $60 per month single and $120 per month married. It has asked that the ceiling on permissible income be raised to not less than $1,200 single and $2,000 per year married. I call upon the government, when it introduces that legislation, not to fall below those reasonable requests of the Canadian Legion.
I suggest that the Liberal members in particular, who are happy to stand up and welcome the announcement in the speech from the throne, might well try to get the ear of the members of the government and make it clear to them that they will have to change their tune if, when that legislation is introduced, it provides anything less than has been asked for by the Canadian Legion. In my view their request on behalf of these burnt-out pensioners is legitimate and reasonable. I hope it will be met to the letter.
As one who thinks we can get along with 30-minute rather than 40-minute speeches, Mr. Speaker, I am going to conclude before six o'clock. I am glad I said something that received the approval of those on the opposite side. I shall eliminate some of the notes which I have before me so I can conclude by the adjournment hour.
As others have been pointing out, one of the most serious problems facing the country at the moment is that of unemployment. I, for one, feel that the government just is not conscious of how serious this matter is to the people whom it affects. The government seems to be able to see these things only in terms of statistics; that is all they are, figures on a sheet.
I come back to where I started, Mr. Speaker. I suppose once again somebody had better write the Prime Minister a letter. The Prime Minister's secretaries had better be away on a holiday or having a coffee break so the letter will go in to the Prime Minister himself. Perhaps he should see a letter from an unemployed person whose family is suffering because, in this great country of ours, with all the needs we have, there is no work.
I was disappointed yesterday that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) felt it necessary to take as notice the question I asked him concerning the lay-offs by the Canadian National Railways. It is quite true
. JANUARY IX. 1955
that I did not send him notice of the question, but we had an exchange of telegrams and letters about this matter a few weeks ago. I thought it would be one of the matters on top of his desk, the way large numbers of employees have been laid off in recent months by the Canadian National Railways. About a year ago when we were here, on two or three occasions I asked the then minister of transport, the Hon. Lionel Chevrier, if we were at the end of the layoffs by the Canadian National Railways. Every time I did so he expressed the hope we were. Every time he expressed the hope that there would be no more lay-offs, more layoffs came.
Surely this is one field in which the government, since it owns the Canadian National Railways, can take steps to see that the unemployment situation is not worsened by the action of the railway. I am satisfied from conversations I have had with some of the employees themselves that there is work to be done, on the basis of which some of those laid off could be put back to work.
There are other fields in which employment certainly could be provided. I congratulate the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Balcom) upon his remarks today on the question of housing. I do not necessarily agree with all the details of what he said, but I certainly agree with his contention that we have not solved the problem of housing until we have made homes available at rental rates that can be afforded by those whose incomes are in the middle and lower brackets. This calls for the building of still far more homes than we have in this country, and as long as homes need to be built, as long as homes need to be provided, with all the facilities and conveniences that are necessary in the modern home, it is utterly ridiculous that we should have an unemployment situation.
Unemployment seems to suggest there is nothing needed. This country is full of needs for our people, very real, human needs such as homes, furnishings, equipment, roads, hospitals and all the rest. We are in tremendous need of the production of wealth to provide an adequate base for a proper, full-fledged social security program. Unemployment does not make sense, Mr. Speaker. If it does not make sense it is certainly nonsensical for the government to sit over there and do nothing about it. I challenge this government to shake off the lethargy that has been revealed from the time this session began and do something without delay about these very serious and important problems now facing the people of Canada.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
The Address-Mr. Carter AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, before coming to the substance of my remarks I should like to associate myself with all those who have complimented the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne upon the excellence of their speeches. I should like also to take this opportunity to extend to all my constituents my best wishes for a very happy and prosperous 1955.
The year that recently ended proved to be much better than had been generally expected. In spite of the slight economic recession, with the attendant increased unemployment and the poor wheat harvest, 1954 still turned out to be one of the most prosperous years in our history. Unfortunately this prosperity was not uniform throughout the whole country and in some sections our people are still experiencing severe economic hardship. This is particularly true of a large majority of the people whom I have the honour to represent. For although Newfoundland as a province enjoyed unprecedented prosperity during 1954, this prosperity was not shared equally throughout the province. Many of the dark spots in the picture of our provincial economy are to be found along the southwest coast, and particularly in my own riding.
Burin-Burgeo is one of the poorest ridings in all Newfoundland, because it is almost completely dependent upon the fisheries. And while in some sections the fisheries have been very good indeed, in others they have been very poor; and the western half of my riding is fast becoming a depressed area.
The southwest coast of Newfoundland is the only part of the province where all commercial varieties of fish are available and can be caught the whole year round. But, so far as the fisheries development program is concerned, it appears to be a forgotten area. Not a single experimental station has been established along the entire coast, and no plan has been announced either for the development of its fisheries or for the solution of its problems.
If hon. members will cast their minds back to the Christmas just past they will recall pleasant and happy memories of plenty of good things to eat and to drink, plenty of toys for the children, and plenty of good things to enjoy. For many of the fishermen in my riding this Christmas was a cheerless one indeed-no toys for the children, nothing special to eat, only the bare necessities of life. And now they can look forward to a bleak and hungry winter alleviated only by
94	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Carter family allowances and provincial welfare payments. Apart from employment at the Canadian National Railways terminal at Port aux Basques and the fluorspar mines at St. Lawrence, the only bright spots in my riding are to be found in six or seven communities where fresh fish plants are in operation. Fresh fish plants are indispensable to the development of our fisheries and the rehabilitation of our fishermen, but they must not be regarded as the whole answer. The salt fish industry is equally essential to the prosperity of our fishermen and to the economy of our province; apd it must be kept alive at all costs.
It is imperative that we find more and more remunerative markets for our salt cod, because the economic well-being and the prosperity of our fishermen depend to a very large extent upon competition between the fresh and salt fish industries. My own constituents, as well as fishermen in all parts of Canada, will be pleased to learn from the speech from the throne that loans, similar to prairie farm improvement loans, will be made available to them. This is a move in the right direction, and one that has been long overdue.
Our means of production are in great need of modernization, but on the other hand there is little point in catching fish that cannot be sold. The most urgent need of our fishermen is a variety of competitive outlets for their fish, because even with their present methods and means of production they can still produce much more than they are producing. There is no incentive for fishermen to produce fish unless they can sell their catch at a profit. What point is there in a fisherman toiling from early morn until late at night, day after day, only to find at the end of the year that he has barely met his cost of production?
For these reasons it is hoped that our Department of Trade and Commerce will continue their efforts to expand the markets for all our fisheries products, our salt fish as well as our fresh fish. We also need most urgently more research into the possibilities of the herring fisheries. The tinning of fresh fish, fish tongues, fish cakes and fish roes also deserves far more attention than it has received up to now.
It will be a sad day for Newfoundland when our salt fish industry disappears. But not only will it disappear; the fresh fish industry too will be seriously affected unless unemployment insurance benefits are extended to our fishermen without further delay.
In many settlements today the fishermen actively engaged in the fisheries are all over


50 years of age. When they can carry on no longer there will be no one to take their places in the fishing boats, because all the younger generation are forsaking the fisheries for other forms of employment which carry with them unemployment insurance benefits. And who can blame them?
We are all happy to learn from the speech from the throne that war veterans allowances and blind pensions are to be increased. This will meet with universal approval throughout the whole nation, for no two groups among us have a better claim to a greater share in the growing prosperity of this country.
The speech from the throne also indicates that unemployment insurance benefits are to be extended. This will be welcomed by all, and it is hoped that the proposed changes will include the extension of these benefits to our fishermen, because this is absolutely essential to the survival of our fisheries.
While I am dealing with matters affecting fishermen I know my constituents would never forgive me if I failed to mention one matter that concerns them very much, namely the restriction on the shooting of turrs. Hon. members who were present in this house on March 14, 1951, which was a private members' day, will recall that the whole sitting was devoted to the discussion of this problem, when Mr. Gordon Higgins, who then represented St. John's East, introduced an amendment to the Migratory Birds Convention Act with the object of having these restrictions relaxed. Both the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters), who was then minister of resources and development, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) took part in that debate and indicated by their remarks a sympathetic attitude toward this problem, as can be seen by a reference to pages 1260 and 1261 of Hansard of that day.
Following that debate the restrictions on the shooting of turrs were relaxed and continued relaxed until last fall when, without warning, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police began rigidly to enforce them once more. This is very difficult to understand, because no warning was given and no public announcement or statement with reference to the matter was made by anyone in authority. To add to the confusion, there are rumours that restrictions are being rigidly enforced in some sections of our province and not in others.
As far as my own riding is concerned, the situation now is even worse than it was in 1951. I have already described the desperate condition under which many of my people are trying to exist. This Christmas

they were not permitted even to enjoy a meal of turrs. These restrictions are causing them a very severe hardship and adding to their misery, because they are being deprived of the only source of fresh meat that is available to them. I therefore bring this problem again to the attention of the ministers concerned and urge them to effect a speedy, satisfactory and permanent solution.
There is one other matter of great importance to my constituents that I must bring to the attention of this house because, after five years of fruitless effort, all other means of dealing with it have been exhausted. I refer to the Canadian National telegraph service to the small outport communities of Newfoundland. Prior to confederation the postal and telegraph services were combined under a single department of the Newfoundland government and had been built up to a high peak of efficiency within the limits of the financial resources at the government's disposal. After confederation this sensible and efficient organization, which had been created through a process of trial and error to meet the special needs and conditions of Newfoundland, was destroyed. It was split up. The postal services were taken over by the federal Post Office Department, and the telegraph services were transferred to the Canadian National Telegraphs.
It was expected that the Canadian National Telegraphs, with their greater financial resources, would implement the plans which even in 1949 the Newfoundland government had under consideration for the improvement and the expansion of those services. Instead, the service has steadily deteriorated until now it is little better than the Indian smoke signals or the African tom-toms, and it has about the same degree of privacy. Land line telephones are housed in wooden booths which, instead of being soundproof, amplify the voice so that it is clearly audible to everyone standing in the office lobby. Messages being transmitted and received over the wireless telephone can be picked up by anyone within a radius of 20 or 30 miles who cares to turn on his radio. In some areas the local Canadian National Telegraphs telephone has a greater listening audience than "Ma Perkins" or many of the soap operas. It is seldom possible for more than four or five people to listen in on a rural telephone line, but the audience of the Canadian National telephone is limited only by the number of radios within range. Consequently businessmen are forced to carry their messages by boat to the nearest Morse operator, in order to prevent confidential information being overheard by their competitors.
The Address-Mr. Carter
If one is travelling along the coast by boat it is an absolute waste of money to send a telegram on ahead. I proved this for myself over and over again as I travelled through my riding. Day after day, before leaving port in the morning, I would send a telegram to the place where I planned to spend the night, and then after travelling all day at 8 knots speed against wind and tide I would invariably arrive at my destination ahead of the telegram.
This situation is due partly to obsolete equipment which had been in use for about 20 years or longer prior to confederation, and partly to the stupidity of Canadian National Telegraphs policies and regulations. Although present facilities are not adequate to handle even normal day traffic, the Canadian National Telegraphs insist on cluttering it up still further by accepting long night letters for offices which have no night operators and which therefore must be transmitted only by day. The effect is the same as giving a reduced rate, but if that is the object the sensible thing to do is reduce the rate on normal telegrams and thus speed up the traffic.
Canadian National Telegraphs regulations give priority to stock market quotations, and as a result urgent telegrams, which should have been delivered the day before, or the day before that, are delayed still further while the local operator in the tiny village is kept occupied copying down lengthy stock market reports which are not of the slightest interest to anyone, and least of all to the poor fishermen.
I bring this matter to the attention of the house, because if the Canadian National Telegraphs persist in pursuing their present policy the time is not far distant when the whole telegraph service in Newfoundland is going to collapse for lack of qualified Morse operators. Before confederation every Morse operator trained his children and his relatives to transmit and receive Morse messages. The treatment they have received at the hands of Canadian National Telegraphs has sickened them so much that they do that no longer. As a result combined offices, where the postmaster is also the telegrapher, are now often closed down for a week at a time while a frantic search is conducted to find a qualified Morse operator.
Before long the scarcity of Morse operators will have a serious effect upon the postal services. In order to keep these services in operation it will be necessary to separate the duties of the postmaster and the telegrapher and appoint a separate individual to each job. This will result in the collapse of both services because the salary paid for the combined duties averages only about $2,000 a year, and
96	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Zaplitny when that is divided between two people it will not be sufficient to attract competent and responsible persons. The alternative will be to either increase both salaries or close down both services.
The officials of Canadian National Telegraphs are fully aware of this situation, because they have been informed of it on many occasions. Recommendations and suggestions are treated with such haughty indifference that one can only assume they are not wanted. My own personal experiences have convinced me that it is a useless waste of time and effort.
The situation is going from bad to worse and will soon become hopeless. It is now apparent to everyone that a mistake was made when the Newfoundland organization that existed before confederation was split up and destroyed. The only solution is to retrace the step taken at confederation and transfer the telegraph services back either to the post office or the Department of Transport.
Rapid communications are a vital necessity to the development of any area. In regions where there are no road communications and where the mail service is of nine-day frequency by coastal boat the people are far more dependent upon telegraphic services than the people in those areas which are fortunate enough to enjoy other means of communication. Therefore I urge the government to give early attention to this most important matter.


Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, the debate so far has brought to the attention of parliament, rather forcibly, I believe, the fact that there is definitely a recession in our economic situation. We sometimes refer to this as a depression, but I have found that people occasionally take offence when we speak of a depression. They seem to think that "recession" is a more polite term for the situation. I do not know that there is any difference. As an hon. member pointed out in the past, a recession is when your neighbour loses his job, but when you lose your job it is a depression. We are somewhere in between those two definitions.
It has become abundantly clear that there has been a serious falling off in agricultural income. Unemployment is higher than it was at this time last year, and retail trade has been falling off. This is a natural consequence of the first two factors.
This evening I am not going to go into the question of unemployment to any extent, because my colleagues will deal with that


much more thoroughly than I could; but I should like to devote a little time to the question of an agricultural policy for Canada. I am glad that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is in his seat tonight, because most of what I shall have to say will refer to his department as well as to the Department of Trade and Commerce.
First of all I should like to say that I believe every member of this house subscribes to the proposition which has been stated here and elsewhere so often by members of all parties that agriculture is entitled to its fair share of the national income. What I have to propose will not be in the nature of asking this parliament to hand out anything or to give preferred treatment to this basic industry which perhaps of all industries in Canada deserves preferred treatment. Rather my object will be to outline a policy which will, as near as it is possible to do so, bring to agriculture its fair share of the national income.
I should like to begin by quoting a resolution passed at a recent convention of the Manitoba farmers' union. A number of resolutions were passed dealing with agriculture, all of them of some importance, but I believe this one is the hub of all the resolutions, perhaps the basic resolution. I quote:
Whereas the price of farm products and farm income is constantly dropping while farmers' cost of production is increasing and there are no signs of parity between what the farmers earn and what they must pay for what they buy, and agriculture has therefore reached a most unstable position in comparison with other industries;
Therefore be it resolved that we. the Manitoba farmers' union, strongly urge our federal government to establish a policy of forward pricing on all agricultural commodities, which would bear a 95 per cent parity relationship to other goods and services, thus bringing about stability in agriculture and strengthen our whole economy.
I say that resolution is basic because if it were carried out it would involve the putting into effect of a number of supplementary policies which possibly would help to bring about the objective I have stated, that is a fair share of the national income to agriculture. Before I go on to outline the proposals I am going to make I want to say that I do not consider them to be either conclusive or exhaustive. I should like to hear proposals from all sides of the house so the government might summarize them, take from them what they believe to be constructive and practical and then come back to this house with a policy for agriculture which would bring about some stability and future for that great industry.
As part of that policy I should like to see a system of marketing boards. It is true that there are some marketing boards in existence.

In his speech yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) referred to one of them, the one which perhaps stands out above all others, the Canadian wheat board. This board has been one of the most successful in the history of marketing in this country. However, there are many other types of marketing boards needed if we are to attain that orderly marketing which I believe was the objective of all hon. members of this house in 1945 and the post-war years; at least hon. members from all sides of the house seemed to agree with that objective.
As one of the steps toward it I would suggest that every effort be made to assist those provinces which are now trying to organize livestock marketing boards. The Minister of Agriculture well knows that in the prairie provinces at least some definite steps have been taken. A great deal of planning has gone into the proposed establishment of marketing boards for livestock. In recent months other provinces have shown an interest in that project. As I read the press and according to what I hear from the agricultural organizations, the most recent development is the idea that if enough of the provinces show an interest in setting up livestock marketing boards, then the federal government can come to their assistance by co-ordinating their efforts through a national livestock marketing board and in that way establish a policy of orderly marketing from coast to coast. That is something that would also be necessary in connection with interprovincial and international trade in livestock and livestock products.
But perhaps the most important thing towards which the farm organizations are looking, so far as this house is concerned, is the establishment of floor prices for livestock products. Obviously it would be beyond the financial possibilities of any one province, and particularly of the prairie provinces whose revenue is very unstable as recent years have shown, to take the financial responsibility of establishing floor prices for livestock commodities within their own borders. The provinces can and no doubt will help in the organization, regulation and administration of livestock marketing boards within their own borders, but when it comes to the question of guaranteeing a floor under which the price will not be allowed to drop, it is only at the federal level that this financial responsibility can be carried. I hope that, as part of an over-all marketing policy, the government will consider helping the provincial farm organizations which have done a great deal of important preliminary spade work. A great deal of information has been elicited in connection with these boards.
The Address-Mr. Zaplitny The federal government can help them to co-ordinate their efforts through a national livestock marketing board.
I should also like the government and this house to give some attention to the proposal that has been made by various farm organizations of a two-price system for Canadian wheat. It has been proposed that on the domestic market-that is, for that portion of the wheat which is sold for Canadian consumption-a price should be set which should bear a relationship to other prices. It has been pointed out, and I think with some authenticity, that it would not be a departure from regular practices so far as business is concerned. I am informed that it is standard practice. The figures I am going to use were given to me. I have not checked them for accuracy. For example, as to the automobile industry, when they sell automobiles in Canada at wholesale for about $1,400 it is not unusual for them to offer those same automobiles in Europe for $700 and in some cases for less than that in countries like Australia and New Zealand.


An hon. Member:: Have you any evidence to that effect?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: I have just said that these figures were given to me and that I have not checked them for accuracy. If my hon. friend has evidence to the contrary, I should like to hear it. I will say this without any hesitation. It is the practice of Canadian manufacturers to offer their goods in other countries at prices lower than the prices at which they offer them in Canada. That is the price system which is used for the purpose of meeting competition. In other words the automobile industry as an example, because it enjoys a rather unusual degree of protection in this country, is in a position to sell its products in Canada at prices higher than those at which they are offered elsewhere.
Certainly there is every justification for the grain producers in Canada to request that *their product in Canada, for Canadian consumption, command a price which will bear a relationship to other commodity prices within this country. If it is necessary, as a matter of staying in the world market, to offer that same product at a slightly lower price elsewhere, then that is something that may have to be done. But there can be no real argument why the Canadian grain producer should have to offer his product in Canada, for domestic consumption, at a price less than it is worth in relation to other goods and services.
I should also like the government to take into consideration at an early date the question of an investigation into price spreads.

The Address

Mr. Zaplitny It is about 20 years-in fact it was a little more than 20 years ago-since there was carried ouit in Canada a price spreads investigation. It was one of the highlights, perhaps, of the economic history of this country. Those who have read the results of that investigation in the report, which is still available, have found a wealth of information. Not all the recommendations that emanated from the report were acted upon, it is true, perhaps because of the rather unfortunate time at which it was published. But the very fact that the price spreads investigation was made, and that it received fairly wide publicity in this country, had its beneficial effect by focusing the attention of the public and of this house on the exploitation, the unfair trade practices and the many other deficiencies in our economic and so-called competitive system. Almost 21 years have gone by, and I think it is high time a similar investigation was made, as thoroughly as it is humanly possible to make it, in order to find out and to let the public know just what is happening to our price system.
I have, for example, a few figures which I obtained from a farmer who took some time off this winter and studied the price spreads in three of the basic grains produced. This material has been carefully checked, and this was the result of his investigation. For example, taking wheat, he discovered that a bushel of top-grade Canadian wheat produced approximately 72-2 per cent of flour and that at current prices the farmer would receive, if you break that down into pounds, anywhere from 1J to 2J cents per pound for his wheat, depending on the grade, the time at which it was sold and so on. When that wheat is milled into flour, that flour immediately retails at a price of 5J cents a pound. Made into bread it immediately brings a price of 13 cents a pound. In other words 100 pounds of flour, which make 129 loaves of bread, would bring this result if it were sold at the regular price. For the bushel of wheat the farmer sold he would receive about 96 cents to $1.25, depending on the grade; but the bread made from that wheat would sell at $7.28.
Even allowing for processing, handling, storing, selling and all other costs involved, that indicates a terrific spread, and an inquiry should be made into it so the producer and the consumer may both know just where the consumer dollar is going and to what extent the producer is receiving the proceeds of his product.
Then he went on to deal with oats and he produced these figures. On the oat prices quoted the farmer may receive anywhere


from three-quarters of a cent to a cent for each pound of oats marketed, depending again on the grade and other factors. It is estimated that 55 [DOT] 3 per cent of the content of oats can be turned into what we call rolled oats which are sold for human consumption. That product immediately sells for 19 cents a pound. The farmer receives anywhere from 20 to 52 cents per bushel for his oats, but when they are turned into rolled oats they sell for $3.62 a bushel. This is an enormous spread, and even making allowance for all necessary costs it gives rise to doubts as to whether it is normal procedure.
Then we come to barley, and on the basis of prices as they were at that time it was found that the farmer receives from 50 to 92 cents a bushel for his barley. It is estimated that about 36 pounds of dry malt can be made out of approximately 42 pounds of barley. Immediately the dry malt is worth 12 cents a pound, or a bushel of dry malt would be worth $4.32. If it is turned into liquid malt it is worth $9 instead of $4.32.


An hon. Member:: How much of that is taxes?


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: Someone says, "How much of that is taxes?" As I have said, we have to make allowance for all costs that enter into the transaction and we would certainly make allowance for taxes. But having made these allowances, I still think it is a matter which needs some investigation. These figures deal only with three of the grains that are produced. The same thing can be said of a great many other products which seem to become unduly inflated in price somewhere along the line between the time they leave the hands of the producer and the time the consumer receives the benefit of them. I believe it would serve a useful purpose to have a full-scale inquiry into the costs of handling, selling and processing. In other words, we should find out what makes up the price spread between the producer and the consumer. If it is found that there are undue price spreads or that there is undue exploitation, then steps can be taken to correct the situation. I think that in itself would be of great benefit to the producer.
Then there is the question of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. When I saw on the order paper that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was introducing a bill to amend the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act I hoped that it would be something fairly comprehensive. I now find that it is a minor amendment. Perhaps the minister has in mind bringing in another bill later this session. Certainly it is time something should be done to accede to the joint request of the

four western provinces. As the Minister of Agriculture well knows, as recently as last year the ministers of agriculture of those provinces had a conference and made a joint request to have the operations of the act extended to cover all agricultural areas in the four western provinces.
I do not want to weary the house by reciting the many difficulties that have been created in the prairie provinces by the last two unusually wet years. Most of us are already aware of them. The minister himself had occasion not many months ago to attend a farmers' meeting in a part of my province where I understood the farmers presented their problems most vividly and at great length. I believe it is time for a move to bring all agricultural areas of the four western provinces under the operation of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.
It is true that to date the operations under the act have been chiefly concerned with soil and water conservation and related matters; but I think it has been amply proved by experience that there are many other problems, such as drainage, which are getting to the point where they are beyond the capacity of these provinces to handle by themselves. I believe it would greatly assist the prairie farmers if the designated area under the act were extended so the federal Department of Agriculture could undertake the construction of dams, proper drainage systems and other related works which would not only protect land that is normally cultivated but could reclaim much of the land that has been put out of production in recent years due to wet weather.
As part of our agricultural policy I should also like to see the greatest possible effort made to remove trade restrictions. A great deal has been said in this debate about the necessity for international trade. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), replying to some of the proposals made by the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe), had this to say as appears at page 32 of Hansard of yesterday:
Here we all feel that expanding trade is desirable. We feel that it is almost necessary to the prosperity of the Canadian people, but we do not feel that it would be by high tariffs that expanding trade could be achieved in this country.
I agree thoroughly with that statement, but it does not seem to lie well side by side with some of the actions taken by this very government. For example, only last year a bill was passed amending the Customs Act under which a very deliberate attempt was made to restrict imports coming into Canada. I believe that some of the recent difficulties which have arisen between the 50433-7i
The Address-Mr. Zaplitny United States and Canada in relation to trade-difficulties which made it necessary for three of our senior ministers to make a hurried trip to Washington not long ago, the results of which we still have to hear- have arisen by reason of the provocation caused by that very legislation.
That legislation was ostensibly brought into the house as a measure of assistance to the textile industry, which had complained that it was losing much of its trade because of the interference of cheaper goods coming in from other countries. But it became clear very early in the operation of that legislation that it was not particularly aimed at keeping out textile imports. It was an instrument used to raise arbitrarily the invoice value of any manufactured goods which in the opinion of the Minister of National Revenue were or could be considered to be unfair competition for Canadian goods of the same nature. The effect of that has been to create a great deal of uncertainty on both sides of the border. In fact, I would say almost on all sides because, although affecting the United States particularly, it has affected other countries as well. It has created a problem both for the Canadian importer and the United States exporter.
In the past, under the legislation which existed before the amendment, an importer could, by looking at the various tariff schedules of duties, calculate pretty closely what it was going to cost him to bring in goods from the United States. But since that amendment went through and since the Minister of National Revenue was given practically dictatorial powers to arbitrarily set the invoice price of goods which he deemed, in his wisdom, to be in unfair competition with Canadian goods, the Canadian importer as well as the United States exporter has been left in the most unenviable position of not knowing at any time what price they can quote. It has been left to the whim and fancy of the minister, his deputy or his deputy s deputy or some fifteenth assistant in the department to endorse the invoice. That is not a way in which we can promote trade relations with other countries.
I agree thoroughly with the Prime Minister when he said that expanding trade is not going to be accomplished by raising tariffs, but the effect of what the government has done under that legislation has been exactly the opposite, apparently, of what the Prime Minister himself advocated. I am looking forward, Mr. Speaker, to seeing this government change that legislation and go back to the normal procedure under which those who carry on trade may be able to read the act

The Address-Mr. Zaplitny and follow its implications with some accuracy, rather than be left to the whim or fancy of some official who may have his own ideas.
Now, having said that, I want at this point to say that in order to implement practically all the things I have so far discussed, it seems to me it would be necessary for this government to enter into a certain amount of economic planning. The other day my leader advocated economic planning for this country. It could be seen that hon. members in other parts of the house did not agree. It seems rather strange to me that successful business people, as well as many professional people, who enter into undertakings admitting very freely and very quickly that the greatest degree of planning is necessary in order to be successful, seem to take the opposite attitude when it comes to planning on a national level.
Surely if we are going to carry out those requests which have been made by members speaking from the opposition side of the house, to say nothing of the requests of members speaking from the government side, certainly that will involve economic planning. I believe it should be accepted by this house as an economic fact that in the times in Which we live, our problems in the immediate future are not going to be lessened by the fact that we are entering each day farther and farther into the field of technological development and discovery.
The other day I read an article in Maclean's magazine, as no doubt many of you did also, dealing with atomic development in Canada. I was astounded, even though I thought I had been following atomic developments in this country fairly closely, to learn how much quiet and unpublicized progress had been made in that field, not only here but in the United States as well. This is true to perhaps an even greater degree in Great Britain, where it is now within the realm of possibility that atomic energy can be used as a source of power for vehicles and in many other ways. We are now entering into a field which could create another industrial revolution in Canada, yet there are those who suggest that we go blindly into that situation without any economic planning at all. They say, leave it to free enterprise.
I am not opposed to free enterprise, and I do not believe anybody in this house really is, within the field in which it can make its greatest contribution. But if this nation has any foresight and vision and wants to take advantage of the latest developments, discoveries and techniques, then certainly we should not make a fetish out of free enterprise and deny ourselves the benefits that can accrue from a little national planning.


In this respect, I should like to refer to a speech made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard), who happened to pay our province a visit last year at the time of the by-election -I beg your pardon; I meant the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill). I was referring to him by his former portfolio; perhaps I liked him better in that portfolio.
In any event, he took part in the by-election in Manitoba and in the Winnipeg Free Press of November 6, 1954, is reported as having said:
The phrase "private enterprise" was a "Tory trademark" and Liberals should never use it.
Then he went on to say:
Private enterprise and public enterprise were both good, "and this country needs a lot o f them."
It is this second paragraph with which I agree quite thoroughly. I am not going to comment on the first one because I do not want to enter into a dispute as to who owns the trade mark "private enterprise". Perhaps the most interesting paragraph is the third one, in which he says:
But the trade mark of the party I belong to is human welfare and without working for this we do not deserve the power of office.
If one were to take those statements together, then I would be inclined to think that certainly at least a portion of the government is not sold altogether on what is commonly known as "private enterprise" and sometimes referred to as free enterprise. It appears that it was a good thing for him to be in rural Manitoba where we are a little more forward looking, perhaps, than some other parts of Canada, and the minister has come to the conclusion that perhaps a little public enterprise is a good thing for Canada too. I congratulate him on it.
As a matter of fact I pointed that out in my letter to the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press, and contrasted it with something that was said by the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) only a few days later. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration seemed to resent it. He apparently thought I was trying to take advantage of what he had said. He did admit in his reply to the newspaper that I did not misquote him. We did agree on that.
The point I am trying to make is this. I believe the old battle that has been going on for quite a long time in Canada as to which "enterprise" is the real enterprise is getting pretty well shopworn and out of date. Let us have enterprise; let us have national enterprise. Let some of it be private enterprise and some public enterprise. Let us not get bogged down in an argument trying to prove there is only one kind of enterprise

that can do anything in this country. Let the government, in order to carry out their policies, use the organized finances and the organized know-how which are available to it, and in co-operation with the provinces work out a system of developing our national resources that will provide the best possible form of social security. After all, that is the hallmark of civilization in any country.
Let us above all develop a certain amount of national pride in accomplishment, not in the narrow jingoistic sense that we feel we are better than any other people on earth, but a real, genuine love of the Canadian soil, an appreciation of the possibilities in our country and a full knowledge that we, as a nation, can go on to greater things regardless of whether they are done on the one hand through public enterprise or on the other hand through private enterprise, so long as they are done for the benefit of the people of Canada.


Mr. Elmore Philpoit (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I add my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Leduc) and seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Listening yesterday to the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Leduc) and noting the ease with which he switched from his native tongue, French, to English, I thought of what I had noted in my first year in the House of Commons; that is, the innate courtesy of those who have been born to the French language. I wondered just how different the proceedings of the House of Commons would be if we, who have been born to the English language, were forced either by the rules or by courtesy to carry on the great bulk of our thinking and of our business in the house in a language different from that to which we were born. So may I add my sincere appreciation not only to the hon. member for Verdun but to all his compatriots in the House of Commons for their unfailing courtesy to us of another tongue.
I rise tonight to speak almost entirely on the question of war veterans allowances. I am not trying to gloss over the importance of unemployment in this country, because I do believe it is a serious matter. It is a matter about which every intelligent person in this whole country should feel deep concern, and I know that deep concern is felt most certainly by every member on this side of the house. However, I intend to reserve anything I have to say on that subject until we have before us the actual and final proposals of the government to deal with that particular question.
I want to speak tonight about war veterans allowances particularly because on the last
The Address-Mr. Philpott day I was here last spring I had to express in the most forthright terms of which I was capable my disappointment because we did not get at the last session of parliament an increase in the war veterans alowances along the general lines that had been recommended in the Canadian Legion brief, and which had been advocated in this house, as was so well pointed out by the gracious lady who decorates the house in more ways than one, namely the hon. member for Halton (Miss Bennett). She described how all members of all parties in the house had given her a thrill by standing up to advocate a fair deal for those people receiving war veterans allowances, and it certainly was an inspiration for me last year to see how party lines were forgotten.
I think the hon. member who had the honour of first speaking out on this subject was my very good and old friend, the smiling member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). And I know very well, as the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) said yesterday, that the veteran member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) waged a doughty battle on that subject last year. The same is true of members from all parties, including the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), as well as a great many members on this side of the house.
I was doubly thrilled because one of the reasons I had to leave the house a few days before the end of the last session was to go home to attend, shall we say, an indignation meeting of about six or seven hundred irate veterans-and irate veterans' wives, who are doubly irate-who were very much concerned about this matter of war veterans allowances and what they thought was an undue delay on the part of the government in giving them what they considered was their due. I had to do some very frank talking. I had to tell them that, so far as we on this side of the house were concerned-and I was sure it was also true of others in all parts of the house-we would continue to do our level best to see that those in Canada entitled to war veterans allowances got their just due at the earliest possible moment.
But I say, Mr. Speaker, that I have been doubly thrilled by recent developments. During the summer months it became clear that the new Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) would not have available to him this year the comfortable surplus that has enabled this government to pay off over two billion dollars of our national debt in the last seven years. It became clear that for the first time in many years the minister would be faced with a deficit. In the light of these circumstances it gave me a double thrill to note that, notwithstanding these facts, the government yielded to the strong representations
102	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Philpott made to it from all sides of the house, and we are now assured that the war veterans of Canada are going to get their due by way of increased war veterans allowances and raised ceilings.
I am glad to see, too, that at last we have abandoned what I thought was a very foolish argument, namely that the war veterans allowance is just another type of old age pension. We know perfectly well that during the course of debate, when people are fighting for some great social reform, all sorts of arguments are advanced from all sides of the house, and they are advanced to achieve certain results. But it seems to me it would be a most unsound principle permanently to tie war veterans allowances to the general old age security and old age assistance scheme in Canada. Certainly if we believe in honouring our debts-and I believe every member in the house would honour his debts-we must look with great disfavour on any repudiation of any of the debts of Canada. And surely the debt we should honour most is the debt to our own war veterans, who bore the brunt for this country in time of need.
I received an extra thrill this year in seeing Canada step once again into the forefront in the matter of veterans' welfare legislation. It was one of my responsibilities this past summer, as I have no doubt it was the responsibility of many other members, to take up certain pension complaint cases with the British ministry of pensions. When I have had occasion to look into the British veterans' legislation I have been more impressed than ever with the fact that Canada's veterans welfare legislation is the finest in the world, and that we take second seat to none. And, due to the fact that it has received constant support from all sides of the house all down through the years, once again we take our position in the front rank in our treatment of those who stood in the front line for us in time of need.
This afternoon we had a little bit of advice from my good friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) about how we should talk to our Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe)'-if necessary, behind the curtains-if what was going to be done was not all we had hoped it would be. Well, of course, we have no way of knowing from the cabinet what is going to be done. I remember Lloyd George once said that there were never any cabinet secrets, because every cabinet minister he had ever known, except one, told the cabinet secrets to his wife, and the one exception told them to other men's wives. So it was suggested that the way to find out any cabinet secret


was to send your wife around to the v/ife of a cabinet minister, and you would soon find out what happened.
But I am afraid we have a very clammy lot in our cabinet. We cannot find out a single, solitary secret. But may I tell my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre that, far from having to take the Minister of Veterans Affairs behind the curtains to prod him on to greater efforts for the war veterans of Canada, the shoe is very definitely on the other foot. When the time comes to reveal the story of the fight for fairness to the war veterans of Canada, far from having the present Minister of Veterans Affairs lag in that regard, we will find that he has been in the very front rank of the fight from first to last.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that we have had many great ministers of veterans affairs in this country from the days when we first got the war veterans allowance. We had that beloved dean of the house, the present hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), a great friend of the war veterans of Canada. Later on we had that great Scotsman, who stood up like a great highland granite mountain in his championship of the rights of the veterans of Canada. Still later we had our present Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), who I sometimes think might even wish that he was back where he was before, but who takes second place to none in his steadfast championship of the rights of the veterans of Canada. May I say, Mr. Speaker, never within my knowledge or within my lifetime has there been a greater champion of the rights of the veterans of Canada than the present Minister of Veterans Affairs.
I think I am a pretty good-natured person. I was brought up in a family of 13 children, so I had to learn to be good-natured at a very early age and I hardly ever get really mad. But when I went home at one time this year I shall confess that I got really mad, and that was when some of my own compatriots from British Columbia said they were going to walk out of a certain convention because the Minister of Veterans Affairs had not championed the rights of the veterans with sufficient aggressiveness in the house. That really did burn me up, because I knew the true story of the fight he had waged at times when it was most difficult to wage it.
If you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, may I say this. It is sometimes not an unmixed blessing to be the son of a very great personage. Sometimes when one is the son of a very great personage people are inclined to attribute his good qualities entirely to heredity. May I say that for my part, as one

who has long been concerned about the welfare of the veterans in Canada I honour the present Minister of Veterans Affairs because he is the son of a very great Liberal statesman; but may I say with even more emphasis that I honour the present Minister of Veterans Affairs because of his own personality and because of the fact that in the truest sense of the word he has won his own spurs without help from anyone.
May I just tidy up that part of my speech by saying that while I did go home last year feeling a very real disappointment because we had not been able to get through an increase in the war veterans allowance and the lifting of the ceiling at the last session, I feel douibly gratified now.
While I am passing out compliments, for just a minute may I offer an especial compliment to the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe), for his truly remarkable performance of yesterday. I must say that for very many years I have had a warm spot in my heart for the present Acting Leader of the Opposition, because I was born and brought up in the heart of old Tory Ontario, and I have a great, deep and abiding respect for a real, good old-fashioned Ontario Tory. I always know exactly where a real, good, old Ontario Tory stands; so I was not the least bit surprised yesterday when he gave this house that hour of, shall I say, education, mixed with amusement, because our friend the Acting Leader of the Opposition has that great attribute, that great quality of character. He is able to get us all laughing with him, and he is a big enough man to laugh with us all and at times even to laugh at himself and enjoy the laugh, and that is one of my measurements of a big man.
But much to my astonishment the piece de resistance of the speech of the Acting Leader of the Opposition came yesterday not, shall I say, in the characteristic form that one might expect from a good old-fashioned Ontario Tory, an expert on horses; it came in the form that I have been led to expect sometimes even in letters from my wife. I always find in letters from my wife there may be one or two pages; and then at the end there will be a p.s., and the whole thing she had to say in the letter was said in that last p.s. Therefore much to my astonishment yesterday, after I had listened to an hour of mixed enlightenment and amusement from the Acting Leader of the Opposition, I heard him read out the six points in the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne. I found a real bombshell in point No. 6. Without any
The Address-Mr. Philpott notification whatsoever to the good old Conservative party of Canada the Acting Leader of the Opposition of the day committed his party, on the spur of the moment in the last point, point six, the p.s., to national health insurance. When I heard that my heart beat with joy, my cup of jubilation really ran over.
I remember Adlai Stevenson's witty wisecrack in the last election. He was talking about General Eisenhower attempting to drag the Republicans screaming into the twentieth century. The Acting Leader of the Opposition very clearly did not attempt to drag the Conservative party of Canada screaming into the second half of the twentieth century because he very astutely did not give them any advance notice of what was going to be in point six, or the p.s., of his amendment.
When I saw his remarkable feat of agility, for some reason or other I had to think of the last time I was at the circus. I thought our friend gave an even more remarkable performance than the high diver I saw there. When I went to the circus I saw the performer walk up to that little pint-sized swimming pool. He looked at the big ladder and started to climb it. He climbed hundreds of feet and stood on a little board and dived and came right down into the swimming pool.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Acting Leader of the Opposition gave an even more remarkable performance. He landed in the swimming pool with the whole Conservative party, but he did not climb the ladder and therefore no one had a chance to see what was coming off.
May I say also that when I heard the mixed laughter and cheers I felt just a wee bit sorry for my good friend the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) because he seemed to me for just a moment to be like one of those fellows who went to swim in English bay at Vancouver on New Year's day. As he was just about to take the plunge somebody got away with his swimming trunks and for a moment he was in a rather embarrassing predicament. So for a moment yesterday the leader of the C.C.F. party seemed to be in just a little bit of an embarrassing predicament for fear the Tories had at last got away with his swimming trunks, and he was not just quite sure how to proceed.
May I say without any attempt at being facetious or witty just how glad all of us are on this side of the house who have always believed in the principle of national health insurance and who also believe in the principle of "not swift nor slow to change but in its season to bring the law". May I express

The Address-Mr. A. M. Fraser the true hope that the smiling, genial, and highly respected Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) will still be around when our Prime Minister rounds out the final blueprint which was laid down in 1919 by the great Mackenzie King and we finally wind up the finest welfare state on earth with a national health insurance scheme. I am quite sure that the day after the Prime Minister brings in our national health insurance scheme we will all be ready to give a share of the credit to the Acting Leader of the Opposition for having seen the light in 1955.


Mr. A. M. Fraser (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should like first of all to avail myself of the opportunity of congratulating most heartily the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Leduc) and the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Carrick), the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am sure that all hon. members of the house were impressed with the excellence of their speeches. I believe you will agree with me that as long as young men of their calibre continue to offer themselves for election to this house, parliamentary democracy in Canada is assured.
I should like also to congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister and the government upon the farsighted and comprehensive policies, both domestic and foreign, which they have outlined in the speech from the throne. First of all I should like to reflect for a moment or two upon some of the aspects of external policy there envisaged.
I am sure the house will agree that in the realm of external policy paramount importance must be attached to the government's decision to ask parliament to ratify the Paris and London agreements. I am well aware that these agreements are to come up for debate in about a week's time and many of us are looking forward to participating in that debate. However, I urge the great importance of these agreements as a reason why I cannot refrain from addressing myself to them to some extent this evening.
As the house knows, these agreements provide for the restoration of sovereignty to West Germany, for the rearming of West Germany, and for her inclusion in both the west European union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We are aware also that the chief architect of these agreements was Sir Anthony Eden, the British foreign secretary. When the EDC project collapsed as a result of the failure of the French national assembly to ratify the EDC treaty it was he who found a workable substitute. He found 'Mr. Philpott.]
it, as it were, in a wedding of the Brussels treaty with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I feel that the free world owes a great debt to his brilliant initiative and superb statesmanship.
Like every hon. member of the house, I am sure, I approach the subject of German rearmament with very mixed feelings. This is a subject which arouses in every one of us grave misgivings. I think we can understand only too well the attitude of France. We know that France rejected the EDC treaty and showed a great deal of reluctance to agree to the inclusion of Germany in NATO. This is readily understandable. As we know, France has suffered the humiliation of German occupation three times in the course of the last 80 years or so, and each of those occupations was more humiliating than the previous one. Yet the French national assembly has decided to ratify that treaty.
The choice with which we are faced is not, I think, between a Germany rearmed and a Germany disarmed. The real choice is between a Germany rearmed within an international framework of control as proposed in these agreements and a Germany rearmed without controls.
Along with other hon. members I am looking forward to the statement we shall hear from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) when he expounds these agreements to the house. We know we will find a great deal of assistance and guidance in that exposition and in the skill and knowledge which he has brought to this and other subjects, both here and abroad at international conferences where he has represented Canada with such distinction and has added great lustre to the prestige of this country.
I turn now to the internal features of the speech from the throne. We are all much concerned with the problem of unemployment. Many speakers have referred to this serious situation, and I am glad to note that in the speech from the throne the government has put forward proposals to deal with this situation. I find in the speech from the throne a constructive and positive approach to that problem. It is a twofold approach.
First of all there is proposed an expanded public works program, designed to take up the slack in private industry. I note with satisfaction that it is the intention of the government to apply this program in all ten provinces. It will be welcomed in my own province of Newfoundland and in the riding of St. John's East, which I have the honour to represent. There, as in other constituencies right across this great country, there are

opportunities for the useful expenditure of public funds on practical objectives which will not only assist in coping with the problem of unemployment but will provide public works of permanent value to the communities concerned. There are several which I may suggest need to be attended to in my own riding of St. John's East. The federal departments in St. John's are seriously congested. Their present space is inadequate and there is an urgent need there for the construction of a new federal building to house the customs and various other departments. I would offer as a constructive suggestion that this might well form one of the projects of a public works program.
On an earlier occasion I referred in this house to the great need for an armoury at St. John's one which would be worthy of the great traditions and the splendid renown of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, which traditions have been proudly maintained by the 59th regiment and the 166th regiment in the second world war and by the other fighting forces from Newfoundland.
I should also like to refer to the situation which at present exists at Torbay airport near St. John's. Torbay is the eastern terminal of Trans-Canada Air Lines. I regret to say that the terminal facilities there have become inadequate to cope with the growing volume of traffic which uses these facilities. There is need for enlargement of the terminal building, and in particular there is need for the inclusion in the plans of a canteen which will provide meals for passengers, many of whom arrive on flights at a late hour at night or in the early hours of the morning. The vagaries of climate in Newfoundland often lead to cancellation and postponement of flights, and this situation in turn aggravates the congestion of the terminal facilities at Torbay. There have been cases where passengers have not even had standing room in the terminal. I would therefore respectfully urge that attention be given to this matter. I am glad to note that it is the intention to proceed, as soon as possible in the spring, with the paving of the road connecting the provincial highway with the airport itself.
While I am on the subject of air facilities permit me to refer to the need for an air strip on Bell island. Bell island requires an air strip particularly in winter and early spring because it is frequently isolated then, by heavy seas and ice conditions, from Portugal Cove on the mainland of the Avalon peninsula. Moreover, an air strip on Bell island would form a most useful alternate for the terminal at Torbay in an emergency.
The Address-Mr. A. M. Fraser
I should like to mention also the great advantages that would be derived from accepting the offer of the provincial government to establish the Signal Hill area at St. John's as a national historic park, but since this is the subject of a notice of motion which I have tabled I shall reserve my detailed remarks on that matter until later.
In my riding, as in all ridings in Newfoundland, there is need for marine works. I would refer particularly to the request which has been made to me for new wharves at Holyrood and Collier's. These are some of the fields in which, I think, the government would find opportunities to develop its policy of extension of public works projects and at the same time provide services of permanent usefulness to the communities in question. This is one angle from which the government proposes to deal with the problem of unemployment.
The other part of the approach, or the other line of main attack, is the proposal to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. Like all other members of the house, I heartily endorse this forward-looking measure. In doing so, may I be allowed to express the hope that when amendments are introduced to the Unemployment Insurance Act, its scope may be broadened sufficiently to include all classes of fishermen. Many of our fishermen in Newfoundland, and I expect in other provinces as well, are in a special category not only because their employment is so largely seasonal but partly because in Newfoundland, at any rate, so many of them are self-employed. As such they are not eligible under the present scheme, and the situation arises where those in one section of the population engaged in the fishing industry, namely those in the processing plants, are employed and receive wages while others, namely the men who go down to the sea in ships and face the hazards of wind and wave, are not eligible. Those are great hazards, as we have been reminded by two events very recently, the loss of the Newfoundland fishing vessel Student Prince and the terrible storms-the worst storms on record-which have been lashing the shores of Newfoundland for the last day or two, especially in my own riding of St. John's and many parts of Conception bay. I should like to take this opportunity to express my sincere sympathy to those who have lost valuable property in those heavy seas.
As I was saying, there is this unhappy contrast between those two classes engaged in the production of fish, namely those on land in the processing plants who are therefore eligible for unemployment insurance,

The Address-Mr. A. M. Fraser and those fishermen who are self-employed and who go down to the sea and fish, and who are not eligible. That seems to me an anomaly which cries out for correction. I know it is a matter which is being given serious and sympathetic study by the government and by various departments. Although I know the very real difficulties of the problem, I trust that some method will be found of broadening the scope of the act so as to provide for the inclusion of the fishermen. This is a very important matter to us in all parts of the island, for anything which benefits our fishermen benefits all of us.

I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that the measures the government has forecast in the speech from the throne will enable us to meet the problems which this great nation faces, both at home and abroad, with greater strength and a greater chance of success. Finally, I should like to emphasize once again how confident I am that this great country will go on from strength to strength.
On motion of Mr. Croll the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Howe (Port Arthur) the house adjourned at 9.45 p.m.

Wednesday, January 12, 1955