1955-06-10

[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 10, 1955

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay on the table of the house the report of the civil service commission respecting the organization of the staff of the House of Commons.



EXPLANATION OF MAP OF CANADA IN RAILWAY COMMITTEE ROOM

Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, several hon. members have been asking about the new large map which is hanging in the railway committee room. It takes the place of the former map which had become obsolete. The new map, which is now in place, is 15 feet by 16J feet, being much deeper than the former map in order to show the far north. It required a very special paper, which had to be welded and mounted on a large sheet of canvas. There was no firm in this country capable of doing that work; it had to be done in Great Britain. It took two years to complete the map. The work was done by skilled craftsmen of the Department of Mines and Technical Services, assisted by other skilled technicians, several of whom are new Canadians.
The new map is on the scale of 20 miles to the inch. It has been photographed and reduced to a scale of 25 miles to the inch, to be used by civil and national defence authorities. All railway lines are marked, including new extensions such as the new line from Terrace to Kitimat in British Columbia. The highways are also marked including the trans-Canada highway, the Mackenzie highway and the Alaska highway.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Paul E. Gagnon (Chicoutimi):: I should like to ask the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys what was the cost of the map now in the railway committee room?


George Prudham: The estimated cost of the map was about $6,000 when it was started, and my department tell me that they are well within that appropriation.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Norlhumberland-
Miramichi) presented the third report of the standing committee on privileges and elections, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my purpose to debate this motion. I trust the house will pass it and that the government will meet the recommendation that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This motion is not debatable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On what basis, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: On the basis that it is not a motion about which the necessary notice was given in Votes and Proceedings. The hon. member may object to its passing, by leave, but-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since I do not object, I shall not do so, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to see the motion pass.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Having regard to the code of rules placed on record by the Minister of Finance, will the Prime Minister tell the house what he is going to do about the anomalous position of the Minister of National Revenue under those rules?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): When I have any information to communicate to the house in that regard I shall do it on my own initiative.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Balllefords):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) and I regret that I have not been able to send him notice. Is it the intention of the government
4622	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry to send Bill No. 449 to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines and, if so, will an opportunity be given to the Canadian Trucking Association to appear before it?


Mr. L. Langlois (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: The matter is still under consideration.



REPORTED CLOSING OF NOVA SCOTIA MINES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. MacEachen (Inverness-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. In view of the announcement that eight pits of the Dominion Coal Company will be idle for about six days, is the minister able to tell the house whether any success has been achieved in efforts to promote the sale of Nova Scotia coal in the United Kingdom?


George Prudham: Mr. Speaker, I
understand that about eight mines of the Dominion Coal Company have been shut down for about six days owing to a large accumulation of slack coal. The government has authorized the payment of a subvention on the movement of slack coal to Great Britain on an experimental basis, up to 100,000 tons at a maximum of $2.50 per ton. I am happy to be able to say that the company reported yesterday that they have made a sale of 100,000 tons and the first vessel has been chartered and will start to load slack coal at the end of this month.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister inform the house when we will be dealing with the estimates of the Department of National Defence?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am not the leader of the house and therefore cannot give the Leader of the Opposition a definite date. I spoke to the leader of the house a day or so ago and suggested toward the end of next week. The matter is within his jurisdiction, however, and I am not sure just when he intends that the committee shall take up defence estimates.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 328, respecting unemployment insurance-Mr. Gregg-Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
The Chairman:: This bill has been considered by the standing committee on industrial relations. Hon. members will find certain amendments set out on pages 688 and 691 of Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, June 8.
On clause 1-Short title.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Chairman, in bringing this bill back to the committee of the whole I can report that it has received careful consideration and fair treatment by the standing committee on industrial relations. All I want to do at this time is to thank sincerely the members of the standing committee for the helpful manner in which they approached their task and the useful job they did in connection with the bill when it was before the committee and when representations were made there by outside bodies.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Chairman, on the introduction of this bill to the committee of the whole I should like first to make a personal remark and say to the minister that we appreciate the fact he is leaving after today to attend the sessions overseas of the international labour organization. We wish him a pleasant voyage and successful work in these sessions. We trust that the deliberations will be both interesting and informative to him and that the information he will gain there will be of value to his department.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Thank you.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, with reference to the bill which is now in the hands of this committee, as the minister has said, this bill had careful consideration by the members of the standing committee on industrial relations. The report which is now presented to the house does not really indicate the extent to which these various questions were considered, but does provide the opinions of the majority of the members of the committee. With some of these opinions, the members of the official opposition agree; in some cases we think they did not go quite far enough, and there are still some sections of the bill with which we do not agree.
As I said on second reading in this house we believe that, generally speaking, the act is greatly improved by the amendments which are brought forward in this bill. For that

reason we are most anxious to expedite the work, not only of the industrial relations committee, but also of this committee; and to that end we do not propose to hold up the proceedings of this house. However, we think there is still a place for comment on some of the more contentious parts of the bill, and in particular I should like to refer once more to the matter of placing a woman on the unemployment insurance commission. True enough, the report which was brought down says:
Your committee further recommends that consideration be given to the appointment of a woman to the unemployment insurance commission and to the advisory committee.
I think it would be a fairly easy thing to have representation of women on the advisory committee, but under the present provisions which are set out in the act on the form of a commission it is going to be practically impossible to have a woman on that commission, certainly for ten years and probably forever. Accordingly I would say that the recommendation in the report is nothing more than a pious hope, and because of that I must admit to some disappointment, at the same time being grateful that the problem is recognized, even if it gets only a passing nod. I still think that the only chance of having a woman commissioner or women commissioners on this commission is by enlarging the commission and permitting both the workers and management each to appoint one woman and one man to that commission, which would make a five-man commission.
Mr. Chairman, there are some other matters that we discussed in the industrial relations committee but the proceedings of this committee in printed form are not complete up to the present time. Accordingly I presume that this bill will have passed and probably the estimates of the minister's department also long before we actually have the printed proceedings in our hands. I do not know whether the minister's gesture toward the Minister of National Health and Welfare means that because of his assuming the task of the minister the deliberations will thereby be prolonged. In any event, I still think there is a good chance that the consideration of the estimates will have been finished before we have the proceedings of the committee in our hands.
During the deliberations of the committee we had considerable discussion with reference to excepting from coverage those engaged in fire fighting in the municipalities. I still feel that the committee did not completely understand the conditions under which these men work, nor do I believe they gave sufficient consideration to the parallel between the fire fighters and the members of the police 50433-292J
Unemployment Insurance Act force. In the committee the members of this group moved an amendment to the clause in question but it was defeated. However, I really feel that I must bring it in again particularly since the final report of the committee, instead of giving recognition to the exception from coverage for firemen, seeks to bring in the police in an effort to even up the situation.
The very fact that they have gone so far as to agree that the police and the firemen are in comparable employment and labour under much the same circumstances is a step forward; but I should like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that actually the fact that the police have had exception from coverage is because of their position in what is taken to be permanent employment. If that definition of their employment is even 75 per cent correct, may I say that the firemen enjoy even more permanent employment than the police because, from the figures available, it is clear that there is a greater turnover in the employment of police than there is in that of firemen. Moreover, under the regulations which obtain in their type of employment, the firemen are considered to be permanent employees in from three months to six months of their joining the force. That is to say, they either leave the force within three to six months or they are assumed to be permanent employees from that time on. If they do not appear to be suited to the employment or if they themselves feel that that employment is not to their liking, they leave the force in about six months' time.
Under the order governing the certificate of permanency which was dated January 1, 1954, permanency cannot be established until three years have passed. Hence it is not possible for the municipality to say at the end of six months that this person is a permanent employee and accordingly is excepted from coverage. No, he must proceed to pay unemployment insurance and the municipality must proceed to pay its share of the unemployment insurance for the three years. I should like to draw attention to the brief presented by the commission covering federal, provincial and municipal employees. They refer to the assumption that-
.	.	. such employment is not subject to the
contractions and expansions that affect private industry. Hence it does not need protection against unemployment and payment of contributions by permanent public servants would be a tax rather than insurance against a contingency.
These are the commission's own words, and I must say I agree. That is precisely what it is in the case of municipal firemen. It is a tax at a rate of approximately $32 a year for three years, or nearly $100 altogether. The fireman himself contributes about

Unemployment Insurance Act $100 to the fund, the municipality contributes $100 to the fund, and at the end of the three years, after the fund has benefited to the extent of $200 and the federal government's contribution as well, the employee is then excepted from coverage and henceforth pays no insurance.
When the case was presented to the committee the reaction of the minister was that if, as was conceded, policemen and firemen were in similar employment it was probable the answer should be to insure policemen also. With that I cannot agree and because I cannot agree I do not approve of the recommendation in the fourth report of the committee to the effect that provincial and municipal police should be brought under coverage. I point out once more that I do not think sufficient consideration has been given to the fact that firemen cannot build up a sufficient number of contributions in six months to benefit if they are unemployed, that the time when they leave the force before becoming permanent employees is the only time they can possibly qualify for benefit because from then on they would leave the force either by reason of health or else for cause and could not benefit in any [DOT]event under those conditions. If, on the other hand, they build up these three years it simply means they are making, as I said before, a contribution to the fund, and it is actually a tax on the type of employment in which they are engaged.
I acknowledge the intention of the committee in recommending the advisability of increasing the period of maximum benefits beyond 30 weeks as provided in the bill and I shall have something to say about that presently, and also that the regulations respecting married women should be reviewed to eliminate the additional contribution requirements after the first separation from employment subsequent to marriage. Once more, Mr. Chairman, this is somewhat in the nature of a pious hope. The very fact that the commission is practically instructed to make regulations with regard to married women opens the door to any regulations which the commission desires to make. Even if the commission accepts the suggestion of the committee and eliminates these additional benefits, there is nothing to stop them from turning around and making other regulations which would have substantially the same effect, the effect of disqualifying from benefit those women who marry and of requiring them to work for two years in order to establish their availability for employment. We had asked that the subclause which gave permission to the commission to make
IMrs. Fairclough.]

these regulations should be struck out. I might say that there is no other class of workers who are so treated. No male worker is disqualified by reason of the fact that his wife is employed. Yet many classes of workers attempt from time to time to take advantage of the act, and some of them are successful.
The brief which was presented by the commission makes serious charges against women workers. In my estimation it is a one-sided argument which seeks to set out that women are undesirable workers, and that they have little or no interest in obtaining employment, if they can qualify for benefits, and that they resort to many ruses to procure these results. As I said in committee, I consider this brief a slander against women workers.
Certainly, by admission in the brief itself, the regulation which was made effective following the meeting of the advisory committee in 1950 was made by a committee on which no woman was serving. I hope that the minister will see that without delay the recommendation of the report with reference to representation of women on the advisory committee will be carried out.
The brief seeks to substantiate this section, first by pointing out the number of women who were disqualified and relating that number to the number who had allowed their applications for employment to lapse; and, secondly, by claiming that very few applicants, relatively speaking, had been disqualified. Now, you cannot have it both ways. Either the number of women was substantial-and the reason for that is set forth in the regulation-or else it was so small that it was not worth considering in any event.
I submit there is no more attempt on the part of married women to procure unjustified benefits than there is on the part of men. No figures were given us to show the percentage of male applicants who were disqualified for one reason or another, nor was it shown that most if not all the statistical information given in support of this disputed section did not apply equally to male workers.
I submit further that it is impossible for any administrative officer of the commission to state truthfully that he or she knows the intention of a claimant. To use such phrases as those which appear in the commission report-"no serious intention of working"; "no genuine interest in getting employment"; "evasion, intentional or otherwise", and this further phrase which I particularly noted, "some undoubtedly kept their applications alive pending the outcome of appeal, or to take advantage of any possible changes in

regulation"-Mr. Chairman, to say that any administrative officer can know these things, for sure, is to lay claim to clairvoyance, at the very least, and certainly to adopt a sort of father-knows-best attitude. This is further attested to by the airy use of such claims as these: "that the regulation was justified was demonstrated", despite the fact demonstration did not hold water at all; and the further statement: "that the proportion would be even higher if the regulation were not in force to control unjustified claims."
All through this report there are phrases such as "controlling unjustified payments", and the like. Apparently if the commission knows that there are a substantial number of people claiming benefits, then those claims in their opinion are unjustified, and steps must be taken to place in the act the required legislative authority to take action against them.
I submit, further, that any statement that the larger percentage of claimants were married applies equally to men as to women for the reason that as they grow older they run greater risk of unemployment, unless they are in what I would refer to as the permanent employment classes. And, the older they get, the greater is the probability that they are married persons.
So to take the number of married women who have applied for benefits, and relate that number to the total of claims is unjust unless you are going to do exactly the same thing in respect of the claims received from male applicants. I would like to see what kind of position the commission would be in if they tried to bring in a similar rule against men, merely by reason of the fact that they were married.
There has been nothing yet produced that convinces me that this section is other than discriminatory. What about people who work in insurable employment all winter, and then collect benefits when the winter work is over, and work on farms during the summer where their jobs are not reported? What about them? There is no legislative action taken against them. What about people who work in unpleasant employment until such time as they have a sufficient number of contributions, and then live on their benefits until they run out? Nothing has been done about them.
Has any attempt been made at all to legislate against these? The answer is no; no attempt has been made. But because women as a group are peculiarly defenceless, and because they have no representation either on the commission or on the advisory committee, and rarely on boards of referees, it is comparatively easy for the administration to
10, 1955	4625
Unemployment Insurance Act legislate against them for the purpose of disqualification, whether justified or not.
Now, I am not pleading for those who make unjustifiable claims, if those claims are really unjustifiable. But I do say that the administrative officers of the commission have had plenty of opportunity and have had some experience in weeding out the proper from the improper claims. I do not think they require a blanket authority of this nature to make it easier for them.
Once again I ask that the minister reconsider the removal of this subclause. It is not enough to ask for a change in the regulation, as has been done in the fourth report. What is needed is that the clause be removed from the bill; and this we propose to ask at the appropriate time. I hope it will not be necessary to make this request, and that the minister, before that time comes, will indicate that, after reconsideration, he has decided to remove this subclause from the bill.
We have one further serious objection to the bill. This concerns a most important change which has been made. I refer to the reduction of the maximum benefit period from 51 weeks to 30 weeks. True enough, as I said a moment ago, in the report there is a clause which says that the committee further recommends that the government consider the advisability of increasing the period of maximum benefits beyond the 30 weeks provided in the bill.
There was some discussion in committee about this; and the hon. member for Spadina made a suggestion which seemed to meet with the approval of the minister and some members in the committee when he suggested that the maximum period of benefit might be altered from the 30 weeks, which was proposed, to a period of 36 weeks. We tried, but without success, to get them to put the period of 51 weeks back into the bill.
I should like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the whole basis of payment of claims is that a person shall be, first of all, capable of and available for work; second, unable to obtain suitable employment. Then, of course, there is the requirement that he shall have a sufficient number of contributions to his credit to qualify.
During the course of consideration in committee a number of interesting points were brought up, and I should like to say in the house now, Mr. Chairman, what was said very well in the committee. I thought it might be well to repeat it. All of us who served on that committee had the very greatest admiration for the work that was done by the administrative officers of the

Unemployment Insurance Act commission. Not only were they extraordinarily well informed, but they supplied information to the committee on a clear and understandable basis. We also felt that the work of the committee was made much easier by reason of the very excellent services which they performed for the committee. On the last day that the committee met a formal resolution of appreciation went to them from the committee, but I should like to take this first opportunity to record in the house our appreciation of their services. That does not mean that we entirely agreed with everything they said.
During the presentations which were made it was brought out in one of the commission briefs that 3 [DOT] 5 per cent of all claimants had gone over 30 weeks. That does not mean that 3 [DOT] 5 per cent of all claims were for the full 51 weeks. It just means that they went beyond 30 weeks and they would reach anywhere from 30 weeks to 51 weeks. This figure was bounced around a bit and has been referred to variously as 5 per cent, 4 per cent and 3-4 per cent. Finally, we got the 3-5 per cent figure, which it was generally agreed was accurate; but again we find the government trying to stand on both sides at one and the same time, as the brief says this:
In view of the high percentage of claimants who do not use the long period ... it was considered justified to reduce the maximum period of entitlement to 30 weeks.
In the very next paragraph they talk about the drain on the fund from this type of claimant. You cannot have it both ways. If most of the claimants do not use the longer period, if just a very few do get more than a 30-week benefit, then you cannot turn around in the next breath and say that the period must be reduced by reason of the fact that it constitutes a drain on the fund.
There is the question to consider of just who are these people who are likely to benefit from the longer period. I think it goes without saying, Mr. Chairman, that in any event a great many of them will be people who are over 40 or 45 years of age. There has been quite a bit of talk to the effect that in the main it is going to benefit retired persons. Well, it may benefit some of those who have been thrown out of employment by reason of compulsory retirement; but I cannot see anything wrong with that if those people are still available to the labour market. After all, the basis which I quoted at the start was that they should be capable of and available for employment and no employment is available for them. If that is the basis, and if these people have contributed and have paid their insurance,


why should they not have the full maximum period of benefit? Who is there to say that they can benefit up to 30 weeks and from then on they should be cut off merely because of their age?
I should like to point out, Mr. Chairman, it is all very well to say that these people can re-apply. They can re-apply after they have had a further period of employment. I should like to ask hon. members how many of them know among their own acquaintances persons who, having been thrown out of employment after the age of 40 years, have tried to get other permanent employment? It is almost impossible. You can wish as you like and say that after all if these men want to work they can go out and find a job. What we are trying to do is to force them back into employment. Well, I am sure nobody wants to work more than the men themselves, and particularly men who are between the ages of 40 and 60.
They do not want to pass the rest of their lives with no jobs with which to support themselves and their families. Neither do they want to be bounced around from job to job, some of them in insurable employment and some in uninsurable employment; because I am convinced the type of employment that most of these people will get will be employment which is not covered by insurance. Unless they can get employment that is covered by insurance they cannot build up benefits to requalify for another period. I think it is wrong. I think the whole basis of reduction of benefits is wrong. I very much suspect that the commission is not too sure that it is right.
If it were sure why would it make provision in the bill for what I called in the committee a trial run? Why would it have left the other conditions in effect for a period of three years, and why would it say, at page 21 of the actuarial report:
In general, it is impossible to estimate what the effect of the proposed scheme will be in shifting the pattern in which benefit years terminate.
On the basis of the actuarial report, Mr. Chairman, with 3J million people in the contact population, taking the figure given of $47.71, which is the expected cost of benefits per person compared with $46.32 expected revenue, exclusive of interest, we have a loss of $1.39 per person. But we also have expected interest at the rate of $6.50. Therefore, on this basis we still have a net profit to the fund of $5.11 per person, or $16,607,500, on the basis of the actuary's own figures.
I am not worried about the condition of the fund, not a bit. It is my opinion that after these new provisions have been in

effect for a year the fund will be even healthier than it is today. I base that opinion on the fact that, from the actuary's own calculations, there is every expectation of a net profit.
It must also be borne in mind that a new contribution class has been created which will yield 15 cents per insured person per week to the fund in excess of that collected formerly. Since a large proportion of the insured workers will fall into this class, the fund stands to benefit substantially.
I make that statement because of the figures which are provided in the Canadian Statistical Review. The last weekly supplement, dated June 7, shows the average earnings of persons in Canada. The industrial composite shows the average at $60.80, which is quite a bit above the $57 minimum of the top class, the new class which has been created. The manufacturing total is even above the general industrial composite. It stands at $63.21. There are very few classes, Mr. Chairman, which fall below that $57 figure. Therefore I think it bears out my contention that the majority of the industrial workers at least will fall into this top class for contribution. If we are not prepared to leave the maximum benefit period at the 51 weeks, which was in the former act, then we face the question of what is to happen to these 3-5 per cent of claimants who will be deprived of benefits at the end of 30 weeks.
I know there has been talk, and there probably will be more talk, about the seasonal benefits which will be available to them, benefits which were called supplementary benefits under the act. It is true that they may qualify for a few weeks' seasonal benefit commencing the following January, but that benefit was available, in part at least, under the old act even with the 51 weeks. For the purposes of considering their relative position they cannot be added to the 30-week period if they are not likewise added to the 51-week period for which they formerly qualified.
As I said at the beginning, I do not wish to prolong consideration of this bill but I do want to place on the record the plea which we make once more to the minister. We ask him to amend this section of the bill to permit maximum benefits of 51 weeks as formerly. We do not think that there is any real solid ground for refusal. If there is some ground of which we do not know then I think we can ask the minister what it is he fears. What eventuality does he fear will jeopardize the fund? Does he have in mind another period of large-scale unemployment? God forbid that that should happen. I hope
Unemployment Insurance Act that before another winter rolls around we shall be in a much better position in this country than we have been for some time. If there is not that fear in the minister's mind, then I ask him once more to consider seriously amending the bill to provide for the former maximum benefit period of 51 weeks.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, realizing that
the minister must leave tonight for important duties overseas, and we wish him bon voyage, we know that if we are going to make a proper examination of the bill while the minister is here we cannot all make 40-minute speeches. We cannot have a proper examination of the bill after the minister has left because then the man with the answers will be gone. We in this group have agreed that one member who was on the committee would make a short statement at this time on clause 1 and would leave any argument we might have on the different sections of the bill to the time when the particular sections are being considered.


Mr. Churchill:: Are you going to follow that practice in future in regard to other matters?


Clarence Gillis: We are going to follow that
practice in order to accommodate the minister. As he has to leave we are going to help him. I am going to be as brief and explicit as possible.
This bill has been considered by the committee, which held some ten or eleven meetings, and in addition there were a number of meetings by the steering committee. The bill was examined thoroughly clause by clause. I submit that the arguments which were put forward in committee should not be put forward again in a general way. I attended all meetings of the committee and in my judgment every member of that committee received a thorough education in unemployment insurance. If the members saved the material they were able to gather during the course of the committee meetings they will have a most valuable file on unemployment insurance.
This is the first time since the inception of the act that it has had a complete revision. The act was opened up and reviewed. I know I learned a lot about unemployment insurance through being on the committee. We had the benefit of the presence of the chief commissioner and others from the unemployment insurance commission. I do not consider the briefs which they presented to the committee as being insulting or otherwise. I think those briefs reflected the experience of the commission during sixteen years' administration of the act. They

Unemployment Insurance Act constituted very important evidence and I want to compliment the members of the commission who were before the committee upon their frankness and the wide-open way in which they answered any questions that were asked. There was no doubt that they had paid a lot of attention to the bill and there was never a question asked in the committee where the answer was not given.
A considerable number of amendments have been made to the bill. I am not going to go into them in detail because we will be considering them on the particular sections. Some do not amount to very much as they merely change the wording and so on.
I was disappointed in the change from 51 to 30 weeks because at the present time we have rather widespread unemployment. I realize that the premiers of the ten provincial governments are meeting with the federal government to devise ways and means of caring for the totally unemployed who today are the problem of the municipalities. The municipalities just are not able to handle them.
Cutting down the period to 30 weeks-I understand it is to be amended to 36 weeks -from the previous 51-week period means widening the area of unemployment. You are taking 3-5 per cent of the claimants after 36 weeks of unemployment insurance- they would have gone on to 51 weeks under the act-and throwing them into the ranks of the totally unemployed to become a burden on the municipality. Unless a formula can be found by the federal and provincial governments to take care of them, that is what will happen. That is the main thing I am worried about, that we are widening that area of unemployment by the period between 36 and 51 weeks.
I am not unmindful of the fact that the 36-week period is not going to become operative for three years, that those who are entitled to the 51 weeks at the present time under the act will be carried for that period, but new persons coming under the act will come under the 36-week clause. I hope that some consideration will still be given, not only by the department but by the federal-provincial people who are examining the whole question of unemployment, to see if we cannot avoid throwing these people into the ranks of the unemployed, at a much earlier time, thus to become a burden on the municipalities. That was one of my main beefs.
The other point that I was interested in, and have been for a long time, is the bear trap that exists in regulation 5A with respect to
[Mr. Gillis.l

married women. I hope that the recommendation of the committee will be accepted by the commission and that certain wording in that regulation will be taken out where a woman now is obliged to make further contributions of 60 days' employment after her first separation after marriage. That wording is to be taken out. Now, with the exception of pinpointing her as a married woman under the act, the regulation will clean up all the troubles I have heard on that score, because of that particular wording. The committee made progress to that extent, and it also made progress to the extent of having the period which was reduced from 51 weeks to 30 weeks increased by some six weeks. So there was a good deal of value in that committee.
The other point over which there is going to be trouble is in regard to the man who is taken sick. Of course, if he is on benefits and has established a claim, he is protected. But the man who is unemployed and may be taken sick after he becomes unemployed may not be registered for benefits but is just as much unemployed as the man who is on benefits. There was a good deal of argument in the committee on that, and there may be some modification.
I was also pleased to see that the commission are continuing to accept the main principle of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and that is to expand it to take in more people. Two years ago anyone suggesting that fishermen would be included at all in the act would be considered crazy, but during the deliberations of this committee and after a continuing study by the commission it was decided and recommended by the committee that there was a group classified as fishermen that might be brought under it, that is, about 6,000 wage earners that could be administered and handled under the act as it is today. That is a beginning. The committee recommended that a continuing study be made of that particular industry and more and more brought in, as the feasibility of bringing them in is established.
I do not agree with the hon. member for Hamilton West, who makes the argument that, because the firemen were taken out, the policemen should not be brought in. Firemen are covered under the act and have been for some considerable time-not only municipal firemen, but a large number of firemen employed by the federal government at naval bases and so forth. They want to be included, because they have no guarantee of employment. The committee, instead of going along with the argument of the hon. member for Hamilton West that the firemen should be taken out because the policemen were out,

considered that would be a backward step. We heard all these arguments when the act was being set up, and I hope that some day we will have universal coverage under this act. That is our aim. I was very pleased with the committee when it finalized its report and, instead of moving to take the firemen out, recommended that the policemen across the country should be taken in. That of course is the intention of the act.
I should just like to say this to the minister on the matter of the reduction from 51 to 36 weeks. Looking at the country generally, I do not think that unemployment is getting any better. There is a little change seasonally, but in the basic industries where we have unemployment today it looks like a permanent proposition. We were reminded of this today when the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond asked the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys if he was aware of the fact 75 per cent of the total coal mining operations were now going on half time, and the minister stated that eight mines have been totally shut down through lack of markets. That unemployment is going to continue. We must begin to give consideration to the fact that sometime we will have to get around to the idea that unemployment insurance should be applicable as long as a man or woman is unemployed and that there should be no cutoff date anywhere. That is the intention of the act. It was always our conception of it. While we have experimented with it over the last 16 years and expanded it a little, bringing in more here and more there, we have either to find employment for people or to find a means whereby they are going to eat. We have to give this legislation a thorough examination.
Another controversial subject over the last few weeks was the fact that there was a regulation with respect to the guaranteed annual wage, to the effect that if it were established in an industry no unemployment insurance would apply and it would not be supplemented. It is supplemented in the United States. I might say that that regulation no longer exists because with the passing of this act the old regulations die and new regulations will have to be introduced. I would strongly urge the chief commissioner and the minister that when the new regulations are being set up, that regulation with respect to a guaranteed annual wage and its relationship to unemployment insurance should not be written in. It is not an issue in this country as yet; it may become an issue. But the guaranteed annual wage will not be established by legislation; it will be established by collective wage agreements in 50433-293
Unemployment Insurance Act plants. If you succeed in putting it in a plant at, say, Windsor or Toronto, it will develop from industry to industry and you can fix no formula under the Unemployment Insurance Act whereby you will or will not apply it. It is a matter of leaving it open.
If and when there is a guaranteed annual wage in this country, the departmental and parliamentary officials can sit in with the labour bodies and work out a feasible plan with respect to unemployment insurance. At the present time it is just a red rag shown to a bull, which serves no particular purpose. It is out now, and I would suggest it be left out. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to delay the bill. I am anxious to accommodate the minister so that we may be able to make the amendments where we think they should be made under the terms of the bill.


Mr. Hahn:: I, too, can appreciate the desirability of keeping the debate to a minimum, in view of the trip the minister hopes to make to Europe. I hope therefore to keep my remarks to a minimum. I say that more particularly because of the excellent cooperation we received in the committee from the members of the department, as well as the minister in listening to our pleas and the amendments we would have him make in the bill. I think we are rather fortunate today that the election is over in this province, so that at least we shall be spared the charges that we are talking for election purposes at this time.
The interest in the country in the bill itself was manifest to a major degree by the number of requests we had for representations to be heard in the committee. Naturally enough, it was impossible to hear everyone, but those bodies that represented the larger groups either attended or presented briefs, and every consideration was given to them by the members of the committee. In respect to this matter, the very fact that there are some 14 amendments, as outlined in the Votes and Proceedings, changes in the act the government proposes to make, is indicative of the co-operation that the minister showed in listening to our pleas. The recommendations that we made, and which are to be found at page 690 of Votes and Proceedings, included among them the following:
Your committee recommends that the government consider the advisability of extending the Unemployment Insurance Act to cover
(1) the following classes of fishermen:
(a)	Those who work for wages; and
(b)	Those who work in such other parts of the fishing industry as are amenable to coverage.
In this respect possibly what happened may not have been a precedent but at least it was an example of the co-operation that we

Unemployment Insurance Act can learn to expect from government departments if we desire it. It was quite unusual in my experience to have Department of Fisheries representatives at our meeting and to have them allowed to discuss freely in committee the problem of the fishing industry in that it experienced lack of coverage under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I felt that it was possibly something that should have been done. In discussing this particular question I sincerely hope that the government and hon. members will seriously consider the inclusion of fishermen in order to give them coverage under this Unemployment Insurance Act. It is one of the unfortunate things in this country that we should have so many classes of people who are not covered by unemployment insurance. I go wholeheartedly along with the hon. member for Cape Breton South when he suggests that we should not see to it that fewer classes are covered by this Unemployment Insurance Act but rather that more of them should be covered.
If this act is to do the job that it should do, then in time we must include every wage earner within the country. Otherwise its effect is not fully felt. These fishermen who have asked from time to time to be covered are one of that group. I am not going to say any more along that line because in the committee I said what I had to say. I am also satisfied that each and every member who represents a fishing constituency had the privilege of coming to the committee and directing his remarks to us, and every one who did so received a proper hearing. The result is the recommendation that was made for the inclusion of these fishermen at this time.
There is, however, this other matter to which I should like to speak. I refer to the recommendation in respect of the inclusion of a woman on the unemployment insurance commission and on the advisory committee. In her plea for greater recognition of women on the commission, the hon. member for Hamilton West had many interesting arguments. I listened to them closely and I am satisfied that most of us have heard them previously from time to time. However, I cannot go wholeheartedly along with the proposal, for several reasons. One of the first and main reasons is this. Does labour recognize the representation of women on committees? If so, under what circumstances? I am satisfied that women have a place in this country, as they have in every nation, but certainly they are not necessarily entitled to an equal representation on committees having regard to the proportion in which they might be employed in industry. If that were so, we could go along a step further and

say that as one-half of the people in this country are women we should therefore legislate to the effect that at least half the members of this house must be women. I do not say that would not be a good thing. We might get better legislation thereby. But I think we should leave that matter to those who are in the position to decide-in this instance the employees-as to whether or not they are desirous of having that provision. Let the employees themselves prove to us that they are anxious to have that number included on the committee or on the commission by proposing in their own union that one-quarter of the elected executive should be women.
This matter of choice, of course, in my opinion is best borne out by the people in her own riding. I am sure the only reason we have the hon. member for Hamilton West with us is that the men in her riding were quite willing to recognize the fact that she was equally capable of holding her own and possibly doing better than that in this house and therefore they have returned her on more than one occasion. The same thing applies in labour legislation. If there is found in this nation a woman who, in the opinion of the government or those who administer the act, is capable of taking her place on the commission and they are desirous that she should be on that commission, I would wholeheartedly support the idea of having a lady on it. But I cannot completely go along with the argument as to the need for a woman on the committee. I do not think that we have had any particular brief brought forward showing that women were being discriminated against. Certainly the argument with respect to class legislation so far as married women are concerned was listened to closely and remedial measures were suggested; they were quite satisfactory ones too, I must say.
As to increasing the commission to five, I cannot agree with that suggestion either. I see no need for further government expenditure in order to increase a commission merely for the purpose of adding certain classes of people to it. If a three-man commission is incapable of doing the work which it is set up to do, then I would say that we should add to it. But if the commission can and does administer the act and has proved that it is capable of doing a good job, I see no need to increase its number to five at this time.
I come back, however, to an earlier part of my discussion with regard to the fact that certain classes of individuals are denied the right to be covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act. During the course of the discussions in the committee I asked for certain

information which was not available at that moment but which the department, through capable co-operation, put in my hands within a day or so. I asked for information respecting the provincial government employees and the categories insured against unemployment. I realize, of course, that this group depends to a large degree upon legislation or requests from the provincial government in respect of their being covered. This information is not included in the minutes of proceedings of the industrial relations committee. It is a brief consisting of only two pages. I could read it to you but, because of the desirability of curtailing discussion, it might be preferable if I were to ask to have this information tabled at this time and entered on Hansard along with my speech. If I could have permission to have that done, I should be most happy. I shall give a brief summary of it if it is desired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I hate to be objectionable or to be an objecting person but I think the hon. member is asking for something that goes beyond our practice. It is the general practice to permit members to place tables of figures on the record, especially when their source is a satisfactory one; but it is not usually our practice to put briefs or arguments on the record. I do not think we should adopt such a practice.


An hon. Member:: That is the United States practice.


The Deputy Chairman:: If it is up to me to
express an opinion, I would say this. I think the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is very well taken. He has dealt with what has been the practice in this house ever since I came to it. I would point out to the hon. member who has the floor that he has considerable time in committee to explain, and therefore get on record, the points he is endeavouring to make, but the practice of the house has not been to include in Hansard other than official tables, usually with some official source behind them. Therefore I consider I am right in assuming that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre objects and without unanimous consent permission to print cannot be given.


Frederick George Hahn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is not my desire to break a precedent and therefore I shall read what was submitted to me by the officers of the unemployment insurance branch. It is headed, "Provincial Government Employees, Categories Insured Against Unemployment", and reads:
Employment by the government of any province under a contract of service or apprenticeship is insurable if the province gives its concurrence (paragraph (b) (ii) of Part I of the schedule to the Unemployment Insurance Act.)
50433-293J
Unemployment Insurance Act
All provinces except Quebec have concurred in the insuring of certain categories of employees, as shown in the summary below.
Alberta.
Casual and seasonal employees who come into the employ of the province from previous insurable employment except
(a)	drivers of privately-owned trucks;
(b)	permanent employees who are under the public service pension act;
(c)	students;
(d)	part-time watchmen or janitors.
Hon. members will please note that these are the particular exceptions. In this instance we have part-time watchmen or janitors, students, permanent employees under the public service pension act and, of course, drivers of privately owned trucks, all of whom are not covered. I continue:
British Columbia.
Temporary, casual and part-time employees except
(a)	students;
(b)	employees on a probationary basis and who are not in possession of an insurance book;-
You will find quite constant repetition in respect of those who can be covered. Those who have been insured in the past and have accepted a position with the provincial government on a temporary basis are covered.
(c)	temporary, casual or part-time employees whose principal source of income is derived from non-insurable employment;
(d)	part-time cleaners or janitors.
Manitoba.
Insurable categories:
(a)	time certificate employees (other than established or provisional employees) who present insurance books or request coverage-
That is a different way of arriving at a decision as to who should be covered by insurance.
-except drivers of privately-owned trucks, teams or other equipment rented by the government;
(b)	temporary employees of the Manitoba telephone system or Manitoba power commission who present insurance books.
We have the same necessity again. They must present insurance books.
New Brunswick.
Public works department-temporary employees who present insurance books;
Department of agriculture, engineering branch- employees not under the civil service act.
Here we have a new class who are covered, those in the engineering branch of the department of agriculture.
Electric power commission-all employees. Newfoundland.
Specified categories of clerical and maintenance staff and tradesmen who are not established civil servants in the following departments:	public
works, economic development, health, public welfare, national resources, education, fisheries and co-operatives, supply, provincial affairs, liquor control board, labour.
Nova Scotia.
Employees not under the civil service act who present insurance books in the following depart-

Unemployment Insurance Act ments: highways and public works, mines, labour (apprenticeship branch, industrial training division) .
Ontario.
All temporary employees who are in possession ot insurance books.
Prince Edward Island.
Insurable categories:
(a) temporary employees who are not established civil servants under the department of industry and natural resources (cold storage plant) and the department of public works and highways;
fb) stenographers employed by the board of commissioners public utilities;
(c)	employees of the Prince Edward Island industrial corporation (department of industry and natural resources).
Saskatchewan.
All persons who have insurance books at the time of employment or elect to be insured-
We have that phrase creeping in again, those who elect to be insured.
-and are in the following categories:
(a)	time certificate employees;
(b)	employees on a day labour basis; or
(c)	temporary employees.
Note: Employment by a corporation established under the crown corporations act, 1947, is not considered employment by the province and is insurable.
There are one or two observations I should like to make with respect to the group who are insurable by reason of co-operation between the province and the national unemployment insurance authorities. First of all we find that the province of Quebec has not concurred. So far as the others are concerned, one distinguishing factor seems to be the necessity for the individual to come from a job with an insurance book, which insurance book can be carried forward into his temporary employment. I would say that is an unfair practice because certainly a person who is working for a provincial department, even though he may not have had an insurance book prior to the time he commenced working for a provincial government, should have the same privilege of being covered if he so desires as in the case of any other individual. It is not right to accept one and not the other.
In the case of the province of Alberta I find that those who are accepted as temporary employees must have had previous insurable employment in order to be covered. In the case of the province of British Columbia temporary, casual and part-time employees whose principal source of income is derived from non-insurable employment are excepted. In the case of Manitoba they must present insurance books. In New Brunswick they must present insurance books. As far as Newfoundland is concerned, no mention is made of temporary employees. In Nova Scotia they must present insurance books. In Ontario they must also have insurance books. In Prince Edward Island those who are not


established civil servants in the department of industry and natural resources and the department of public works and highways are covered. In Saskatchewan they must have insurance books.
We have certain groups who must have insurance books before they enter the employ of a provincial government and if they have them they will become insurable but others working side by side with these individuals who are covered by insurance are denied the same privilege because they do not have the necessary insurance qualifications in that they have not been insured at a previous time.
The committee also recommended that the government consider the advisability of increasing the period of maximum benefits. I think the committee was almost unanimous, though not completely so, as to the desirability of having the period of 30 weeks changed and the former period of 51 weeks made applicable. If we are going to have a competent labour body behind us, it is necessary to give this matter more consideration. There were other suggestions, one in particular by the hon. member for Spadina which I thought certainly merited attention. He suggested that instead of 30 weeks the period should be extended to 36 weeks, and that there would be 36 weeks plus 15 weeks of supplementary benefits for which the employee is now eligible. This would bring the total period of coverage up to 51 weeks. This raises the question as to what might be done about those people who are not in the insured group. I do not intend to discuss that matter now because, from the Prime Minister's statement yesterday, it appears that the parley concerning the jobless is to begin on June 20. I do feel however that in connection with this matter of insurance for the unemployed we must consider first and foremast what is the purpose of insurance.
I understand that when the act was first proposed it was suggested that the insurance should cover only that period between jobs or that it would be a sort of transitional insurance. It would care for these people in a temporary fashion. However, our ideas of unemployment insurance have changed in a major degree so that today the workers consider that it should cover that period when they are unemployed through no fault of their own.
I believe I have very little to add, other than that the regulations concerning married women should be reviewed so as to eliminate additional contribution requirements after the first separation of employment subsequent to marriage. In this connection I would certainly go along with the hon. member for

Hamilton West in the suggestion that this separation of employment period should not be as now set out in the act. I would ask the minister and the government to review this condition to see if it would not be possible to make a change so that the regulation could be viewed with some measure of approval by the ladies of the country.


Mr. Fraser (St. John's East):: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to delay the work of the committee, and with that in mind I shall confine my remarks to one particular matter. This matter, which I believe can be discussed properly now, concerns the insurability of Newfoundlanders employed by United States civilian contractors and military authorities on United States leased bases in Newfoundland. I feel I should mention this matter because of the statement made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni in the closing stages of the debate on second reading of the bill. The hon. member's statement is recorded in Hansard for May 9 at page 3591 where he told the house that employees of United States civilian contractors on United States leased bases in Newfoundland were not covered by the Canadian Unemployment Insurance Act. That statement is incorrect.
I have checked with the Department of Labour and also with the unemployment insurance commission, and I find there is no doubt that not only are all Canadian, including Newfoundland, employees of the United States civilian contractors on United States leased bases in Newfoundland covered at the present time by the Unemployment Insurance Act, but they have been so covered ever since the union of Newfoundland with Canada, at which time negotiations were set afoot by the government of Canada with the government of the United States for that purpose.
May I say in all sincerity that I appreciate the interest the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has taken in this matter concerning the welfare of the workers on these bases in Newfoundland. I fear however that quite unintentionally his statement has created a misleading impression, and I feel that impression ought to be removed.
I would point out however that there is a second category of Newfoundland employees on the bases who are not covered by our Unemployment Insurance Act at the present time. These are workmen who are employed, not by United States civilian contractors, but directly by the United States air force or naval authorities. Presumably the reason for non-coverage in this case is that, in the United States, employees of the government up to this point have not been covered by unemployment insurance. I understand however
Unemployment Insurance Act that last autumn a recommendation was made by President Eisenhower to bring certain classes of government employees within the scope of unemployment insurance in the United States. A statement to that effect was made by Mr. Barclay, director of unemployment insurance, when he appeared before the committee on industrial relations, and the reference can be found at page 224 of the proceedings of that committee.
As soon as the unemployment insurance commission heard of this recommendation by the President of the United States it immediately broached the question of extending any coverage offered to government employees in the United States to Newfoundlanders and other Canadians employed by United States authorities on leased bases in Newfoundland. I understand further negotiations have been proceeding between our ambassador in the United States and the American government with a view to accomplishing this very important objective. I hope and trust that these negotiations will soon reach a speedy and, satisfactory conclusion.
Before concluding, Mr. Chairman, it might interest the committee to know the numbers' of Canadian employees on these leased bases. I am indebted to Mr. Barclay in this connection, because he obtained for me from the St. John's office of the unemployment insurance commission the following information which indicates that those who are employees of contractors and are therefore insured under the act are as follows: United States air force in Newfounaland, 1,200; United States air force at Goose Bay,-and I presume that applies to the United States installations on the Canadian base there-1,500; and the United States navy at Argentia, 200; making a total of 2,900 employees as of May 27, 1955, who were under the terms of our Unemployment Insurance Act.
It should be noted however that this statement adds that both the 1,200 employees in Newfoundland and the 1,500 employees at Goose Bay are expected to increase in number as the work develops. I am sure the house will be glad to note that the increase in the number of insurable employees at the United States naval base at Argentia is expected to>
rise from 200 to 2,000. This will mean that the total number of insurable employees on all these bases will be 4,700.
The numbers of those employed directly by the American authorities on these bases, and therefore not insured at the present time, are as follows:	United States air force in
Newfoundland and Labrador, 4,900; United States navy at Argentia, 600; making a total of 5,500. So that at the present time the noninsurable employees number almost twice as

Unemployment Insurance Act many as the insurable employees; but as the work extends it is expected that, as I have already pointed out, the number of insurable employees will rise to 4,700, almost as many as those of the non-insurable employees. But, as I have already indicated, the government has been making strong representations through the Department of External Affairs to bring all the employees who are not at present insurable, that is those who are employed directly by the United States government, under the scope of the act. Therefore I hope, Mr. Chairman, very soon we shall find that all these 10,000 or 11,000 Newfoundland employees at the United States leased bases will be brought under the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I merely wish to put these statements on Hansard, in order to set the record straight, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Pearkes:: Mr. Chairman, I was not a member of the committee, but I have followed with interest the discussion that has taken place regarding the possibility of extending benefits to fishermen and to what the minister in the past has described as "near fishermen". I have spoken in this chamber on behalf of those employees of a company which carries out fishing operations in connection with the salmon traps at Sooke in British Columbia, known as the Sooke Harbour Fishing and Packing Company. Because I am not quite clear as to how far it has been decided to extend the coverage to these fringe fishermen, I was wondering whether the employees of that company will now be considered for coverage.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Perhaps I can answer that
question right now. The hon. member has said that I have referred to this small group on whose behalf he has made representations to the board for over a period of two years as "near fishermen". Perhaps the commission would prefer me not to say "near fishermen" but something a little farther away from fishermen than that. In any case, whatever they may be called, I can assure my hon. friend that the chief commissioner has assured me that that group will be brought under the act.


George Randolph Pearkes: Thank you.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, I have two things to say. First, I think unemployment insurance is in good hands, and I shall prove it. Before I do that I should like to say something about the appeal system. There are two things about the appeal system that I like very much. First of all, if an individual wishes to appeal from a decision of an insurance officer he can appeal to a board of

referees, which is made up of a chairman, a person representing labour and a person representing management. That is fair. If he is not satisfied with that he can send the decision to the board of referees. He can appeal to the umpire, who is a superior court judge. I know that this appeal system is fair because I had to appear before the court on behalf of a man whose name was neither Jones nor Smith. The umpire did not hold that as a handicap against him. He believed that we were sincere and he gave us credit for the facts that were placed before him, and we won our case. I think the case was dealt with fairly, and therefore I believe that unemployment insurance is in mighty fine hands and I am proud of them.
The other thing is that I think the office staffs in the offices in Fort William should be paid a little more. I know the Minister of Labour has a heart in him. He is very liberal, and he will take this case under consideration and see that these young men and young women will be paid a living wage.


Mr. Deschaieleis:: I am concerned with the report submitted by the international association of fire fighters who say that they should be excluded from the provision of this legislation as they were prior to January 1, 1954. If there exists any valid reason to exclude the police forces, then the fire fighters should be given the same treatment.
Under section 28 (1) the commission may make regulations to exclude, with the approval of the governor in council, any unemployment which would be similar in nature to employment of workers who are not insurable. Since the nature of the employment of both the police forces and fire fighters is surely similar, if not identical, I hope something will be done to correct this situation because both should be treated in the same way.
Before concluding my remarks on the first clause, may I be permitted to make a general remark following the thorough examination that was made in committee. It seems to me we are departing from the original purposes of this act which was primarily adopted, I understand, to protect classes of workers who from time to time are exposed by the nature of their employment to a reduction in staff owing to economic conditions.
After having heard the commissioners and the ministers-and their views are shared by the Canadian Congress of Labour-it appears now that we favour the extension of the coverage to as many classes of workers as possible. It might be the right course to follow, but I would hope that a clear policy will be adopted so that in the future

there will be no prejudice against any class of workers. If we adopt a clear policy, it will be much easier to give satisfaction to everybody concerned.
Before I take my seat may I be permitted to join with the preceding speakers who have extended their appreciation to the minister and to the officers of the commission, not only for their knowledge but for their patience with us. I wish to state here that it was a real pleasure to attend the meetings of that committee.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to take part in the discussion in committee at this stage but I think I should have a word or two to say in view of the fact that the hon. member for St. John's East made reference to some remarks of mine on the second reading. The hon. member raised this matter in the committee and I think I should inform members of the committee of the whole as to what I said at that time. I am reported on page 223 of the proceedings of the committee as having said:
I was the member who made that statement in the house, and I have had it drawn to my attention since that the statement was not entirely correct.
I am prepared to accept that that is the case. I should have said, in my remarks in the house, as has already been indicated, that this situation exists in respect to those who were employed by the American government or some department or agency of it, and I think now that the matter has come up that this is a point on which it would be valuable to have some amplification in the committee as to what can be done, or what should be done, to take care of that aspect of the situation.
There then followed some extended discussion of the matter in the committee during the course of which reference was made to some negotiations which were going on with the United States authorities. I suggested in the committee, as I do now, that if such negotiations do not prove to be successful in the near future, and particularly in view of the statistics placed on the record by the hon. member for St. John's East, some special arrangements could very well be supported and approved by this parliament so that the establishment of such bases will not have resulted in workers being placed in a discriminatory position.
In the committee the Minister of Labour suggested that the negotiations should be permitted to proceed for a time before any such plan was considered, but he did indicate at that time that he hoped to be able to make a further statement. I mention this particularly in view of the fact that the minister has indicated he is going to be away. I suggest that if he is not in a position to make a further statement he be sure that the acting minister is aware of the situation and that
Unemployment Insurance Act we be given some definite information before the end of the session as to how this problem is developing and how it is going to be handled.


Mr. Slick:: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take up the time of the committee unduly, but there is one matter I must speak on and that is unemployment insurance for fishermen. The brief submitted to the committee on industrial relations gives me cause for concern because it was the most negative statement I have ever read. A great deal of work had apparently been done to show reasons why fishermen should be included under unemployment insurance but there was not one recommendation as to how it could be done.
I do not want to enter into a discussion of the fishing industry, but it was set out in the brief that in 1949 there were some 88,000 fishermen, which number had been reduced to 54,000 by 1951. This morning the hon. member for Cape Breton South, for whom I have the greatest regard, stated that the recommendation is that 6,000 of those 54,000 could possibly be insured under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I would like to see all fishermen come under the act. I speak on behalf of all fishermen, not just the 6,000.
The statistics which I have quoted indicate that our fisherman population has shrunk from some 80,000 to 54,000. If we are to insure 6,000 and leave out 48,000, what will happen to our fishermen? Are they still going to carry on? Are they not going to become dissatisfied and give up fishing? I do not want to take a dog in the manger attitude, and if unemployment insurance is going to help 6,000 fishermen I am prepared to swing along with it, but not at the expense of the 48,000 other fishermen.
The association of fishermen in Newfoundland submitted a brief. I am not allowed to table this brief but I can comment upon it. Speaking for the majority of the fishermen in Newfoundland, they claim that there should be certification of fishermen who have actually fished for the required period for the granting of unemployment benefits. They suggest that the fishermen should contribute the required amount to the unemployment insurance fund. In other words, they do not want relief.
They suggest that agreement should be reached as to who is the employer of the fisherman and who shall pay the employer's share of the contribution. They submit that the federal government should be prepared to pay a proportionate share. They state that the time has come when the fishermen can no longer be treated differently from

Unemployment Insurance Act other workers in industry in this country. With that part of the brief I am entirely in agreement.
I agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton South that the time has come when many of these men who are seasonally unemployed and who cannot find work in the winter months should receive some benefit. I do not care whether it is in the form of unemployment insurance or in the form of some other insurance, some means must be found whereby fishermen who cannot fish in the winter and who cannot find other gainful employment will receive some benefit to take care of their needs for at least two or three months in the year.
There are many men in my riding who have given up fishing and who come up to the great lakes to get employment on the boats. They are very good men and they are glad to have them. They generally work from March to about the end of November after which they draw unemployment insurance. Yet there are fishermen in the same community who are still carrying on fishing but who cannot fish during the winter. They are going to give up their fishing and go up to the great lakes to get employment on the boats there. It is conditions such as these that are causing great dissatisfaction among the fishermen.
I suggest to the minister that he continue the committee which is making a study of this matter. All ideas should be amalgamated. The government should not take a negative attitude and say it cannot be done; they should take a positive attitude and say that it can and will be done.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I notice that the members who have spoken in the debate so far have expressed good wishes to the minister for his trip overseas, but I do not think any of them expressed any hope that he might return. So I shall do that at this stage.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Thank you very much.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There are some members on the other side whom we could spare very readily, but I shall not proceed to name them. This unemployment insurance measure is of great importance. The bill before us represents on the part of the draftsmen a very considerable effort. Sitting on the committee and going through it section by section, we were able to observe the exacting work that was required of the draftsmen

to gain the result that they achieved. I would not say that all the sections are as clearly stated as some of us would like to see, but nevertheless it is only right to recognize the fact that the draftsmen working on this bill performed a good piece of work in a difficult type of effort.
We have had mention made by others today that in view of the fact that the committee considered the bill at some length there is no need to spend much time on it here in the house. With that I am not in agreement, because I think it is important for members who are on the committee to draw to the attention of other members the matters that appeared in committee to be of most concern. Some have said that they would like to expedite the passage of this bill in order that the minister can get away. I have no particular sympathy with him in that regard. If he has to go, that is just the luck of us all. The business of the house could have been arranged so that we could have had this bill yesterday, and in any case we have in the Minister of National Health and Welfare a satisfactory substitute to carry on the work. I believe it is important to let the members of the house know that, although the committee agreed with most of the bill, nevertheless they were not satisfied with some of the sections.
Representations were made to the committee and by committee members with respect to extending the benefits of unemployment insurance to other classes of people, in addition to the extensions already suggested by the commission and discussed at some length in the house earlier and during the course of the committee proceedings. The committee did consider the question of the agricultural labourer; they considered the difficult problem in connection with those fishermen who are not self-employed; they dealt with the question of the firemen who were asking to be excluded from contributing to the act; and they dealt at some length with the problem confronting married women, and with this other problem of reducing the 51 weeks of benefit to 30. It would be wrong to assume that there was unanimity of agreement on all these points in the committee. Although the report has been presented, it is only right to inform the house that the committee was not unanimous with regard to everything that happened in the course of the proceedings. Attempts were made here and there to make amendments to the act, of which some were accepted and others rejected.
Some praise has been offered to the unemployment insurance commission by other speakers. I consider the commission competent. We were pleased to have their assistance

as we considered the bill, but I do not think that they differ from others of us. I think that they are subject to error and perhaps would respond to suggestions. Although I shall give them credit for excellent work in connection with preparing the bill and presenting information to us in the committee, I am not prepared to praise them without adding a word or two of caution or advice with regard to their actions. As I see it, the commission is in a rather independent position. It reports to the house through the minister, but it is not representing simply the government side of this matter. The fund that it administers is large in extent but is not composed only of taxes collected by the government; five-sixths of it is derived from contributions made by employers and employees. Hence the commission under no circumstances, in my opinion, should be presenting what on occasion appeared to me perhaps to be a government-appointed view.
I believe the commission should present reports and make submissions to us that are marked more by independence than by an attempt to favour one side or the other in an argument.
Now I am going to deal with just two matters in that regard, one concerning the vexed question of married women and the clause that affects them in this bill, and the other with regard to the reduction in time from 51 weeks to 30. The hon. member for Hamilton West has touched on most points and made a very effective contribution during the course of the committee hearings, particularly in so far as women are concerned. I think it is important for the house to realize that the women within the labour force of this country are on the increase and important to recognize the fact, as the hon. member for Hamilton West pointed out, that not always are they given perhaps as full consideration as they should receive. In one of the reports given to us by the unemployment insurance commission, it was shown that of the insured population the married women had risen in number from 23-1 per cent just after the war to 33-9 per cent in 1954. That is, of the total number of women, taking in the insured population and those who are not insured, the percentage of married women in the labour force was about 35 per cent. Then when you look at it in the total, you find that in 1954 there were 849,152 women in that portion of the labour force that comes under this insurance measure, and of that number 287,863 were married.
The bill makes special mention of married women and the commission presented to us a brief concerning married women. Members of the committee considering this matter
Unemployment Insurance Act argued that there appeared to be discrimination against married women in the brief that was presented and in the fact that there is in the act a clause referring specifically to them. When I heard the brief read, and read it again myself, I was of the opinion that the commission took, in the phrase used by someone earlier today, a negative rather than a positive position concerning married women, and put them in a rather poor light as being ones who were taking advantage of the fund. That is the impression that was left on my mind by the brief. Whether or not that was intended, I am not saying, but that was the impression left on my mind. In the brief I found that scattered examples were quoted here and there of married women who had apparently taken advantage of the act and the regulations, but I felt that the commission was generalizing from a very few examples, a practice which is dangerous in any circumstances. As a matter of fact they gave us no figures. They just made general statements as to what certain people had done. They mentioned stenographers quickly losing their ability to take shorthand, apparently after they married and some people who, after being married and then coming down to the unemployment insurance offices, appeared untidy. I think that was an unnecessary method of making an argument with regard to married women supposedly taking advantage of the act. I hope that in future the commission will present some of its arguments in different form.
In the committee I pointed out-and I think it is worth keeping in mind-the fact that we have been dependent in times of crisis on the work of women in the labour force. We are dependent upon them in wartime and we would not have had such success in production results in this country with regard to munitions and supplies of all kinds had it not been for the work of the women. Since the war the women have remained within the labour force in this country; a great many married women have remained within the labour force and their number seems to be on the increase. The fact that women become married and are obliged to withdraw temporarily from the labour force does not imply that they are not going to return to it or that their contribution in the past has not been effective or anything of that kind. But the impression left with me in considering this problem was that some discrimination was being considered in respect of married women.
I think the hon. member for Hamilton West was on firm ground when she pointed out that women should be more widely represented
4638	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act on the advisory committee, on the commission itself or on any board that has dealings with the unemployment insurance commission so that the point of view of women can be brought forcibly to the attention of men. Men are notoriously unable to understand the problems and attitudes of women. We are not gifted that way. Women apparently find it much easier to understand the peculiarities of men. I think it is important to have the women's point of view presented, and the hon. member for Hamilton West has done that extremely well. It is of great advantage to this committee to have that presentation made to us.
The second point I wanted to dwell on was the reduction in time of benefit from 51 weeks to 30 weeks. I was interested to hear the remarks this morning made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South who told us that figure was going to be changed to 36 weeks. I am not sure whether he has now become a spokesman for the government. However, I know that 36 weeks was suggested in committee.


Clarence Gillis: It was moved in committee as an amendment by the hon. member for Spadina.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That amendment was declared to be out of order. It may have appeared again as a recommendation. But when the hon. member for Spadina makes a recommendation or moves an amendment in the committee, does it then follow that we can assume it is going to be incorporated in the bill?


Clarence Gillis: I think it is a good indication.


Gordon Minto Churchill: My hon. friend is closer than I am to the sources of information on the other side of the house.


Clarence Gillis: I have been longer on committees than has the hon. member.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In committee I objected to the submission of the commissioner concerning this particular matter. I want to read the paragraph to which I raised objection. It is to be found at page 16 of the statement by the chief commissioner. The paragraph reads as follows:
Moreover, it has been found that considerable numbers of those who remain on benefit for long periods, i.e., in excess of 30 weeks, are persons who have to all intents withdrawn from the labour market. Many of these persons go through the motions of lodging an application for employment in order to obtain benefit but are not genuinely in search of work. The drain on the fund from this type of claimant is considerable but this is not the most important reason for eliminating such claims. What is really important is that the fund should only be used for the proper purpose and that benefit should be paid only to persons who are genuinely unemployed and seeking work.


It was pointed out to us that the people who draw benefits for more than 30 weeks -between 30 and 51 under the present act -are small in number, constituting about, if I am not mistaken, 3-5 per cent or certainly the amount of money paid out is only 3-5 per cent of the total.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is the number of claimants.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member for Hamilton West corrects me and tells me that of the number of claimants, 3-5 per cent are those who draw more than the 30 weeks of benefit. It was pointed out to us that these are normally in the older age group. The argument presented by the commission is that these people are those who have retired from employment, generally at the age of 65, are on pension and are not really in the labour market. I thought that was a negative approach to the problem in this way. The paragraph from which I quoted uses words like these, "but are not genuinely in search of work", and again, "that benefit should be paid only to persons who are genuinely unemployed and seeking work." The impression created in my mind from the committee proceedings and the discussions we had there was that people of 65 and over were not genuinely seeking work and therefore should not be entitled to this longer period of benefit.
I have here an article taken from the Winnipeg Tribune of May 31, 1955, written by Thomas Green. It deals with the older age group in our population. Incidentally, he points out that those in the 65 and over category are increasing in numbers. In his article he also has this to say:
In 1951 208,000 of the country's 504,000 males over 65 had jobs . . .
That means that two-fifths of the people in the older age bracket actually had jobs. How can you say then that they are not seeking work and are not anxious to be employed? The 300,000 odd who are not employed are surely no different from the 200,000 who are employed. We can reasonably assume that they have also been seeking work, are unemployed through no fault of their own, and therefore are entitled to draw unemployment insurance. I fail to follow the reasoning of the unemployment insurance commission with regard to this particular fact.
I believe studies are under way in an attempt to discover how best to deal with those who are in the older age bracket. I think the studies have already shown that most people are anxious to continue to work while they have health and vigour. It has been shown time and time again that many

people at 65 are more active physically and mentally than people who are many years younger. Consequently, I feel that the restriction in the paying out of benefits from 51 weeks to 30 weeks strikes at the older age group in our population. The amount of money that is going to be saved is not large, but even so it is going to be applied to the younger age group who may become unemployed, and once again you have the older people making some sacrifice on behalf of the younger. I think that is wrong.
I think the commission should review the matter again and I think the minister should announce to the house that a change is going to be made. If he is going to advance the restriction from the proposed 30 weeks to 36 weeks, as we have been told by spokesmen on his behalf, we should know it very soon, but if he will restore the 51 weeks we will be quite happy.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I note in
Votes and Proceedings of the 8th of June, page 690, that the committee on industrial relations which studied the bill now before us made the following recommendation:
Your committee recommends that the government consider the advisability of extending the Unemployment Insurance Act to cover
(1) the following classes of fishermen:
(a)	Those who work for wages; and
(b)	Those who work in such other parts of the fishing industry as are amenable to coverage.
As one whose constituents are nearly all fishermen, I would be very remiss in my duty if I did not rise in my place today to thank the committee for making that recommendation and to give it my strongest support. In the case of those who work for wages, it is a matter of principle. I think we should proceed on the basis of what is right, and it does not appear to me to be right that we should restrict the application of a principle and leave out people solely because their numbers are small. Surely the application of the principle is the most important consideration, and the application should be made as widely as possible.
A month ago today I had the privilege of attending the 1955 convention of the Newfoundland federation of fishermen. At that convention the following resolution was passed:
Whereas there is a definite and dire need in Newfoundland for the workers in one of Newfoundland's chief primary industries-fishermen- to secure insurance benefits during the off season period of employment and whereas to satisfy the need the following four main prerequisites are essential for the granting of such insurance benefits:
1. Certification that fishermen have actually fished for the period required for the granting of unemployment benefits.
Unemployment Insurance Act
2.	That the fishermen shall contribute the required amounts towards the insurance fund.
3.	The agreement shall be reached as to who is the employer of the fishermen and who shall pay the employer's share of the contribution.
4.	The federal government shall be prepared to pay its proportionate share;
And whereas the convention of the Newfoundland federation of fishermen now feels strongly that the above prerequisites can be met and the time has arrived when the fishermen can no longer be denied equal treatment with other workers in the field of unemployment insurance benefits;
Therefore be it resolved that this convention is unanimously of the opinion that it is feasible even under the Unemployment Insurance Act to grant to such fishermen; and
Be it further resolved that these benefits be assured before the 1956 fishery begins.
In support of that resolution the federation of fishermen prepared a brief containing a scheme which shows how this might be put into effect. This is the scheme suggested:
1.	All fishermen should be registered on or before May 1 of each year, and in registering each and every fisherman should be required to give the following information;
(a)	The type of fishing engaged in for the past three years;
(b)	The time engaged for the past three years;
(c)	Other types of employment at which said applicant has been engaged for the past three years and the length of time so employed in each year.
2.	When this form has been completed, each fisherman should be mailed a registration card and an insurance book. His card will be his permit to purchase stamps for his unemployment book.
3.	Fishermen so registered become automatically contributors on May 1 of each year and thereafter, if he continues at fishing until November 30. In all, as a fisherman, he must make some 180 contributions.
4.	Being recognized as his own employer, he must make his own contribution of nine cents per day, and also the employer's contribution of nine cents per day. He may, however, make this through a monthly stamp contribution-$2.34 per month.
5.	Stamps may be purchased at designated post offices, upon presentation of his registration card.
6.	Many fishermen after fishing voyage is over at the end of August, seek woods work. He could then take his unemployment book and deposit it with his employer in the lumbering industry, or similarly any other work at which he might find employment.
This seems to be the simplest system workable, seven months of contributions.
At the end of November he would mail his book to the unemployment office. December month would be the off season month, during which time the officials of said department could register the applicant and arrange for the weekly rates of benefit. Benefits should be paid as from January 1st in any one year extending to April 15, or a total of 15 weeks, at $24.00 per week.
We conscientiously feel that this system could operate in the best interests of all, with few abuses, and with very little additional administrative costs, other than over a period of two months in the year during May and December.
The executive and officers of the Newfoundland federation of fishermen pledge their support and full co-operation of all its locals in assisting in any way possible to make the scheme operative.
When the brief submitted by the interdepartmental committee was before the
4640	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act standing committee on industrial relations I had the privilege of attending the sitting. Through the courtesy of the committee I was permitted to submit a scheme which I had drawn up in an endeavour to extend to the fishermen the coverage of unemployment insurance benefits. The scheme I have just read, submitted by the federation of fishermen, and which I understand did not arrive in time to be considered by the committee, is very similar to the one I submitted. I believe that where there's a will there's a way; and I trust that by the pooling of our ideas we shall find a satisfactory solution to this problem. I know the minister will give every possible consideration to the recommendations the committee has made.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 19-Advisory committee.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: I wish to refer to clause
19, and also to clause 17 in the same regard, namely in connection with the appointment of women to both these bodies. I know this matter was discussed in committee, and that the recommendations of the committee mention the advisory committee. However, I wish once again to place on record my support of what was said in this connection. I trust that action will be taken without delay.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, I shall reaffirm what I said in the standing committee, and that is that the commission and minister will do their utmost to have female representation on the advisory boards at the earliest possible date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I add that there were some protests against this clause in that a change was made from the old act which seemed to have the effect of reducing the status of the advisory committee. For the record it should be pointed out that when we reach clause 67 it will be seen that there is an amendment which, in part at least, restores that status.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 25 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 26-Regulations.
Mr. Breton:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about hospital employees. Under these regulations the employees of hospitals are excluded from the benefits of the act, except with the consent of the employer, when such hospitals are not operated for gain. I submit that all hospitals should be obliged to insure their employees, because there is no reason why persons working for hospitals should not receive the 

benefits of the law. I think this should be encouraged, in respect of a group of people who probably have the lowest salaries paid anywhere. It should be normal that they be protected by the unemployment insurance commission. That is the desire expressed by the Catholic syndicate in the province of Quebec, and I am glad to transmit the views of this organization to the House of Commons.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 27-Excepted employment.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I point out that clause 27(g) was the subject of some discussion in committee. At that time I moved an amendment, which was not accepted, and I intend to repeat the amendment now. I shall move that this clause be amended to include in the excepted employment classification, members of municipal fire fighting forces.
I do not think it is necessary to take up the time of the house in an extended argument. I have already referred to the matter in my remarks earlier today, as did one other hon. member. The situation is well known, and could be summarized briefly by stating that police and firemen are employed under similar conditions of employment. If anything, there is a greater degree of turnover in police ranks than in those of the firefighters. In any event the coverage is not of a permanent nature but would last for three years. The three-year coverage can be termed a tax on their employment rather than an actual protection against unemployment.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Queens:
That clause 27(g) be amended by adding thereto in line 27 the words "or as a member of the fire fighting forces of a municipality".
So that the clause would then read:
(g) employment as a member of the police forces, of Canada, a province or a municipality: or as a member of the fire fighting forces of a municipality.


Milton Fowler Gregg: There was a good deal of discussion on clause 27 (g) and an honest difference of opinion on the part of hon. members of the standing committee. It just happens that in addition to the brief which was: sent to the committee and which was recorded in the minutes, the hon. member for Hamilton West and I-I was not a member of the committee but attended its meetings- were the only members who had personal representations made to us by the fire fighters. However, it was generally the opinion of the members of the committee that it would not

be wise to take what was described as a backward step in this connection. Consequently, they would like this matter to stand. That is the way I sensed the discussion. I recognize immediately that good arguments were brought forward as to why we should treat firemen in one way and policemen in another, but I shall speak about policemen later. Since my hon. friend has dealt with the firemen, I shall confine myself to them.
It is difficult to persuade groups in some categories to come under the act. The commission has been criticized for not recommending more vigorously that larger groups come under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that we should not accede to the request that has been made with respect to this group and that paragraph 27 (g) should remain as it is in the bill.


William Alfred Robinson: Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment negatived: Yeas 8; nays, 49.


Milton Fowler Gregg: May I now say a word with
regard to the last part of (g), which deals with the police forces of a province or a municipality? There were expressions of view that on the one hand the policemen of a province or a municipality should be brought under coverage by the action of parliament, which would mean the deletion of these words in the paragraph. There was another point of view expressed that if it is to be done it should be done by regulation approved by the governor in council. Frankly, I would prefer that the commission should explore the possibility of recommending the latter course, if, as a result of their investigation, that is a sound thing to do. It would of course be easier for people to say, well, parliament has said that this must be done, and consequently those who launch complaints could say that parliament can do no wrong. On the other hand, it would be courteous if the commission had an opportunity, before putting it into effect, to consult with the other governments concerned. Consequently, I would hope that paragraph Cg) will be permitted to stand as it appears in the bill.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, on second
reading of the bill I made a plea for consideration of the inclusion of agricultural workers and workers in forestry. On reading the minutes of the committee I find that the matter was discussed.


Milton Fowler Gregg: May I refer to that, Mr. Chairman? No recommendation was made back to the committee of the whole with regard to
Unemployment Insurance Act these groups, some of which were referred to by my hon. friend. In the committee I did state that when the commission brought forward its revised regulations after the bill was passed consideration would be given to certain categories of agriculture, some of which are in the same groups that my hon. friend referred to on second reading.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank the minister for the information and I am glad to know that some consideration is to be given to it. I hold in my hand the report that has been made by the committee that studied this question to the unemployment insurance commission, or to the department, and which I understand was handed to the committee but not included in the minutes.
First of all, I wish to mention that on page 1 of this report it is said that:
Farmers do not as a rule keep extensive records, which would add to the difficulties of inspection and of establishing entitlement to benefit.
I must say I cannot agree with that. Farmers have to keep pretty good records nowadays for the income tax department, and I find that the practice of farmers keeping records is satisfactory to the minister's department, and the records are increasing in numbers.
I should like to quote briefly from the recommendations in this report:
The employments which the commission has recommended for coverage (except when carried on as an incidental part of farming operations) are:
(1)	employment in horticulture-
According to the dictionary, employment in horticulture is garden cultivation, horti, of a garden; culture, cultivation. The recommendation goes on:
- (other than employment in nurseries, greenhouses, vegetable farming and fruit farming),-
I should like the minister to tell me what is left in horticulture when you exclude these, except a bit of titivating with lawns. I think it is a very restrictive definition of the word "horticulture". If that is what is intended, then some other word should be used. Paragraph 2 reads as follows:
(2)	those parts of employment in agriculture described hereunder:
(a)	employment in the processing of flax;
(b)	employment in the breeding and raising of poultry.
In the constituency I represent, many of the farmers breed and raise poultry quite extensively. Some of those who breed and raise poultry extensively may have a small dairy herd. How is the law to apply in such cases? The recommendations go on:
(c)	employment in chick hatcheries.
There is in my constituency a very successful general farmer who also has a chick

Unemployment Insurance Act hatchery. It may be very difficult to divide those activities from dairying and mixed farming. The next recommendation is:
(d)	employment in poultry pools for preparation and marketing of poultry.
(e)	employment in egg grading.
Some of our poultry raisers or fruit farmers also do a certain amount of egg grading. I do not know how these recommendations are to be applied.
The final recommendation is:
(f)	employment in the breeding and raising of race horses, saddle horses or light harness horses.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that those persons who are engaged in agriculture in a productive way, who are producing food required by the Canadian people, should be considered even before those who are engaged in raising race horses and saddle horses. I quite agree with the government in those occupations being covered, and I hope that further consideration will be given to this matter.
I realize the difficulties, but I think there are considerable numbers of farmers who keep good records and who carry on on a scale and in a manner to entitle them to be brought under the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Before resuming my seat I want to stress again what I think is the unfairness being visited upon certain men employed in the forestry industry by the government of British Columbia who are now excluded from the provisions of the act and the regulations.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The hon. member has stressed how difficult it is to deal with these groups to which he has referred. I would not want to attempt this afternoon to indicate what the recommendations of the commission might be regarding them but I can assure the hon. member that what he has said today and the other day will be taken into consideration in reviewing the regulations.
With respect to the employees of the province of British Columbia to whom he referred just before he sat down, of course the approval of the province would have to be obtained to bring them under the act.


Mr. Montgomery:: If a formula can be found to bring farm labour under the act, will that be done by order in council?


Milton Fowler Gregg: If a formula for bringing them in can be found, that can be done by order in council.


Mr. Ashbourne:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to voice again my request that fishermen be included in the unemployment insurance coverage. Newfoundland is so richly

endowed with fisheries that fishermen and their dependents represent a large proportion of the population. As has been pointed out already many times both in the committee and here in the house, it is most essential that some coverage be provided for these primary producers.
Today many fishermen are turning away from this important industry. We know that the world is dependent upon the proteins to be obtained from the sea as a means of augmenting the supplies of food in the form of agricultural products. Unfortunately many fishermen are turning to other avenues of employment. I think one way in which this turning away from fishing can be halted would be to provide coverage for these primary producers. Accordingly I want to go on record once more as being in favour of including fishermen. I think the fishing industry should be integrated with the other industries of Canada under the Unemployment Insurance Act and assistance and benefits be available for our fishermen.
We understand that a limited coverage has been given by countries such as Norway, the United States and Great Britain. I hope that the Minister of Fisheries will take a lead in this matter, assisted by the Minister of Labour, who comes from one of the Atlantic provinces, and continue to work on this problem so that some feasible plan can be worked out to provide adequate coverage for our fishermen. I want to say that this request has my unqualified support.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, I think I should say a word with regard to fishermen because the interest in this regard has been keen. The discussion in the standing committee was exceedingly helpful. Up to the time that that committee began its study the commission and the minister had been making a long drawn-out research and study to see if not only wage earners but some of the self-employed fishermen could be brought under the act. The results were not very helpful with regard to the latter, as was indicated in the brief submitted to the standing committee.
As was forcefully presented to the committee this morning by the hon. member for Trinity-Conception, if 6,000 or any portion of the 6,000 wage earners are brought under the act and nothing is done for the remaining more than 66,000 self-employed producers, a situation will come about which I think would be wellnigh intolerable. In other words, if anything is done it must be done as a combined operation.
We had the pleasure of having before the standing committee the Minister of Fisheries and his senior officials. From that meeting

on, as far as he and I are concerned, our studies are going to take different courses. The main drive under the Department of Fisheries will be to see what can be brought forward on behalf of the self-employed small fishermen while we will work in hearty cooperation to see if our plan can take up the slack with regard to the wage earners. Mr. Chairman, if you would be willing to permit it I would be most happy if the Minister of Fisheries would comment on that matter at this point.


Mr. Sinclair:: Mr. Chairman, this invitation to speak certainly catches me by surprise. In the industrial relations committee most hon. members from fishing ridings spoke and pointed out the need for some sort of social security for fishermen comparable to that given to farmers and industrial workers. The report of the special committee of the unemployment insurance commission which has studied this problem for over three years made it very clear that there would be great difficulties in including fishermen who are almost entirely self-employed, either working for themselves or on a straight share of the catch of the boat.
Only about 7 per cent of the fishermen of Canada are wage earners in the sense that they would be included under the terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act. It was questionable whether it would be wise to include these 7 per cent who were wage earners and leave out the 93 per cent of the fishermen who were self-employed or working on shares. The feeling of members from fishing ridings was very strong that we should start by including that 7 per cent. It was argued that the pattern of fishing would change very quickly from the present system under which the men are self-employed or working on shares to a combination of a small wage and a share, which is the prevalent custom in Great Britain and the Scandinavian countries. It is because of that system that those countries have been able to include some classes of fishermen under their unemployment insurance acts.
If that step could be made after study, then certainly we would have to consider the position of the self-employed fisherman who did not have coverage. We have of course some forms of assistance provided by legislation such as the fishermen's indemnity fund, which was passed two or three years ago, to provide low-cost insurance for boats and one type of gear, lobster traps. Then there is the Fisheries Prices Support Act, which provides for fishermen the same type of protection that farmers get under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, and we also have a fishermen's loan bill before the house. However, we will
Unemployment Insurance Act look at this matter again to see if it is possible to include the one group of fishermen under the Unemployment Insurance Act on the ground of their being wage earners or a combination of wage earner and sharer.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I should like
to touch upon the question of unemployment insurance coverage for fishermen at this time. The consideration devoted to this aspect at the meetings of the industrial relations committee was of greater value than that devoted to any other subject. I realize that it would not be desirable to attempt to cover all that ground again here today. However, in reference to what both the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Fisheries have said in regard to the problem of bringing in those fishermen who may be self-employed, or in the industry on another basis than that of direct wage earners, I was quite impressed by a statement which appeared in the brief submitted to the committee by the unemployment insurance commission on this subject. It appears on page 3 of the mimeographed copy that was circulated to the committee. This statement is as follows:
During the off-season only one-third of the fishermen regularly follow any alternative occupation.
That particular part of their brief struck me in a somewhat different way than apparently it had struck the members of the commission when they drafted it. While they say "only one-third", to me it was quite significant that there were as many as one-third of the men who regularly follow another occupation in the off-season. It would appear to me quite logical to assume that this third of the fishermen who regularly follow or attempt to follow another occupation in the off-season are the fishermen, by and large, who do not secure during the fishing season an income which could be regarded as adequate on an annual basis. I know perfectly well that in British Columbia, at least, some of the fishermen are able during the course of their fishing activities to secure a fairly adequate income when looked at on an annual basis, and do not particularly require subsidiary employment. However, there are others who are not able to do so.
It seems to me that an approach which might be taken in this field is suggested in another clause of the bill, which enables certain individuals engaged in trade to carry on their unemployment insurance coverage while they may be temporarily self-employed. It seems to me that one of the methods which should be seriously studied in respect to broadening the coverage of fishermen beyond the actual wage-earning group is some arrangement that would enable those fishermen who have another attachment to

Unemployment Insurance Act insurable employment, and be able to carry on their insurance coverage while engaged in fishing.
I have had on occasion a good many complaints registered with me by men who follow fishing during the fishing season and engage in other work at other times, usually during the winter months. While they pay some contribution to the unemployment insurance fund, as far as they are concerned that is wasted effort, because they are not in it long enough to be able to build up any coverage under the fund. It seems to me that by adopting the suggestion that has been made in another connection, provision could be made for them to carry on their benefits even though they were temporarily out of insurable employment. That principle could well be applied to this one-third of the fishermen whom the unemployment insurance commission claim regularly follow an alternative occupation.


Mr. Jones:: Mr. Chairman, I should like
to express briefly my support of the hon. member for Kootenay West on behalf of the fruit growers, who are very anxious to be included under the provisions of the act. As the minister probably knows, we have a peculiar situation in the Okanagan valley, where a great number of men and women are employed at times in packing houses and so on, in work for which they are covered, but very rarely are they working long enough to qualify for any benefits. Time and again they have approached me with a view to having those payments refunded. They feel they are taken from them under false pretences because they are never covered.
The fruit growers' association at their last convention went on record asking that all fruit workers should be covered under the act. I hope the minister will carry out his promise to widen the term "horticulture" to include all farm workers. I understand the difficulty in the past has been the collection of payments from the workers, but in my discussion of the problem with several workers they all agreed that they were quite willing to co-operate by going to the nearest . town and making their payments. The farmers concerned are also willing to carry out their part to ease the burden on the department. I hope the minister will give consideration this year to the demand of the small fruit grower, especially, to be covered under the act.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Chairman, I 1 should like to revert for a moment to the question of the coverage of fishermen. I recognize quite clearly the difficulties the


minister has suggested with regard to covering these types of employment. I remember some years ago having a brief conversation with the minister of labour of British Columbia when I was in the British Columbia legislature, about the problem of bringing fishermen under the workmen's compensation act. To some degree we faced the same difficulty there, in that the workmen's compensation act is based on the assumption that those covered will be wage earners and that a certain proportion of their daily wage, at that time, went into the fund and was met by the employers' contribution.
However, Mr. Pearson, who was the minister of labour, worked out a formula that he considered would be satisfactory, which was to base the contributions on the value of each fisherman's catch and place on the fish buyers the responsibility of deducting it from the money that would have been paid for the catch and in that way making the payments into the fund. Unfortunately Mr. Pearson very shortly afterward disappeared from the political scene and, as far as I am aware, his successors have not gone on with that idea.
I recall this, as I think it is a suggestion that might have to be followed if the department is considering ways and means of bringing fishermen under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
However, there is another and perhaps more fundamental difficulty, and that is that this is insurance against a period of unemployment, whereas what the fisherman requires is insurance against an inadequate income gained through the fishing season, which in most years is approximately the same length. It is curtailed only on account of weather or alterations in the regulations. I wondered whether perhaps the purpose might be accomplished by setting something in the nature of a minimum annual income based on past experience, which could be made up in those years when the fisherman's income fell below that point. Collections could be made, as I suggested, by way of deductions from the value of each individual fisherman's catch, and the buyer's contribution based on his annual purchases of fish.


Leonard T. Stick: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to say one word. I should like to thank the minister for giving me the assurance that this matter is not finished; that he is going to approach it probably from another angle, and that the needs of fishermen as far as unemployment insurance is concerned will continue to be considered until some positive solution is found.
I am not concerned whether it comes under the Unemployment Insurance Act or whether

it is necessary to set up a separate insurance scheme for fishermen under another scheme, but I thank him for the assurance he has given me that he is going to continue these studies to see if some feasible plan can be worked out whereby fishermen may have the security they so earnestly desire.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I can give that assurance.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to.
On clause 30-Decisions of commission.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to see this clause pass until I have had an opportunity to reiterate the opinion I hold, and which I expressed in the industrial relations committee. It applies equally to clause 34. I refer to the fact that under these clauses the claimant is prohibited from seeking justice in the courts. In spite of explanations that were given in the standing committee, I still think there should be an opportunity for the claimant to appear before a court to state his case if he is dissatisfied with the treatment he has received.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 31 as amended agreed to.	-
Clauses 32 to 45 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 46 as amended agreed to.
On clause 47-Rates of benefit.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, clause 47 is one which, like many others, was discussed at some length in the committee. I just wish to reiterate briefly some of the points that were made at that time. Some of us feel that provision should be made for both contributions and benefits for at least one more income bracket in addition to those provided in the schedule set out in this clause. We also feel that the relationship of the benefit to the average weekly income should be more favourable than that which is provided under this new scale.
There are always those who argue that unemployment benefits must not be too large lest their size encourage people to stay unemployed rather than seek work. Frankly, I am not impressed with that argument. Most people would much rather be employed, aside altogether from the fact that they are interested in having a decent livelihood and a decent income. I hope consideration will yet be given to increasing the amount of benefits so as to make them a larger percentage of the income lost in time of unemployment.
The other point I wish to make is this, Mr. Chairman. There is an advantage, and we welcome it, in the fact that contributions
Unemployment Insurance Act will be made on a weekly basis even though an employee is employed only two or three days in a week. In a case where an employee is on part time, the contribution he pays in will be in relation to the amount he actually receives in that week rather than on the basis of the amount per week that he is supposed to be earning. That is fine at the point where the employee is making his contribution, and it is fine that even a contribution for a partial week counts as a full week in determining a benefit period. However, when a person who has been irregularly employed comes to the point of drawing his unemployment insurance benefit, he will find that although he thought he was in the $30 class, he will not get the benefit of the $30 because the short time he has had will result in the average weekly contributions putting him in a lower bracket.
This matter was discussed in the committee. The officials recognized that this would likely be the case. I point out that those who have to draw unemployment insurance benefits are those who are irregularly employed, rather than those who are regularly employed. That is so in the very nature of things. I therefore suggest that as a result many people will find they are not going to get the full amounts set out either in column 2 or column 3 of this clause because of the lesser amounts paid in during the weeks they were irregularly employed. Some of us wish the commission or the government would yet find some way in which to provide for the benefit to be related to the person's weekly rate of income rather than to the actual amount received in short-time periods.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In order to save the time of the committee, Mr. Chairman, I simply want to express my complete support of the remarks made on this clause by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in the industrial relations committee, and in the committee of the whole at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 48-Maximum benefits.
Milton Fowler Gregg: If hon. members will refer to Votes and Proceedings of June 8, page 691, they will find that the standing committee, on this item-which of course involves the expenditure of public money-rather than making an amendment, made it a recommendation. Their recommendation is as follows:
Your committee further recommends that the government consider the advisability of increasing the period of maximum benefits beyond the 30 weeks provided in the bill:
Strong representations were made to the standing committee by organized labour and by members of the committee itself, and there
4646	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act was long discussion on that matter. I pointed out to the standing committee, as I should now like to point out to the committee of the whole, that the commission and the government feel that the amendments that have been put forward here-both those affecting the regular benefits and those affecting the seasonal benefits-are such an increase over those in the old act that we have gone as far as it is safe to go.
It is impossible to look into the future. As was said earlier today, it depends upon the economic setting in which we find ourselves. I for one do not look upon the future with pessimism either with regard to employment or any other feature of our national life; but even at the best we shall continue to have seasonal employment if we have none of the other kind. After discussing this matter with my colleagues following presentation of this recommendation, I am now prepared to ask my colleague the Minister of Agriculture to move the following amendment:
That paragraph (a) of subclause (1) of clause 48 be amended by deleting the word "thirty" in line 3 and substituting therefor the word "thirty-six".
That would make it possible, not in every case but in some cases, for the unemployed worker to obtain 36 weeks' regular benefits plus a maximum of 15 weeks' seasonal benefits, bringing the total to 51 weeks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Provided it came at the right time of the year.


Mr. Gardiner:: I so move.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, as I said this morning in commenting on this particular point, it must be borne in mind that the additional 15 weeks' seasonal benefit would apply equally to the period of 51 weeks as to the present proposal of 36 weeks, or the period of 30 weeks originally in the bill. It must be borne in mind also that the seasonal benefits applied under the act regardless of the fact that the claimant might have had a full period of 51 weeks. 1 recognize that the government are willing to make some concession in this regard. Undoubtedly this is a step in the right direction, but if they could have been wrong to this extent they could have been wrong to the extent of the former reduction, and they could still be wrong to the extent that quite probably the proper term is 51 weeks.
I do not feel that anything has been proved and, as the minister has admitted, we really do not know what will be the effect of this.
It is a matter of wait and see. In my estimation the three-year transitional period has been put in the bill for the express purpose of waiting to see, and I feel very strongly (Mr. Gregg.]

that the 51-week period should still be in the bill. It is not going to alter the working of the act as long as the transitional period is there, except for the newer group of claimants.
With respect to anyone who is covered by the act now and who has built up a period of benefits that would entitle him to the former maximum, he will be protected for a short time. But the day is going to come- and three years slip by very quickly-when that protection will be taken from him and similar protection will not be afforded to the newer claimants. I had hoped that the minister would go further than this, despite the fact it was rather apparent this was a suggestion that came from the government itself when it was made in the standing committee. I point out, however, that there will be still one more opportunity for the minister to go even further, and when that next opportunity presents itself I still urge the minister very strongly to go the full way of the 51 weeks. If he does not expect to be in the house at the time that opportunity presents itself, I hope he will indicate to the acting minister that this matter might be considered even at that late stage in the deliberations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, it goes without saying that 36 weeks is better than 30 weeks, and therefore we are pleased to have the amendment that has been moved by the Minister of Agriculture. I am very glad the Minister of Labour asked the Minister of Agriculture to do this rather than the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is to be acting minister of labour. That leaves the Minister of National Health and Welfare free to give consideration to a good cause, as he often says he is so willing to do.


Mr. Martin:: Do you know of anybody who considers and does more about good causes than the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My, but those words are encouraging. They give us hope that on third reading, after the Minister of Labour has gone to Geneva, we will be able to persuade the Minister of National Health and Welfare-


Milton Fowler Gregg: Delighted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -to go the whole way. The Minister of Labour says he will be delighted.


An hon. Member:: O.K., sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If it were in order I would be moving a subamendment to the amendment now before the house suggesting that the word "thirty-six" be changed to the word

"fifty-one". The reason it is not in order, of course, is that it would involve payment of money out of the public treasury, and a private member cannot so move. It should be pointed out, as has been done by the hon. member for Hamilton West, that the possibility of an additional 15 weeks of supplementary benefits does not change the fact that the regular period of 51 weeks is now being reduced to 36 weeks. In spite of all the arguments the minister has made about other benefits being provided in the new act, we feel it is unfortunate and unfair that this benefit is being reduced.
As we pointed out in the committee, we did not like the statement the Minister of Labour made in the house on second reading, when he mentioned that people who exhausted this period of benefit might appropriately qualify for the kind of benefit which was discussed by the Prime Minister and the provincial premiers when they met here in April. We believe it is far better to cover unemployment under an insurance plan where the benefit is available as a matter of right than on any basis of relief because, after all, that is what the other plan involves.
It is a matter of only 15 weeks less, and it is true that the numbers who will suffer this loss are not great; but to the extent that a certain number of people are losing a certain period of time during which they could draw benefit under an insurance plan as of right, and are being left, if they are in need, to a relief plan, that is a backward step and we are sorry to see the government taking it.
It has been said in defence of this move that in too many cases people draw these benefits for the 51 weeks because they are older people who have retired from one industry or another, and it is frequently suggested they are not genuinely in the labour market. I am sure all of us have had contacts or experiences with these men. I have had contacts with a great many in this group, and I refer in particular to railroad workers. Many of us have contacts with men of that age who, after being compulsorily retired, try to get other employment.
As I am speaking I think of a friend of mine who worked most of his life as a pipefitter for the Canadian Pacific Railway. He was retired at the compulsory age. He drew his unemployment insurance for a period of time, but he was not satisfied to do that if it was possible to get other work. He tried to get other work, and did get work in the bindery department of a printing establishment. Having been a pipefitter all his life, naturally the kind of work he would do in
Unemployment Insurance Act a bindery was not of a skilled nature. His job involved moving heavy stacks of paper around the plant. He was not long at the job until he was in hospital with a heart condition.
Call it a sob story if you like, but I could tell of others. I have in mind instances that come even closer to home than the one to which I have just referred, but I have cited it as proof of the fact that many of these older men who are compulsorily retired are genuinely in search of work if it can be found. These are some of the men who are going to be cut off from unemployment insurance benefit by this change. That is why we feel that it should be continued for the 51-week period. I am sorry to see that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not in his seat, but-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, I have crossed the floor to speak to an hon. member, and I am now sitting close to you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to see that he has come over to this side of the house, where he can absorb some good ideas. I trust that when we reach third reading, if indeed it has not been done before, as acting minister of labour he will agree with the suggestion that the benefit be continued on the 51-week basis.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, and because there is a permanent record of proceedings in the House of Commons, I would not want it to be thought that my present approximation to the hon. member indicates any approximation to his ideology.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I had not intended to reply to the hon. member again, but he did give expression to two words which I cannot permit to go unnoticed. He did say that this was a backward step. Let me assure my hon. friend with the utmost seriousness that it is not intended to be a backward step, and that in fact it is not. Rather it is intended to make the Unemployment Insurance Act a more effective instrument in the social security fabric in Canada than it has been so far. We are not leaving the older people without any hope at all, and we are not doing anything that could become the cause of unusual hardship this year, next year, or the year after.
The hon. member for Hamilton West may say, "Well, you put that in, but you are not quite sure. You just want to have a trial run." I will agree that this is a cautious and conservative-with a small "c"-step; I will admit that at once. But it is a cautious and conservative step just to make sure that

Unemployment Insurance Act these people the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been referring to will not suffer any hardships during that period of time. If they do suffer hardship, then we will do something about it.
My advisers tell me that by this change the 3-5 per cent of those who are actually drawing benefits will now be cut in half, or that 1-75 per cent of them will be all that could be left out, now that it has been increased to 36 weeks. Even with the 1-75 per cent we are still going to maintain section 5. This is a cautious, conservative trial run for the next three years. Before that three years is up the act will certainly be gone over very carefully.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If what the Minister of
Labour has said is notice to the Minister of National Health and Welfare that he must leave this as it is, then 1 say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, now that he is sitting over here on this side of the house with us, where we can get at him-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sitting with the Conservatives for the moment, to speak to the hon. member for Middlesex East.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, there might be something significant or appropriate in that, but at least he is sitting on this side of the house.
1 suggest to him that in view of this change it is time he took the means test off the old age pension at the age of 65.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I have already made some remarks in this debate, but there is something I wish to have cleared up for my own satisfaction.
I am still thinking about the workers who are in the position and the circumstances of the coal miners of Cape Breton. I want to find out how such a worker would go about establishing a benefit week. In committee the representatives of the commission told us that the establishment of the benefit week is no longer in terms of days, but in terms of the amount of money earned. At the same time the worker must put in five waiting days in order to qualify for insurance.
Let us take the present case in Cape Breton, where 8,000 miners have been informed that they are going to be idle for the next week. Beginning the first of that week they have to put in five waiting days if they are to qualify. Saturday is not an insurable day. The following week they have not established the benefit week. In the second week they go back to work, and work full time. In the next week they are unemployed for five days. They still have to put in five waiting days in order to qualify for insurance.


In these circumstances I would like the minister to state what the position would be. The facts are these, that the first week they are idle, and do not qualify. The second week they work and earn a week's wages, and the third week they are idle again. How do workers in that position establish the first benefit week?
Once they begin to draw benefits, then I understand it is the amount of money they earn in that week if they are idle two days and work three, or are idle three days and work two. But in the circumstances I described, it is a little different. The number of waiting days is the thing that seems to be the catch. I wonder if the minister could clarify that point.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I would not even attempt to go into the fine points of the case the hon. member has mentioned, but I am assured that in that very rough rule of thumb case, where they are laid off for a week, come back and work a week, and are then laid off the third week, the first week is the waiting week, the second week they would get regular pay' and the third week they would receive unemployment insurance.


Clarence Gillis: How do they qualify? Do the five days they were unemployed in the first week serve as the waiting period?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 49 to 55 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 56-Deductions.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Before clause 56 is carried I wish to endorse as strongly as I can the suggestion made edrlier today by the hon member for Cape Breton South that the regulation under the old act, denying unemployment insurance benefits in the event of a provision for the guaranteed annual wage, should be allowed to die with the old act.


Mr. Marlin:: You are away behind the times. We have taken that out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And I suggest that the minister might now give us the assurance that such a regulation will not be re-enacted under the new act.


Murdo William Martin: I suggest that my colleague read the last paragraph in your statement of the other day.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I dislike acting too impulsively, without receiving the advice of the unemployment insurance commission, which must review these things. But after going over the point my hon. friend is stressing may I say

that I put on record on Thursday, June 2, as reported at page 4341 of Hansard the following statement:
It should be made clear that all proposed changes in unemployment insurance regulations are discussed fully with representatives of both organized labour and management, and that it is the policy of the government to make no recommendations that will prejudice labour-management negotiations on questions such as the guaranteed annual wage, or on any other matter.
On that ground I stand.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 57 to 65 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 66-Illness.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Clause 66 is the one that carries forward the advance that was made a couple of years ago, when provision was written into the Unemployment Insurance Act making it possible for a person who has started drawing unemployment insurance benefits and who then becomes sick to continue drawing his benefits even though he is ill. As we pointed out at the time, that was a progressive step. We were very pleased that it was taken. We regret, however, that no further steps have been taken in connection with this matter of unemployment insurance benefits during periods of illness.
As the hon. member for Cape Breton South pointed out when we were on clause 1 today, there is the case of the worker who loses his job for the reason that there is no job, but who becomes sick within three or four days after losing his job, before he can establish his entitlement to benefit. That worker cannot draw unemployment insurance benefits. He may be a fellow worker of another person laid off from the same plant who was more fortunate and did not take ill until a week later. We think that a change should be made to cover that group. But I make it quite clear, Mr. Chairman, that we feel the government should go further in this matter, and that a sickness benefit for persons covered under the Unemployment Insurance Act, unemployed because of illness, should be included.
Let me say quite clearly we recognize that this would involve an increase in the amount to be paid into the unemployment insurance fund. It was indicated to us in the industrial relations committee that some study had been given to this matter by the commission or for the commission. One of the actuaries who appeared before us indicated that for a benefit, whether for unemployment or for sickness, for a certain period of time, it had been worked out how much the contribution would have to be increased to cover that. I do not know where along the line that legislation travels the idea got dropped, but at
Unemployment Insurance Act any rate it does appear that some study, even to the point of working out actual figures, was given to the possibility of an extension so there would be unemployment insurance benefits for workers covered under the act, whether they lost their jobs because of unemployment or because of illness.
After all, a person who is unemployed because of illness is just as much in need of protection of his income as is a person unemployed because there is no job. Those who were members of the committee will recall, and others who have read the evidence will know too, that we asked the representatives of .at least two of the labour organizations that appeared before us what their attitude would be toward an increased premium to make possible a benefit for sickness as well as for unemployment. Both the Canadian Congress of Labour and the Trades and Labour Congress representatives said they would support such an increase; they would be glad to recommend that labour pay its share of such coverage.
One of the representatives admitted that they had been told by the Prime Minister that this was a form of health insurance through the back door, and that was the reason we were not going to get it. I suggest that is no reason, Mr. Chairman. True, a sickness benefit could be part of a health insurance program. My hon. friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare knows that; but a sickness benefit can also be part of an unemployment insurance program.
Some day we are going to have legislation of this kind in Canada. It is in the line of progress along which I hope we are moving in this country, and I do not see why the government always has to wait until the last possible day instead of taking a lead in matters of this kind. As a matter of fact the Minister of National Health and Welfare proposed this sort of thing when he was the humble member for Essex East, away back 15 years ago. There are others on the Liberal side of the house who share this view.
I regret very much, Mr. Chairman, that at this time when we have had this complete overhaul, this complete review of the Unemployment Insurance Act, the government has not taken this progressive step. I recognize it is the kind of step that sooner or later must be taken to cover those other sections of the population. But here is machinery covering a large section of the population; here is an area in which this kind of step could be taken, and I urge that consideration be given to it and that the government not waste too much more time before we include in our legislation provision for a sickness benefit.

Unemployment Insurance Act


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, it will be recalled that at the resolution stage of the bill, and later in the standing committee, we also discussed this matter of those persons who are taken ill subsequent to lay-off and before they qualify for benefit, or sometimes before they have an opportunity to make application for benefit. This is a matter that could very well be taken care of by regulation. I urge the minister, and through him the commissioners, to take this into consideration, particularly in cases where it can be established that the claimant has actually been released from employment by reason of lack of work, or for any of the other reasons which would ordinarily qualify him for receipt of benefits.
I trust the minister will take them into consideration, and that these people-the cases are few but none the less distressing- will not be deprived of benefit by reason of illness, accident, or quarantine which occurs subsequent to the time of their lay-off.


Milton Fowler Gregg: All I can say now with regard to what both speakers have just said is to indicate that the points they have made will be taken into consideration pending further amendments to the act. I cannot extend any hope that we may make any change in either case at the present time.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I did not quite catch all the minister's remarks. If I do not interpret what he said correctly I hope he will put me right. I understood him to say that he would not agree to any change in connection with the matters we have been discussing during consideration of this bill. I think I heard that part of his remarks correctly. However, the other part which I did not quite understand was how far he went in indicating that this matter is to be given serious study and consideration.
At one point in the proceedings of the committee, when the matter was under discussion, I showed how easily I felt the extension of coverage for unemployment through illness could be tied in with the present unemployment insurance plan, because that seemed to be the trend along which such coverage was developing in many industries across the country, where the method of paying the premium in many plants is that the employees contribute half the cost and the employers contribute the other half. The premiums are collected by payroll deductions. In many instances the benefits payable roughly approximate the benefits currently being paid under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I feel that because of that development, which certainly in the area of the country with which I am most familiar is becoming so


widespread as to be nearly universal in the major industries at least, continuing study and attention should be given to developing and broadening it. I think it is a most inefficient system to have one special deduction for unemployment insurance through loss of work and another scheme for unemployment insurance because of illness. Apart from anything else, it is costing the working people and the employers a good deal more than would be the case if such an arrangement were tied in with a national scheme. Even if it were to be taken into consideration only from the point of view of efficiency and economy it seems to me that would be a most logical approach to take at this time.
I hope I understood the minister to indicate to the committee that this matter is going to receive continuous and certain study, with a view to bringing in, in the not too distant future, provision for coverage such as has been suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, I do not want it to appear that I gave a more buoyant reply than I actually did. I did state-this applies to the matters referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Hamilton West-that these matters would be studied most carefully pending any further amendments to the act at a coming session.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 67-Regulations.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I think it is probably apparent by now that two things have happened. One, I am rapidly losing my voice and two, I am really serious about clause (c) (iv) of subsection 1. I think I have just enough voice left to move one more amendment. Not to belabour the point, having already covered the reasons why I think I should move this amendment, I now move:
That section (c) (iv) of subclause (1) of clause 67 be deleted.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: It might be noted that the words that would be deleted are "who are married women".


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat what I said a short time ago. I think I have-argued about this regulation as much as anyone in the house. During the course of our discussions in the committee I felt that a slight change in the regulations would eliminate much of the difficulty of administration and many repercussions with respect to the woman who leaves employment after-marrying.

I support the recommendation made by the committee as against this proposed amendment. The steering committee of the industrial relations committee which went into this matter rather thoroughly recommended that the regulations respecting married women be reviewed to eliminate the additional contribution requirement after the first separation subsequent to marriage. In my judgment if the regulation were amended in that way it would take care of the difficulty which married women experience in establishing unemployment insurance benefits.
While this is only a recommendation by the committee, we were reasonably assured by the minister and the representatives of the commission that the regulation would be amended in that way. I think it is better for us to accept the possibility of getting the main joker out of the picture than to try to force through an amendment which will not be accepted and not get anything done at all.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am sorry the hon. member for Cape Breton South is so pessimistic that he thinks a recommendation made in good faith has no chance at all of passing this committee.


Clarence Gillis: Realistic is the word.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not know whether realistic is the word. From the time I first came into this house I have supported actions of this sort, and I recall that on many occasions the hon. member for Cape Breton South has done likewise.


Clarence Gillis: And I shall on other occasions.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Not only should this discrimination be removed, but there should be nothing in the act to permit the making of a specific regulation against one and only one group of workers. If they were people who had from time to time attempted to make raids on the fund, to use words which have been used previously by the minister and his officials, I could perhaps understand why this particular clause should be in the act, but while there is a rather blithe disregard of attempts made by male workers to procure benefits which the commission term as unjustified, in the case of married women I must ask the committee to support me in my plea for the removal of this discrimination from the act. This is the only class of worker discriminated against in the act, and I submit that the clause should be removed.
Amendment negatived: Yeas, 12; nays, 29.
Unemployment Insurance Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister make a positive statement as to the attitude of the commission toward the recommendation of the committee?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Again I cannot make a statement in detail as to exactly what the commission will recommend, but I am assured by the commission that they will study the recommendation. Not only that; they will go over the whole question, because there is no intent whatsoever on the part of the government or of the commission to allow discriminations to exist either in the act or in the regulations.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 68 to 122 inclusive agreed to.
Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister whether arrangements can be made for a reprinting of the bill at an early date, including the amendments?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Does my hon. friend mean before third reading?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would hope so. After all, third reading will not be until sometime next week.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I was rather hoping, by leave of the house, that we might have third reading today. In any case I hope that the bill can be reprinted to cover all the amendments.
Mr. Chairman, while I am on my feet I think I would be very remiss if I did not acknowledge the very kind words that were said at the opening of the proceedings today. I cannot tell the committee how much I appreciate them. As the discussion went forward today I wished there was room in my bag to put some of the co-operation and good will that has been shown here today, so I could take it to the halls at Geneva.
At this time I should like to state that it is a great honour to represent this parliament at the ILO. Of the many international conferences attended by my colleagues the minister of external affairs and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the ILO is indeed the senior of all, and the only one that over a period of 36 years has retained its original aims and aspirations, surviving of course through the hospitality of McGill University during the war years. When it was at McGill my predecessor, Mr. Humphrey Mitchell, attended of course as the political head of the Department of Labour in Canada and acted as host. Since that time, on only one occasion has the Minister of Labour attended at Geneva.
Of course, as all members know, in the last three years the standing invitation by
4652	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act ILO to other countries to send representatives has been accepted by the Soviet union and associated nations. Consequently the sessions of ILO are perhaps more vigorous, and more controversial items are brought forward, than in any other organization. I appreciate the expressions of good will for the trip, and particularly I appreciate the excellent fashion in which this bill has been received in committee of the whole this afternoon.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the Minister of Labour is going to be leaving us shortly to attend the international labour conference, I feel I might address myself to the acting leader of the C.C.F. party and to others, as to whether they might not agree to my colleague's suggestion to give third reading to this measure now. It has had full consideration in committee, and I am sure the Minister of Labour would be happy to leave with the measure having received third reading. I would strongly urge this, and I think it is in the temper of the house to do so.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare has put me on the spot, I would say that, as far as I am concerned personally, we have not discussed this matter. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre apparently wants it held over, but if the Minister of Labour as a special favour to himself would like to finalize this bill this afternoon, I have no objection.
At the same time I would point out that this act, with the exception of section 3, does not become operative until October of this year, and I do not know what benefit there is in passing it now if it is not going to go into operation, with the exception of section 3, until that time. But I am quite willing, if the Minister of Labour asks it of members of this house as a favour to him, in view of the fact that he is going to Geneva, that we give it third reading this afternoon. As far as I personally am concerned I am quite prepared to do that.


Milton Fowler Gregg: My hon. friend, as ever, is very generous. Of course there is no great rush with regard to time. However, if the members of the opposition parties would be willing to approach the matter in the same spirit as my hon. friend from Cape Breton South, I would be very grateful indeed. I would feel it would be a much tidier job, and then there would only remain the estimates for my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare between now and the end of the session. If the house would accord me that favour I would appreciate it very much.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry to disappoint the minister. After all, we did work long hours and we sat in special sessions every night in order to prepare the report and have it ready so we could consider this bill yesterday. Had that happened we could have had third reading today. I feel it is through no fault of any of the members of this committee that it has been delayed. I feel it is too important a measure to push through, even as a special favour to the minister.
I am sure the minister will recognize that in refusing this request there is no reflection on him or on the conduct of the debate with regard to this bill. I think we have put it through very expeditiously, as a matter of fact, and there are a great many points on which we could have elaborated at length. There are a great many clauses we have allowed to go through without making the obvious comments we would have made had we not known there was some necessity to rush it. Therefore I feel it is within the competence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare to handle the third reading of the bill.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I shall therefore withdraw my request, Mr. Chairman.
Bill reported.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Administration service-
1. Departmental administration (including advisory committee on agricultural services), $496,998.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: I would remind the committee again that the resolution is to be found on page 4 of the book of main estimates, and the details on page 83.


Mr. McLeod:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak generally on questions relating to agriculture, I am prompted to do so largely by a remark that was interjected the other night by the hon. member for Moose Mountain when the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand was speaking. While the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand was referring to certain wheat questions, the hon. member for Moose Mountain advised representatives of other classes of agriculture to speak for themselves.
As it happens, I represent a riding that is largely agricultural. I therefore felt that I should take up this challenge. I thought the speakers from the group to my right were

naturally speaking for farmers generally throughout Canada. However, that does not appear to be the case.
During the past few days we have heard a great deal about assistance to farmers; P.F.A.A., feed grain freight subsidies, grain marketing assistance, livestock marketing assistance and various others types of assistance. Our ideas have been ably put forward on many of these matters by the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Acadia. The hon. member for Acadia also gave a detailed outline of a crop insurance plan.
These policies that have been enunciated will, I believe, meet with the approval of farmers generally throughout Canada, including the farmers of Ontario and the farmers of British Columbia, not just the wheat farmers of the prairie provinces. I should like everyone in this committee to realize that I am deeply sympathetic toward the problems faced by the prairie farmers and the wheat growers. At the same time, however, I believe that in presenting solutions we must consider agriculture as a whole.
To come back to the affairs of other agricultural areas in Canada, may I say that I was glad to hear the hon. member for Kootenay West, when he was speaking the other night about agriculture in his part of the country, refer to certain marketing boards that had been set up to handle the problems there. I could not help comparing this arrangement with some of the ideas that have been launched by many people as solutions to the problems of agriculture.
I was particularly glad to hear mentioned by an hon. member the other night-I believe it was the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-that he was not sure that subsidies were the answer to the farmers' economic problems. I agree with the sentiments he expressed. After listening to all these pleas for boards, financial assistance, government control and government regulation, I am beginning to wonder whether the farmers of the prairies have lost confidence in their own ability and initiative.
While making pleas for assistance of this nature we have heard hon. members in this chamber recently offer strong criticism of the Gardiner machine. It is a rather strange anomaly. I believe that in setting up all these rigid controls, financial assistance and subsidies we are building up a machine. I do not think there can be any argument about that, because it is common knowledge that the machine that is continuously paying out money gradually assumes domination over those to whom this money is being paid. In
Supply-Agriculture
fact there is truth in the old saying that the man who pays the piper calls the tune.
I believe this is something to which some serious thought could be directed. I am not going into it at length today; in fact I intend to make my remarks quite brief. But I think it will be recognized that in advocating a machine that, financially and politically, will lead to complete domination, we will get a machine that will put the so-called Gardiner machine to shame. I do not believe the farmers in the prairie provinces really wish that their affairs should be dominated to that extent.
I was glad to hear the hon. member for Kootenay West, in his speech the other evening, refer to Charlie Hayden, that grand farm leader, worker and publisher, who has done so much not only for farmers in the province of British Columbia where he lived but for farmers throughout Canada. He was one of the men whom it is a pleasure to have known and whose philosophy of living left a mark on all with whom he associated.
I am not going to argue with the hon. member for Kootenay West as to the qualities of the cherries in the Kootenays and in the Okanagan valley. I know good cherries are produced in the Kootenays. I have picked plenty of them from the trees there and have eaten them to excess, 1 am afraid, on more than one occasion.
I am also going to agree with the hon. member in what he says about the marketing system the British Columbia farmers have set up without government assistance, and I am going to enlarge upon his remarks. I want to emphasize strongly the fact that these organizations have developed to their present effective stage entirely by the personal, individual efforts of the growers themselves. There is no government paternalism, and there is no cost to the taxpayers of Canada. There is no government control, except provincial legislation which the farmers considered would be in their best interests, and which they drafted and asked the government to pass. There are no big financial handouts, and there is no government control that goes with such handouts. These agencies remain free. They are under the direct control of the growers themselves, and there is no intention of making any change.
It is true that differences arise as to policy and marketing problems, but these differences are threshed out at their board meetings, whether they are held quarterly, annually or for the special discussion of problems as they arise. I should like again to stress the fact that the individual growers

Supply-Agriculture
in the province of British Columbia, whether they are growers of fruit or growers of vegetables, exercise their individual rights to govern their own organization for their own collective good.
At this time I should like to express my appreciation of the small but welcome assistance that is received from the federal government by way of grants for cold storage facilities, insect and disease control and tree removal. However, there is one field in which I think our federal Department of Agriculture could assist us greatly. I refer to the development of export markets. I have here an article which is taken from a recent issue of The Grower, which is the official organ of the Ontario fruit and vegetable growers association. Sometime recently they sent one of their directors, a Mr. Nickerson, and a representative of Canadian Canners, Limited, I believe, to the old country in search of a market for their surplus canned goods. I should like to read part of this article, but only as much as is necessary to bring out the point. It states:
Prior to the opening of negotiations by Mr. Nickerson the United States had offered the British a parcel of agricultural commodities to the value of $2,500,000 taking payment in sterling. As a result the British officials finally agreed to allocate $300,000-
Just $300,000 was the allocation made to Canada, whereas our friends to the south were allocated $2,500,000.
-for the purchase of Canadian canned fruit when the United States, through its foreign agricultural service, announced procurement authorizations for the purchase of $3 million of canned pears and/or canned mixed fruits, $6 million of citrus, fresh or processed and $1 million of dried fruit, taking payment in sterling with delivery by October 31.
The point I want to make is that the Canadian officials who went over there privately were only able to secure $300,000 worth of business, whereas our United States friends secured a total of $10 million. I wonder whether this did not happen because the Americans were backed by the government of their country. I think there is an idea there to which our Department of Agriculture could well give consideration.
While I am on my feet I must say something about P.F.R.A. I have mentioned this so many times in the house but we have had no results yet, so I guess the only thing to do is to keep pounding away until we get some action. Despite what the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Wylie) said a few days ago, we have the driest area in Canada in the interior of British Columbia. Sage brush and cacti are the dominant vegetation. With water these areas become the most productive and most prolific in growth one could wish to see. Ten acres of land, with lots of hard work by the occupants, I admit, will support

an ordinary family. The whole thing is to put water on the land. Recently I read that there still remain 500,000 acres of land in the province of British Columbia which could be made productive if water were made available.
In other parts of our valley there are marginal areas where irrigation is still required. The dairy farmers need sprinkler systems for their pasture lands and crops. Many little settlements need domestic water. They also need the facilities of community pastures provided under P.F.R.A., as is done for stock raisers and ranchers on the prairies. We could certainly make use of the same benefits in the province of British Columbia. There is plenty of water. I do not know whether the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is here, but we do not need rainmakers. We do need the P.F.R.A. to share the heavy cost of bringing water, which is available on all sides, within reach of the growers throughout the interior of British Columbia.
I support very strongly all estimates that come before us providing for millions to be spent through P.F.R.A. in the prairie provinces, but when I realize that the farmers of British Columbia are paying, as taxpayers, their share of this money, I cannot help but say that it is high time the discrimination against British Columbia was ended and that a full program under P.F.R.A. should be made available to our province.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks on this item, since I come from a province where agriculture is not only our chief industry but almost our sole industry. My province shares with that of the minister the circumstance that agriculture is of the greatest importance.
The federal Department of Agriculture is important, and the activities the minister is called upon to administer are wide and varied. There are of course the science and experimental farm services, and on this occasion I should like to take a moment to pay a tribute to the excellent work constantly being done right across the country- I know about it personally, of course, chiefly with respect to my own part of the country- by those devoted men of science who have achieved such marvellous results in their field and whose achievements have paid off many times, many hundredfold in some cases, in benefits to the Canadian people.
Then there are other services which the department carries on such as a marketing service, the agricultural products board, an information service, and a collection of other activities known as special services, the Agricultural Prices Support Act, the Maritime

Marshland Rehabilitation Act, P.F.R.A., P.FA.A., and even the supervision of racetrack betting. I have never been able to understand why racetrack betting should be controlled by the Department of Agriculture unless it is on the theory, and I think probably rightly so, that anyone who sets about to make his living from agriculture has to be a bit of a gambler in any case.
I followed with interest the minister's report and remarks on this item, and I was struck by the statistics he gave. I spent a few minutes on that subject last year and I do not want to repeat myself, but as a farmer listening to a farmer I could not help but feel, and I think justifiably so, that perhaps some effort was made to sell a pig in a poke. The original pig in a poke was always a cat. In days long gone by there was an old trick of trying to palm off a cat in a sack as a suckling pig, and that was the origin of the expression. The expression about letting the cat out of the bag had its origin in the transaction not coming off successfully by reason of the cat escaping.
If I were to set out to let this particular cat out of the bag or expose him to view I would point out that the statistics the minister gave were on the basis of four-year periods, and in that way might conceal trends which have set in only in the last couple of years.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. It being five o'clock the house will proceed with the consideration of private and public bills.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
At five o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 406, to incorporate Stanmount Pipe Line Company.-Mr. Hellyer.
Bill No. 414, respecting Westcoast Transmission Company Limited.-Mr. Fairey.
Bill No. 377, respecting Equitable Fire Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Boisvert.
Bill No. 409, to incorporate Gillespie Mortgage Corporation.-Mr. MacDougall.
Bill No. 380, respecting the Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company.-Mr. Hunter.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 408, to incorporate Trans-Border Pipeline Company Ltd.-Mr. Decore-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
50433-294i
Private Bills
On clause 6-Power to construct and operate pipe lines.
Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, an amendment was written into clause 6 when the bill was before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. Would you please place that amendment before us?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Clause 6 was
amended in committee as follows: In line 31, following the words "pipe lines" the committee has added the following:
provided that the main pipe line or main pipe lines for the transmission of gas and gaseous hydrocarbons shall be located entirely within Canada.
Shall the clause as amended carry?
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



JOSEPH DELPHIS GUILLAUME DELORME'

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 427, intituled: An act for the relief of Joseph Delphis Guillaume Delorme.-Mr. Hunter.
Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Speaker, as this is a contested case and the evidence has not yet reached hon. members, might it be permitted to stand?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Stands.
Order stands.



CANADA GRAIN ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Argue for the second reading of Bill No. 22, to amend the Canada Grain Act.
Mr. W. A. Tucker (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the house for very long at this time. Since I last spoke the subject matter of the bill has been considered at some length and with great care by the committee on agriculture and colonization. We heard evidence, bearing on the problem sought to be dealt with by the bill, from the chief commissioner of the Canadian wheat board, from representatives of the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada, from the transport controller and also from representatives of the three western wheat pools, as well as a representative of United Grain Growers and of the North-West Line Elevators Association.
The question as to the allocation of box cars in such a way as would enable farmers

Canada Grain Act
to patronize the elevators of their choice was gone into at some length. It became clear that most of the witnesses felt that the paramount consideration was the marketing of our grain, and that nothing should be done to interfere with the maximum efficiency of that procedure. The wheat pools were in full agreement with that view. Also, there was no point whatever in loading box cars and sending them forward to fill up the terminals unless there was a chance of selling the grain. Therefore the authority which should have final control in the matter was the wheat board. Having sold certain grades and certain kinds of grain, they would order that grain to be shipped out in accordance with what they were able to dispose of.
My understanding of the way that worked was that the wheat board would give orders to the various elevator companies to ship out the grain which they required from those various companies. Of course there was the question of the proportion of shipping orders allotted to the different companies, and some questions were put to the wheat board as to the share that was being given to each company. The attitude taken toward those questions was that this was something the wheat board felt it was not in the interests of the growers of grain to have made public; that each company knew the proportion it was getting, but if it were made public it would become a matter of controversy. If the grain growers had the confidence in the wheat board that was expressed by every single member of our committee, confidence in their fairness and ability to do a good job, they should leave it to the wheat board to handle this matter as they considered fair.
It became quite clear that the grain companies did know the share of orders they were getting, and so far as I could see there was no real complaint about the share of orders that was being allotted to the various companies. However, the difficulty as put to us by the representatives of the Saskatchewan wheat pool in particular was that whereas the shipping orders, shall we say, of the Saskatchewan wheat pool might be quite a bit larger than those of some other company, the companies would allot those shipping orders to the various elevators throughout their system, and this might mean that in one certain spot a pool elevator would fill from that order twice the number of cars that some competing elevator might require.
It was also said that there was a tendency on the part of the railroads to spot one car at the pool elevator and one at the competing elevator, even though the pool might ultimately require twice that many cars to meet

the shipping order. The pool might not begin to get those extra box cars until the box cars had been fully supplied to the other elevator or elevators. They said that tended to throw out of line the allocation of the wheat board, because if they could not fill a proportion of the shipping orders, then of course as soon as space was created in each elevator company it tended to fill up, and the result was that the pool could not clear the grain proportionately as fast as the shipping orders it was given under the wheat board action.
The wheat board is the authority that has the power to allocate box cars, if it sees fit to do so. In view of the fact that the wheat board is the body that must control the marketing of grain, everybody agreed it was quite proper that it should have the legal power to actually allocate the box cars.
The question then arose, what is the best way to allocate the box cars? As I have stated, it was suggested that if the shipping orders were given in a proper proportion ultimately the box cars were bound to follow the shipping orders; but, as the wheat pool suggested, on account of the railroads tending to give one box car to each elevator-not always doing so, but tending to do so in many instances-the wheat board's allocation of the shipping orders was not being carried through to the shipper of grain.
The committee recommended what they suggested was the solution to that problem in the report they made to the house yesterday, which reads as follows:
Your committee was seized with the present necessity of wheat board shipping orders having overriding priority. This committee recommends that the wheat board allocation of shipping orders be carried through by the wheat board issuing instructions to the railways to spot box cars at elevators at each shipping point in proportion to the wheat board orders approved for that point.
We were told that the wheat board did exercise some supervision in regard to the allocation of cars as among different shipping points if it appeared that some shipping point was not being given fair consideration. It has been argued that this still does not meet the basic idea that the grower at each point should decide what proportion of box cars should be made available at that point; that, for example, for some reason or another, the wheat pool in allocating box cars at one particular point, while it might be getting over the whole system its proper share of box cars, at that point it might not get the share the shippers at that point want; and therefore the wheat board and the railroads should be bound to allocate box cars according to the wishes of the shippers at each point.

The objection raised to that suggestion in the committee was that one system or the other would have to prevail. If the wheat pool obtained its fair share of the shipping orders and its fair share of the box cars, it should be left to the wheat pool to allocate its box cars among its different shipping points. If you tried to interfere with that by vote of the patrons at each station it would throw the whole system into confusion. It was suggested that it should be left to the management of the wheat pool. If it got its fair share of the orders and of the box cars, it should be left to the wheat pool management to allocate box cars fairly as among different shipping points, but that was a matter that should be left to the wheat pool management. They could be trusted to deal fairly with their patrons without being bound down by law, which would introduce an element of confusion into the whole situation.
As I have already said, Mr. Speaker, the committee on agriculture and colonization unanimously recommended this proposal, that when the wheat board allocated its shipping orders, and the different companies allocated their shipping orders to the various shipping points, the railroads would have the amount of grain that was supposed to be shipped out at each shipping point by each elevator company. They would know the proportionate amount of grain to be shipped out by the pool, by the United Grain Growers and by the other companies, and the wheat board should issue instructions to the railroads that they must allocate box cars according to the shipping orders they had in their hands. In that way there would be an automatic carrying through of the allocation by the wheat board of the shipping orders to the various companies.
As I say, that was recommended unanimously by the committee on agriculture and colonization. It would therefore seem to me, Mr. Speaker, in view of the unanimous recommendation of the committee, that it would be out of order for this house now to pass a bill which would set up a different state of affairs from v/hat was unanimously recommended by the committee which studied this matter. So we may deal with this matter in an orderly way I propose to move in amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras):
That all the words after "That" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"this bill be not now read a second time, but that it be resolved that the wheat board allocation of shipping orders be carried through by the wheat board issuing instructions to the railways to spot box cars at elevators at each shipping point in proportion to the wheat board orders approved for that point, as recommended in the second report of the committee on agriculture and colonization made to this house on June 9, 1955."
Canada Grain Act


Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, we have just had another typical indication of the attitude of the government in its attempt to skirt around a problem that it cannot decide itself. I think the hon. member for Rosthern, in presenting the argument that the standing committee on agriculture and colonization had come to definite conclusions, misled the house by saying there was a unanimous endorsation by that committee of the principle he has portrayed in his amendment. To the best of my knowledge an amendment was moved to that particular section in the agriculture committee, but in regard to that principle the wheat board officials-


Walter Adam Tucker: On a question of privilege, I stated that this recommendation was approved unanimously by the committee on agriculture and colonization, and the hon. member knows that is quite true. That committee unanimously approved of this recommendation.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Technically
speaking, the hon. member for Rosthern is right, in so far as the committee had had referred to it for consideration the reports of the Canadian wheat board and the board of grain commissioners, which had to be approved by the committee. There was an amendment moved to this particular section, to incorporate the principle of allowing farmers the privilege of delivering grain to the elevator of their own choice, a principle that all the members supporting the government fought against.


Walter Adam Tucker: I will ask the hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Walter Adam Tucker: -if he did not vote-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Walter Adam Tucker: -for this particular-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kindersley has the floor and should not be interrupted without his consent.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I was making reference to the right of the farmer to deliver grain to the elevator of his own choice. This principle has been ignored over the years in the allocation of box cars because of the arbitrary method of the elevator companies to allocate box cars to each elevator completely ignoring the desires of the farmers. I think it is fairly obvious that if the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, representing the farmers of that province, the president of the Manitoba wheat pool, the president of the Alberta wheat pool and the president of the interprovincial farm union council were unable to convince the government members sitting in the committee of the desirability of allowing farmers to

Canada Grain Act
deliver grain to the elevators of their choice, there is little hope that anyone else can do it.
It was pointed out to the committee by the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool that this principle, which at one time existed under the car order book, is no longer in force because of a combination of reasons. The first is the arbitrary cancellation by the transport controller of the car order book at periodic intervals. The second is the priority of Canadian wheat board shipping orders over cars listed in the car order book. In 1954 there were around 200 points operating under the car order book but this year there are hardly any, because of the impossibility of operating it under present conditions.
The hon. member for Rosthern pointed out how the allocation of shipping orders by the Canadian wheat board will solve this problem. The Canadian wheat board allocate their shipping orders among the various elevator companies in a proportion not known to anyone. The wheat pool officials admitted having no knowledge of the percentage of shipping orders allocated to the various companies. I believe the hon. member for Rosthern was in the committee on that particular day, and must have heard the president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool make that statement. On that basis the producers are in no position to complain about the allocation of box cars, because they do not know the percentages that have been allocated to the companies.
Further, as the shipping orders are allocated to the companies, there is nothing to state that the grain must be taken from a particular marketing point. The report of the agriculture committee referred to the fact that the grain must be taken at each shipping point in proportion to the wheat board orders provided for that point. The wheat board do not approve an order at each shipping point; they make a request to the elevator companies to deliver a certain amount of grain, but they do not specify at which point that grain is to be taken.
Therefore this attempt to bring it out through Canadian wheat board shipping orders can be made entirely inoperative by the fact that the elevator company can check their shipping orders or draw out their grain from a particular elevator where there is strong competition. This puts the competing elevator companies in an impossible position.
As far as the Saskatchewan wheat pool and other farmer-owned organizations are concerned, they are responsible to the farmers who own the organizations. If cars are being improperly allocated among

points on a railroad division the pool officials will hear about it, but no one is going to tell the line elevators what to do with their cars. Naturally they will spot them where there is the greatest competition from the farmer-owned organization, and thus make this whole business absolutely inoperative.
I think the government is working on the theory that this problem is only temporary.
I think they are hoping that if the six months' hoist is given to this bill there will be another rust epidemic in Saskatchewan and the crop will be of the same small proportions as it was last year. They are hoping the problem will disappear in that way. Anyone who knows anything about the grain business-and I could quote Mr. Ben Plumer of the Alberta wheat pool in particular- knows that with the technological developments that have taken place, crops are taken off at a much more rapid rate and there will always be this constant pressure to deliver grain to the elevator of the farmer's choice, if not throughout the year at least at a specific time of the year.
I think it is very obvious that the government is thinking in terms of elevator companies rather than individuals. I recall that last year before the standing committee on agriculture and colonization the Minister of Trade and Commerce said:
We are going to try to solve this problem of car distribution but if we do not solve it no great principle is going to be violated. No one is going to have any serious loss. Why flog away at a problem which, in the light of all the problems facing the wheat producer today, is a very minor one?
The attitude of the government is that this problem is a very minor one as far as the farmers are concerned. Again, in the agriculture committee this year, when I was referring to the allocation of shipping orders between the various companies, the Minister of Trade and Commerce said this:
You raised the question of percentages; no one else has raised it. Are you raising it for curiosity? If an injured party wants to raise it that is all right, but certainly you are not an injured party in the matter.
My reply was:
Well, I have been injured in that as a farmer I have had to deliver grain to companies other than those of my choice.
The percentage of allocation among the elevator companies determines the ability of the farmers to deliver grain to the elevator of their choice. Those who wish to deliver to the farm-owned organizations will realize how they can become injured through their inability to do so. I have in my hand, Mr. Speaker, a statement of the excess charges refund from the Saskatchewan wheat pool. It is dated 15th February, 1955, for the

1953-54 season, and made out to myself, membership No. 290-539. The total excess charges refund payable to me because of the quantity of grain I was able to deliver to my own elevator amounted to $137.99. On that same basis, any statement that no one is going to be injured if the problem exists is not too accurate, because in the economic condition of western Canada today the sum of $137.99 is very significant indeed.
It is on that basis that the farmers of Saskatchewan are fighting to have this principle restored by an amendment to the Canada Grain Act to give the farmers the right to deliver grain to the elevator of their choice. This is a principle that has been debated now for the third time. It has received the same lack of consideration by the government, but on previous occasions the government members were so little concerned about the problem that they did not mind voting against it. On this occasion they realize that the problem is perhaps serious, and rather than come out in a bold manner and vote against the principle of giving farmers the right to deliver to elevators of their choice, they give it the six months' hoist so as to avoid the possibility of having to express their attitude on that problem.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this is the second time the member speaking has wrongly described the amendment I moved. The amendment I moved is not the six months' hoist at all, and I would suggest that he should not misrepresent to the house the effect of the amendment I moved.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I misinterpreted what the hon. member for Rosthern said. I had anticipated as he started to speak, when he said he was not going to speak for very long, that he must have an amendment to move. That is why I assumed he would be moving the six months' hoist, rather than referring to the report of the standing committee on agriculture.


An hon. Member:: You should have changed your script.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Again on behalf of the farmers of western Canada, I am making an appeal to this house, to the members who are not acquainted with agricultural problems, to those members who did not sit in on too many meetings of the committee on agriculture and colonization but found it desirable to sit in on the final meeting when the decision was made. I am appealing to those members to consider the fairness of the proposition introduced in Bill No. 22. I am asking them to vote against
Canada Grain Act
this principle of ignoring the privilege of the farmers to deliver grain to the elevators of their choice, and take the advice of this man whose letter I am going to read. It is addressed to the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce at Ottawa:
Dear Sir:
May I take this opportunity of acquainting you with my views regarding the present system of distributing box cars for the movement of grain as practised by the railways.
I should like first, however, to express my appreciation of the work and policy of the Canadian wheat board in the marketing of wheat and coarse grains since its inception. If it would complete the process by the inclusion of flax and rye, I am sure the change would be welcomed by the great majority of western farmers.
Returning to the matter of box cars, as you are aware, the majority of western farmers many years ago collectively established their own elevator facilities, the reason being that gross injustices were imposed by the private grain companies. Now we find that for the past several years we have been denied the privilege of using our own facilities to a large extent by the arbitrary policy of the railways in distributing cars, one to each elevator, regardless of the wishes of the farmers concerned. May I emphasize the fact that, generally speaking, pool elevators would be able to handle pool members' grain providing they were given an equitable share of box cars according to the wishes of all people delivering grain.
May I further suggest that the farmers have been very patient in this matter so far, depending on negotiation by our wheat pool officials with your government to obtain certain simple amendments to the Canada Grain Act which would guarantee to all farmers the right to deliver their grain to the elevator of their choice, whether it be pool or otherwise, without interfering with the provisions of the car order book, which, however, is not generally usable at the present time owing to quota restrictions, etc. I am afraid, however, at the rate tension is growing that serious repercussions are bound to come if this situation is not rectified in the near future.
May I conclude, Mr. Howe, by trusting that something consummate may be done regarding this urgent matter during the present session of parliament.
(Sgd) T. W. McTaggart.
That, Mr. Speaker, would summarize the views of the great majority of the farmers in western Canada. The time to take action to remedy this gross injustice is now.


Mr. Speaker:: So that not too many hon. members will read documents commenting upon the legislation which is before the house, I should like to refer hon. members to citation 265, which is as follows:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the thing that has been moved by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) is a trick motion.

Canada Grain Act


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member
should not say that any amendment which it is within the right of an hon. member to move in this house is a trick motion. I would ask him to withdraw that expression.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, then it is an undisguised device to take out of the report of the agriculture committee-that is exactly what it is-


Mr. Speaker:: The procedure when the
Speaker asks a member to withdraw is that he must first say, "I withdraw". Then he may modify it in acceptable form.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am very sorry that I omitted to say I withdraw that expression. I have substituted the words "undisguised device". It is a strange device, taking a paragraph from an unmoved report of the agriculture committee and moving that paragraph as a method to kill a bill before this house. I say it would have been much better if the chairman of the agriculture committee had decided to move the report of the agriculture committee and the government members had allowed this house to make a decision on the principle of this bill by taking a vote on it on second reading. Whether or not there may be some merit in the words of the amendment, I think any member of this house is justified in voting against it because of the way it has been introduced. I want to say, though, that the amendment, as distinguished from the principle of the bill, does not solve the problem at all. I do not know of any farm organization which believes that the method whereby the wheat board handle shipping orders, as recommended in this resolution, is preferable to that of giving the farmer or the producer the right to deliver grain to the elevator of his own choice.
The truth is that the agriculture committee discussed this question and that, because of the attitude taken by government members, the problem is not being solved. Even if the recommendation of the committee is carried out, the producer is still denied the right to deliver grain to the elevator of his own choice. This device of making the wheat board undertake a function which the Minister of Trade and Commerce and hon. members opposite time and time again have said should not be made its function-namely the allocation of box cars-will not solve the problem but rather will add considerably to the difficulties and the work of the Canadian wheat board. In no way will it allow farmers to deliver grain to the elevator of their own choice. Even though the government members support this amendment and kill the bill

in the expectation that it may get them off the hook, the fundamental issue still remains and still must be solved.
Over the last few years we have had on this issue of box car distribution one excuse after another advanced by the government. We have had promises that something was going to be done, but nothing has come of them. Before the agriculture committee last year the Minister of Trade and Commerce suggested, one time after another, that a car cycle was going to be established and that with this car cycle-a cycle of five years or ten years-box cars would be distributed amongst elevator companies. Nothing came of that suggestion. Nothing was done. The car cycle as represented to the agriculture committee last year by the minister remains an unfulfilled promise.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce spoke at the convention of the Saskatchewan wheat pool last November. According to the statement made to the committee by the president of the pool, Mr. J. H. Wesson, it was not the officials of the wheat pool but rather the rank and file delegates who took the minister to task and asked him to do something to solve this problem. What was the answer? The answer was, "Go and talk to the railway companies; maybe they will do something. Take it to the presidents of the railway companies." The wheat pool officials went to the presidents of the railway companies. They said, "No, we will do nothing". Hence this second suggestion made by the minister amounted to nothing.
Then the wheat pool officials complained that the railway companies were spotting box cars not on the basis of the potential business of the elevator companies but merely on the basis of one box car for one elevator; but the Minister of Trade and Commerce often said in this house that such was not the case. We had some rather interesting information given to the committee by the wheat pool on that point and we had read into the record a sentence from a letter written last fall by the secretary of the board of grain commissioners, saying that in his opinion the railway companies had no alternative but to spot one box car for each elevator at a marketing point so long as the car order book was not in effect. But as we have seen-


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is misrepresenting the effect of that letter. The effect of the letter was that they had no authorization to do that. Let the hon. member read the letter. He has misrepresented the contents of it altogether.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is not a point of order.


Walter Adam Tucker: It certainly is.


Hazen Robert Argue: The letter is in the evidence of the committee on agriculture. It will be made public as soon as it is printed. I suggest to the hon. member who has interrupted that he take the evidence, when it is printed, and find out whether I have misrepresented it at all. In order to make certain that my statement is clear I say again that over the signature of the secretary of the board of grain commissioners is to be found the statement that the railway companies had no authority but to spot box cars one to each elevator.
But as we have seen happen with the board of grain commissioners so frequently in the past, they can change their minds. They interpret the law in one way at one time and in another way the next time. We have seen an illustration in the question of whether a farmer has the right to deliver his grain to an elevator and have it graded subject to grade and dockage. We had three or four legal opinions on that question by the board of grain commissioners, each one different from the other.
So in January the board of grain commissioners again gave an opinion. They said they had changed their minds, and did not think the railway companies were required by law to spot box cars, one to each elevator company. So we had more confusion with regard to this problem brought about by the board of grain commissioners.
The next excuse we had was that the wheat board could not get into the car distribution business, and that any suggestion such as that which has now been moved by the hon. member for Rosthern would be a terrible thing.


Walter Adam Tucker: And which you voted for.


Hazen Robert Argue: O.K.; technically, yes.


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes, you voted for it.


Hazen Robert Argue: But not on the basis of its being a solution to the problem.


Walter Adam Tucker: Then why did you vote for it?


Hazen Robert Argue: I will explain that. In the report the committee says this-


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: The house has not concurred in the report.


Walter Adam Tucker: We did; unanimously.


Hazen Robert Argue: The committee report in one sentence approved of the operations of the Canadian wheat board. Had I voted against the report because I feel the provision requiring the wheat board to spot box cars in a special manner is not the best method, the hon. member for Rosthern would have stood up in the House of Commons and gone across 50433-295
Canada Grain Ac I
the country saying the C.C.F. members had voted against the operations of the Canadian wheat board.


Walter Adam Tucker: That is what you would have done. Don't judge others by yourself.


Hazen Robert Argue: We agree with most of the statements in the report. But as the hon. member for Rosthern himself well knows, the C.C.F. members on the agriculture committee are opposed to the suggestion he has moved this afternoon, because he has moved it as an alternative to the principle advanced by this bill. We therefore intend to vote against the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosthern.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Walter Adam Tucker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says I well know that they are against the principle embodied in this report. The main recommendation of this report was voted for by the hon. member. How could I know that he was against it if he voted for it?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to break the rules of the committee on agriculture even if I am tempted to do so by the hon. member for Rosthern. The hon. member for Rosthern knows that the sitting was in camera. He knows precisely, too, the position of the C.C.F. members in that committee, and if he wishes to check the record he can see that we do not believe the proposition now before the house is in fact a solution to the problem. But rather than be accused of disclosing something that occurred in camera, even in face of the inference of the hon. member for Rosthern, I shall not refer to the precise provision the C.C.F. members advanced in that committee.
However, I say the producers have been given the run-around, and have been given one excuse after another. I have already listed about five of them. Another one used by the minister in making his speech a few weeks ago was that he had received no draft bill from the wheat pool. He had a brochure. We knew it was not a draft bill, true, but it set forth the various recommendations of the wheat pool organizations. However, the minister said he had received no draft bill. Then there was passed around in the agriculture committee-I was not there that day, but it was passed around-by Mr. Ben Plumer, the president of the Alberta wheat pool, a draft of a bill handed to the minister some weeks or months before. I hold that draft in my hand, and it sets forth in clear legal terms-

Canada Grain Act


Mr. Pickersgill:: That is a contradiction of terms.


Hazen Robert Argue: -the suggested amendments to the Canada Grain Act embodying the same principle found in Bill No. 22 now under discussion. We were told they did not have a bill, but a bill was produced a few weeks later. In the meantime the farmers could not deliver their grain to the elevator of their own choice.


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: On a question of privilege, I do not wish to enter the debate again but I received no bill from any pool. I received a list of recommendations in much the same form that the hon. member received them, but I received no bill that was in legal form or could be considered as a bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: I shall read a part of what I have in my hand, which was handed to the minister-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Read it all.


Hazen Robert Argue: -and let anyone reading the record decide for himself whether it was a draft bill in legal terms or whether-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Read it all.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid the hon. member cannot be allowed to do that under the rules. He has told us that he has a purported draft bill in his hands which came from an outside person. The minister has just made the statement that he received no bill, nothing that could be considered to be a bill. The hon. member must accept his statement and not attempt to deny the statement made by the minister by reading a document emanating from a person outside the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I naturally have to accept the interpretation the Minister of Trade and Commerce places on whatever piece of paper was exchanged between the wheat pool organizations and the minister If he does not wish to call it a bill I shall take his interpretation of it, but I suggest with deference that there is nothing in the rules of parliament to make me refrain from quoting a suggestion that has already been placed before a committee of the house on this subject. ^ The document presented to the minister is entitled, "Amendments to Canada Grain Act" and reads:
He: Producers' preference.
60 (a) The board shall annually forward to all pioducers at their address as shown by the records of the Canadian wheat board, a form which shall make provision for the producer: (1) To declare the name and location of the country elevator to which he prefers to deliver his grain for the current crop year.
(2) To state his seeded acreage of each kind of grain for the current year. The board upon return of the completed form shall prepare a statement

of the total acreage preferences for each licensed country elevator, at each point, together with such further information as it may require and shall forthwith determine a cycle of cars to be allotted at each shipping point. In determining a cycle of cars for a point, the board shall divide equally among the licensed elevators operating at such point the acreage for which no preference has been stated. To this acreage so allotted to each elevator shall be added the acreage for which a preference has been declared in favour of an elevator and the combined total shall be the percentage of each elevator's total cars to be allotted to it for the succeeding crop year in accordance with its proportionate cycle.
That is the end of paragraph (a). Then it sets out paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f), and concludes with this further paragraph:
Add to section 15 of the Canada Grain Act authority by regulation, specifying the mode in which cycles of cars shall be determined for the distribution among country elevators.
I leave it to members of the house whether the minister was justified in making the statement he made when answering a question of mine in this debate on May 13. As recorded at page 3756 of Hansard, I put the following question to the minister:
May I ask the minister a question? Does the Alberta wheat pool not support the Saskatchewan wheat pool in the ideas that have been presented about box car allocation?
Here is the minister's answer:
We know that ideas have been presented jointly, but as I say no wheat pool has submitted a bill for the consideration of the government which meets the approval of any one of the three wheat pools. I have not received such a bill up to this time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I may interrupt again, I made the same statement before the committee in the presence of the presidents of the three pools, and it was admitted that they had not produced a bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am submitting this is the bill that was produced and shown to the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. When I asked the hon. member to accept the statement made by the minister he indicated that he was referring to a document and he proceeded to quote from it. Now we are right back to the point which I thought had been settled earlier, before he embarked upon the quotation. He has said that he considers what he has read is a bill, whereas the minister says he has not received a bill. Perhaps he would argue it is a question of interpretation, but he should not contradict the minister when he says that in his view he has not received a bill.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I think there is no argument but that the minister received the document from which I have just quoted,

and I shall let it go at that. The minister said something else when speaking in the debate on May 13 which since then has been proven entirely wrong.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Hazen Robert Argue: As a further excuse why Bill No. 22 could not be passed, or something similar to the principle contained therein, he said that it was not constitutional. We find that suggestion in a telegram sent a few weeks ago by the president of the United Grain Growers Elevator Company to the minister.


Mr. Philpotl:: Could it be you do not want to vote on the amendment?


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member knows that his suggestion is completely incorrect.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Hazen Robert Argue: And to prove it, if the house wants to wait for a vote, it is quite all right with me. But first I wish to make one or two further points before I sit down.


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: May I simply inform the house that the amendment is in order but that it must be modified in form so it will read:
. . . this bill be not now read a second time, but be it resolved that in the opinion of this house consideration should be given to the proposal that the wheat board allocation . . .
-and so on. I am sure the hon. member will agree this is the standard form of amendment to the motion for second reading, and therefore I have made the amendment conform.


Walter Adam Tucker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I drew it up very hurriedly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And you are only a lawyer.


Mr. Speaker:: As it is six o'clock the house will revert at eight o'clock to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock. If it is agreeable, I shall leave the chair now.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Administration service-
1. Departmental administration, including advisory committee on agricultural services, $496,998.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
50433-295J
Supply-A griculture AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, when the
work of the committee was interrupted at five o'clock I was referring to the figures the minister had given having to do with the condition of agriculture in this country. The figures he gave in most cases had reference to the last four years. I was pointing out that almost invariably statistics can be made to support either side of a question. The figures he gave would not indicate what sort of trend has existed in the last couple of years, whether it was up or down. Neither do they indicate the conditions which might exist in a particular area of the country. Those figures might be even more misleading, because I believe I am right when I say they were not given in terms of constant dollars or terms of constant purchasing power.
I would point out in this connection that according to the last report on farm net income the net income in connection with farming dropped very drastically from 1953 to 1954, to the extent of 33 per cent. In the minister's own province there was a severe drop of 73 per cent. I do not wish to labour this point, but I would warn the minister that if, in good faith, one allows himself to be misled by statistics, he may come to the wrong conclusion. I am reminded of the statistician who had the misfortune to be drowned in a lake, the average depth of which was only two feet.
I would refer particularly to agriculture in the maritime provinces, especially in Prince Edward Island. I consider my province of Prince Edward Island one of the finest places on the face of the earth in which one could live-that is, provided he could make a living. That seems to be the rub. Our chief industry is agriculture. I note that net farm income figures for Prince Edward Island show for 1952 an amount of $20-9 million, for 1953 a drop to $12-9 million and for 1954 a figure which remained almost at the same level as that for 1953. As a matter of fact I believe there was a slight drop of about 1 per cent, bringing the figure down to about $12-8 million.
I do not intend to refer to the very complex causes which have brought this condition about, except to say I am pleased that consideration is now being given to the possibility of changing the tariff on potatoes, because the potato crop is our chief cash crop in Prince Edward Island and has a very important effect on the net income of the average farmer there.
Fluctuations in price are not the only factors entering into the farm net income

Supply-Agriculture
situation. I am happy to say, however, that a recent report of the dominion bureau of statistics on farm production shows that Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia showed an increase in farm production in 1954 over 1953. However, the long-term situation is not so good.
According to figures published at the time of the last census, having special reference to agriculture, I find that in 1911 there were 14,000 farmers in Prince Edward Island. By 1921 that figure had dropped to 13,700. By 1931 it was down to 12,600 and by 1941 to 12,230. In the succeeding ten years there was a severe drop to 10,137. In other words, in that period of 40 years almost 4,000 farmers in Prince Edward Island went out of business permanently. In many cases the land they formerly occupied is not being cultivated. As a matter of fact from 1931 to 1951 we find that 120,000 acres of farm land in Prince Edward Island went out of cultivation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Good land?


John Angus MacLean: Yes, good land. Much of this land is lying idle and serving no useful purpose. It is growing up in tree life of various kinds, a growth which will never be of great economic significance. If it were even growing good forest it would have some economic significance for the future.
I suggest this is a serious state of affairs. I recognize that it is the trend existing at least in the whole of North America. For instance, in the early colonial days of the United States nine out of every ten persons in that country earned their livelihood from agriculture. By 1954 the ratio had changed from nine out of ten to one in six; and the actual number of people living on farms had also begun to decline about 1916. Prior to that the figures were only relative. As a matter of fact in the United States in 1916 about 32 million people lived on the farms, and by 1950 that number had dropped to 25 million. So this is a general trend.
The point I am trying to make, however, is that in my province we depend chiefly upon agriculture, and have no growing industries to compensate for the loss of population in the rural districts. The loss of population makes it more difficult for those who are left to carry on. It puts a heavier load on the remaining farms to provide community projects such as telephones, hydro, schools, churches and so on.
I am not going to suggest that I know the cure for this problem, or that there is a cure for it. It is a very serious situation which merits deep and detailed study. In the near future, because of an increasing population, we shall reach the time when all fertile land

will have to be brought back into production. It seems to me a pity that areas that have already been developed are permitted to retrogress and deteriorate. They will have to be restored at a later time.
Part of the problem is psychological. It is a lack of training. There has been a tendency for us to educate our young people away from the farms and rural life. If opportunities for education and other things are in any way equal, my firm belief is that children who are brought up in the country have a great advantage over most city children. The population generally should be made aware of the benefits of living in the country.
In this day and age of modern communication and transportation one has practically all the advantages and amenities of life in the country that one has in the city, and one has the advantage of country life besides. If it has not already been done, it might not be amiss for the department to sponsor a good film on the advantages of country life. The department should make other efforts to bring to the attention of the younger generation now growing up the advantages of living in the country. Probably the most important factor is the economic one. If agriculture is not prosperous people cannot be persuaded to remain in it, and naturally that is most important.
Another important thing in this connection is soil conservation. In many areas of our country the fertility of the soil is deteriorating, and the result is that as time goes on it becomes more difficult to make farming pay. Erosion is a hard thing for the individual to control. He can control it up to a point, but if bad agricultural practices are carried on in the surrounding area he is put at a disadvantage.
I realize there is legislation on the statute books the purpose of which is to conserve the moisture and fertility of our soil. For instance, there are the Canada Forestry Act and the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act, and things of that sort. I believe our soil is our greatest resource. The place where soil conservation can best be studied and carried on is in the Department of Agriculture. I would suggest that serious consideration be given to legislation patterned after the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, but made wider in its scope so as to apply to all agricultural areas of our country, similar to projects that have been brought forward in many areas of the United States.
Generally speaking, this thing should be approached from the point of view of making the unit of organization the watershed of a particular stream so the whole drainage area

can be considered as one unit. If that were done, the benefits of good soil practices and conservation would be realized in the whole natural area to which they applied.
There is a great opportunity for education in the Department of Agriculture. It has done a great deal of excellent work in this connection by putting out bulletins of various kinds which are of great value to people engaged in agriculture. Of course the purpose is to bring farmers up to date on the latest methods, make them aware of the results of research that is carried on in the department, and so on. But I have the feeling that a great deal of this information does not get through to the people who need it most, namely those who are not the best farmers. I do not know what methods should be used, but a study should be made of the possibilities of further education. I use the word "education" in the broadest sense in that regard.
The experience I have gained from travelling through agricultural areas that are not especially prosperous has indicated to me that the people of those areas are unaware of the latest methods and the latest information on the best way to carry on the very complex business of modern agriculture. I notice that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration have published a booklet called "Farming in Canada". I suppose the material in it came chiefly from the Department of Agriculture. I understand its purpose is to attract immigrants to the soil of Canada. That is a worthy objective, but I should like to see something similar to attract Canadians to the soil and help them realize the necessity of a greater percentage of our population remaining on the soil and finding means of making that life a financial success.
As I have already said, an important factor in this is the preservation of our water resources and our soil fertility. That is a matter for the Department of Agriculture. I notice that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and other bodies agree with this point of view. In that connection I realize that projects which are anticipated under the Canada Water Conservation Assistance Act, such as dams and engineering projects of that kind, may be very necessary in some instances to serve a useful purpose, but the real point is to create conditions which will allow the rain to soak in where it falls rather than run off. In that connection I should like to quote briefly from an article written by Louis Bromfield which appeared in the Saturday Evening Post of March 11, 1950. He had this to say with regard to the United States:
In the past taxpayers, property owners and insurance companies have spent billions of dollars
Supply-Agriculture
in repairing damages and in constructing and maintaining and repairing vast dams and levees at the mouths or halfway down our great rivers, when all the time it must have been easily evident even to a kindergarten child with a pile of sand and a watering can that one does not stop floods at the bottoms of rivers, but high upon their tributaries and in the forests and cow pastures. Despite this obvious fact, virtually the whole of our flood-prevention work has been concentrated until now upon huge and vulnerable dams and levees far downstream.
Perhaps I seem to be dealing with this matter at too great length, but I think it is of fundamental importance to the future of agriculture in this country. The time is not far away when we will need practically all our agricultural resources to feed and clothe our own people, not to mention the billions of people in the rest of the world who are short of food. This is all I intend to say now, but I shall have more to say on later items.


Mr. Pouliot:: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the hon. member has said, but I wonder if he is right in view of an article by Louis Bromfield which appeared not long ago in the New York Times. The hon. member quoted Louis Bromfield. In that article Mr. Bromfield said, if my memory serves me right, that one-half of the farmers in the United States were not doing very well, about 40 per cent were doing pretty well and 10 per cent were doing very well. That indicates that the proportion of good farmers is not as large in the United States as it is in Canada, even making due allowance for the difference in population.
The hon. member referred to an article by this same man, who is a prosperous farmer as well as an author of note in our neighbouring country. It gives me hope that farmers in Canada will be in position to compete favourably with their brother farmers in the United States.


Mr. Trainor:: I should like to ask the minister two specific questions the answers to which are of great concern to the people in my province. First, does the government intend to indemnify the victims of the floods along the Assiniboine river in Manitoba? Second, what measures has the government in mind to see to it that these flood conditions do not occur again?


James Garfield Gardiner: I think the proper place to discuss that would be on the items dealing with that particular matter.


Owen C. Trainor: To what items does the minister refer?


James Garfield Gardiner: The items dealing with P.F.R.A., or the special items dealing with the control of water.

Supply-A griculture


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, up to the present we have had an exceedingly valuable discussion on the minister's first item, and much information of tremendous value to those interested in Canadian agriculture has been put on the record. I wish to congratulate all those who have taken part in this debate up to the present time, although it seems to me that in the main we have devoted ourselves to telling what are the troubles throughout the country and how badly off we are, and have paid very little attention to what might constitute solutions to the problems which face us.
We must realize that the agricultural industry is not in a static position. Times are changing with almost bewildering speed, so that a method of farming or even a type of farming-for example, dairy farming- which might have been a great success 20 years ago might prove to be a complete failure today. In the case of dairy farming, this might be brought about by the coming in of margarine. That is merely an illustration.
A farm might have supported a family with great success in the days when horses were used, when machinery was more or less elementary-in many cases a farmer could make his own machinery-when a farmer raised the fuel he required; but a similar farm might be a total failure today though the farmer might be just as skilful and just as hard-working as was the farmer 20 years ago. I think we as a nation must do some serious thinking to find the way out of the difficulties that face us here in Canada. I was much impressed with the speech of the hon. member for Queens, because he pictured a condition which will develop in a good many Canadian provinces before too long unless we find a solution for our problems.
May I take a look at the picture of Canadian agriculture as a whole during the moments which I will feel free to use tonight. I wish it to be known that I am not speaking for the Social Credit group or the Social Credit movement. By that I mean that the things I say or the suggestions I may offer may not be just what the Social Credit movement would approve of officially as being what it would advocate. What I am going to say is based on the way I figure we can get out of our difficulties, having in mind the Social Credit proposals which we have advocated in this house and which very soon will have to be given much more attention than they have been given in years past, because of the very difficulties with which we are confronted.

It will be my aim to list several of what I consider to be the main dangers to Canadian agriculture, and then suggest several measures which I believe are necessary to remove them or to safeguard us against those dangers, and indicate by what means we may enable ourselves to take these measures.
Canadian agriculture today is confronted with serious dangers; of these may I refer to six. In the first place there is the danger from United States competition. Enough has been said already by hon. members speaking on the floor of this house to indicate how much more dangerous United States competition becomes every few months to Canadian farmers. We must not have the idea that our Canadian farmers are not in open competition with the farmers of the United States, for they are; not only in Canada but all over the world.
The second danger is of Canada herself becoming burdened with unwieldy surpluses in a manner similar to that which has brought the United States into surplus difficulties and is threatening to keep them there.
Third, there is the danger of deplorable conditions prevailing in agriculture with the likelihood of a serious deterioration in our source of food supply, as has been clearly indicated by the hon. member for Queens.
Fourth, there is the danger to the nation's economy from a depression in the agricultural communities. Just as an example, here is an illustration right up to date. Recently James S. Duncan, of the agricultural machine manufacturing industry, indicated that they were laying off 890 men in their manufacturing concerns on Friday, June 3. The reason was that there was not the demand for agricultural machinery, a type of production in which they specialize. Now, 890 men is a great number of men.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask a question of the hon. gentleman?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is it not because the sale of agricultural implements had reached the sat" [DOT] ration point?


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member for Tem-iscouata raises a question which should be answered. My own opinion is that it is not so. One of my main reasons for saying what I say is this. The kind of machinery used on larger farms, particularly those in the west, is changing with very great speed. For example, at least every 10 or 12 years you will find farmers working with a different kind of machine, one more adapted to do the work better, and that sort of thing, and farmers

will have to buy that improved kind of machine if they are going to keep up to date.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend knows there are more tractors on farms throughout the country now than ever before.


An hon. Member:: There should be.


John Horne Blackmore: These are fine, searching questions the hon. member for Temiscouata is asking. His eye is on reality. Let us agricultural people face realities with him.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not mean tractors for the roads; I mean tractors for the farms.


John Horne Blackmore: I understand fully. The big question is whether all the farms have tractors which should have tractors.


Jean-François Pouliot: No. They buy tractors jointly. Three or four farmers join together to buy a tractor, and it is the same as if there were four tractors.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. The hon. member for Trinity-Conception raises a point of order.


Leonard T. Stick: Mr. Chairman, I think this committee is listening to a private discussion tonight. I believe the members should address the Chair so we can all understand what is going on.
The Depuly Chairman: The hon. member for Temiscouata asked and obtained from the hon. member for Lethbridge permission to ask a question, and I do not think the interchange that followed was in any way out of order or out of keeping with the practice of the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I always have my big stick.


John Horne Blackmore: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, in my judgment you are absolutely correct in your ruling. If we can all just talk this over together, all being interested in Canada as we all are, and feel free to ask questions and answer them, we will make much progress. The kind of question the hon. member has asked is just the kind of question that I welcome and shall be glad to answer. Many new tractors would be bought this year if the farmers only had the wherewithal to buy the tractors, and many parts would be bought if they only had the wherewithal to buy the parts. Tractors do not last overlong with the heavy work they are called upon to do. I hardly think the difficulty lies where the hon. member suggests it might lie. It lies in the fact that the people in the three prairie provinces, where a large part
Supply-A griculture
of the machinery is sold, simply have not the wherewithal to buy the machinery they wish to buy.
I can give an illustration of the very rapid changes in machinery, something most hon. members have not had an opportunity to see. The change in the machinery used in the beet sugar industry, which is common in my constituency, would astonish hon. members. New kinds of machinery are coming in which in one process can take the beets out of the ground, elevate them, clean them and put them into a container, which container can be run off to the factory. These machines are changed and improved so rapidly that people will buy new machines just as quickly as they have the money with which to buy them. So I hardly think the difficulty lies in the fact that there is enough machinery on Canadian farms.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would my hon. friend permit
me?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does he object to four or five farmers joining together to buy a tractor for their use?


John Horne Blackmore: In the area that my hon. friend represents, where the farms are relatively small, that is the kind of thing one would expect.


Jean-François Pouliot: Two hundred acres.


John Horne Blackmore: When one gets out to the west, in Saskatchewan or Alberta, one finds farms of three or four sections run by one man. Of course in some cases three or four tractors are needed for one farm. But it all depends on the area we are studying. I would imagine the farms in the constituency of my hon. friend from Queens are not very large, but in the case of smaller farms there are small tractors people can buy if they have the money with which to buy them. Does that answer your question? An hon. member said something. If he will speak up so I can hear what he has to say, I shall be glad.


Jean-François Pouliot: They are not serious. We are serious.


John Horne Blackmore: If they are not serious, it is high time they were, because the welfare of all Canada is at stake right in this discussion. This is not a joke at all. It is something that Canada is right up against right now. When a man from Toronto engaged in the machine manufacturing industry tells us he

Supply-Agriculture
has laid off 890 men in one day, that is a matter to which every person in the Dominion of Canada has to give attention. He says he has to lay off more unless he can sell the machinery.
Ordinarily those big machine companies have their fingers on the needs of the public. They know how many machines will be bought on an average, say, in Saskatchewan or in Alberta. They have records going back 20 or 30 years, and they know how many machines the people will buy if they can buy. They will gauge their production according to the needs and the law of averages. If the needs are not matched with money, then of course they are in difficulty right away.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend knows that the manufacturers of farm implements are never satisfied.


John Horne Blackmore: Nobody is ever satisfied. My hon. friend is never satisfied; neither am I.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am, when he answers my question so well.


John Horne Blackmore: I am delighted; and I am happy when you ask questions. So what we have to do is keep the whole economy of Canada so that nobody is satisfied. That is the way to develop and reach the magnificent heights to which a nation with our resources ought to be able to attain.


Jean-François Pouliot: But the farmers who use the tractors are satisfied when they are good.


John Horne Blackmore: But when the tractor is not good the farmer wants a new one, does he not? All my experience with tractors indicates that a tractor is worn out in about 10 years.
I was discussing the dangers we face. The fifth danger is the danger from a hungry world. We must not get the idea that we can remain undisturbed in possession of a wide area of the finest food-producing country on earth when there are billions of people unable to obtain the needs of life. We must not take our eyes off that situation for a moment.
The sixth danger is the danger of scarcity in case of war. I do not need to say it over again, yet there are people who have not noticed how serious the situation is today. The world's need for food in the summer of 1954 was as follows. The world population was about two and a half billion people. Only one-third of those people were adequately fed. Now, think; two-thirds of two and a half billion people are inadequately fed. They are not able to get the meat, the eggs, the

milk, they need-just ordinary food that is so common here

the wheat, the rice-all manner of food-while the danger with us is that we are going to suppress our production.
When we produce freely of wheat, if our farmers find they are in danger of losing money on the wheat there will be a tendency for them to restrict their production, thereby putting Canada in the position that she will not be able to supply the food which nature intended she should be able to supply for a hungry world, thereby mismanaging the heritage that God has given her and inviting trouble. It is just as serious as that. Two-thirds of 2,500 million people-that will be
I,	600 million people-are underfed while the United States, for example, has the tremendous surpluses to which I am going to refer in a few moments. Surely that picture must cause any thoughtful person in Canada great concern.
Here is another thing. It is estimated that the Russians-we are discussing the danger of being short of food in time of war-now have 300 submarines. The Germans had only 60 submarines at the beginning of world war
II,	and every hon. member in this house knows the difficulty the Germans caused us in world war II with submarines. If Russia has 300 of them to start with, you can see that it probably will not be wise for us to be importing many goods from outside this nation. If we put ourselves into a position in which it becomes necessary to import such goods, we are simply not wise stewards. We are improvident in our generation.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask a question of my hon. friend?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, if the hon. member will shout so all these people can hear him.


Jean-François Pouliot: From the point of view of production of farm goods or farm products, is not Canada self-supporting now? If so, what have we to fear from Russian or other submarines that could destroy ocean shipments? They could not prevent the Canadian people from being fed from the products of Canadian land.


John Horne Blackmore: That is a very fine, interesting question. I shall give just two items. Twenty years ago we had dairy cows, dairy farms, dairy farmers and dairy equipment with which to produce all the butter we needed. What has taken the place of a large part of our butter now? Margarine. Where do we get the oils from which we make margarine? From far-off places we get vegetable oils of many different kinds. This means that if war should strike we would be

short of butter in a short time, and we would not have the dairy cattle or the means of producing butter from dairy cattle. My hon. friend probably would not notice that situation so much in Quebec, where I do not think they use much margarine. But the inroad made by margarine on the dairy industry throughout most of Canada is a matter for the profoundest regret throughout this country.


Jean-François Pouliot: Margarine is made in Canada with vegetable oils that come from outside Canada?


John Horne Blackmore: That is right.


Jean-François Pouliot: Therefore we cannot call margarine a Canadian farm product.


John Horne Blackmore: It is taking the place of a farm product.


Jean-François Pouliot: But if my hon. friend and colleague is in favour of the production of dairy goods instead of purchasing vegetable oils from outside, then the submarines would be helpful to Canada because they would destroy the ships that would bring vegetable oils to Canada.


John Horne Blackmore: That is right.


Jean-François Pouliot: So they could not complain of enemy submarines.


John Horne Blackmore: But that would not do us much good if we were in a war, because we cannot replace these dairy cows, dairy farms and dairy farmers overnight, nor can we replace them in a year. Hence because of the fact that we are importing these vegetable oils and destroying our dairy industry in large measure we are rendering ourselves simply foolhardily vulnerable, or we are foolhardily rendering ourselves vulnerable; and I cannot do anything about it because the government right here in Ottawa is letting in these vegetable oils without duty and at ridiculously low prices, and letting the margarine industry develop.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, in further reference to the question that was raised a little while ago, may I say that I do not mind my hon. friend pointing at me and starting to talk about something I have already heard; but I have not heard this conversation that has been going back and forth across the floor. I think my hon. friend ought to address himself to the Chair.


An hon. Member:: You were not missing anything.


John Horne Blackmore: Oh, yes; he is missing a good deal. As a matter of fact, one of the big dangers in our whole Canadian economy and in this parliament is that the people who
Supply-Agriculture
come from an area, say, like that from which the hon. member for Temiscouata comes, often find it extremely difficult to visualize conditions on the prairies and in British Columbia, such as those which my friend the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke was discussing this afternoon. In the same way we find it difficult to visualize conditions existing in Quebec and down in Prince Edward Island. By listening to each other we are enabled to get an over-all picture of agriculture throughout Canada. Here is a good chance to get that picture.
As I was saying, the import of vegetable oils from abroad and the manufacture of margarine-something which is unnecessary in Canada and which is damaging to Canada-is rendering us vulnerable to submarine attack. You can imagine how serious it would be if we were short of butter, cream, cheese, milk-


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend will permit me to do so I should like to ask another question.


John Horne Blackmore: Will my hon. friend just speak up so the minister can hear him? I will listen in.


Jean-François Pouliot: If boats loaded with vegetable oils are sunk by submarines in war, how could that affect the dairy industry in Canada?


John Horne Blackmore: If you do not have the cows to supply the butter to replace the margarine it would certainly affect us. You just would not have the dairy products. That is easy to see, is it not? If you had only one dairy cow in Canada where you needed three to supply your needs, it would not help you at all if submarines were cutting off your vegetable oils from abroad.


Mr. Harkness:: We would have to start milking the Herefords.


John Horne Blackmore: Even that would not solve the problem because most of the Herefords are not milking cattle; the people have not been trained and are not equipped to handle the Herefords. As an over-all picture in Canada I am sure it is easy for the hon. member to see that it is of the first importance to this dominion to maintain a dairy industry capable of supplying all our needs in respect of dairy products, and to keep that dairy industry intact all the time.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am in favour of that procedure also.


John Horne Blackmore: So am I.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend knows I am in favour of that.

Supply-Agriculture


John Horne Blackmore: I am sure my hon. friend is in favour of it. His province wisely has made provision for it, but the other provinces have not done so.


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend permits me, now that he has come to the thing that is damaging, would he explain this?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I do not like to interrupt this highly interesting conversation, but I think perhaps the committee feels as I do that the time has now arrived when the hon. member for Lethbridge should be permitted to deliver the address which he indicated it was his intention to deliver, and which he is not going to have time to deliver because all this time taken by interruptions, of course, is charged up to him. I would suggest to the committee that the hon. member for Lethbridge now be permitted to proceed with his address.


John Horne Blackmore: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but let me remind you that we are in committee, and every time I am interrupted I have 40 minutes following the interruption. It does not do any harm. As a matter of fact, as I have said, I think the questions coming to me from the hon. member for Temiscouata are the very best thing we can have at this time, because it is very easy for us to sit while a member is speaking and not pay much attention to what he is saying. The result is that we do not get much out of the discussion whereas, as a matter of fact, we must get the maximum out of the discussion of agriculture if the Minister of Agriculture is going to be supported as he ought to be. He wants all these difficulties brought before the country so that he does not have to tell about all the problems.
The hon. member for Temiscouata asked if there was another kind of food we get from outside our country in respect of which submarines could seriously injure us. I point to sugar. We in Canada are able to produce on land in Canada all the sugar we can possibly use. We could establish factories and produce two and a half times as much sugar as the Dominion of Canada could possibly use, in Alberta alone south of High River; but we cannot produce the sugar there at the present time because no subsidy is allowed to transport it to Ontario, Quebec and farther east. The result is that we cannot supply the market there, so we cannot produce the sugar; but as far as physical conditions are concerned we can produce the sugar.
Meanwhile we are buying our sugar from far-off places, from which the sugar has to come to us in ships. These ships could be 
sunk. Every member in the house will recall how serious was the shortage of sugar in world war II, and how we had to be regimented in our use of it. It went on for a long time. Surely we are drifting right into that danger again just as though we had not seen it.
That is another example. There are plenty of others, but I am sure these two are enough to illustrate my point. I hope the hon. member will feel he is free to ask questions. I shall be glad to have him ask them, because I have given this matter of agriculture considerable thought. I was born on a farm, I grew up on a farm, all my connections are with farming and I know farming inside and out as far as my own area is concerned. I do not know Quebec farming. I do not know the farming problems of the maritimes, but I know the farming problems of southern Alberta and in a general way they are a fairly accurate indication of conditions throughout the country.
I have mentioned six dangers which we face, and they are serious dangers. Whichever way we look they are lurking. To illustrate the dangers of American competition let us go down to the United States now so we will not feel we are being too personal. Here is the United States with vast surpluses of many different kinds of commodities, to which I shall refer shortly. She is faced with the problem of either restricting her production in respect of many agricultural commodities or finding some way or other of selling these commodities abroad. We in Canada are rapidly approaching the same position if we liberate the productive capacities of our agricultural industry.
The question we have to ask is the same one Secretary Benson is asking himself: shall we restrict the production of wheat and other commodities on our farms, or shall we encourage the farmers to go ahead and produce all they can and take care of the goods as they are produced? We are faced with exactly the same problem in Canada. Out in the west, for example, if we had had the kind of bumper crop in 1954 that we had in 1953 you can just imagine the condition we would have been in. What shall we do? Now is the time we have to decide, and the Minister of Agriculture should not have to take the whole problem on his shoulders. That is why we are discussing the matter, and what I am saying tonight is in no way critical of the Minister of Agriculture. I do not hesitate to say that I believe the Minister of Agriculture has handled the situation in the country superbly, but he has been restricted and limited in every sort of direction and manner.

One very serious limitation that has been placed on him comes about by reason of the fact that wheat and many other commodities which properly belong to agriculture have been taken away from him, a thing which never should have been done. He is the Minister of Agriculture, and consequently should have supervision over everything connected with agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: I do not want anyone to
misunderstand the situation. Wheat and these other things have not been taken away from me. They have never been in the Department of Agriculture since 1898.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, it is time they were put in it. Certainly the major agricultural commodity of Canada is wheat. Wheat is an agricultural commodity, not a mining commodity or a forestry commodity.


James Garfield Gardiner: The only thing I am suggesting is that you should not give the impression that anybody took it away from me, because it has always been in the Department of Trade and Commerce ever since it was a commodity big enough to be anywhere.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, that is quite all right;
I will grant the minister's point and I hope he will grant mine, that it should be put in the minister's department if the minister is to be Minister of Agriculture.
Now, we shall go forward. Must we, as I said a minute ago, limit our agricultural production or shall we expand our consumption, both within Canada and without, by improving conditions in agriculture? It is certain, as an example, that if the farmers in the constituency of the hon. member for Queens can have their purchasing power doubled or quadrupled they will buy a good deal more agricultural production. They will buy fruits and meats which they probably cannot buy now. If we can increase the consumptive capacity of our agricultural communities we will greatly increase our consumption of agricultural commodities; and if we can increase purchasing power all throughout Canada we can further increase the consumption of agricultural products.
The problem that faces us, as I said a moment ago, is whether to limit our production of agricultural products or expand our consumption of such products. I do not think there is a member in the house who would not say, let us expand our consumption. Certainly. Then the problem arises, how can we do it? I do not propose to go into that at the present moment. It is really a treat to me, Mr. Chairman, to have the hon. member for Temiscouata sitting right beside me.
Having named the six dangers and indicated briefly their nature and extent, may
Supply-Agriculture
we consider first the danger from United States competition. I think nearly everybody in the country will be astounded to learn how serious the situation is with respect to United States competition. Today more than 450 ships of the United States reserve fleet are being filled with surplus wheat and anchored in various secluded spots in order to save the cost of storage on wheat which the United States has in stock and does not know what to do with. It is expected that United States stocks of wheat at the end of the 1955 crop year will be a billion bushels, and on all that wheat the United States government will be paying storage.
This is a most serious matter. That will help us understand why they are adopting methods to get rid of that wheat regardless of what happens to us or anybody else, and I am going to refer to those methods. On June 1, 1955, it began to cost the United States $1 million a day merely to store wheat and corn, to take the farm surplus off the market. That is $1 million a day for food that people of the United States cannot eat. That is a serious thing, because it is against the law for that wheat to be liberated on the markets at the going price. Consequently the United States people are not in a position to eat that wheat they are paying all that money to store. You can just imagine how they feel.
Now, what is the United States doing about these food surpluses, of which wheat and corn are only two? As a matter of fact it is as the Montreal Gazette put it in the title of its leading editorial in its issue of May 11, 1955: "United States Buys its Own Exports." Let me repeat that: "United States Buys its Own Exports." If the United States is buying its own exports and putting them on the world markets, and we are doing nothing of the kind, it does not require a great deal of perspicacity on anybody's part to see the problem with which the farmers are confronted in this nation as a whole.
Now, here are some examples of what it is doing. Through its export-import bank the United States now grants credit to 66 United States exporters, the aggregate credit advanced by May 11, 1955, amounting to $117-2 million. I do not know whether we have anything in Canada corresponding to that; I doubt it. In April, 1955, the United States offered Denmark $7-7 million worth of surplus grain in return for Danish industrial products being sent to certain underdeveloped countries. This, of course, to the extent of $7-7 million closed the Danish market to Canadian grain, and there was no way in which Canadian grain could recover that market, because we are not in a position

Supply-Agriculture
to do the kind of thing the United States did on that occasion. On May 5, 1955, it was announced that the United States would sell Great Britain $73-9 million worth of surplus grain for sterling, the United States paying the $3 million freight. Members of this group have repeatedly asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce to accept sterling but oh, no; he will not listen to us. He just cannot understand the meaning of sterling. Meanwhile the United States is taking sterling and also taking the markets. The United States will use part of that sterling-


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I think this discussion would be more appropriate on the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce. I might suggest to my hon. friend that I intend to leave here tonight to go to meet Mr. Benson in Regina, and if I do not get somewhere with my estimates I do not know whether I will be able to talk to him when I get there. I wish we could get along and get down to the items.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I am in your hands and in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture, but this matter affects his department, too, and affects other products just as much as grain. I could leave out this portion but, so far as I can see, for the people of Canada there is nothing that could impress upon them the seriousness of the situation we face any more than these figures I am drawing to the attention of the committee.
I have just a few more to give, then I shall pass on to other things which will be strictly in relation to the minister's department. I wish to help the minister as much as I can, but I have something to say and I am saying it. I am sure the minister will be quite happy to have it on the record.


William Alfred Robinson: I did not rise immediately after the Minister of Agriculture raised the point of order, though I thought perhaps there was a good deal of merit in what he said when he pointed out that certain portions of the hon. member's speech might very well be more properly made when the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce are under consideration.
However, without deciding that question, which is a difficult one, I rise now to remind the hon. member that his time has now expired.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, you certainly know that, now that you have spoken, I have 40 minutes more. You know that, surely. Every time a member is interrupted he has 40 minutes in addition to what he has already had.


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I do not think I can subscribe to that principle. If carried to its logical conclusion, it would mean that a member would need only to ask one of his friends to interrupt him when he had spoken 39 minutes, and as a result he could speak indefinitely. I should think a more reasonable interpretation of the rule would be that a member may speak twice or three times, provided another member or members have had the opportunity to speak in the interval.
I understand any of the interruptions of the hon. member who had the floor were made with his consent, and I do not think my interruption would give him the right to proceed indefinitely.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, your ruling changes the procedure which has been followed ever since I have been a member in the House of Commons, and I have been here for nearly 20 years. I say that just one word of interruption gives me a chance to go on for another 40 minutes, according to the rules.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Horne Blackmore: There is no doubt about it, according to the rule.


Some hon. Members:: No.


William Alfred Robinson: I cannot subscribe to that interpretation by the hon. member. I feel I am on sound ground when I say that there must be an interruption in the nature of a speech of some sort by another member before the hon. member who has the floor would have the privilege of speaking again.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, if that is the case, then all these interruptions have been using up my time. That is an outrageous thing. If a member consents to questions, and that is deducted from his time, it is obviously unfair in the very highest degree, and it is contrary to the rules. The minister himself interrupted, and it gave me the chance to speak another 40 minutes. The rule says that; there is no question about it. However, I do not propose to take all that time, but I do wish to give the message I intended to give. I think it is fitting that I do so; and, while I do not propose to impose upon the house or to abuse the privileges of debate, I do claim the protection of the rules.
Now, the United States uses part of this sterling-


William Alfred Robinson: Perhaps the hon. member did not understand me, but I have indicated that his time has expired, and that I cannot accept the interruptions as enabling him to enter into another timing period, if we may so describe it. Therefore the hon. member

must yield the floor to some other hon. member, unless he is granted unanimous consent to proceed. It he is asking unanimous consent, then of course I shall put the question immediately and ask hon. members if he has it.


John Horne Blackmore: I am not asking for unanimous consent for that which is my right. The rules say specifically that I have that right.


William Alfred Robinson: Then I must ask the hon. member to yield the floor to some other hon. member, or I shall call another item.


John Horne Blackmore: Then, Mr. Chairman, I challenge your ruling.


William Alfred Robinson: Does the hon. member wish me to report the occurrence to Mr. Speaker?


John Horne Blackmore: I challenge your ruling, and ask that you take whatever action is necessary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It will take half an hour.


William Alfred Robinson: In that case I would have to rise and report the occurrence to Mr. Speaker, to obtain a decision in the matter.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think if the hon. member is given unanimous consent to proceed he would not take too long to wind up what he has to say.


John Horne Blackmore: Thank you; that is good. I do not want anything unpleasant, but I want my rights.


William Alfred Robinson: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Horne Blackmore: It will take only a minute or two to show how, as she is at present managing, the United States cannot avoid accumulating such surpluses and being thus constrained to compete with everything Canada produces. She will use part of the sterling she will get from Great Britain to strengthen the British defence effort and thereby strengthen NATO, and part of that sterling she will use in purchasing military equipment to supply the nations who obtain mutual aid from the United States. There is no need to show how impossible it would be for Canada to compete against this sort of thing. Thus a $73-9 million British market for grain is closed to Canada.
At the same time, Secretary of Agriculture Benson has pointed out that the United States cannot afford to allow outside farm products to come into the United States to compete with the United States products held at subsidized prices. Not only is the United States stealing our markets, but she is closing her
Supply-Agriculture
markets to us. It is obvious that we are being placed in a very difficult squeeze.
The United States is bartering much of her surplus agricultural products of various kinds, not only grain. Since permission was given last year to Secretary Benson to barter, more than $82 million worth of commodities have been exported to 23 countries in exchange for imports valued at $53 million. Look at what has happened there. Some $82 million worth of products have been bartered for commodities valued at only $53 million. In other words the United States has lost the difference between $53 million and $82 million in value, and she has done that in order to get rid of surplus products, which shows how serious her competition is for Canada; and it will become more serious. The surplus products which she has been bartering include corn, flaxseed, grain sorghum, cottonseed oil, barley, oats and cotton. The countries with which she has bartered include Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Yugoslavia, England, Ireland, Scotland, Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, India, Formosa, Japan, Korea, Colombia, Peru, which is enough to show at how many points the United States is impinging on possible Canadian external markets.
What can we do to resist the pressure of a nation like that? The United States financial and economic strength is so great that she will be able to force her surpluses into world markets to a tremendous degree because she has such an enormous population. She also has vast resources; she has great industrial strength; she has great financial strength, every one of which is superior to the greatest degree. We have hardly any chance at all to compete.
The only way Canada could hope to compete with the United States in foreign markets under circumstances like that would be for Canada to adopt a scheme for using her national credit, similar to that which Japan employed in 1933. That is a possible solution. There will be those who will begin to wonder whether or not the proposal I am making here is sound. I point out that Japan used this scheme in 1933. What did she do? I am not going to go into detail at the present time. Later I may tell the committee something about the achievements and the methods Japan used whereby she was able to put her products into foreign markets at prices utterly impossible for them to compete with.

Supply-Agriculture
Meanwhile, is there open to us any procedure other than forcing our surpluses into export markets? I believe that even trying to use our national credit, as Japan did, would hardly strengthen us enough to compete successfully with the United States. The United States is going ahead with a rapid production program and has accumulated surpluses right along, which she feels she must do.
Could the United States have so managed her stores of grain that they would have occasioned her no serious embarrassment? Is there any reason why the grain in the United States should be in those ships, or why she should have to pay storage for it? That is the question we have to ask ourselves. Could the United States have had all her surpluses safely stored on her farms without storage costs to her national government? I believe that could have been done, and that we in Canada can do it, and this would seem to offer a part of the way out of our difficulties. I suggest this should have been done in the United States.
Mark you, I am coming to the United States now, so we do not have to argue about the situation in Canada. If it would seem to work over there, we might consider whether it could work here. Suppose the United States had bought the grain, we will say, from a farmer in Montana. Let us say that the farmer produced 5,000 bushels of grain, and the United States said to this farmer: We will give you the money, or we will lend you the money with which to build on your farm approved farm storage. Then you store your grain in the storage on your farm and we will pay you the money for that grain just as though you had it in an elevator. Then the grain will be our grain in your storage. To recompense you for the efforts you put forth in looking after that grain we will pay you, say, 10 per cent of that grain every year as storage. Therefore at the end of 10 years, if we do not take that grain off your hands, if we cannot sell it or cannot use it, then at the end of the 10-year period you will own the grain. It then will be your grain stored on your farm under your storage. Then in one more year, we will pay you the value of the storage facilities.
Then that farmer would have on his farm that 5,000 bushels of grain, which unless the government called for it would be his grain, and he would consequently take care of it. At the same time it would be available for the United States to take at any time she felt she needed it, because she had already paid him for it. I am not going into too many details in regard to the matter, but I believe people can get the general idea of it. Let us see if that is not a possible solution.

The important thing is not to have that grain on the government's hands. The hon. member for Meadow Lake should be thinking a lot about this. I suggest to him that it is a solution. He should be thinking about what I am saying. This may be a serious thing, as at present it is costing the United States $1 million a day for her stored wheat and corn. I tell you that we in Canada do not want any burdens of that sort on our shoulders. If there is a way by which we can store the grain and have it taken care of on our farms, thereby avoiding the public expense of storing the grain, and still have the grain in case we need it, then that is what we want.
I submit that in a general way my suggestion will solve the problem, because any man who has a good supply of wheat on his farm will treasure it very highly. He knows how valuable the wheat will be on his farm if he owns it. He needs the storage facilities and if he had it and in it the wheat it would be a valuable thing for him. He would not have the right to sell that wheat until the government gave him permission to do so. He would feel pretty well supported, would he not, having a store of wheat on that basis? That sort of storage would alleviate the situation in the United States at the present time with regard to all the surplus which is turning them into a frenzy. If surpluses were safely stored thus on individual farms and being taken care of by the farmers, then the problems of storage space and of storage costs would be solved for the government.
As far as I can see, Mr. Chairman, the only way of taking care of our surpluses in such a manner that we shall not have to curtail our production is to store the grain on our farms with people who know how valuable such commodities are, and who will have cause to do a good job. Just think of what a blessing it would be to the flood-stricken areas of Saskatchewan if the farmers there had a store of grain of various kinds and other kinds of farm commodities on their farms. They would have the means to live on their farms. Just think of what a difference it would make in the stricken areas of Manitoba, and in the areas where rust strikes. Look what a difference it would make, not having the farmers in the position that they have to rush their grain into the elevator, and if they cannot get it into an elevator they have to improvise storage on the farm and keep it there, and then have to borrow money on the grain, thereby incurring debt and interest rates and running the risk of having the grain spoiled. As it is now it is exactly as it ought not to be.

I have given a suggestion to show how we can store our grain and other surplus commodities on our farms. If the United States would go one step further and in storing grain on her people's farms would use her national credit, which she could do as Japan did in the thirties, she could pay for the grain on the farms with her credit and it would not cost her a cent. It did not cost the Japanese anything to finance their exports; they used the national credit, which was money, without having to take it away from the taxpayers.
I do not propose to go into all the details of this matter. It is not becoming that I should on this occasion, because it would hardly be in order. Nevertheless there is no use in a member offering a solution if he does not tell how the money can be raised with which to work out that solution.
I wish to go on. If the thing can be done in the United States, if grain and other things can be stored there, they can be stored in Canada just as well.
I have already named six serious dangers which threaten Canadian agriculture. As I have said before, I have indicated how grave is only one of them, namely that of United States competition. Before I elaborate on the other five dangers, which I may or may not do tonight, may I indicate what in my opinion would be the necessary immediate steps to take to protect our Canadian agriculture if Canadian agriculture is to be made stable, as it should be.
We are looking for a solution. Do we want a solution? I wonder if hon. members want a solution, or do they want things to go on in an unstable way. Is there no solution to this problem? Are you prepared to admit that the United States cannot solve this problem, that she has to go on producing herself into strangulation, at the same time strangling the rest of the nations of the world indefinitely? Is there any hon. member who believes that makes sense? Is there any hon. member who believes that it makes sense for the United States to limit her production?
There must be solutions. Let us find them. There is no hint of them except in what I may have said here tonight. There is no hint of them in what the Minister of Finance or any other minister has said. If Canadian agriculture is to be made stable, as it should be and as I believe all thoughtful Canadians desire to see it, then we must begin at the earliest possible moment to take whatever steps are necessary to make it stable.
What are they? I suggest five main measures that Canada, in so far as it is physically possible and desirable, ought to
Supply-Agriculture
adopt for the establishment and maintenance of a sound Canadian agriculture. These five measures are, first, the establishment as soon as it is possible, and it is possible this year, of an adequate system of farm storage of surpluses in approved facilities, paying each farmer for those surpluses in his farm storage and then letting the farmer take care of the grain until the storage that has been paid to him in kind makes the grain his. As I have already indicated, there must be a practical system of farm storage so the farmer does not have to take the rap for everything all the way down the line. That is exactly what he is doing today.
The situation in my constituency is simply deplorable. Men with great collections of grain could not buy even toys for their children last Christmas. I saw two or three of them shedding tears last Christmas when they were telling me the situation they were in. How in the world they ever succeeded in planting crops this spring I do not know. Many of them are just absolutely tied tight with vast amounts of grain on their hands. That is the way they are treating our producers. How can we get sense out of treating our producers like that?
The second suggestion I make is that a system of guaranteed prices be established.


James Garfield Gardiner: I thought my hon. friend was going to be fair in this. He has been discussing trade and commerce ever since the last time I sat down; he has not been discussing my estimates at all. I think it is time we got on to agriculture.


John Horne Blackmore: We will see if this one is not right on agriculture. Second, there should be the establishment of guaranteed prices- I think the minister will agree that this is agriculture-for all desired storable products, including not only grains but dried eggs, dried milk, honey, sugar, beans, peas and all manner of things that can be stored on the farm. There should be guaranteed prices for all desired storable products, such prices as will stimulate the optimum production of those commodities.
By optimum production I do not mean such production as will make men go out and produce more than would seem to be wise. To show what I have in mind when I refer to optimum production I intend to read a little statement from the most recent copy of the Wheat Pool Budget, the issue of June 3, as follows:
In suggesting that a permanent price support program is a necessity for farm products, Canada's farm leaders are not making an unreasonable request. They do not ask for price levels which will encourage increased production, but rather their intention is to keep the farmer in business.

Supply-Agriculture
Agriculture remains Canada's basic industry and farm people represent the nation's largest group of consumers. If agriculture is maintained in a reasonably healthy condition then Canada will remain prosperous.
Furthermore, farmers feel that they are just as entitled to some protection as is industry which, for the most part, is sheltered by Canada's high tariff barriers.
Farm leaders seek only to attain for agriculture benefits equal to those now enjoyed by other primary industries.
May I raise a question at this point. We find, starting with the hon. member for Spadina, the advocacy of a guaranteed annual wage. If men in the automobile and various other industries of this country are entitled to a guaranteed annual wage I will ask anyone in Canada if the farmer is not entitled also to something like a guaranteed annual wage, or fair prices which will give him a chance for a guaranteed annual wage.
My third proposal is the adoption of such measures as will result in streamlining Canadian agriculture for the optimum production of all desired products by providing the most up to date machines, sheds, barns, livestock, land and other requirements for the most economical production. I quoted a statement a few minutes ago, with respect to the number of men laid off in the machine industry. What is wrong with making available to the farmers of Canada money at 1J per cent, which could be provided by the Bank of Canada, in order that they may buy the most modern machinery, build the most modern barns and silos and buy the best land? Is there anything wrong with that?


An hon. Member:: How much would the money be worth?


John Horne Blackmore: It would be worth just what the Bank of Canada made it worth.


Owen C. Trainor: It is worth only 50 cents now.


John Horne Blackmore: All right, it will be worth 50 cents. Are you telling me that money which is provided-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might ask the hon. gentleman a question. I have been listening to what he is saying with great interest. I noticed the intervention by the Minister of Agriculture, and there was some question as to whether my hon. friend should be allowed to go on. I know the Minister of Agriculture is leaving tonight for a very important meeting. I know the minister came to my hon. friend's assistance. I think that this discussion is certainly out of order, as a large part of it concerns trade and commerce. I would suggest to my hon. friend that in fairness to the attitude taken
by the Minister of Agriculture he ought to find it possible to abbreviate his remarks at this time.


John Horne Blackmore: I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, and I have been trying to abbreviate my remarks, but the time that has been used up interfering with me since I began my talk would have enabled me to finish my speech. I am not responsible for that. There are these hon. members who think they know so much about money, and really know so little about it. Is there any reason in the world why farmers should not be permitted to borrow money to buy all the equipment they need? Would my hon. friend say that if the farmers had sold those big wheat crops in 1951, 1952 and 1953, and had had a good crop in 1954 and got the money for them, they would not be able to buy the equipment. Do not talk nonsense. My hon. friend does not know shucks about money.


Owen C. Trainor: Are you an expert?


John Horne Blackmore: I am more of an expert than my hon. friend. Some of the silly things he said would make a 12-year-old in Alberta laugh, because they do grow up intelligently in Alberta. I simply said, is there any reason why money should not be made available in these times when there is a shortage of money from crops to enable farmers to buy the machinery and the other things they need? That would be a sound basis for the economy. Is that not sound?


Owen C. Trainor: No, it is not.


John Horne Blackmore: I am glad that has gone on record, and I hope everybody knows who the hon. member is. His constituents will be proud of him. My next important suggestion is to adopt such measures as would put Canadian agricultural products on a competitive basis in all Canadian markets. As I indicated a few minutes ago in respect to the margarine situation, we have permitted vegetable oils to come in with ridiculously low tariffs, to be sold here at ridiculously low prices and compete with our dairy products. Is there anything conceivably fair about that? Everything has been done to make it so that our own dairy producers could not compete in the market. Measures ought to be applied to enable our producers to compete on a fair basis. We could subsidize the price of butter down below the price of margarine.
I have one more thing to say, and then the minister can go. I know he is aching to go. We should adopt a policy on trade under which such agricultural products as Canada needs from abroad, like pineapples and bananas, would be imported so that it would be our consistent practice to buy them from

commonwealth and empire countries. We can no longer afford to go on buying so many agricultural products from the United States and rolling up a big adverse surplus against us year after year, putting the future citizens of this country into such debt that they will not be able to extricate themselves. We surely ought to be able to see that. Such agricultural products as are imported we ought to bring from empire countries.
Now, Mr. Chairman, having said that, I shall end what I have to say at the present time and say more at a later time.


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I cannot follow the hon. member for Lethbridge in the same tone of remarks as to the right hon. Minister of Agriculture. I cannot understand why a member in this house would take 80 minutes, or nearly that much, of the time of the house, compliment the minister on being such an excellent person in his portfolio in charge of agriculture, and then use the invectives he did in trying to say that we do not have a good agricultural policy in Canada.
I must say at the very outset that I believe this government, under the leadership of the right hon. minister, has dealt one sledgehammer blow after another to the agriculture of Canada since the war. In the first instance I bring to the attention of the house what happened in 1945, right after the war. That was the first failure of this government, which had promised the farmers of this country that they would be able to buy machinery and other things they needed on their farms at pre-war prices. The right hon. minister, along with his colleagues, with the assistance, I might say, of the loyal opposition, as they are happy to be called, and the Social Crediters to my right, all went out in 1945 asking for decontrol. I am going to say that there is no single policy-


John Horne Blackmore: May I ask my hon. friend a question now? Who in this group advocated the removal of controls?


Edward George McCullough: All you
need to do, Mr. Chairman, or any hon. member, is look up the records and see that on many occasions-


John Horne Blackmore: I challenge the hon. member's statement.


Edward George McCullough: You
will find that what I have said is according to the facts.


John Horne Blackmore: It is not.


Edward George McCullough: They were happy to throw controls out the window. They challenged this group on occasions, saying that we were in favour of controls and
Supply-A griculture
regimentation and that sort of thing. We were quite happy to take that responsibility. What has been the situation since 1945? The farmers throughout Canada, and particularly western Canada, were trying to recuperate after many years during which they could not replace farm machinery owing to the fact that steel went into the necessities of war.
Then we see what happened. When the first decontrol measure on steel went through, fabricated steel started to go up, in the manufacture of farming machinery. What happened was that farmers' costs in the replacement of farm machinery went up by leaps and bounds, until by 1952 we find that, by and large, agricultural farm machinery was about 200 per cent higher than in 1941. The same thing happened in respect to some agricultural commodities.
It is true that our farm prices went up substantially, but they were always behind the steep increases in prices of the things the farmer had to buy and his general costs of production. The farmer has never asked for unreasonably high prices. He understands without any element of doubt that when things reach their peak, at some point in the inflation period he is going to take the brunt of that inflation, and his prices will fall much faster than his costs of production. So I say that this government-not necessarily the Minister of Agriculture, but the whole government-is responsible for that.
In addition to that, this government, with the right hon. minister as a cabinet minister agreeing with the policy, sold down the river some of the fertilizer plants of this country by which our farmers could have got one item with which they could have maintained soil fertility, at a relatively low cost. This government, as it did with many other things, sold down the river some of our people's fertilizer plants at fire-sale prices. The result has been that the farmer is now paying unduly high prices for his fertilizer ingredients, which in effect are causing a high cost of production figure for the farmer.
This group has gone on record in favour of parity prices. We feel that the Canadian economy is still primarily agricultural. In spite of the fact that we have increased our industrialization, and have developed our natural resources in respect to iron ore, oil and many other minerals, the fact still remains that one of the largest and most important segments of our economy is agriculture. It is rather unfortunate, not only for ourselves but perhaps for the whole free world, that here we have a capitalist government along with other capitalist governments guiding the resources of our country. As the hon. member for Cape Breton South said the

Supply-Agriculture
other day in another debate, when we allow independent or private companies to come in and take our resources, which are not renewable in respect of our minerals, and leave nothing but ghost towns and empty holes from which they have taken the minerals, it is not a conservation program. Indeed it is nothing more than a sort of irresponsible program of capitalism.
Then when we come to agriculture, may I ask what has been done for the conservation of our resources? There are perhaps four main things, Mr. Chairman, that are important in any large-scale agricultural conservation program. One is the soil, one is water, one is our forests and the fourth is our wildlife. Unless we can have a balance of these four important things, we are going to suffer in respect of a program of conservation of these somewhat unrenewable resources. It is true that we can find some ways of renewing them, but unless we have measures to conserve our soil fertility it may well be that the generations now living will not be in such a fortunate condition as that in which we have been, where we have been able to go out in the last century and to break up virgin soil and exploit it.
This government to date, as far as I am concerned, has not taken adequate measures for soil conservation. We have found that over the past years there has been no program of conservation and indeed in many parts of our country this year there are direct indications that this government has not yet thought out a program under which they will enter into agreements with the provinces for adequate soil conservation, adequate land utilization, the drainage of water and the conservation of water resources.
Perhaps the ambit of this problem exceeds that of this department, but I am going to suggest to the minister that he try to get his colleagues to entertain the idea of a national conservation authority by which we can have in Canada the full utilization of our soil, water, forest and wildlife resources. Unless that is done I do not think this government is meeting the problem faced by this country in 1955. We have the condition that a great deal of our soil fertility has been drained off through flooding where there is not adequate drainage so that many thousands -yes, hundreds of thousands-of acres of our best soil are not capable of being brought into production owing to lack of measures for the conservation of that soil and proper drainage and diking projects.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to deal too extensively with trade and parity prices, but to those of us in this group and indeed to all members who rise to speak on agriculture, 
a great many members in this house seem to think we are placing undue emphasis on the condition in respect of agriculture and are perhaps exaggerating the condition when we read from press reports and indeed reports from the dominion bureau of statistics such as the one I have here reported in the Globe and Mail of Thursday, January 6, 1955 to the effect that farm income in 1954 declined about 12J per cent. Then of course we have more particularly a drop in farm income in western Canada of about 46 per cent in the last three years.
I remember, Mr. Chairman, that earlier in the evening the hon. member for Temis-couata was asking the hon. member for Lethbridge certain questions with respect to implements used on farms. One of his questions was whether or not the farmers had adequate farm machinery. In answer to that question, and indeed for the information of the committee, I want to say that agriculture today has not sufficient machinery, nor the type of machinery with which to keep up with its growing needs. Indeed we are finding in agriculture the same situation that exists in all industry. In other words, there is more automation all the time. Even in forage harvesting, as an example, more and more farmers are turning to automatic machinery and new types of equipment such as forage harvesters and new methods by which they put up their forage.
I just want to add that when this government is trying to have a healthy Canadian economy, we do not think the farmer or agriculture should be penalized. I criticize the Minister of Agriculture and his department and the Minister of Trade and Commerce because I do not think it is fair to agriculture that, in order to balance our trade, we should have commodities coming into our country practically free of duty and competing with agricultural products when, on the other hand, we have our agricultural producers obliged to buy in a market in which we have to pay from 20 to 35 and as high as 40 per cent more for articles on which there is a tariff. I refer to things we need on our farms. I say that is not a fair situation.
I know also that in a few days we are going to have brought before us measures to increase tariffs. As a matter of fact a budget resolution was brought in the other day whereby this house was asked to agree to an increase in the tariff on glycol. Hence we have all along the line these things which the farmer has to buy coming in with high tariff duties imposed on them, thereby increasing

the cost to the farmer; whereas on the other hand the farmer is obliged to compete in the open market.
I believe it is true to say that, by and large, at least 95 per cent of the farmers would be quite agreeable to free trade if we had to undertake that sort of program; but I do not believe the Minister of Agriculture or the government of which he is a member is playing fair with the people when the farmer, with regard to the things he has to sell, is asked to compete on the world market, while at the same time he is obliged to buy in a highly protected market. That is not the way by which you can build a healthy Canadian agricultural economy.
When we speak about these matters, if we deal purely with statistics I know they are cold, dead things. But I also know that today tens of thousands of our farmers, their families and their children have not the amenities of life, judged on any basis you want to take, be it that of justice or of good living conditions. In no way can you say that they are in a satisfactory economic bracket. ' We still have tens of thousands of our farmers in the low income bracket, who have not the facilities which we in this day and age regard as the right of every Canadian citizen. The situation is similar in the United States, that great and rich capitalist country. But here in Canada it is our job to try to have an economy by which we can give higher standards of living to our people.
It seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture and the government of which he is a member have been remiss in not understanding that in order to have a healthy economy we must have parity prices for agriculture. In other words we believe the farmers should have guaranteed prices which will return to them a fair share of the national income, in other words a fair price or a price which will have a fair relationship to their cost of production.
Some members of the House of Commons would seem to think such a provision would bankrupt this nation. On the other hand, I maintain that such a program is going to come into operation some day in Canada, and when it does we shall have in this country a healthy economy for more and more people. There can be no contradiction of the statement that the 6,000 unemployed workers in the agricultural implements industry who came here a year ago to meet certain members of the cabinet were unemployed simply because western farmers were not able to buy the farm machinery they needed.
It is true that in some places there are farmers with grain in their bins, a condition
3,	1955	4679
Supply-Agriculture
that has come about because of the policy of restricted sales and quotas. They have not been able to sell their grain and have had to store it on their farms at their own risk and expense. I have advocated for a long time in the house that the government should undertake a program of farm storage. On the other hand, the fact remains that when these farmers do have the opportunity to sell their grain they will not get a fair return for it, having in mind the cost of production; and I maintain they are going to find themselves in a most unfair competitive position and will not be able to finance their operations and keep out of debt.
I have here statistics for farm indebtedness covering the years 1937 to 1952. I point out that from 1946 to 1952 farm indebtedness for all Canada increased from $367-9 million to $486 million, and since 1952 it has continued to increase. In other words we are still going into debt in agriculture. Therefore I cannot agree with the hon. member for Lethbridge when he complimented the minister on being a fine minister in respect of the discharge of his departmental responsibilities. I think the minister and the whole government are responsible for the conditions existing today, and I say we are now paying the penalty. A few months ago we had 600,000 unemployed, and the government has seen fit to enter into a program with the provinces in an attempt to find a solution of the unemployment problem. I say these things are a direct result of the poor agricultural policy.
Coming back to the matter of conservation, in my opinion the federal Department of Agriculture should establish an authority which would investigate all the ramifications of agriculture-conservation of water, conservation of soil and, indeed, of forests and wildlife. We would then have an integrated policy for the whole country instead of the hit or miss policy being followed at the present time. The provinces cannot undertake such a policy alone. There must be a national authority working in close cooperation with the provinces.
In another speech the other day I referred to certain conditions in Canada from time to time that are termed national emergencies or disasters, and said that merely to try to cure the cause of one disaster independently is not good enough. I think the time has come when we have to change our perspective so far as the watershed program is concerned, and take a look at what it means interprovincially. In the province of Saskatchewan this year tens of thousands of acres will not be seeded, but I maintain they could

Supply-Agriculture
have been put into production if the government had had the foresight to undertake such a program through a national authority, which should cover the whole watershed of the Assiniboine down through the Qu'Ap-pelle valley into Manitoba, lake Manitoba and lake Winnipeg, and up to the Nelson river.
I maintain such a project should be undertaken. I agree that the Minister of Agriculture is not alone responsible, but he is an important member of the cabinet. Apparently some of his colleagues do not seem to understand the situation but I am sure if he would explain it to them he would get their cooperation to do something along this line.
Finally, in my opinion it is most unfortunate that since 1945 the government has not seen fit to protect agriculture from the ups and downs, which it could well have done if it had had real vision so far as a comprehensive program for agriculture is concerned, a program to provide adequate parity prices for our farmers, adequate storage for surpluses and adequate trade policies by which farm commodities could be sold and our markets maintained.
I believe we have not nearly reached maximum agricultural production in Canada. When the government takes the problems of agriculture as seriously as it does, for example, those concerned with atomic energy and research in that field, and is prepared to spend money to help feed a hungry world, we will have the kind of program of which we can really be proud. We are not making a fight on the home front. Unless we can have an economy in Canada which is universal in its coverage and under which those engaged in agriculture as well as the industrial workers are protected, I think we will lose the important battle the free world is fighting to show the rest of the world that democracy is the best kind of system. The battle is not going to be won merely by vocal propaganda against other kinds of systems. It is going to be won when we can win men's minds. When we do that we will be able to say to the world that we have not only the best political system but also the best economic system, under which we can feed and clothe ourselves, use our resources and conserve them for posterity.
The resources given to us are under stewardship. They are given to us to maintain as stewards; but I maintain that in the past the government has handled them in such a way that they have been exploited and not conserved for the future. We are going to have to pay the price, unless the [Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain) .3
government is prepared to put forward a comprehensive program for agriculture by which we can really protect the people on our farms today and, indeed, our children's children.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall the clause
carry?


Hazen Robert Argue: No, Mr. Chairman. Would you call it ten o'clock?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, if I may be
permitted to do so, I should like to answer one question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg South at the beginning. I was hopeful at the time he asked it that we might get into the items and I might be able to give an answer. I do not know that I can give a full answer to the question. All I can say is that legislation has been announced in Votes and Proceedings today which is intended to deal partially at least with the problem which the farmers are facing because of conditions that have arisen in Manitoba and the northeastern part of Saskatchewan.
I had hoped I might be able to get along some distance with the estimates and that we could have discussed that matter, but that has not been possible. I had intended to be away all next week, but on account of the way the discussion has gone on tonight I shall be back next Thursday and if at all possible will continue this discussion then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The session may be over.


James Garfield Gardiner: I-n the meantime I will have a look at the area of the west that is in difficulties, and for the benefit of those who think we should know something about the United States may I say that I shall be meeting Mr. Ezra Benson, secretary of agriculture of the United States, at Regina, in the middle of the area where difficulties exist at the moment. If we get into the details of the estimates next Thursday we can probably have a better discussion then than we might have had tonight. Nevertheless I hope that at the end of next week we will be in a little better humour to try to get along with them, rather than try to hold them up.
We have not accomplished very much tonight, but we have learned some things. I would just like to say to the last speaker that I hope when we take up the estimates again 1 will be able to prove to him that most of the things he had to say tonight are not in accordance with the facts. The main point which bears that out would require only a few words at this time. In the years that

we have been here we have been spending considerable amounts on agriculture, in spite of what has been said. I quite understand that some people may say, "Well you have been spending money, but you have not been getting results." That is not true, either.
Just to indicate that the situation is not exactly as it has been indicated by the last speaker, let me say to him that we were spending around $10 million a year on agriculture when this government took office, and for a short time thereafter. We are now spending around $100 million a year. Some may talk about a dollar being worth half as much as it was back in those earlier years. Even so, it is still a long way from saying there is not more money being spent on agriculture today than ever before.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it is ten o'clock, but I have one more remark. I just wish to say that the $14 million subsidy on gold my
Supply-Agriculture
hon. friend talks about so much is not very much when compared with what we are spending on agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

James Sinclair: On Monday we shall resume the debate on second reading of the defence production bill, and then go on to Bill No. 3, which refers to international river improvements. Then we shall take the resolution dealing with the amendment to the Municipal Grants Act and, when we finish that, we shall take the second reading of Bill No. 452, respecting loans to fishermen.


Mr. Nowlan:: Optimistic boy!


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 13, 1955