1955-05-09

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION


Mr. Speaker:: May I take advantage of this first opportunity since Saturday to wish the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), who celebrated the anniversary of a birthday on that day, many happy returns.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to thank you as well as all hon. members for your kindness. Perhaps it is a platitude; nevertheless it is true that there comes a point where the only pleasant thing about a birthday is that it provides an opportunity for your friends to say that they remember you.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. T. H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. A newspaper report datelined Ottawa, May 6, and published in the Columbian of New Westminster, British Columbia, is headed "Goode moves in with Socred group". The item goes on to say this:
Tom Goode, Liberal member for Burnaby-Richmond, has moved in with the Social Credit members in the House of Commons. Goode, who shared an office on the main floor with J. A. Byrne, Kootenay East, has now moved upstairs to the sixth floor where Social Credit members and some C.C.F. are contained.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Tom Goode: This is a most serious matter to me, Mr. Speaker. After listening to my statements I hope that my friends will also consider it to be serious. The article continues:
Liberals are housed on the ground floor and third floor, Conservatives and some C.C.F. are on the fourth and fifth floors and Social Credit, some independents and C.C.F. are in offices on the top floor.
Goode, who has served on the government's standing committee on external affairs, has been replaced on that body by Maurice Boisvert, Nicolet-Yamaska.
Mr. Speaker, the statement has no substance whatever in truth. I do not need to tell you that the office arrangements listed in the article are entirely wrong. I have had an office on the sixth floor of this building since 50433-225
the first of this parliament. I share that office with the Liberal member for Papineau (Mr. Meunier), and I am most happy with those arrangements. Alongside of me are ten other Liberal members of parliament, each of whom, because of the arrangement, could be accused of joining another party. I think the house will agree that the statement which I have read to you is an example of yellow journalism at its very lowest. It has always been my impression in this house that legislation has been suggested from opposition parties which I could support, because in my view it would build towards national unity and was for the betterment of the Canadian people. I propose to continue that course.
This article has been printed by an irresponsible newspaper and I have been assured that no member of the press gallery in Ottawa sent the article to the west. Nothing but contempt can be held for a paper whose policy would direct that an article of this kind should appear on its pages. I challenge the Columbian in New Westminster to prove that this article is correct, and I challenge them to name their Ottawa correspondent. The people of my riding will know how to deal with such a contemptible political move.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is going beyond correcting the statement concerning him which has appeared in the press. Having done what he thought he should do, the hon. member should not go further.


Tom Goode: Perhaps I might answer the last statement, Mr. Speaker. I serve on many committees of the house. During this session I asked the British Columbia Liberal whip, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall), to have me replaced on the external affairs committee for this session. There have been days when I have had six committee appointments in one day, and I felt it fair to my colleagues from British Columbia to tell them I could not attend to all my commitments. The B.C. whip immediately had me replaced.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West) presented the first report of the special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on
[Stage Direction]
Questions
capital and corporal punishment and lotteries, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
BROADCASTING^-FIRST REPORT OF SPECIAL


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Porineuf) presented the first report of the special committee on radio broadcasting.
Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: I move, by leave of the house, that the first report of the special committee on broadcasting and television be now concurred in.


Mr. Low:: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if it would not be possible to ask for concurrence in this motion on another day when the members of the committee and the house have had an opportunity to read the report?


Pierre Gauthier: It has been read by the assistant clerk of the house. It is a very short report.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion has to be put by leave. If the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) obects to concurrence being moved now, it will have to wait. I understand that is the position of the hon. member; and therefore the motion will have to be put at a later date.
Motion stands.



INSPECTION OF PRODUCTS ENTERING INTERNATIONAL AND INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 352, respecting the inspection of meat and meat products entering into international and interprovincial trade.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Balcom:: What contribution under the various classifications have been made in 1954 by the federal government towards vocational training in Nova Scotia?


Mr. Gregg:: Following are the federal government contributions in respect of programs operated under the vocational training act in Nova Scotia for the fiscal year 1953-54; Training of unemployed, $76,741.15; youth training, including student aid, $39,099.37;

training for the armed forces, $5,917.63; training of workers for defence industries, $56,947.26; apprentice training, $47,312.60; assistance to vocational schools, annual allotment, $119,559.39; vocational correspondence courses, $309.00. Complete figures for fiscal year 1954-55 are not yet available.


FISHERIES STATISTICS, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Balcom:: 1.	How many men are employed at deep sea fishing in Nova Scotia in (a) trawlers or seine liners; (b) inshore fishing?
2.	What is the value of (a) catch of trawlers or seine liners; (b) equipment used in trawlers or seine liners; (c) catch from inshore fishing; (d) equipment used for inshore fishing?


Mr. Sinclair:: 1.	In 1953 the following numbers of men were engaged in primary fishing operations:
On trawlers	 476
On draggers	 378
On vessels (10-40	tons)	
2,762In boats (less	than	10	tons) .... 10,112Other	
597
The men employed on trawlers were definitely offshore fishermen.
Those on draggers and on vessels of 10 to 40 tons were probably predominantly offshore fishermen.
Those fishing in boats of less than 10 tons or those fishing without boats would be inshore fishermen.
2.	Value of catch and of fishing equipment,
Nova Scotia, 1953:
Millions
(a)	Value of catch taken
offshore	$ 6-2
(b)	Value of catch taken inshore . 15-3
(c)	Value of equipment used in
offshore fishing	 10-0
(d)	Value of equipment used in
inshore fishing	 9-8
The value of the catch taken offshore and inshore is estimated. Value of equipment used in offshore fishing includes the value of all vessels of 10 tons and over; that of equipment used in inshore fishing includes the value of boats (less than 10 tons) and of all fishing gear used in the inshore fishery like nets, traps, weirs, etc. The value of shore installations of all kinds is omitted from both categories.


FEDERAL BUILDINGS, VANCOUVER, B.C.   JANITOR SERVICE
Mr. Winch:: 1.	Has the janitor service in the new customs building at Vancouver been let out on contract?
2.	If so, what is the amount of the contract and to whom was it let?
3.	Does the contract make provision for maintenance of wage standards, hours of work and benefits in line with those existing in the civil service for similar work?

4.	Are janitor services in the other federal buildings in Vancouver and in the new post office to be let on a contract basis?
5.	If so, what is the purpose of this change in policy?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) $37,200.	(b) Modern Building
Cleaning Service of Canada Limited, Vancouver, B.C.
3.	The contract provides that no workman employed on the work shall at any time be paid less than the minimum rate of wages as set forth in schedule of wages issued by the federal Department of Labour and to work not more than eight hours per day and 44 hours per week.
4 and 5. There is no change in policy. A contract was awarded for janitor service in the customs building for the purpose of establishing comparative costs.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: 1.	What was the number of each of the sections which made up the eight-section block in township 30, range 22 W-4 M.D.-48, Alberta, for the year 1954 under P.F.A.A.?
2.	What was the yield per acre for each of the above sections?
3.	What was the name of the farmer in each case and how much was he paid under P.F.A.A.?


DISTANT EARLY WARNING LINE
Mr. Casileden:: 1.	Is the Canadian government committed to assist in the construction or the manning of the distant early warning line?
2.	Have any arrangements been made through which Canadian construction firms may tender for construction contracts on this line?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Fulion:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Minister of Justice and the crown attorney of the Northwest Territories in the month of April, 1955, relating to the position of crown attorney of the Northwest Territories.


Mr. Garson:: I wonder if my hon. friend from Kamloops would agree to adding after the words "the month of April, 1955," the following words, "and up to and including May 5, 1955." There is a reply of mine which went back as of that date, and the return would be incomplete if it were not included.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am agreeable, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion carry, as amended?
Motion as amended agreed to.
NATO Council Meeting



GRAIN COMMISSION


Mr. Argue:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents since March 8, 1955, which have passed between any department of the government and any person, persons or organizations, relative to the appointment of a person or persons to the board of grain commissioners.




Hazen Robert Argue: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents since January 1, 1954, which have passed between any department of the government and any person, persons or organizations, relative to the appointment to the position of assistant commissioner on the board of grain commissioners.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (for ihe Secretary of Slate) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Canada Elections Act including provision for an increase in the salary of the chief electoral officer.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon.  L. S.@: Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members would not like to see pass unnoticed in the records of the house the significance of the participation for the first time of the representatives of the Federal Republic of Germany in the meeting of the North Atlantic council in Paris today. Perhaps I might be allowed to read into the record the statement made in that connection on behalf, I am sure, of all members of the house and of the people of Canada generally on the importance of that event. It is as follows:
The historic significance of this council meeting is apparent to us all. The German Federal Republic, as a result of agreements freely concluded, and which have been approved by our legislatures, now becomes a member of NATO- an organization devoted solely to international peace,

NATO Council Meeting
security and welfare. We warmly welcome Chancellor Adenauer as the first representative of Germany to our council, and as a man who has already proven his devotion to the ideals we share.
We are here also to examine in confidence and frankness the international situation, particularly in the light of recent developments. That situation, at least in Europe, has improved. This gives us reason for satisfaction, but none for abandoning those policies which have to a large extent been responsible for that improvement.
This council meeting marks the successful completion of long and patient effort by those around this table and by others who are no longer with us on the council to broaden and strengthen the basis of our NATO association.
It marks also a new phase in the development of both European unity and the Atlantic community. France and Germany, not because they forget" but because they remember the past, have come together in a western European union which includes Italy, Belgium. The Netherlands, Luxembourg and also Great Britain whose vision across the seas has not prevented the acceptance of a new and indispensable European role. Europe, however, even a uniting Europe, is not enough, and NATO, the vigorous and hopeful expression of the Atlantic idea, is recognition of that fact.
NATO is growing stronger and free Germany adds to that strength. This strength is, however, merely a means to an end, international peace and security. Therefore we must exploit every genuine opportunity to seek by negotiation solutions for the problems which tcday keep alive fears and tensions in the world.
This remains our most important NATO task. Only strength and steadiness will see it through .to a successful conclusion.
All these things have been said so often by so many so much better than I have been able to do that I feel almost apologetic for repeating the obvious. I am, however, grateful for the 'opportunity to reaffirm, and on an occasion of such momentous importance, the loyalty of the government and people of my country to the ideals of peaceful and fruitful co-operation which inspire this great Atlantic organization, into which we now welcome our German colleagues. The developments which have culminated in this meeting give us greater reason for faith and confidence in the future.
X am sure we all share that faith and confidence in the future and we all hope that France and Germany will not have to forget but rather will remember the past to make effective and lasting their united efforts to further peace and happiness in the world.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I feel it would be appropriate that I should say a few words with regard to the statement the Prime Minister has placed on the record concerning this extremely important event that has taken place today. It is in fact one of the most unique events in history. It comes on the tenth anniversary of V-E day. It comes on the tenth anniversary of a time when our forces were discovering the full horrors of Dachau, Buchenwald, Belsen and those other camps of terror. Let us never forget this because the things that happened there are things with respect to which our purpose must 
always be the prevention of any repetition of human suffering of that kind.
Remembering these things, we will have a firmer basis for the grounds of friendship that have emerged on this tenth anniversary of the day when Germany surrendered. Chancellor Adenauer said today that Germany had paid the price of the terrible leadership to which the people had submitted. He could say that because he was one man who paid a price himself for opposing personally the evil forces that Hitler had let loose. Chancellor Adenauer also said in his remarks today, and I thought these words were memorable, that from this dreadful punishment Germany had emerged cleansed and purified and that the German people were ready to go forward recognizing the price of leadership of the kind from which they had suffered.
It seems to me this is a day to remember the things that have happened but it is also a day for great hope. As we welcome Germany into the western fellowship, I think we should also pay our tribute to France which, with all the millions of graves to remind her of German aggression, has welcomed in terms of friendship an enemy of so short a time ago. France has more reason than any other nation in the world to be conscious of what German aggression means. This day can be one of the turning points of history. This can well become one of the most memorable dates that people will recall centuries from now if the spirit of that great German, Chancellor Adenauer, continues to guide the German people in the years ahead.


AUSTRIAN PEACE TREATY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. S. Zapliiny (Dauphin):: In the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to whom notice was sent, may I address this question to the Prime Minister and perhaps he will take it as notice. With respect to the Austrian treaty now under consideration, has the minister or the government made any representations to the United States, Great Britain or France with regard to section 16 of the proposed treaty which may have drastic effects upon the status of political refugees now residing in Austria?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I shall bring the question to the attention of the officers of the Department of External Affairs, and have a reply prepared which I will communicate to the house.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue? In view of the speculation raised by an editorial in today's Globe and Mail regarding the minister's previous knowledge of the Dempsey affair, will the minister clarify the situation by making a statement to the house? I have sent him a copy of this question.


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: The hon. gentleman sent me notice of his question a few minutes before I came into the house. I might say that I am not overly interested in the speculation from any source. I have certain duties and responsibilities as Minister of National Revenue, and those duties and responsibilities I have discharged for the past ten years without fear or favour.
Under section 133 of the Income Tax Act and section 55 of the succession duty act, I must observe the secrecy provisions of those acts and not disclose to anyone, not entitled to know, any matter concerning any estate in question. The estate in question involved both income tax and succession duties. The Ontario provincial treasurer, Premier Frost, is entitled to any information the Department of National Revenue has with reference to succession duties. Interchange of information is a common practice. I admit that I had a conference with Mr. Frost while he was in Ottawa. He had to leave hurriedly, so that the conference was incomplete. I am not in a position to disclose any information that passed between us at that time.
ILater:]


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wonder if I might ask the Minister of National Revenue a supplementary question, arising out of his answer to the earlier question addressed to him. In view of the speculation which this whole matter has naturally aroused, I would like to ask whether he shares the views which were expressed in connection with another appointment elsewhere, which might be summarized by asking him whether he feels that what is good for the Guaranty Trust is good for the Dominion of Canada.


James Joseph McCann: I am very much interested in the hon. member's interest in Ontario politics.
[Later:!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National
Inquiries of the Ministry Revenue. Can he tell us where he finds in section 133 of the Income Tax Act permission to disclose information to Premier Frost which he is not able to disclose to this parliament, to which the minister is responsible.


James Joseph McCann: I quoted section 133 with reference to the Income Tax Act and section 54 of the succession duty act; and it was under section 55 of the succession duty act that Premier Frost, as treasurer of Ontario, was entitled to any information we have.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, some days ago in answer to a question by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) I told the house I would make a statement shortly regarding the Canadian forces in Korea.
As the house is aware, the 2nd battalion, Queen's Own Rifles of Canada, which had completed its normal tour of duty with the commonwealth forces in Korea, embarked on April 6 and has now returned home.
Discussions concerning the reorganization of the commonwealth forces in Korea are continuing between the commonwealth governments concerned and the United States government which, at the request of the United Nations, provided the unified command for the United Nations forces in Korea. Pending the outcome of these discussions, the Canadian destroyer H.M.C.S. Sioux, and the 3rd Canadian field ambulance, Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps, supporting the commonwealth forces, will remain in Korea.
It is not intended to replace the Queen's Own Rifles in Korea; and the 1st battalion, Royal Highland Regiment of Canada, Black Watch, which would have relieved the Queen's Own, will continue its normal training at Aldershot, Nova Scotia.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimali-Saanich):: May
I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Defence, based upon the reply he gave to the hon. member for Kamloops. Are any headquarters of the Canadian forces being retained in Japan, or at other points in the Far East, in addition to the field ambulance and naval units to which he referred?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Administrative troops and supplementary details have been pretty well

Inquiries of the Ministry run down, and while there are some officers remaining there will not be a full headquarters.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON CONDITION IN SASKATCHEWAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister give a report on the result of the recent storm and flood condition in Saskatchewan, and state whether the situation will be declared a national emergency?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member sent notice of his intention to ask this question. I am not in a position to make a factual report as to the results of the recent storm and flood condition in Saskatchewan.
As to the second part of the question, there is never any occasion for declaring a national emergency. What we have to decide on the information we receive is whether or not the disaster is of such magnitude as to require assistance from the federal government, to cope with its consequences.
In that connection I am still exchanging telegrams with the premier of Saskatchewan, and I am still expecting factual information about the situation, which information will be carefully considered and on which my colleagues and I will decide whether we would take the responsibility of recommending the application of federal funds to the restoration of the situation which has arisen.


George Alexander Drew: May I ask this supplementary question. In view of the reports we heard over the radio today about the flooding of the Qu'Appelle valley and the extent of the immediate damage, has consideration been given to the wisdom of assisting local communities out there by moving in members of the armed forces, particularly the engineering services, to assist in what is undoubtedly a very urgent problem?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The premier of Saskatchewan has not suggested that there would be advantage in having engineers from the armed forces moved in. I am sure that he is looking very carefully after the interests of the people of Saskatchewan and that he will not fail to bring to our attention anything that he feels should be done on behalf of the Canadian people as a whole through the federal government.
EMr. Campney.]


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, without extending this discussion unnecessarily, I would point out that there may be occasions upon which even the provincial premiers, with their deep concern, might not be aware of all the facilities that are available to move the engineers in there by air transport.


Mr.   Si. Laureni@: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the premier of Saskatchewan has made himself quite familiar with everything that has been done in recent years, when there were other disasters which occurred in other parts of Canada, and that he will not neglect any aspect of precedents that have been established to support his contention that this is a case where there should be federal assistance.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, April 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gregg for the second reading of Bill No. 328, respecting unemployment insurance.
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, the other evening when the minister moved second reading of the bill, we had had it in our hands for some considerable time. We have now had the bill for something over a month. I suppose if we had it for a year we would still see in it something that had previously escaped our notice.
Since it is the duty of the official opposition to inquire into the provisions of any legislation presented to the house, there are a few things I would like to bring to the minister's attention. It is true that we shall have the opportunity to examine the measure clause by clause when it is placed before the standing committee on industrial relations. However, there are one or two points I should like to make at this time.
This bill proposes amendments which will have a serious effect on the administration of the act. Some of the provisions of the bill are rather wide in their scope. For one thing, up to the present time insured persons have been educated to the daily contribution basis of making contributions to the fund. They will now have to be re-educated to the weekly contribution basis. Members in the house will be interested to know just what plans the department has made for this change-over.
I recall very well that when the Unemployment Insurance Act first came into being there was an extensive educational program, involving regional conferences, where employers and employees were instructed as to the effects of the act, and representatives of commerce and industry had laid down to

them the manner in which they must proceed to insure their employees. I was at two or three of these conferences myself and I recall the time which was spent in instructing employers generally with respect to the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Now that the basis of contribution is changed rather radically, I wonder what provision the minister has made for re-educating people who have become so used to the old system of daily contributions.
As I said at the resolution stage and again the other evening, Mr. Speaker, the members of this group are opposed to the reduction in the maximum benefit period from 51 weeks to 30 weeks. If I recall the minister's remarks correctly, and if he claimed that only 3 [DOT] 5 per cent of payments were paid for the maximum period, a matter with which I would like to deal at a later stage, then I fail to see why it was necessary to reduce the maximum period, as is now suggested. I am not using particularly as an argument the fact that only 3-5 per cent were paid for the maximum period because, in my opinion, the matter must be viewed from the standpoint of the rights of the individual rather than from the impact which such action would have on the fund.
I might also draw attention to the fact that contribution rates have likewise been raised, notably in the case of those workers who are in the higher wage bracket and who have more continuity of employment and consequently are not so apt to benefit. I might say in this regard, Mr. Speaker, that persons over the age of 60 years, let us say, have received a relatively high proportion of the total benefit days paid. For instance, such persons received in the calendar year 1953 a total of 8,125,160 benefit days or 18-2 per cent, out of a total benefit days paid of 44,660,188. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it would seem that elderly people-I would not have the temerity to call a person 60 years of age elderly, but those persons who have passed 60, let me say-are more likely to be eligible for the maximum duration of regular benefits. Retired persons would therefore constitute a group most likely, in my opinion, to be affected by the reduction in the maximum benefit period.
Much has been made of the new classifications in the act, under the new rates of contribution and benefits. I should like to draw attention to the fact that in the top bracket the employee and the employer alike are now supposed to pay 60 cents a week as against the old maximum of 54 cents a week, so that there is an additional contribution of 12 cents per employee per week. Added to that is the government's share of the contribution, which means that the fund will benefit to the
Unemployment Insurance Act extent of approximately 15 cents a week per employee for those persons who are in the highest contribution bracket. Despite those additional contributions, the claimant will actually receive considerably less than he would have received at the old rate. At the old rate he would have received 51 weeks' benefit of $24 a week, a total of $1,224. Under the new scheme he will receive 30 weeks' benefit, at $30 a week, or a total of $900. It is true, Mr. Speaker, that I am not dealing at the moment with supplerrientary benefits, or with what now would be called seasonal benefits.
In other classifications maximum benefits under the new act are in excess of $300 less than those obtainable under the old act. I hold in my hand some calculations which have been made, and I find that persons who are now in the $35 a week class of earnings actually will receive $441 less under the new act, or actually could receive as a maximum benefit $441 less under the new act than they could have received under the old act. At $30 a week they will receive $378 less, and even at $50 a week they will receive $414 less than they could have received as maximum benefit under the old act. Of course, those calculations are based on just what information is available to us. For instance, under the amendments which are being made to the act, the regulations under which those seasonal benefits will now be administered are still a mystery to us. As a matter of fact, until the commission has made the regulations which it is entitled to make under the provisions of these amendments, none of us will know precisely what the seasonal benefits will amount to, nor how they are to be administered.
With regard to the contributions which I referred to a moment ago which will be made to the fund, I have taken the figures which appear in the Labour Gazette for April, 1955, showing estimates of the insured population under the Unemployment Insurance Act. These figures appear on page 483 under table E-4. There I find that in December of 1954, the last month for which figures are available, there were 3,275,000 persons insured under the Unemployment Insurance Act. If we estimate that 50 per cent of these people are in the top contribution bracket- and I think that is, if anything, a little on the low side because the last figures which are available to us are for 1951, four years ago, when there were 47 [DOT] 39 per cent in the top insured bracket, and everyone knows how wages have increased since then-we find in the last report which is available for unemployment and payrolls, the average weekly wage for Canada as of February 1, 1955, was
3568	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance Act $60.12, and the employees reported numbered nearly 2,500,000. As a matter of fact, with the exception of four provinces, all provinces reported their averages as considerably above the maximum mentioned in the provisions of the new act. If then we tend to be a little on the conservative side and take only 50 per cent of the insured population as a reasonable number, and calculate the amount of the additional contribution which will be paid by this 50 per cent from employer and employee and the government's contribution, we shall find that in one year, even if the number of insured persons does not increase, the additional contributions to the fund will be something of the nature of $13 million. As a matter of fact, just on those figures which I have quoted, I make it $12,772,500 additional contributions to the fund from that class of workers in the coming year. Far from being a drain on the fund, this class of worker, who over the years has been the backbone of the fund, who has contributed more to the fund than any other class, will continue to contribute a great deal more than any other individual class.
I would think it might be well for us to consider again this maximum period; rather than to cut the maximum period for benefits we should find jobs for these people. Employed persons are not a drain on the fund; quite the reverse, they are the people who build it up. Those people who tend to lose most from this deal which is proposed in the amendments are those persons who have given, and who will continue to give, the most to the fund.
I should like also to make some remarks with reference to permissible earnings. I hope that when we are in committee the minister will be able to tell us just what type of thinking prompted the limitation on a man earning from $6 or $8 a week to earning no more than an additional $2 a week while the man who receives $30 a week is to be allowed $13 a week in addition. Under the old act and regardless of the benefit classification a man was permitted to earn up to $2 a day which frequently amounted to some $14 a week and in the majority of cases amounted to about $12 a week.
It is almost impossible to determine the intent of some of the sections of this bill without knowing what regulations are likely to be put into effect. I have mentioned already the difficulty that we have had trying to discover just what the benefits are likely to be for those persons who qualify for seasonal benefits, particularly if they are in the class of persons to which I have referred, those who have been retired from business but who still apply for employment.
[Mrs. Fairclough.l
I notice instances where conditions governing rights are described merely as being subject to such regulations as may be prescribed by the commission. I suppose we shall not know for some time just what those regulations will be. How can we know whether the provisions of the act will meet the situation if such provisions are limited by phrases such as the one I have mentioned?
In my remarks at the resolution stage I referred to the necessity of evolving some plan to cover fishermen. I had rather hoped that when the amendments were available in bill form we would find that this matter had been taken care of. However, on going over the amendments very carefully I find that there has been no inclination to cover this class of worker. I strongly urge the minister and his officials to undertake such planning without delay because now that we are coming into the summer season we should be making plans to cover people who are likely to be affected when cold weather strikes us once more.
I must say that I am disappointed in the various sections which deal with the setting up of committees. Even in the description of the personnel of the commission there is no reference to the inclusion of women either on the commission or on the committees. I feel most strongly that there should be a woman commissioner. I have spoken on this matter before in this house, on the estimates and when we were considering amendments to the act, and I once again draw to the attention of the minister the fact that no provision has been made for the appointment of a woman commissioner.
I think this should be done even though it means the enlargement of the commission by one person. I believe also that the advisory committee and the national employment committee should likewise have women members. It would appear to be a simple thing to stipulate this in the redrafting of the act. I hope that when the matter is before the committee the minister will show an inclination to consider this point and make the necessary amendments to put it into effect.
Speaking of the commission and the rules which govern the appointment of commissioners, I must say that one is led to wonder why the government, which has expended such large sums of money and such a tremendous amount of eloquence in advocating that older workers should not be retired on the ground of chronological age while still physically and mentally fit to perform the duties of their office, should now reduce the eligible service age of commissioners from 70 years, as specified in the old act, to the 65 years now prescribed in the revision.

With regard to the composition of the boards of referees, again I submit that there should be women on these boards. When I make that comment I am thinking of the substantial percentage of appellants to the boards of referees who are women. I am sure that those members of the minister's department who are thoroughly experienced in this field will agree with me that a large percentage of appellants are women and consequently there should be women appointed to these boards of referees.
I cannot find either that the new bill makes any reference to veterans other than in one small instance. Undoubtedly there will be problems affecting those who are presently in European service and those who have returned from Korea. There is no section of the act as it now stands which permits special service to these men. I should like very much to know just how the commission proposes to handle their cases and whether they are to be given any special consideration, consideration which I think they deserve because of their long absence from this country.
In the explanatory notes which appear at the beginning of the act it is noted that one of the objectives was the rearrangement of the sections and parts of the act to bring them into context with other sections of related nature and to clarify the text. At first study it appears to me that the rearrangement consists in substantial measure in the elimination of those clauses which are difficult to administer, and again I cite the old sections Nos. 101 to 107 dealing with veterans. I realize that some of the provisions relating to veterans are no longer required in connection with those particular workers, but undoubtedly those sections were difficult to administer. Then there are the sections dealing with short-time claimants and others of a like nature.
In my estimation the general tenor of the revisions has been bureaucratic in the extreme. Apparently anything which irritates the administration must be dealt with. As I said the other evening, nothing has brought this attitude to my mind so emphatically as the minister's reference to what he termed interim arrangements. On looking up my previous remarks I find that I referred to this on April 26 as reported on page 3202 of Hansard. I should like to place my words once more on the record, and they are:
The minister referred a few moments ago to an interim arrangement which would take care of those persons who have had their benefits drastically curtailed by the reduction which is contemplated, from 51 weeks to 30 weeks. He used a few words in describing these people which brought home to me, even more forcibly than an examination of the bill had done, just how far 50433-226
Unemployment Insurance Act
the thinking of the government and the commission has gone along the lines of a bureaucratic approach to the administration of this act.
I have already mentioned the elimination of the clauses dealing with veterans and with short-term claimants. In addition, right through the act there is the tendency to substitute the word "is" for the former words "may be". There is also a tightening up of the time element with reference to appeals. In many instances where 60 days, 90 days or 6 months were allowed, the new act stipulates that 30 days only will be allowed.
As I examined this act I was amazed at the number of instances where I found the words "is final and is not subject to appeal to or review by any court". In the old act, Mr. Speaker, I can find only one circumstance which prohibits appeal to the civil courts, but in the new act there are a number of them; there are at least half a dozen and probably more. I am not a lawyer, but as a layman I fail to understand how it can happen that a body corporate which can sue or be sued can inaugurate legislation which deprives citizens of their inalienable right of impartial hearing and judicial decision as to whether the citizen's views or those of the commission shall prevail. I find this to be a step in the wrong direction. Once more we slide towards the bureaucratic philosophy. In any other group such provisions would be met with the charge of calculated lawlessness. In this group, where the backing of the government is behind those who propose these changes, I must admit that I can hardly think of a term with which to describe the tendency.
I should like to draw attention to the problems which face administrators of this act. Probably the main point which immediately assails the eye, on perusing the statistical data which are available, is that the average period of unemployment has been lengthening each year. I refer to the recently published reference paper No. 58, entitled "The Labour Force", which covers the period of the last ten years and which just came to my desk the other day. From this report and from the reports which I have received since January from the bureau of statistics, I find these interesting facts.
In January of this year there were 23,000 persons who had been looking for work for between seven and twelve months. When I speak about the term of seven to twelve months, Mr. Speaker, I should like the members of this house to recall that these are the people who are going to be affected by this reduction from 51 weeks to 30 weeks. There were 23,000 of those people in January of this year as against less than 10,000 in January of 1954; in fact, in every January reported for the last ten years there were less

Unemployment Insurance Act than 10,000. In February of this year we had
26,000	persons reported as seeking work for more than seven months. Last year in February we had 13,000. The year before we had less than 10,000, and that record goes back for several years. In March of this year we had 31,000 people seeking work for more than seven months. Last year in March we had 17,000. There were nearly twice as many this year. The year before that we had less than 10,000 and so on. The picture is pretty much the same. Going back to 1950, which now seems a long time ago, I see that there were 20,000 in that year also. However, in 1954 as the season progressed right up until the end of June, these figures with regard to persons seeking work for more than seven months gradually increased; and if the same pattern is followed this year we can expect that the figure for those persons seeking work for a period of seven to twelve months will have increased in 1955 as it did in 1954.
I do not know whether that is the reason that the government has decided to cut these off from benefits. I do not know whether they have decided that, since there are so many more who are seeking work for a longer period of time, they must refuse to them the benefits to which they are entitled under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I should not like to think that. I hope that, when we come to the consideration of these individual clauses, it will turn out that there has been some other thinking which prompted that action. But whether or not that was the reason, Mr. Speaker, that is the result. There are more and more people each year who are unemployed for longer and longer periods of time. I do not intend to put on the record any more statistics in this regard, but I refer hon. members to this copy of "The Labour Force", page 67, table 11, from which they can see that the same situation applies to all of the applicants. In the four to six months' period looking for work they will find that the numbers have substantially increased.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that we have a special problem in the winter months. It is a problem which has been recognized by everyone who has examined unemployment insurance and the causes of unemployment. As winter is a formidable foe in warfare, I think it would be well if we considered that it is also a formidable foe in employment. Thinking along these lines, I recall the time when Sir Winston Churchill, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, was speaking of the alibi which Hitler had given to his people for the losses in the winter campaign. Sir Winston Churchill said, "He found out they have winter in Russia", a very elemental lesson, and one that Napoleon also learned.
fMrs. Fairclough.]

I suggest that it is about time this government found out that we have winter in Canada every year.
Every year the figures with regard to unemployment have increased over the last few years until this year on March 19-the date for which we received the highest figures on applications for employment-they had reached the staggering figure of 633,000. I do not wonder that those persons who are charged with the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act should feel a little bit nervous about this situation. But after all, Mr. Speaker, unemployment insurance is, at best, only a palliative. Undoubtedly it has saved us this year from a major crisis but I urge the minister to get busy now to make plans for employment, not for unemployment. I urge that he do not sit back and wait for the report from the new royal commission on economic prospects. You will not have that report for at least two years, and that means two more winters that we must go through before we can even find out what the findings of that commission will be. Spring is the time, in my estimation, for the start of an investigation into and assessment of the situation with which we are faced. I noticed a Canadian Press dispatch from Ottawa in the Hamilton Spectator of last Saturday headed, "Jobless Figures Falling Faster, Officials Claim". The article reads in part as follows:
However, present Information indicates that the number of jobless still is numerically higher than at the same time last year.
Apparently it is a matter for some elation that the figures as to jobless are falling despite the fact that we still have more people unemployed than at the same time last year. The article continues:
One of the reasons for this, the informant said, is that employment has not kept pace with a growth of 100,000 in the labour force.
If that is true, if that is the reason, then I would think it is all the more reason why the minister should be considering seriously what he is going to do about the winter of 1955-56. Now that the unemployment figures are falling, as this press release indicates, now when an inquiry into the causes of the circumstances surrounding unemployment could scarcely be termed traitorous, as was the allegation almost against those persons who did make some inquiries into it, now in the spring when everyone feels a little hopeful we might take an objective view of the whole employment picture not merely to determine the number of people who are without work but in order to make a careful study of the steps necessary to provide the maximum of employment for the workers of this country.

It is no use to procrastinate until a crisis is upon us. In this regard the government has acted very much like the lazy man with the leaky roof. When it was raining hard he could not get up on the roof to repair it and when it was not raining it did not leak, so he just let it go. I was very much interested to read in a recent issue of the Fundy Fisherman some remarks with which I should like to close these few comments. In doing so, I urge once more upon the minister careful consideration of the criticisms that have been made of these amendments, and in particular some action with regard to unemployment. The editorial commences by saying:
Unemployment In any country Is not only a useless luxury but a terrific waste which no nation can really afford.
After further pertinent remarks, the editorial concludes in this way:
But, to accept unemployment in Canada as something of a chronic condition is both unwise and unnecessary; and unworthy of a strong and vigorous people that has a mighty task ahead in building up the nation to become one of the truly great nations of the world.
I hope that all the way through the consideration of the bill we can keep these views before us and that we will judge these amendments not only from the standpoint of expediency or the ease with which the act can be administered by the officials but also from the very human aspect of what it is that is needed in the country to give employment to our people and how best the government can serve the workers of Canada.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of going into the ramifications of unemployment. When the minister spoke on the resolution preceding the bill he made a pretty comprehensive statement which enabled members taking part in the discussion to make a broad survey of unemployment and the necessary amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Therefore I am not going to go into that again but am going to try to say a few things at this time that I did not say when I spoke previously.
I have listened to a lot of people talk about unemployment and unemployment insurance, but while they talk for 40 minutes and tell us everything we know about unemployment the only solution they have to offer is: What is the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) going to do about it? That is a pretty broad question to ask the poor little Minister of Labour.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It is his job, is it not?


Clarence Gillis: No, it is not. He does not create employment and he does not operate any plants or factories. You see, the solution to
50433-226J
Unemployment Insurance Act the question posed by the hon. member who spoke last lies outside of the house. After the criticisms I heard her make I was reasonably sure she was going to finish her speech by saying that for the past few winters, in fact, since 1945, the situation has been growing worse, and I might remind her here that there is nothing wrong now that a little war would not solve.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: You could say that but I could not.


Clarence Gillis: I know you could not. You would be thrown out of your party, but it is true. You know what Korea did for us when we were tailspinning.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: You and I are both too old to get into it anyway.


Clarence Gillis: I did my share in the one I could get into; make no mistake about that. I figured that the hon. member was going to finish her speech by saying that after a pretty thorough test of the efforts of those outside the House of Commons to run the country, the exploitation of our natural resources and to provide employment, we still have unemployment. We have given our free economy a fairly good chance since 1867 to demonstrate whether it could cure the problem of recurring unemployment, and it has not done so. The hon. member recognized that quite clearly in her criticisms. I thought she was going to finish her speech by saying that the one thing that would help a great deal would be if the employers of the country would sit down around the bargaining table with the employees and say that they accepted the principle of a guaranteed annual wage and would work it out by collective agreement.
That would be one good bit of advice to those who employ people in this country. The government has already done that. All civil servants have a guaranteed annual wage. They know that over 365 days of the year they are going to receive a pay cheque twice a month to pay the accumulation of bills brought about by the necessity of living.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Will the hon. member permit a question? Would the hon. member say that the great number of people laid off by the government in the income tax department three or four years ago could say they had a guaranteed annual wage?


Mr. Winters:: They were not civil servants.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: They certainly were.


Clarence Gillis: I said civil servants. I did not say temporary employees.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Nine years temporary.


Mr. Macdonnell:: Splitting hairs.

Unemployment Insurance Act


Clarence Gillis: What about the guarantee they had in 1930 when charwomen were thrown out on the street? Let us not get into that kind of argument.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: All right, but you brought it up.


Mr. Churchill:: You are losing. That is why.


Clarence Gillis: No. I can take you back to some of your solutions for unemployment in the 1930's-slave camps with people being paid 20 cents a day. I am not vulnerable on this question at all. I have always done the kind of thing I am doing now. I have always tried to make sensible proposals with respect to the unemployed in order to enable them to get food, clothing and shelter. I never did consider it a subject for propaganda. It should not be used as such. That is the great difficulty. There are so many people who pay lip service to the problem but refuse to face up to it and find a solution by making changes. You cannot cure unemployment by carrying on as we have carried on since 1867, that is by getting the occasional war to relieve it and then returning to a condition of unemployment as soon as this supply and demand formula fails.
As I said in the beginning, I am not going into all the ramifications of this bill. The bill is going to a committee where it will be studied clause by clause. Before the committee studies the bill we are going to have the benefit of the opinion of the two labour congresses, who have been studying it for some considerable time. We shall also, I hope, have the benefit of the views of the manufacturers association, who will give us the other side of the story. Any specific criticisms I have to make concerning this bill I shall hold until I have the benefit of these discussions. Then, when the bill is before the committee, we will study it section by section.
I should like to say this for the benefit of the minister. Since we received the bill we have looked at it and have done some work on it ourselves as a committee of our caucus. We have talked to some people about the bill. Before the bill is finally passed, there is one change about which I feel the minister should think and that is the change from 51 weeks to 30 weeks of benefits. As the minister himself pointed out during the course of his presentation, actually only about 4 per cent of the recipients of unemployment insurance are affected. If there are only 3 per cent or 4 per cent affected, the cost is not very great and I do not see any reason for the change. If 3 per cent or 4 per cent of the recipients of unemployment insurance are going to lose out by this change from 51 weeks to 30 weeks, then I feel the minister should consider continuing the old section of the act.
[Mr. Macdonnell.l
The next point I should like the minister to consider is the change in the categories. Something has been done about it. A couple of additional categories have been created. About 43 per cent of those now covered by unemployment insurance will fit into the ceiling of $57, but I think there should be another category from $57 tew at least $63. There are a great many employees, particularly in the building trades, who make up to $100 per week. Now, these people are seasonal employees and by making $57 the top bracket those who earn much more than that will suffer. I am thinking of those in the building trades, the automobile industry, and there are categories in other industries in which the wages are much higher than that. I feel the minister should consider establishing another category from $57 to around $63 or higher if he so desires. I think he should take a look at that particular problem.
I am disappointed also that regulation 5A, section 35, of the act, still remains there. This is the beartrap to which I referred when I spoke at the resolution stage, under which married women are penalized. Everyone with whom I have talked about that particular section, both in and out of the house, thinks it should be removed. It is an administrative headache, anyway. I know that in my own part of the country the board of referees would like to have it removed because the case of every married woman who makes application finally gets into their hands, and it is a headache.
The supplementary benefits also require looking over, I believe. Those who receive supplementary benefits under unemployment insurance year by year are the seasonal workers. In this country the seasonal workers make up about 25 per cent of the working force. The change that is being made now in that particular section will cause suffering to a lot of people. These are the ones who are obliged to go the full term under the act, then take supplementary benefits, and finally even those run out and they are totally unemployed. I believe we will have to take a good look at that. In my judgment the act should provide that any person who is unemployed should receive unemployment insurance until such time as he is gainfully employed; that has always been my conception of an unemployment insurance act. Unless it does that, it is not serving the purpose it was intended to serve.
There is another matter about which I should like the minister to think. I do not know whether he can do anything about it except consult with the Department of National Defence. The Canadian Legion made a proposal to the veterans affairs committee

when we were considering the Veterans Benefit Act a week or so ago. At the moment service personnel are covered if they are in the special force in Germany or Korea. Service personnel in the regular forces are covered up to July of this year. Any person who enlists in the regular army for a period of five years or seven years will not be covered for unemployment purposes after July of this year. The Legion recommended that the committee should consider the possibility of bringing all service personnel under unemployment insurance on a contributory basis.
We discussed this proposal at considerable length and reported to the defence department that consideration should be given to it. There are men who will enlist in the regular forces for three years, five years or seven years and after they are in for a couple of years they discover they just cannot go through with it and make the armed forces their vocation. There are many reasons for that. These people find themselves coming out of the service after three or four years, with no right to unemployment insurance. While I am not committed in my own mind one way or the other, I think this is a problem that is going to develop after July of this year. The veterans affairs committee referred the matter to the Department of National Defence, requesting them to conduct a poll of opinion in the services as to whether or not service personnel wanted unemployment insurance on a contributory basis. I believe the Minister of Labour should consult with the Minister of National Defence and get the officers of their department who have training in that field to take a look at the matter. The Legion was rather strongly in favour of insurance for the regular forces on a contributory basis after July of this year.
As I said when I began, Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of going over all the things I said at the resolution stage. I am going to conclude my remarks at this point, Mr. Speaker, and shall wait for the committee stage to discuss it clause by clause.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) I do not intend to detain the house for any lengthy discussion at this time. Like the hon. member, I believe that discussion can take place more properly in committee. It has been our experience in the past that committees have done good work, and I believe that is the best place to discuss any changes we think should be made to the bill.
However, as the discussion proceeded in the house this afternoon, I could not help
Unemployment Insurance Act thinking that perhaps the minister in charge of the bill has the wrong title, and that he should be known as the minister of unemployment. Certainly in no sense is he the Minister of Labour, and reference was made to that point only a few moments ago.
Some may say, "That has nothing to do with the bill", but in my judgment it has everything to do with it. It is a good and commendable thing that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg)-and as that is his proper title I shall refer to him in that way- has the responsibility of making provision for people when they are out of work. But that is not the solution to the problem. In. my view the only solution is to see that people are employed. The hon. member for Cape Breton South has said that this is a duty of some organization outside the House of Commons. I do not share that view; I think it is very much the duty of the political party in charge of this parliament, and of which this government forms a part. The inference was left of course that it was the function of industry to provide jobs. That of course is the socialist conception, and we hear them clamouring when there is unemployment to the degree we have it today. They say that industry is at fault.
Let me point out to them that the primary function of industry is to provide goods, and that it has done an excellent job. In fact, industry has done such a good job that it has produced more than we are consuming, with the result that they have actually worked themselves out of a job.
Reference has been made to the guaranteed annual wage. I shall not discuss that subject on this occasion but-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you for it or against it?


Charles Edward Johnston: You will find' out, without any doubt, when the question is under debate. But let me say this to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You could answer very quickly; it is just yes or no.


Charles Edward Johnston: Let me say this to him, that ever since 1935, if his memory goes back that far, and I am sure it does-


Stanley Howard Knowles: It goes back to 1919, too.


Charles Edward Johnston: -we were the first in the House of Commons who came out clearly and stated that the people should be guaranteed an annual purchasing power,, so that they could buy the goods industry-was producing. And we have had plenty of criticism for the stand we took. Let anyone stand up in the House of Commons and say

Unemployment Insurance Act this is not so. We have been criticized by other parties in the house because of that very thing. Despite this we see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre standing in his place and saying, "Are you in favour of it, or are you not?" Since when did he come alive?
We have always maintained that the way to solve the unemployment problem is to put purchasing power into the hands of the people, so that they can buy the goods industry is producing. Once that is done, immediately industry will begin to produce more goods and create jobs, without any force being used. The demand will be there, and the jobs will be forthcoming.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South said, in effect: "Well, this unemployment problem is not so great that it could not be solved by a little war." Of course the hon. member was not suggesting that we should have a war; but the cold, hard fact is that in this country, under a Liberal or a Conservative government, we have never been able to solve our problem of unemployment until war came along and did it for us. There is no use hanging our heads and saying, "Well, that is not the way to talk. You are talking war, and that is a lot of silly nonsense". But when we look at the cold, hard fact we see that that is the only way our unemployment has ever been solved.
When I say to the minister that probably his department is wrongly named, there may be some merit in my suggestion. If the Minister of Labour had the job of creating conditions to defeat unemployment I believe he would show results, because he has shown great interest in the problem. I do not know of any minister who has held his portfolio who has shown greater sympathy and interest. I know the late Mr. Mitchell was highly respected in the house, but I do not think his enthusiasm or desire went beyond that of the minister now in office.
But he has an impossible task, because the government has failed to recognize this economic principle reflected in a lack of purchasing power. Then when unemployment comes along as a result of the government's policy the condition is thrown on the doorstep of the Minister of Labour, and he is told, "Get these guys jobs". It just cannot be done by any unemployment program.
I do not have to be a prophet when I say it cannot be done that way. There can be no doubt that unemployment insurance is a good thing, and I believe the minister is trying to do all he can to patch up an old and outmoded method of financing. I wish him
tMr. Johnston (Bow River).]
the best of luck, but I think his efforts are not going to achieve the results he would like to see.
There are some things in the bill about which I am not too fussy. I am glad the act is going to have a general revision. Since its inception in 1941 this will be the first. To deal in greater detail, I do not care particularly for section 52 which carries the marginal notation, "Only one period between December 1st and April 15th". I believe if we are going to have unemployment insurance it should be made applicable to an individual whenever he is unemployed. If an insured happens to receive his benefits within that stated period of time, no matter how short the time may be, he is limited to that one period. If individuals are to pay their contributions into an insurance fund, then it should be truly an insurance fund, and whenever an occasion arises the individual should receive assistance.
As I indicated at the outset of my remarks, I do not think this is the proper time to discuss details of the bill. If I began discussing the clauses I would no doubt be called to order, and quite properly so. Speaking generally, I believe the minister is endeavouring to make an improvement in this instance. At the committee stage we shall take advantage of the opportunities presented to us to discuss the measure clause by clause. Therefore, with that in mind, I shall leave any further remarks I might have to the committee stage.


Mr. H. J. Robichaud (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I assure the house my remarks will be brief, and I say to the minister that my expressions of disappointment will not be as numerous as those indicated by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough). My observations will be limited to one clause in the bill.
In spite of views expressed this afternoon, I am convinced that the labour force in Canada will receive with great satisfaction this measure to amend and to consolidate the Unemployment Insurance Act.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) must be congratulated on introducing this measure which will strengthen further the purposes of the act and make it more effective as an insurance policy protecting our working class. I am particularly interested in the application of this act to fishermen and on this point I wish to quote remarks made by the Minister of Labour when he spoke on the introduction of the resolution. I quote from page 2714 of Hansard of April 5:
I have not given up hope that we may find a solution. I know it will not be a perfect solution but I hope we can find a good solution

somewhere, whether it comes within the field of unemployment insurance, under some special measure administered by the Department of Fisheries, or a combination of both.
I am rather disappointed, however, that no decision has been reached to date during the present session with regard to extending unemployment insurance to fishermen. I am prepared to admit that such a proposal poses some very difficult problems from an unemployment insurance standpoint, but situations offering similar or just as serious objections have been given consideration and dealt with to the satisfaction of the labour class concerned.
In April of 1951 the unemployment commission issued a report of a survey of the fishing industry and concluded its summarized recommendations with the following, as found on page 82, paragraph 279, of the report of the survey of the fishing industry in Canada by coverage division of the insurance branch. I wish to quote this paragraph from the report:
If it is necessary to augment the income derived by fishermen from fishing, subsistence farming and other employment, some form of unemployment assistance should be provided by the proper authorities rather than attempting to strain the framework of unemployment insurance to take care of a situation that is not properly an insurance function.
It is therefore recommended that the exception of employment in fishing be continued.
I have given a complete and serious study to this report, Mr. Speaker, and particularly to the section dealing with the gulf of St. Lawrence area. For this study this area covered the fishing industry of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, the Magdalen islands and the Gaspe peninsula. According to the said report, in the area covered, 19,800 fishermen are engaged in inshore fishing and 560 in deep-sea fishing. Of these 20,000 fishermen over half, or 11,000, are from New Brunswick. In dealing with inshore fishing the report states that approximately 83 per cent of the fishermen are working on shares, which is about correct. However, on page 25 of the report dealing with deep-sea fishing I find the following statement:
The home of deep-sea fishing in this area is in Gloucester county in New Brunswick. The deep-sea fishing force is about 560 fishermen. The survey covered 17 vessels or 17 per cent of the total vessels in this group. These vessels fish on the New Brunswick banks, or on the north shore banks. They are owned in the proportion of about 55 per cent by fishing firms or fish buyers and 45 per cent by one member of the crew, generally the master. The equipment is owned by the owner of the vessel.
I regret, Mr. Speaker, to have to admit that I cannot agree with this statement, which is not entirely according to facts. No fishing firm in Gloucester county, handling deep-sea
9, 1955
Unemployment Insurance Act fish, has any ownership or share in the existing fishing fleet. This deep-sea fleet, now consisting of over 60 draggers and a number of smaller vessels, is owned exclusively by individuals or by groups of fishermen who are the sole owners of their vessels.
It appears that of the total fishing force of
88.000	men in Canada, only 6,000 are wage earners; over 18,000 are loan workers and
63.000	are working on shares as working owners or as members of the crew. I realize that it may not be possible or logical to insure the owners of fishing vessels, but it seems to me that a solution could be arrived at by which wage earners and fishermen fishing on shares would be granted the privilege of unemployment insurance benefits. The share received by these fishermen, be it on a daily or on a weekly basis, is considered as the total amount of their salary or wages based on the total quantity and value of the fish landed. There is, in fact, very little difference and much similarity between the earnings of a person working in a factory being paid on piece work and the earnings of a fisherman deriving his salary from the proceeds of the fish catch landed.
I cannot agree with, and I must take exception to, the decision or recommendation of the unemployment commission report following its 1951 survey which I quoted earlier in my remarks. I cannot agree with the conclusion that some form of unemployment assistance should be provided by the proper authorities rather than attempting to strain the framework of unemployment insurance to take care of a situation that is not properly an insurance function. Whether it be the inshore fishermen spending two or three months of the year at lobster or herring fishing, whether it be the deep-sea fishermen engaged in New Brunswick at least from May to November and fishing on a share basis, these men are part of our labour force and are entitled to the benefits of this great insurance scheme instituted for the protection and welfare of our Canadian working class. Their employment is no more seasonal than that of the carpenter who has to lay off work during the winter season on account of the drastic cut in construction work, or the longshoreman who has to wait for the opening of the shipping season in the spring before resuming his work.
I realize that problems will arise with respect to the collection of contributions and the control and the administration of the act if it applies to fishermen. Some arbitrary rules may have to be enacted to determine when a fisherman becomes unemployed, but, Mr. Speaker, in most cases a fisherman is not

Unemployment Insurance Act working for himself and a certain contract of service does exist between him and the vessel owners.
Paragraph 278 of the report of the survey previously mentioned states:
It is hard to see how. under these circumstances, the extension of unemployment insurance to the fishing industry would be any advantage to most of the persons engaged in it, whether they were wage earners or share fishermen.
Here again, Mr. Speaker, I must take exception to and I cannot agree with the conclusion arrived at by the commission. We have in this country a certain group or proportion of our labour class which is known as or could be called a diversified labour group. The majority of our fishermen could easily be classified as part of this group. Let us take as an example the helper of a herring and lobster fisherman along the Northumberland strait area. From four to five weeks in the spring he is engaged in herring fishing and for two months, August and September, he is back again to help a boat owner with his lobster operations. In October he is out to the lumber camps to help in the annual cut of pulpwood, pit props or long lumber. Early in January this man is back home again after the closing of the camps which have completed their quota for the year. During this short period of employment this man has not paid enough unemployment insurance daily contributions to claim benefits for his period of unemployment from January to April. If this same man had been allowed to contribute under this act during this period of fishing in the spring and late summer, he could now qualify for benefits, and his family would not suffer the hardships and privations faced by a large number of similar cases along our entire fishing districts. Similar situations exist all along the shore of my constituency of Gloucester and in many other sections of the maritimes. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the present act still offers the possibility for the unemployment insurance commission to reconsider its decision and include a certain number of our fishermen under insurance benefits.
The immense fishing resources of Canada have contributed substantially to the general economy of our country and its considerable expansion is still of paramount importance to the coastal provinces where commercial fishing is pursued on a large scale. Canada after all leads the world in the export of its fishing products. Are we going to allow this industry to be curtailed in its expansion by penalizing the primary producers, those hardworking fishermen to whom a 44 to 48 hour week is a thing unknown? Are we going to
[Mr. Robichaud.l

endanger this expanding industry by refusing to these fishermen the security offered in other working fields?
In conclusion I urge that during this present session the Minister of Labour insist upon the unemployment insurance commission reconsidering its decision and giving further consideration to the adoption of a system which would qualify at least a certain class or type of fishermen under the unemployment insurance benefits.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Unemployment Insurance Act father of seven children. For all the years that he was self-employed he was able to provide a satisfactory income for himself, his wife and seven children. First, there came a large expense for psychiatric treatment for one of the adolescent children, a heavy medical expense. Then followed a prolonged period of unemployment.
Then followed the family's ejection from a rented property. To find shelter for a family of seven children it was necessary to purchase a home. To purchase a home it was necessary to place a chattel mortgage on their furniture and to undertake to carry a first mortgage and a second mortgage on the property as well. Naturally it was not long before there was a foreclosure and another eviction. Today the father lives with one relative, the wife and baby live with another relative, and friends have taken in the other children in order that a home may be found for them.
Here is case No. 2, also provided by the Toronto branch of the same association. In the family are the father, mother and four children. The father was laid off work last fall; no unemployment insurance was available because of lack of sufficient days. The welfare department of the city of Toronto helped the family out for a week or two. The Salvation Army provided some relief. Neighbours did what they could. The family were eventually driven to such straits that the father applied to the children's aid society and asked the children's aid to place his children in homes because they were going hungry and he could not provide for them. The children's aid society assured him that, as a respectable citizen, it was his duty to provide for the children and that they could not, under the circumstances, place them in homes. Eventually the landlord, whose rent had been getting in arrears, served eviction notice. The day the notice was received, the father walked out and has not been heard from since.
As to case No. 3, this man had been unemployed for six months. At first he was optimistic; he would get a job even though others could not. When this effort failed, he decided he would go into business for himself, selling silverware from door to door. By Christmastime he had to give it up; it was no go. The family was desperate. He became irritable and quarrelsome, his face thin and white. Finally his wife got work. He stayed home to cook. He took the children to the nursery as their mother used to do. As the weeks went by he became more ill-tempered. He began to slap his children for little provocation. He has developed a bad cough and looks sicker and sicker as
fMr. Noseworthy.]
the days roll by. When this man was gainfully employed, the social worker says, he was a happy, useful citizen. Today he is despondent, sick and dependent on his wife.
I have 15 or 20 such case histories. I do not need to read any more, other than to raise the questions which these social workers raise. They are questions that I think we, as legislators, should seek to answer. These are the questions raised by these social workers. What does a father of a family do, who is unemployed, not eligible for unemployment insurance, who day after day has gone out to look for work and day after day has had to come back at night without a nickel with which to buy food? How does he act with the most responsibility for his wife and children; by continuing to come home and thus ensure their continued hunger and possible eviction, or by desertion after which they will be taken care of by our municipal welfare departments? What health problems are we creating for the future? What does serious malnutrition over weeks and sometimes months do to adults and children? What about families whose only food for a week has been the stale loaves given to them by a sympathetic bread salesman who cannot bear to see them starve, and the mother giving a young baby sugar and water three days at a time, right in the city of Toronto? What is the use of all our research into the importance of nutrition, particularly during pregnancy, to mothers who cannot even be assured of a minimum diet?
Those are a few of the questions being raised by these social workers. Here is a government that has receded from the position of responsibility for providing employment when private industry fails, that has receded from the position of providing unemployment assistance apart from unemployment insurance, and that, finally, apparently makes no effort to bring under unemployment insurance those large groups who still remain outside, particularly the tens of thousands of young people who are seeking employment for the first time.
I suggest that the government should reconsider its whole stand and revert to the position it took in 1945. Those proposals were sound. Those proposals had the backing of every party in the house. Those proposals had the backing of the government's own research workers and economists. Those proposals are as sound today as they were in 1945. The fact that the government has not been able, in the course of ten years, to reach the agreements it desired with the provinces is no good reason why the government should shirk its responsibility regarding employment and the needs of those who are unemployed.

There is one thing the government can do to relieve a great deal of the distress existing at the present time and which will exist throughout the coming summer. It can extend the supplementary unemployment insurance benefits to the end of May at least, and make them retroactive to the date on which they were cancelled. That in itself will relieve some of those people who are now unemployed, cannot get employment and have no unemployment insurance benefits. I suggest that extension of the unemployment insurance benefits is the very least that a government having any concern for the problem of unemployment or the needs of the people who are unemployed should do at this time.


Mr. Elmore Philpoti (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise one point I have raised before but which, it seems to me, is worth repeating. I think one of the greatest weaknesses in the unemployment insurance set-up as it exists in Canada today lies in the fact that pregnant women are excluded from its benefits. I know that the most vexatious cases with which I have to deal are those arising out of the clause excluding pregnant women.
It seems to me that when the act was framed in the beginning there was some justification for this provision, but now that we have had 12 to 15 years' experience of the legislation in operation we have learned enough to establish that to include pregnant women in the benefits of unemployment insurance would not cause any undue drain on the finances of the country and would remove what I think is a great human grievance.
I do not want to get into the argument arising out of the statement made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill), but I want to place it clearly on the record that I believe the most desirable way to increase the population of Canada is to increase it in the way the Almighty himself intended it to be increased when he said, "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth."
Therefore when we come to the Unemployment Insurance Act I do not think it is a very good principle to be too technical about ruling out a woman who happens to be pregnant. Over the past few months I have had several women writing to me saying that after paying into the unemployment insurance fund for many years they became pregnant and were much astonished to find that they were excluded from the benefits. There is another point I want to raise, because I am not a member of the industrial relations committee. I certainly hope that the matter I have mentioned will be brought
Unemployment Insurance Act before that committee. I hope the whole question will be examined and evidence given by those able to do so as to what it would cost the country to make this necessary change.
If a thorough investigation of the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act were really made-I am not talking now about the committee-I think we would find there are a great many abuses in the way benefits are drawn by certain people, and even certain abuses involved in the way that industry looks upon unemployment insurance. I am not at all sure that some industries do not look upon unemployment insurance as simply a means whereby they can keep on hand a certain number of reserve workers, to be laid off when they feel like laying them off. They know they will not disperse too quickly because of the unemployment insurance benefits; therefore they can bring them back when they feel like it.
I for one would not want to be too specific about abuses, but I am informed by people who should know that in a great many cases women who become pregnant manage to make themselves made eligible for unemployment insurance benefits by knowing what to do at the right time and by having the whole situation fixed up in the right way. In other words the woman who is absolutely honest, who has her baby in the right way, who walks up to the unemployment insurance office and says, "I am pregnant", is the one who is told that she is not entitled to any benefits, so she really gets it both coming and going. She has to undergo the expense of having the child; yet in spite of the fact that she needs money she is not entitled to any benefits whatsoever.
I for one believe this great country is rich enough and has had enough experience with unemployment insurance to remove what I consider to be an unnecessary, vexatious and most unjust discrimination against women who should be the deepest and most cherished concern of all the people of Canada, the working women of Canada who are adding to our population in the way the Almighty intended them to do.


Mr. R. H. Small (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, to begin with I should like to refer to the remarks of the last speaker. I suggest that probably he and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration should get together and bring their influence to bear upon the government, because there seems to be some question as to how the increase in the population of the land should be brought about. Possibly their combined influence would be of some help in solving this very vexatious problem.

Unemployment Insurance Act
In so far as criticism is concerned, I think perhaps I can go along with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) and the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) when they say that the Minister of Labour is doing a remarkable job and should not have this government's errors of omission and commission chalked up against him. They said he was not to blame, that his department is concerned with unemployment and finding work for the unemployed, that is providing some form of subsistence within the framework of the Unemployment Insurance Act for those who are out of work.
Well, if he is not to blame, we must look elsewhere. This government have taken credit for everything that has happened in this country for the last 25 years; therefore we have to place on their doorstep the blame for the unemployment condition that exists in the country today. Whether or not we can tie the responsibility down to any particular minister is questionable, but I suppose in the aggregate they have to take responsibility for what the government does.
I should like to follow up the criticism offered by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) concerning the unemployment insurance bill that has been submitted to this house. It is contended this bill improves the act, but there is one weakness in that argument or at least it is not on very solid ground. The minister has said that there is going to be a change in the amount of benefit the unemployed can receive. For instance, in explanation of the move he said that those receiving benefits for from one to 19 weeks made up 90-1 per cent of the total. Those receiving benefits from 20 to 29 weeks comprise 6-4 per cent, and those receiving benefits for over 30 weeks comprise 3-5 per cent. The reason he gave for reducing the benefit period from 51 weeks to 30 weeks was that the average claim was for 9 weeks.
However, the supplementary benefits are to continue when the unemployed have exhausted the regular benefits they have built up. In other words, the total period during which benefits can be received will now be 45 weeks. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) mentioned certain abuses in connection with the operation of the fund. I believe this is an outstanding example of a place where abuses do not exist, according to the minister's own submission. It is quite apparent to everyone in the house that there has not been any abuse, and that the inherent honesty of these people is so great that they have not attempted to exhaust their benefits. They went back to work as soon as possible. This speaks very well for the people covered by the fund, and I feel that people who show


such outstanding honesty should not be subjected to any abridgment of their rights. The benefit provision should remain as it is because, as we all know, during the last two or three winters the period of unemployment has been gradually extended and the numbers of unemployed have been increasing. There is not much argument, therefore, for reducing the number of weeks for which benefits can be received.
If the government do pass this provision, they are working an injustice on the people by reducing the period of benefit from 51 to 30 weeks. The supplementary benefit period is 15 weeks, and when it is all added up it makes 45 weeks. Under the old scheme the unemployed received benefits for 51 weeks plus 15 weeks, but now that is to be reduced. Before reducing this period the government increased the amount that could be received both during the 51-week period and also during the supplementary benefit period.
_ This is a kind of double shuffle game. It is the old shell game; first you see it and then you don't. If the benefit period were left as it was and the payments increased, that would be worth while. The minister should be highly commended for the increase in the payment, but I think the government should be severely criticized for this double shuffle hocus-pocus that has been delivered to the unemployed.
Then there is the provision concerning those who retire at 65. These people have been paying into the fund but have never received benefits and were never expected to receive any benefits. They are compelled, under force of circumstances, to retire. It is' quite true that they are given a three-year reprieve; nevertheless they are deprived of something to which they are justly entitled. I think the minister would be well advised to reconsider that provision and bring it more into conformity with the principles of justice.
There is one other point that was mentioned by the hon. member for Hamilton West concerning clause 3, paragraph 4. It reads as follows:
A commissioner may be removed by the governor in council at any time for cause, and a commissioner ceases to hold office upon attaining the age of 65 years.
I should like to put added emphasis upon that clause, for the simple reason that I have received suggestions on many occasions from labour department brochures that some means should be found of amplifying the opportunities for employment of those people who are unfortunate enough to have reached 65 and are going to lose their position. The suggestion has been that something should be done to broaden the field of employment for

these people. Here we find the government setting an example for everyone else to follow. I believe the members of this house have had the fact brought home to them rather forcibly upon learning that some of the stenographers who have served long and well are going to be retired at 65, whether or not they are giving good service. I think probably the government should search their souls on this question. I do not want to dwell on this point, but if the government are going to emphasize it in the general labour fields they should support it.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South said the civil servants were supposed to have a guaranteed annual wage or a guaranteed job, yet we find they have not. Some of them have been let out. Some of those who have been let out were probably within two or three months of ten years' service, but they were put on the skids. They are being gradually let out, so the civil service does the very same thing of which business is accused, in that it lays off its employees. We see that most of these glaring examples have taken place in civil service groups, whether they are employed by provincial or federal governments. If it appears that the time is near when they will be classified as permanent employees, then on some pretext or other an excuse is found for letting them out before they qualify as permanent employees. And I have no doubt this government has resorted to that sort of practice. I suggest further consideration should have been given before this measure was brought in, with a view to giving work to older people.
Before passing on to another point, I would direct my remarks to the statement by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) that he would like anyone to point out any time in this country's history when an unemployment situation had been solved. He proceeded to say that his question could not be answered. Let me tell him that it can be answered.


Charles Edward Johnston: I did not say
that at all.


Robert Hardy Small: What did you say, then?


Charles Edward Johnston: I said if anyone could tell me when, under the orthodox system, either a Liberal or a Conservative government had solved unemployment except in a time of war, I would like to know when it was.


Robert Hardy Small: Then I shall tell you.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am listening.
Unemployment Insurance Act


Robert Hardy Small: After confederation it was the Macdonald regime that introduced the national policy which solved the unemployment question.


Charles Edward Johnston: What did the Conservatives do in the thirties?


Robert Hardy Small: You said it could not be answered. I will say it was also answered in the twenties, whether by a Conservative or a Liberal government. They solved the problem of unemployment in those days. And if Mr. Bennett had been given a chance to become established; if he had not been blackguarded and held up to ridicule and contumely from coast to coast by those who then formed the official opposition, he would have solved the unemployment problem, too. If he had been permitted to continue he would have done it. But he was accused of erecting armouries throughout the land to consolidate himself into a dictator. That is the kind of bunk that was handed out in those days.
When the hon. member says the unemployment problem was not solved in the past without recourse to war, then I say to him that I have given him the answer.


Charles Edward Johnston: Does not the hon. member recall that it was his own party that kicked Mr. Bennett out? Does he not recognize a good leader when he has one?


Robert Hardy Small: I was answering the hon. member's question. I think that will silence him, for a change.


Charles Edward Johnston: That kind of argument will not silence anyone.


Robert Hardy Small: I do not intend to go into the question of unemployment, which has been discussed by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy). However, I can go along with the case histories he mentioned, because I attended the meeting to which he referred, in which members from the Toronto district were invited to participate with Toronto social and welfare workers to help solve unemployment.
This is a contributory insurance scheme. What is going to happen when the reduction is made from 51 weeks to 30 weeks, with an additional 15 weeks of supplementary pay or whatever the governor in council wishes to add under the new regulation? I say this provision is going to drive more people into the position where they will have to seek help from welfare agencies.
When the act was inaugurated we understood one of its purposes was to remove the necessity of appealing to the welfare agencies. Instead of removing that necessity, this

Unemployment Insurance Act measure aggravates the condition over a period of years. I suggest the period should be restored to 51 weeks, where it rightfully belongs. Instead of improving the situation we see today, I say it will be made worse under these amendments.
I sympathize with the larger cities, where the unemployment situation predominates, in their efforts to meet the problem. I do not intend to discuss the subjects set out in the green book of 1945, any more than to say that the government has gotten out from under its undertakings and promises of that time. If the government had carried out what it suggested in 1945 I doubt whether we would have this unemployment situation today, affecting those who are classified as the employable unemployed.
My chief criticism today is that an injustice is being done those people who have been paying into the fund for a long time. An injustice is being done those people who have been honest in their applications for assistance under the act. Not only that, but an injustice is being done in that these people, when their benefits expire, are being forced onto the relief rolls in the cities.
The federal government has made promises and recently abandoned them, and now the municipal and provincial governments find they have to assume this burden, one very much like that of the hungry thirties.
Some hon. members have referred to the guaranteed annual wage. I would go along with the hon. member who levelled criticism against the automobile industry. In my view the worst offenders who have been responsible for this condition of unemployment, or who have aggravated it in the past, have been those connected with the automobile industry. While they paid high wages and gave employment for certain limited periods of the year, their employees were laid off and thrown on the relief rolls for the balance of the year in the hungry thirties. We find in the past actions of the automobile industry a glaring example of what automation will mean for the future.


Mr. Auguste Maltais (Charlevoix):: Since the Unemployment Insurance Act became effective in 1941 many modifications have been brought about. One of these, made in 1950, applied to the logging and lumbering industry. Today I shall direct my remarks to that industry, as it exists in the constituency I have the honour to represent.
I hope my words will not be construed as a criticism of the department, because I take this opportunity to thank the minister and the government for the great care they took


at the time of the amendment in 1950, following representations not only from my district but from other parts of Canada. I would hope that what I say today would receive consideration when the bill is referred to the committee on industrial relations.
Under article 26 of the regulations the lumbering and logging industry of the province of Quebec is considered a seasonal industry. That is, it is an industry purporting to run from September 30 to April 1. This may have been true five or six years ago, at which time lumbering and logging in Quebec took place for the most part in the winter months. In the last two or three years conditions have changed to a very great extent. The result is that today lumbering and logging operations in the province of Quebec extend into the month of June. I know that right today in the constituency of Charlevoix lumbering is taking place on a scale just as great as in the months of December and January. This change has been brought about through the use of mechanical devices in the lumbering industry. A person who is now employed in lumbering sees his benefit curtailed as soon as the seasonal period ends, owing to this seasonal restriction; or if it is not curtailed he is required to possess more qualifications than the ordinary employee.
One has to understand how the lumbering business is carried on to appreciate the discrimination which exists against that group of employees under the law. In the province of Quebec a person goes into the woods lumbering early in September and carries on all winter long. In a few instances he leaves the job around the end of April, to come back again around May 15 to get the wood out. That is known as the hauling business in the industry. When that is finished around June 15 many of these employees, who are sons of farmers, find that they are out of jobs and they often go back to the farms to carry on during the summer months the same type of work they had been doing during the winter, with the exception that the farms usually belong to their fathers, or the farms are family units.
Under the law, people who work on farms cannot qualify for unemployment insurance. Therefore these people again suffer discrimination when they become unemployed the following year, because the period during which they were employed on the farm cannot be counted as a period that would entitle them to stamps. When the bill goes before the committee I hope consideration will be given to either extending the seasonal period for lumbering in Quebec or to treating lumbering and logging in the same

way they are treated in British Columbia, in the light of the change that has taken place in that particular industry in the last two or three years.
The law as it now stands discourages people in the logging industry from accepting employment with farmers who are also cutting wood for the pulp and paper industry. The farmer himself is experiencing some trouble because he finds it very hard to get people to work on his farm cutting wood. One can understand why people do not like to work for farmers. It is because they cannot take advantage of the Unemployment Insurance Act as it now exists. From the employer's point of view it is rather embarrassing, because he finds it very hard to get employees. The employee is reluctant to accept a job on a farm, and he would rather try, even if he loses time, to get a job in a place where he can get some unemployment insurance benefits after the work is done.
I also believe that from an administrative point of view it is a most complicated matter. I have examples, which have been submitted to me, of persons who have been employed in the lumbering industry from the month of October to the month of May. Then they went on a farm to carry on the same type of work. During the summer one of those persons applied for benefits from the unemployment insurance fund. Before he could get anywhere he received four letters, three in the same day, explaining why he could not qualify. The other letter explained why he did not have enough stamps. It was a request for a prolongation of time. I presume that meant that to establish his period of benefit he would have to go back two years and try to find some more stamps. The third letter explained that unless this time was obtained by him he could not benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act, because he had worked on a farm.
This qualification which is imposed on a person working either in the lumbering industry or on a farm is, I should say, very hard to understand, because in the province of Quebec, and especially in my riding, it very often happens that the man who goes on a farm cannot qualify although the farmer sometimes has only chickens and perhaps a couple of cows to look after. I do not think that should be called a farm, because this man has a small farm and derives most of his revenue from outside his farm.
It might be appropriate if in some parts of this country the word "farmer" were defined. If it is very hard to define the word "farmer", then part of this country should be divided into zones and the people in those zones should be called farmers or employees
Unemployment Insurance Act working in the lumbering and logging industries. That would avoid a lot of trouble in the administration of this act.
I do not make these comments to criticize the government. In the light of the changes which have been made in the lumbering industry everywhere in Canada, where mechanical devices have been introduced, such as huge tractors to clear away the snow and equipment to improve the roads so operations can be carried on from October 1 to May 31 or sometimes into June, I would urge the unemployment insurance commission to revise its regulations and make the employment unseasonal. If it has to be seasonal it should be from early September to the end of June.
If that were done, many employees whose main living is made in the bush will be able, when they are unemployed, to take full advantage of the law. They will not be placed in the position that some other qualification will be required of them to obtain benefits under the law. I make this plea because of the many representations I have received from farmers and people employed in the logging industry in my riding.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it must be obvious to the Minister of Labour from the speeches that are being made today that there are quite a few improvements that still have to be made in the Unemployment Insurance Act. Surely it is significant that suggestions as to shortcomings in the act are being made not only by members in opposition groups but also by those members of the Liberal party who thus far have participated in the debate today.
It seems to us, now we have had a chance to study the actual bill since the debate on April 4, at which time we had the resolution and first reading of the bill, that the main improvements in the bill are in the nature of administrative changes. Most of these changes are to the good. As has been pointed out, there are some which although administratively are an improvement are not too beneficial to the workers. However, our complaint is that although there have been many administrative changes there has not been enough change in the act in terms of policy and in terms of real substance.
As I pointed out when I spoke during the resolution stage on April 4, we feel that the action the government took in 1940, in asking parliament to concur in a resolution seeking an amendment to the British North America Act to write unemployment insurance into section 91 of that act, had the effect of obligating the government, morally if not

Unemployment Insurance Act legally, to federal concern over unemployment and federal responsibility for all unemployed. Government spokesmen may make different comments on the subject now, but we feel that the acceptance of that moral obligation arising from what was done in 1940 was confirmed by the green book proposals of 1945, when the federal government talked in terms of full federal responsibility for the employable unemployed.
Even we in the opposition could not complain too strenuously when the first Unemployment Insurance Act failed to go all the way in that direction, but surely when the time has come for an overhaul of the Unemployment Insurance Act the government should be making further progress in the direction of the moral obligation that was undertaken in 1940. In our view the government should now meet the commitment that we feel was made in this field by the government in 1945. However, we look in vain in this legislation for any broadening of the acceptance by the government of federal responsibility for all unemployed Canadians.
On the other hand, at the second reading stage on April 26, which was the same day the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made his speech to the federal-provincial conference in the railway committee room, we had the statement of the Minister of Labour that in certain circumstances he regarded what was proposed by the Prime Minister as more appropriate than unemployment insurance. I must be fair to him and say that he was speaking particularly of people along in years who at present are able to qualify under certain circumstances for 51 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits but who under the terms of this new bill will qualify for only 30 weeks of benefits unless they are able to qualify for supplementary benefits for a few weeks.
It does seem to us a shameful admission on the part of the government for the Minister of Labour to say that what was proposed by the Prime Minister, namely a form of relief-that is what it is, even though it is to be shared among three levels of government-was more appropriate in some cases than unemployment insurance benefits, which as we know have been built up in this country as something the workers have as a matter of right.
We feel that this is a retreat in principle; we feel that this is a retreat from the green book proposals of 1945; we feel that it is a retreat from the moral obligation which the federal government accepted when in 1940 it asked that insurance against unemployment be written into our constitution, into section 91 of the British North America Act.
Therefore, although the government and the unemployment insurance commission may have some feeling of satisfaction that when this bill is through the act will be in better form administratively than it was before, it is a disappointment to us that it does not move further in the direction of full federal responsibility for all employable unemployed.
When some others have talked in this vein the Minister of Labour has tried to suggest that this was an attack upon the actuarial soundness of the fund. The minister knows that some of the responsible labour bodies in this country have urged that those outside of unemployment insurance as we now have it should be covered by the federal government, but that the administration of whatever payments need to be made to these people should be under the unemployment insurance commission, with any additional grants of money that may be necessary to be made from the consolidated revenue fund. We feel that an approach of that kind would be much better than the one now being considered because it has been proposed by the Prime Minister. We feel that it would be more in line with the sound principles which the federal government laid before this country in the green books of 1945.
Because I spoke at some length on April 4, and because I expect to be a member of the committee to which this bill will be referred, I am not going to speak at length now. Neither am I going to raise all the issues which I feel we must raise when the bill is before that committee. However, there are one or two items which it seems to me are of sufficient importance that attention should be called to them now.
As I indicated in the reference I made a moment ago, I join with others in protesting against the reduction of the maximum period from 51 to 30 weeks. Here we have a case of the government giving with one hand but taking away with the other. I recognize that for three years after this bill comes into effect there will be no loss in actual dollars compared with what one would have had under the old act, but once that three-year period is over we will be down to the 30-week maximum rather than the 51-week. This will come at a time when the employment situation in Canada is still a question mark. We will be faced with all the various factors, including the tremendous factor of automation. We feel that this is no time to be reducing the maximum period for unemployment insurance benefits.
We feel that there is a deficiency in the new legislation in that although there are slight increases in the rates of benefit, the gap between the rates of benefit to be drawn
[Mr. ICuowtes.i

by insured workers and their wages before going on unemployment insurance is forever widening. The increase in benefits does not keep up with the increased cost of living, which is reflected in part in increased wages.
Workers who go on unemployment insurance today, or after this act goes through, even though they may get more dollars than was the case in 1940 or in 1945 will find the gap between what they are getting on unemployment insurance and what they were getting before they became unemployed much wider than it was. We feel that consideration should be given to the need of a higher rate of benefit.
I should also like to draw attention just in passing to a change which concerns me and which I have found in the section having to do with what we call the fair employment practices aspect of the Unemployment Insurance Act. As I read the section in the old act, which was put in only a few years ago, there was a small loophole in it. I admit that loophole was there, but it was a loophole of only two or three words. In the new act that loophole has been enlarged to two or three lines or even more. It seems to me that was a fairly important amendment, and I am sorry to see the loophole being made larger.
Likewise, Mr. Speaker, as an example of a type of change that is being made, may I say that I find the position of those employed by municipal public utilities is being altered. Under the old act the wording was such that employees of municipal public utilities were, by statute, made workers in insurable employment. Under the new act that is a matter of regulation; at least the commission can, by regulation, rule such employees to be excepted from the category known as insurable employment.
I mention that point, Mr. Speaker, because I am concerned about it in its own right, and also because I think it illustrates my point that in this legislation many changes have been made which seem to have as their aim the desire to make it a little easier to administer the legislation. I sympathize with the unemployment insurance commission in the tremendous job it has and the good job it does in administering this act, and I understand it wanting to have things so that they can be worked smoothly. We understand its desire to have leeway here and there so it can adjust things to fit various situations. But we do not like to see groups of people who were specifically covered put in an uncertain category, as is the case with those working for municipal public utilities.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to keep to my promise that I would save most of the points
Unemployment Insurance Act I want to raise on this bill until we get into committee. I am glad the minister has agreed that this bill is to go to the committee on industrial relations, where I know there will be representations from interested bodies and organizations. After we have been able to go over it in that committee I hope we shall be able to bring it back to the house a better piece of legislation than it is at the present time.
But even after we get such improvements as we can win in the Unemployment Insurance Act, I remind the government that this is not the whole answer to the tremendous problem of unemployment facing Canada at the present time.


Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I discussed these amendments at the resolution stage of the bill, and I shall now take only two or three minutes of the time of the house. At that time I think the minister said that 95 per cent of the unemployed drew benefits for 30 weeks or less.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Twenty weeks or less.


William Hector McMillan: This means that 5 per cent of the unemployed will be worse off than before. Their position would not be as favourable unless, of course, their unemployment exceeded this time by a very short period, in which event they would gain by the increased payments, or if the termination of their regular benefits came at a time when they could qualify for seasonal benefits.
This 95 per cent mentioned by the minister has reference to an over-all percentage for Canada. I know that for certain depressed areas, where there has been considerable unemployment, there would be considerably more than 5 per cent unemployed after the 30-week period during which it is now proposed to pay regular benefits under these amendments.
I would appeal to the minister to extend this period beyond 30 weeks, for the following reasons. I think most Canadian workmen prefer to pay into the unemployment insurance fund and draw benefits while they are unemployed. They want to retain their selfrespect. They do not want to be obliged to depend on relief and charitable measures. If the unemployment insurance were paid for this full time, I think there would be less need for these relief measures. In these depressed areas I think it is fair to say that the people are less able than they otherwise would be to raise money for charitable purposes. Rents and taxes are in arrears. The people and the municipalities themselves are less able to raise money than when their economy is normal or buoyant.

Unemployment Insurance Act
We must not assume that a man who has not found work in the 30-week period does not want to find work. I know of a number of good, responsible men who have travelled across Ontario at least, getting rides with motorists, in an effort to find work. They have been unable to find work, and their benefits have expired. I was glad to see the seasonal benefits increased earlier this session. I am also glad to see the regular benefits increased under this act. However, I regret to see the time shortened with respect to payment of these regular benefits.
We live in a country of plenty, one with agricultural surpluses. I do not like to see anybody in this country go hungry because of our inability to deal with this particular phase of unemployment. I fully agree with the Prime Minister that we should not class those in need as employable and unemployable. The term "unemployable" is in many instances a relative one. Medical men are often puzzled to know how to classify these people. For example, a man might be unemployable as far as heavy, laborious work is concerned, but he might be better off physically and mentally if he had some lighter work to do.
In the debate at the resolution stage of this bill I emphasized the difficulties experienced by older workers in finding work, particularly the difficulty experienced by those 45 years of age or older in finding insurable employment under this act. Retirement at too early an age is causing a real social problem. In many cases it results in early physical and mental break-up. I have observed this result many times in my practice, and I am sure that is true in the case of other physicians. I would hope that our government will give consideration to this problem of the older worker, with a view to helping him prolong his years of contentment and usefulness.
I do not propose to deal with the other matters that I dealt with at the resolution stage of the bill. I then talked about wider coverage, but I think I shall leave that matter until the bill is in committee.
(Translation):


Mr. Andre Gauthier (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, the government has shown realism and vision in bringing to this act such amendments as are likely to benefit the unemployed. Moreover, as evidenced by the proposals recently submitted to the provinces at the preliminary federal-provincial conference, the government clearly has no intention of shirking its responsibilities in connection with


unemployment and is resolved to implement whatever measures are necessary to solve this problem.
There is nothing surprising in the fact that this new bill respecting unemployment insurance is more generous and liberal, while imposing on the worker as small an increase as possible in those contributions necessary to give effect to this splendid social legislation. The minister has tried to make this legislation more flexible by requiring that contributions be now collected on a weekly rather than on a daily basis. The increase in benefits from $24 to $30 for married people and from $17.10 to $23 for single people will make it easier for these unemployed to provide for the basic necessities of life.
An important point to consider is that the integration of seasonal benefits, granted early this session, together with the advantages that will come out of this redraft, aimed at alleviating current unemployment, are not a result of a temporary measure merely for the duration of the present slack period. On the contrary, it will remain permanently in our statutes and, for years to come, citizens affected by seasonal unemployment will benefit from it.
I wish to commend the government for its energetic efforts to ease the people's burden and for its evident desire constantly to improve the lot of the workers.
Like everybody else in this house, I am eager to see this bill adopted, although I think it my duty to call the attention of the government to certain aspects of that legislation which have to do with men employed in lumber camps. In the province of Quebec, employment in the lumber trade and industry has been insurable since April 1, 1950. I might recall that, early in the first session of last parliament, I insisted on having lumberjacks covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act, because I felt that those who are most affected by the ups and downs of the employment situation are in the greatest need of protection.
The commission then thought that most workers in that industry only worked part of the year. That is why it was declared seasonal and a subsequent ruling imposed additional reservations with regard to the receipt of unemployment insurance benefits during the off-season. In the province of Quebec, Mr. Speaker, this off-season extends from April 1 to September 30.
Conditions in which lumbering operations take place tend to change from year to year. Automation, for instance, has contributed to

change the lumber industry into a year-round proposition.
Thus tractors and trucks are put to use as early as September and October and, very often, lumbering operations start just after the floating of the timber, usually between May 15 and July 15. The off-season for the lumberman therefore actually extends from July 15 to September 1st, while during the rest of the year he is actively engaged in cutting and other related operations. That is why I am requesting that seasonal regulations be lifted in the case of lumbermen. I am well aware that enforcement of these regulations is a source of misunderstanding, misapprehension and bother. By exempting the lumber industry from seasonal regulations, the commission would only generalize a situation which is already prevailing in the same industry in western Canada, especially in British Columbia.
I would not like to resume my seat without a word on behalf of the farmer who, during the slack season on the farm, goes out to lumber camps. Because of regulations governing seasonal employment, he does not qualify for unemployment insurance benefits unless he can prove that he has worked at least 135 days during the active farming season.
Mr. Speaker, those regulations are outmoded and complicate the life of everybody, including the insured people as well as the administration. I know that the intention of the government in making this revision is to apply the benefits of the act to more people, so as to extend the scope of this excellent social legislation. I am therefore satisfied that the commission, which is being authorized by the present act to draft regulations, will take my suggestions into account.
Mr. Speaker, I live in a district where lumbering operations are of prime importance. I know lumbermen very well and I know too of their needs and of their problems. That is why I am confident of speaking on their behalf when I request that they be exempted from the regulations regarding seasonal employment. The small farmer and the settler, who has to work away from home in the wintertime to earn a living for their family would undoubtedly be grateful if the commission decided to show more generosity towards them when drafting the new regulations, so that they may benefit, in the same proportion as other workers, from the unemployment insurance stamps they have in their books.
(Text):


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, ordinarily I would not be too
Unemployment Insurance Act happy about dragging out the debate on second reading of a bill that is to go to a committee for special consideration, but the other day the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart) referred to certain things in connection with myself and unemployment. I should like to refer briefly to what he said and connect it with the thoughts I have respecting the legislation now before us.
It is true that in a speech I made the other day I perhaps invited a reply, but I was a bit disappointed that the hon. member for Charlotte could not find any criticism except the one he levelled at me. I do not refer to this matter now in any malicious way, but I should like to read what he said on that occasion. At page 3484-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might just say that the hon. member for Charlotte suggested that I did not get up and speak on unemployment during the debate on that subject a short while ago. Last year I spoke on unemployment in the throne speech debate, in the unemployment debate and on the budget. This year I spoke on unemployment in the throne speech debate and was prepared to speak during the unemployment debate when I realized that the debate had gone on for a longer period than perhaps was desired by both sides of the house, and refrained from making my remarks at that time.
However, at the first opportunity, during the budget debate, I referred to the unemployment situation in Saint John. I mentioned that it was much better, and I thought I gave the government full credit for that. I realize that the provincial situation is another story. However, I did want to clear up the matter since I am a member of the industrial relations committee, come from a labour riding, and am concerned about these matters.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I ask the hon. member whether he should not deal with the so-called accusations or other remarks the hon. member for Charlotte has made affecting him when we resume the debate on the budget. I notice that the hon. member spoke on the amendment to the amendment but has not spoken on the amendment. The hon. member for Charlotte also spoke on the amendment to the amendment, which has now been disposed of. The hon. member may deal with him further in the budget debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Never turn down Mr. Speaker's invitation.


Thomas Miller Bell: I believe you are quite right, Mr. Speaker. I was merely suggesting my reason

Unemployment Insurance Act for taking part in this debate on second reading, and saying it was not perhaps so serious. I wanted to leave it at that.
Then looking over Bill No. 328, which is now under consideration, I think perhaps the entire bill has been covered both at the resolution stage and now on second reading. The history of the Unemployment Insurance Act was reviewed. This is a complete revision of the act, 121 sections. It is divided into five parts, and I think we all give the minister credit for introducing this in a businesslike way.
There is one phase of the life of our people that has not been covered in this bill to the extent I believe it should have been. I feel that perhaps we are not aware of this group of people to the same extent we are aware of the entire labour and employment field. I was pleased to hear the previous speaker, the hon. member for Welland (Mr. McMillan), refer to the older age group who are increasingly becoming a problem in our community life. There is a new interest in this age group. Those of us who represent industrial ridings and have calls for employment assistance, relief and other considerations, would probably all agree that people from 55 to 65, the non-veteran group, are a serious problem.
Recently the Canadian Welfare Council published a special issue dealing with this problem. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps this legislation could take more cognizance of this age group than has been the case. Some interesting facts in connection with this group are contained in this special issue, but I shall not go into them. The entire issue presents the case for this group, and I merely suggest that this legislation does not seem to be completely in conformity with the present plans of the department. The department published an interesting booklet concerning the problems of the older worker, and I have looked it over. It is probably fair to say that it does show an interest, but that interest was not carried through into this legislation.
I refer specifically to the controversial provision in this legislation which has been mentioned by nearly all the speakers so far, concerning the reduction of the maximum benefit period in the year from 51 to 30 weeks. It is true that less than 4 per cent of those receiving benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act during the year take the full 51 weeks now available. It is true that the transition period which has been planned for the next three years does assist this situation. It is true also that the seasonal benefits which were added this year do add 15 weeks of benefit in some cases, but I suggest this matter has not been covered completely in this reduced period.

I have some figures I should like to mention that are contained in the annual report on benefit years established and terminated under the Unemployment Insurance Act for the calendar year 1953. The source is the dominion bureau of statistics. Persons over 60 receive a relatively high proportion of the total benefit days paid. Such persons received 8,125,160 or 18-2 per cent out of a total of 44,660,188 benefit days paid on benefit years terminated during the calendar year 1953. While they received 18 -2 per cent of the total benefit days paid, persons over 60 accounted for only 10 per cent of the total benefit years terminated in 1953. I think it is fair to say that elderly people are apt to be eligible for the maximum duration of regular benefits. Retired persons who have paid into the fund for some time, therefore, constitute the group most largely affected by the reduction in the maximum benefit allowed from 51 to 30 weeks.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, while this legislation is welcome to some extent, this reduction is going to create a hardship on our older citizens, those who have been forced to retire at 60. In the past they were able to take the full 51 weeks' benefits, but now that is being cut down to 30 weeks, with a possible extension through supplementary benefits. I do-suggest there is a slight inconsistency in the attitude of the department toward this age group when they send out propaganda in connection with them, yet do not consider them to the fullest extent in this change that is being made.
No reason for the change was given by the minister, except that only a small percentage would be affected. I do hope that when the measure is before the committee every consideration will be given to the employment problem of this older age group, which is becoming such a sore spot in our community.


Mr. Barnett:: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, when one rises at this stage of a debate he is apt to discover that not all of his thinking on the principle of a bill, such as the one we have been considering, has been completely unique or original. So perhaps I shall take as read some portions of the speech I had intended to make.
Nevertheless there are some matters which have not yet been touched upon by other

hon. members which I feel are of sufficient importance to merit consideration at this stage. I should like to mention those while I have the opportunity, and before this bill goes to the committee on industrial relations for consideration. May I say that, along with a good many other members, I am very happy that this type of study is to be given to the bill.
I think it becomes evident that one's reaction to the bill and the changes it proposes to make in our Unemployment Insurance Act depends very much upon the context in which one is considering it. One or two hon. members from this group who have preceded me in the debate have pointed out that the bill, and the general set-up of unemployment insurance, come far from meeting all the needs that arise in respect of unemployment and the problems connected therewith. I would suggest that those shortcomings arise largely from the fragmentary and piecemeal nature of the various measures of social security which thus far we have seen put into effect in Canada. However, if one does consider the bill in a narrower context, that is in relation to the present Unemployment Insurance Act, then I for one am inclined to feel that on balance this bill does represent something by way of a step forward in our unemployment insurance legislation. For that reason I am happy to see many of the provisions the bill proposes to introduce.
Along with others I have been giving special thought to those sections of the bill which have to do with the qualifying period, and the changes made in respect of the duration of the benefits. I think we must recognize that while this bill applies to a broad group of Canadian citizens, nevertheless under the present act, and even if the bill now proposed becomes law, the fact still remains that those able to secure benefits under the unemployment insurance legislation will remain in effect a privileged group of Canadian citizens.
It can be argued that under certain circumstances the clause in the bill which changes the qualifying arrangement from that of so many contribution days to that of so many contribution weeks does make it somewhat easier for persons to achieve qualification under the bill. Nevertheless it still remains a long way from providing that principle of complete insurance coverage which I suggested in a former speech could very well be applied and must be applied before this legislation is all that it should be. I suggested that, following through with the generally accepted insurance principle, it should be possible if one had paid, in effect, one premium under unemployment insurance,
Unemployment Insurance Act such person should thereby become qualified to benefits if, through no fault of his own, the need for such benefits became apparent.
I still feel that should be our objective.
Obviously the present measure falls far short of measuring up to that kind of requirement. I do appreciate that section of the bill which increases the minimum period of benefits, the period during which people who have not achieved a great length of contribution under the bill can receive benefits, if they become qualified. To my way of thinking that does go some distance toward meeting the needs of those who are most likely to require the benefits.
There has been a great deal of talk over the fact that the maximum period for which benefits can be paid is being reduced from 51 to 30 weeks, and I know that various labour groups in the country have been making representation on this point. So long as the general situation in Canada continues in its present state, representations are going to continue to be made on that point. However, it has become apparent to me that the approach the government has taken toward the question of unemployment insurance coverage is still basically that outlined some time ago by the minister, when he said it was designed to meet the needs of frictional and seasonal unemployment. I suppose it might be argued that under the Unemployment Insurance Act as we have understood it thus far in Canada, that is all this particular legislation is designed to do. This particular proposal in the bill makes it clearer than ever that that is still in the mind of the Minister of Labour and in the minds of his colleagues in proposing the present measure.
I might point out that the fact this proposal is being advanced makes it more evident than ever to me that there is a need in the country for something over and above what we have in our Unemployment Insurance Act. It may be true, as the minister has pointed out, that the proposal contained in the bill will meet the needs of those requiring unemployment insurance benefits or at least a large percentage of them. However, that still does not alter the fact that there are people in the country who are going to need something more than that; and when one hears talk about developing automation, and when one gets little glimpses every so often of the speed with which technological change is taking place in the country, then, should the bill return to the house for third reading with the proposal for a 30-week maximum intact, it will become more apparent than ever that we do need to have
3S90

Unemployment Insurance Act developed some other form of insurance which will cover those the present act is not designed to cover.
I am glad to see that provision is made in the bill for a three-year period during which the present arrangements can be tapered off. I should like to suggest that in that three-year interval the government might give serious consideration to the proposals advanced in the form of the resolution I had on the order paper last session and again this session, having to do with a new national insurance plan covering individuals against dislocations caused by technological advances, changed marketing conditions and other related causes. If we can have some serious indication from the government that they have some such proposal in mind in order to deal with those other problems related to the unemployment question which, it has been made plain by the statement of the minister, the present Unemployment Insurance Act is not designed to cover, then there would be a good deal less concern over this proposal to reduce the maximum period during which benefits can be paid.
I hope that in the tapering off period to which I have alluded serious study will be given to the manner in which some such proposal as I have suggested can be brought into being in this country. I might suggest, of course, if some of our present economic trends continue, the need for something of that kind will become increasingly apparent long before the three-year tapering off period is over.
I shall not deal at any great length with that subject, but there are two or three points covered in the bill with which I should like to deal briefly. In clause 27-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member be good enough not to refer to sections at this stage? We are discussing the principle of unemployment insurance, and this is not the time to go into the various sections of the bill. The hon. member will have to wait until the bill comes back and is considered in committee of the whole.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I am quite willing to bow to your ruling in that regard. It was not my intention to go into a detailed analysis of the section. It was merely for convenience of reference that I mentioned the number. I hope Your Honour will agree that in a bill of this kind complex principles are involved.
I wish to discuss the matter of excepted employment. Reference has already been made in the debate to one particular aspect of the subject, namely the fact that employment


in the fishing industry is still excepted employment. I am very glad to know that a number of hon. members have taken up this matter. The present bill still proposes to except those who are employed in the great fishing industry of this country from the coverage of unemployment insurance. This is a matter on which I feel very strongly myself. It is a fairly complex matter.
I should like to have some assurance from the minister that when this bill goes to the committee thorough consideration will be given to all aspects of that matter so hon. members can discuss in detail the pros and cons that it is not possible for us to discuss at this stage of the debate. I hope following that discussion the bill will come back to the house with an arrangement whereby those in the fishing industry will come within the provisions of the bill as we finally pass it.
One other group of people are mentioned as being in excepted employment, and I should also like to refer to them. It is a fact that those employed in a hospital not operated for purposes of gain are still listed among those in excepted employment. Unless my understanding of the situation throughout this country is completely wrong, the proportion of hospital beds involved in institutions which are operated for gain is very small indeed in Canada. Therefore, for all practical purposes the section eliminates from the coverage of the bill those who are employed in hospitals.
I notice that provision is made for the commission, with the consent of the employer, to include those who are employed in hospitals that are not operated for purposes of gain. That principle is embodied in this bill. I feel that the sections which deal with it are completely at variance with the basic principle embodied in the bill. I suggest this section should be taken out of the bill. The fact that this bill makes the employees of the hospitals of this country subject to the whims and fancies of the employers is most repugnant to me. What does this mean? It means, for example, that a stationary engineer working in a sawmill or in a factory is in insurable employment, but if he moves into a hospital he disqualifies himself for the benefits of unemployment insurance coverage.
I might point out that another principle is expressly set out in the bill. It says that in determining whether any employment is or was insurable, regard shall be had to the nature of the work rather than to the business of the employer.
I understand that representations have been made on this question by those who are managing hospital institutions. If such representations have been made, I would suggest

that they represent a very serious blind spot in the thinking of those who may otherwise be carrying on a most useful and desirable function in the life of this country. I would suggest to them that the time has come, if they still hold those views, for them to revise their opinions.
Because of the way in which some hospitals and charitable institutions are run in this country, it may not be possible or desirable to have complete and universal coverage in that connection; but I would suggest that if that is the case this section could be much more desirably drafted by having it read in this way:	"At the request of the
employees, the commission shall bring these people into insurable employment".
In the province from which I come the hospitals are supported by the populace as a whole. It is a very poor situation when many thousands of workers who are supporting the hospitals are themselves covered by unemployment insurance, yet their fellow workers, who may be called upon to minister to them in their illness, because of some whim of the hospital board, are denied what to those who are patients is a right and privilege which they enjoy as Canadian citizens because of this act.
There is one other group of citizens of this country which is in effect an excepted group, although they are not named as such in the Unemployment Insurance Act. During my visit last year to Newfoundland I was surprised and shocked to learn that many hundreds and probably over the course of time many thousands of my fellow Canadian citizens in that province receive no benefits whatever under the Unemployment Insurance Act because they are or have been employed on certain leased bases in that province. I became interested enough in the situation to do a little reading on the subject to find out how it came about. I realize, as all members of the house do, that basically it arose out of a treaty to which Canada was not a party in the first place. I discovered that this treaty has been modified since the time Newfoundland became a part of Canada, and I assume there is a possibility that some further modifications might be made in that respect.
Apparently such modifications as have been made have not been such as would cover those who are employed, for example, by a civilian United States contractor at a leased base. As far as I can see that is not a good situation, that is not something which Canada as a whole should continue to countenance. I notice that article 28 of the original treaty makes provision for giving sympathetic consideration to any representations which either
Unemployment Insurance Act party to the agreement may make from time to time after the agreement has been in force. I notice also that after Newfoundland became part of Canada certain modifications were made.
On page 46 of treaty series 1952, No. 14, it is pointed out that arrangements were made whereby exemption from Canadian income tax, which apparently had been in effect, was removed from United States contractors or contractors ordinarily resident in the United States in respect of profits arising from work performed at the leased bases. I suggest that when such modifications of the treaty were made it would have been desirable at the same time that a further modification be made to require such contractors to have their employees covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act. However, I understand that was not done and, as I say, over the years many thousands of the citizens of Newfoundland have been denied the right to build up unemployment insurance coverage.
Unless the Minister of Labour can persuade the Secretary of State for External Affairs to make some immediate adjustment in the arrangements with the authorities of the United States of America, I would suggest that when this Unemployment Insurance Act is being revised provision should be made to cover these people. Those of us who live in the rest of Canada and who directly or indirectly were responsible for the partial alienation of what is now Canadian soil should be prepared to accept the responsibility of seeing that no citizen of Newfoundland is thereby deprived of his right to unemployment insurance. If it is necessary to draft an arrangement whereby the unemployment insurance commission will assume the employer's share in connection with workmen engaged in these areas, I think that is something this parliament could very well support.
I realize that there are a number of matters in respect to this bill which have not been touched upon either by myself or by other hon. members. There may be other hon. members who wish to take part in the debate, and certainly there will be opportunity for full discussion of all sections of the bill when it gets into committee. Therefore I shall not prolong my remarks at this time.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the hon. member for York South have as usual offered the constructive criticisms and suggestions which are put forward by this party and other members of our group. There is no necessity for me to

Unemployment Insurance Act take up the time of the house to repeat them, but I do want to bring to the attention of the house and the minister two or three groups who are excluded under the present bill whom many of my constituents would like to see included.
Before proceeding with this matter, I must say that I was most interested in listening to the debate this afternoon to note the exceptionally large percentage of Liberal members who spoke in the debate who had criticisms to make of the bill and suggestions to offer to the minister. I was most interested in listening to the two hon. members from the province of Quebec who spoke just prior to the recess at six o'clock, and I noticed that both hon. members put forward criticisms very similar to those I am going to make at this time.
First of all I refer particularly to farm workers. A good many of the people I represent are very sorry that farm workers are not included in the coverage of this legislation. Farm workers should be covered by the act. In my opinion the present exclusion of farm workers is unfair to the farm worker and to the farmer.
I say it is unfair to the farm worker because it penalizes him for doing a most essential job, a job which is not popular with a great number of people in this country at this time. We should do everything possible to keep our farmers on the land and encourage farm workers to assist in the working of those farms. A farm worker usually works for lower wages and in many cases he has less security than the industrial worker. If any section of workers needs it, he needs this protection. I think we should do all we can by amending this legislation and in other ways to make employment on the farms of this country as attractive as possible.
I say it is unfair to the farmer because it makes it very difficult under some circumstances for him to obtain farm labour at the right time, particularly casual labour. I know that in my own constituency quite frequently a man would like to go to work on a farm for a month or two, but if he has any choice of employment at all he will accept employment where he is covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act. I think it is most unfair to the farmer as well as to the farm worker, because it puts the farmer in a difficult position when it comes to competing for necessary labour, particularly at certain periods of the year.
This is an extremely important matter to the farmers in my constituency, particularly those engaged in the fruit industry who usually do their pruning in the spring months of the year while the snow is on the ground,
[Mr. Herridge.I
then have considerable thinning to do in the summer months-ihere is a great deal of hand labour in orchard work-and then in the fall require extra help in the harvesting and packing of the fruit. It affects fruit farmers particularly, and other farmers as well. I say that the exclusion of farm workers from the terms of this act is unfair to the farm worker himself-it is distinctly unfair to him-and presents an unnecessary problem to the farmer.
Of such great concern is this matter to the farmers in British Columbia that I know it has been discussed at numerous farmers' conventions and farmers' institutes. I have heard it discussed at institute meetings in the Kootenay district and in other districts in British Columbia. It was the subject of considerable discussion at the recent convention of the British Columbia fruit growers' association held in Kelowna on January 18, 19 and 20. I might say that this is a convention of all tree fruit growers in the province of British Columbia covering the Okanagan, the Koote-nays and the main-line points along to the west of Kamloops.
This subject was of such great importance that it was raised on the first day of the convention, and considerable discussion took place. Then it was decided that it would be a good idea to get the head of the unemployment insurance office to come and address the convention, to inform the convention of the terms of the act and so on. This gentleman kindly came to the convention and gave an informative address to the delegates. Following his address there was a thorough discussion of the whole problem and by unanimous vote the delegates to the British Columbia fruit growers' association convention adopted this resolution:
Whereas in almost every other industry there are unemployment insurance benefits.
Therefore be it resolved by this 1955 British Columbia fruit growers' association convention that steps be taken through the proper channels to persuade the dominion government to include full-time farm workers in the national unemployment scheme.
I support that resolution, Mr. Speaker. I might say that I am one of those who have been asked to try to persuade the government to give effect to that resolution.
In addition to provision for full-time farm workers, I think provision should be made for part-time or casual farm workers. In our district we find a situation which is similar to that described by the Liberal member from Quebec who spoke prior to the recess at six o'clock. There are a great many farmers who carry on a combination of farming and lumbering. We have lumbermen who are willing to put in a few weeks on a farm, or

who would be willing to put in a few weeks on a farm if they could continue to be cover-ered by unemployment insurance benefits and so on.
I urge the minister to give serious consideration to these representations from the British Columbia fruit growers' association and other organizations, and to the requests that have been made in the house by members of the various parties during this debate. I also hope the committee will inquire thoroughly into this aspect of the question, because I am distinctly of the opinion that the exclusion of farm workers is unfair to those working on farms and is distinctly unfair to the farmers.
I now want to deal very briefly with another group. On April 4, when the resolution preceding this bill was under discussion, I raised this matter but, after listening to the minister and after carefully reading the record, I note that the minister did not rise to my bait. I am therefore now going to cast another fly in his direction. I want again to bring to the attention of the minister the unfairness suffered by certain groups, particularly in British Columbia. I refer to certain people who are employed in the forest branch to carry on tree planting, snag felling, land clearing and the burning of brush in order to provide forest protection and conservation. Here is what to me is a peculiar thing.
By an arrangement between the federal government and our provincial government the clerical staff, the research workers, the draftsmen, the mechanics, the scalers and the truckers of the British Columbia forest service receive unemployment insurance benefits, but the very men of whom I have spoken are not covered. These men are usually employed in the months of the year when there is no snow on the ground, and quite frequently they are laid off as soon as the first snow comes. At that time of year it is often extremely difficult for them to obtain employment. These men who work in the forest branch on forest conservation are the very ones who should be brought under the terms of this act.
I hope the minister gives consideration to that aspect of the problem, and I also hope the committee will study the question. I cannot understand the logic of the present arrangement. These men are doing almost exactly the same type of work as are the lumbermen in the woods, those working in the sawmills and for the logging companies. For instance, I was in a camp last summer in which men doing this work were not covered by the act. But the truck driver in the camp was covered, and the cook in the camp was covered. It is a situation that
9. 1955	3593
Unemployment Insurance Act creates some unfairness to these men who are willing to go in the woods in the summer and do this forest protection work. I ask that their case be given consideration by the minister and by the committee.
Before concluding, I want to support all those hon. members who have presented the case of the fishermen. I understood the minister to say that the matter was under study and was receiving careful consideration. I am not well acquainted with all the complexities of that occupation, but judging from the representations that have been made to members of this house and the representations that have been made by members of this house from all parties to the minister, I am quite confident that there must be a great deal of validity in the arguments put forward.
I trust that the position of farm workers, those engaged in the forest service of British Columbia in the conservation of our forests, and those employed in the fishing industry will receive from the minister, from the committee, and finally from this house the consideration that their situation and their contribution to our production deserves.


George Randolph Pearkes: Before the minister closes the debate, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the reference by the hon. member for Kootenay West to casting a fly and hoping to catch a fish prompted me to make one more appeal on behalf of the fishermen.
It will be recalled that the Minister of Labour earlier this session said he was giving consideration to the finding of means by which the fishermen, and those to whom he referred as near-fishermen, might be included in the coverage under amendments which he hoped to bring in to this legislation.
I do not intend to repeat at any length the arguments I have advanced on behalf of these men who are employees of companies engaged in the fishing industry. In certain companies there are men employed in various trades. In these trades employees of other companies which are not actually engaged in fishing are covered. I have called the attention of the minister to the fact that it is necessary to maintain the fish traps and weirs. The number of piles to be driven at certain seasons of the year requires the fishing companies to employ pile drivers who work for companies which are engaged in the construction industry. Those pile drivers, working on the same project alongside the pile drivers who are employees of the fishing company, are covered by unemployment insurance, but those who are employees of the fishing company are not. I have referred to pile drivers, but there are several other

Unemployment Insurance Act kindred trades in which men are employed by the various companies engaged in the fishing industry.
Of course there is the question of the men who actually go out in the boats to harvest the fish from the ocean. A few of them own their own boats, but the majority are either working in some co-operative or are working as employees of a fishing company. Sometimes the query is raised as to who is going to pay the employer's contribution. I do not know whether the minister has explored the angle that the buyer of the fish, who is really the employer of the fishermen, might possibly be expected to pay the employer's contribution. These companies are keenly interested in the catch made by the fisherman. The success of the packing company or the purchasing company depends entirely upon his catch. Could they not be classed as the employers?
I have put the various arguments before the minister personally and in the house on other occasions. I am not going to repeat them, but I hope that when the bill goes to the committee some way will be found whereby employees of fishing companies and the fishermen themselves can be covered by unemployment insurance. I know the work of the fishermen is largely seasonal, but because they are engaging in more and more different types of fishing and are not restricting their catch to one particular species the work is being spread over a much longer period than was the case a few years ago. The work is not nearly as seasonal as it was 10, 15 or 20 years ago, and the fishermen must have different types of equipment to catch the various species of fish throughout the greater portion of the year in order that they may make a living.
I make a final appeal to the minister to urge the committee to which the bill is being sent to give the most earnest consideration to some way of covering the fishermen employed in this great industry on the Atlantic, the great lakes and the Pacific coast with unemployment insurance.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I think the debate today has indicated the keen interest there is in unemployment insurance and in this measure to improve our Unemployment Insurance Act. I believe it is correct to assume from what we have heard this afternoon and this evening that nearly all the things we are trying to do in this measure meet with general approval. Of course there are strong
[Mr. Pearkes.l

differences of opinion as to how we should go about it, and as to some of the details.
I have made a note of the various points that have been raised in the different speeches. I noticed during this debate on second reading, when the principle of the bill is before the house or, as one hon. member said, the various principles of the bill, that most hon. members expressed the view that a closer examination should wait until the measure comes before the standing committee on industrial relations.
I think it would be well for me to follow that good example. In doing so, however, may I say that I appreciate the helpful and interesting manner in which the discussion has been carried on today. Even though I may not now dwell on the various points raised, I should like to assure hon. members that I am fully aware of their seriousness, and I give them the assurance that there will be a full opportunity for their discussion in the standing committee. For instance, just a few moments ago reference was made to fishermen. They and farm workers were mentioned this afternoon by a number of hon. members. I can tell the house that these matters have received and will continue to receive attention and study to see what we can do.
In saying that, I should like to state that the fringe group, if I may call it that, associated with the fishing trade, referred to by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, and the forestry group referred to by the hon. member for Kootenay West, do not come exactly within the category to which I am referring now. I think we should have less difficulty in finding a formula for those two small groups than in the case of the main bodies of fishermen and farm workers.
I think the house will understand some of the difficulties that will face the committee when I say it is recognized, according to the 1951 census, that there were 50,222 non-wage earners amongst our fishermen, or 93 per cent, and 3,775 wage earners, or 7 per cent. I am not going to pursue that matter now; we shall discuss it again in the committee.
I can say with regard to these two groups that the commission can by regulation, subject to the approval of the governor in council, bring under the act any group of workers, and the commission constantly has in mind the possibility of increasing the coverage and bringing in as many people as possible. But there are a great many more difficulties, some of which have been referred to today, and they can be discussed when the bill goes to the committee.
Among other things, in the debate there was reference to seasonal benefits, the

length of the benefit period-perhaps talked about more than any other point-and the question of a closer relationship between the benefits and the coverage, which is a feature of the bill. In the first instance all these matters gave the commission and the government a great deal of concern before the measure was introduced. I feel the discussion today has been useful, and hon. members will be able to appreciate some of the other considerations when the bill goes to the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on industrial relations.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, May 5, consideration of the motion of Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Macdonnell.
Hédard-J. Robichaud: Before resuming my remarks in this debate I want to congratulate the Prime Minister, who was guest of honour with six other members of the legal profession at a dinner tendered by the Quebec City bar association to mark their fiftieth anniversary as lawyers. I also want to congratulate the Prime Minister for the remarks he made on that occasion, which were reported in this morning's Montreal Gazette. I want to make special mention of this remark:
"We must remain what we are-the sons of our ancestors", he said, "but we must not sever the providential link that binds us all to other Canadians.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that all members of the Quebec City bar association are just as proud to have our Prime Minister as one of their members as we Canadians are to have him as our Prime Minister. Once again I want to congratulate him on this occasion and express my wish that he may spend many more years as a member of the Quebec bar association, and many more years as our Prime Minister.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: I can go along with the first part of that.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: With all of it. I want to join with my colleagues and express my approval of the main motion now before us.
I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance upon his masterful presentation of his first budget on April 5 last. The first annual statement of our finance minister has
50433-227i
The Budget-Mr. Robichaud been well received and favourably commented upon by the large majority of thinking Canadians. His belief that a healthy expansion of the Canadian economy is everybody's business will lead to greater activity in our entire national economy. He has taken a courageous position in providing a measure of tax relief to be enjoyed by personal income taxpayers and by corporations alike.
Some members of the opposition have criticized the minister and the government for budgeting for a possible deficit, while others have claimed that his deficit is far too small. The general feeling throughout the nation is that the attitude taken is sound, based on good judgment, and according to the principles of good business.
I also want to express my appreciation to the Minister of Finance for having included in this year's budget a clarification of two special items under schedule A of the Customs Tariff, which will be of immeasurable value to one of the leading manufacturers of my constituency and to the entire community.
Since the early part of 1953 base metal discoveries, followed by preliminary and normal development in the northern part of New Brunswick and particularly my constituency of Gloucester, have made news highlights. The great variety of minerals located in the Bathurst area, lending themselves in many cases to open pit mining, together with extremely low transportation costs, have led to the conclusion that New Brunswick could in the near future become one of the world's leading producers of lead and zinc. These discoveries were followed by substantial finds by American Metals Properties in the adjoining Miramichi area. Today prospects are bright for a mining future that could eventually revolutionize the entire economy of the maritime provinces.
It is recognized, however, that no mining developments of consequence and of advantage can expand without the availability of cheap electric power. No one can deny that cheap power is the key to New Brunswick's future mining development. I agree with previous statements to that effect made in this house by members from New Brunswick, whether originating from the opposition side or from the government side of this house. On different occasions the New Brunswick representatives on the government side of this house have been accused of not supporting the demand for federal assistance in the financing of hydroelectric projects for the province of New Brunswick. We realize that our mineral deposits must be developed in such a way as to be of maximum benefit to

The Budget-Mr. Robichaud ment in Canada, Outlook 1955, Regional Estimates". I want to quote from his remarks as reported at page 3231 of Hansard:
I followed along by saying that in New Brunswick things are beginning to move. We definitely have a good optimistic mood down there now. We have a new government. They have tackled our economic problems in a sensible way. We have invested in ourselves, Mr. Speaker. That is something which a great many of the other areas of Canada cannot say. We have led in that investment in ourselves in the last few years, and I put the figures on the record for everyone to see.
The figures which were placed on the record by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert showed that in 1953 New Brunswick had an industrial expansion of 7-9 per cent, and in 1954 it again led the way with an expansion of 27-7 per cent. What the hon. member failed to prove in the course of his remarks was who is responsible for this large increase in the capital expenditures made in the province of New Brunswick in the last two years.
To answer my hon. friend I shall quote' from the annual report of the province of New Brunswick, department of industry and development, 1954, as tabled in the provincial house during the last session of the New Brunswick legislative assembly by Hon. R. J. Pichette, minister of industry and development of New Brunswick. I shall then answer my hon. friend by quoting from a report originating with a provincial government which he is supporting, as are the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Montgomery). I quote:
While industrial development in the province this year did not reach the tempo we had expected, it is quite evident that the impetus to our economy being provided by Camp Gagetown and the sustained program of mineral exploration, spreading to almost all sections of the province is beginning to attract the favourable attention of a wide range of manufacturers, and services firms. Unquestionably, as camp Gagetown reaches full operational status and mining reaches the producing stage, we can expect industrial growth to keep pace.
Camp Gagetown, a federal project, and the mines financed by private enterprise are then responsible for this increase in capital expenditures in New Brunswick about which my hon. friend feels so proud. One must not neglect the importance to New Brunswick's economy of the construction of Camp Gagetown. While contracts amounting to $30 million have been awarded by Defence Construction Limited, as at February 1 of this year, it is estimated that further tenders amounting to $20 million will be let on this project within the next 12 months. This does not include the construction of 1,400 houses at a cost of approximately $16 million by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, a project which will be undertaken in the near future.
One must not forget that the 10,000 servicemen training at this army camp and a permanent staff of 1,500 to 2,000 will add substantially to the general economy of the province of New Brunswick. I hold in my hand a bill to incorporate the town of Oromocto; a small village, previously unknown, will become a town owing to the federal project at Camp Gagetown. Already tenders are being called for the supply of perishable food, such as large quantities of bread, milk, and meat which will be used during the long training periods at this army camp, the largest in Canada.
When a decision has to be made on the construction of a central heating plant, there again consideration was given to New Brunswick and a central furnace will be installed which will use from 40,000 to 50,000 tons of Minto coal a year. In view of the numerous challenges which we have received in this house from opposition members, I feel it is my duty to place on the record figures which will tell the truth about the situation so far as New Brunswick is concerned.
Let me outline some of the federal expenditures for New Brunswick during the fiscal year 1955-56: Department of National Defence at Camp Gagetown, $50 million; at Chatham air base and Ste. Marguerite, $7 million; Department of Public Works, $16 million; Department of National Health and Welfare in hospital construction grants, $976,000; other health grants, $1,287,000; old age security, $12,600,000; old age assistance, $1,250,000; Blind Persons Act, $265,000; family allowances, $15 million, or a total of $104,378,000.
In other words, three of the federal departments will spend in New Brunswick this year over $100 million, which is over twice the total amount of the provincial budget for the same period. Furthermore, out of a total budget of $54 million the province of New Brunswick will receive in 1955 over $17 million from the federal government under the 1947 tax agreement, which is close to one-third of its total proposed expenditure. These are the figures, Mr. Speaker, that I want to place on record in answer to the challenge from the hon. members of the opposition.
I welcome the announcement by the Minister of Finance of the appointment of a royal commission with instructions to look ahead and examine carefully our future economic prospects. The maritimes are today placing their hopes in the field of mineral development. It has been recognized that to make the most of it, these minerals should be refined on the spot, and the erection of a smelter should be followed by the necessary plant for the production of acids and fertilizer from the

large sulphur content of its ores. The achievement of these objectives is only possible, as I have just said, by the introduction of a missing element, namely cheap electric power.
The first duty of this royal commission should be to launch without delay a complete study of the maritimes' general economy and its possibilities. It appears to be an established and well-recognized factor that the maritime provinces, and particularly New Brunswick, are not in a position to finance adequate power projects to permit the normal expansion of potential developments which could revolutionize the entire economy of this particular section of our great country. We cannot expect to solve our problems overnight; but we, as representatives of the Canadian people, have assumed a responsibility which none of us can deny. It is our duty to unite our efforts and assure the participation of the maritimes in the Canadian boom which to an astonishing degree is still confined to the industrial areas of central Canada.
These are my concluding remarks in the budget debate, Mr. Speaker, but before resuming my seat I want to assure hon. members of the opposition from New Brunswick, that I, as a sitting member on the government side, am in favour of any assistance and any government measure that will add to our provincial economy and to the welfare of our people.


Robert Hardy Small: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of entering this debate, but after listening to so much of the unadulterated buncombe about the government's record I just could not resist saying something about it. The taxpayer has found out to his sorrow that it is just pure illusion. The St. Laurent, Abbott and Harris dollar which they are receiving is worth less than 50 cents after all taxes are paid. The administration, because of its waste and extravagance, has had to levy higher taxes than are absolutely necessary.
One of the previous speakers, the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robichaud), was quite strong in his adulation of the cabinet and the ministers of the crown. I did not know whether he was going to start out with a series of Studerisms, but I soon found out they were just plain ordinary "Studer-men", not supermen.
The government by its waste and extravagance has in devious ways punished every Canadian citizen who has been patriotic or prudent enough to invest in government bonds, or whose life savings are tied up in insurance or other forms of security. These people now realize what this government has done to them through its inflationary
The Budget-Mr. Small policies. Veterans and pensioners are likewise in the same position, because they are on fixed incomes. The rapid inflation has affected them also and reduced them to a subsistence allowance; it has almost impoverished them.
While the government is very glib in taking credit for all the social legislation enacted, the truth of the matter is that most of our welfare laws originated in the fertile minds of Conservatives, although this emaciated and decrepit form of Liberalism has leeched on to them and they have fattened, as they always have done on their exploitation of the ingenuity of others.
It might be advantageous to read an article by Bruce Hutchison published last week in which he outlined the progress made in Canada since confederation. He said that the only outstanding idea that had been developed in this country was confederation itself, and that was the brainchild of Sir John A. Macdonald. The next was Sir John's national policy, that has been the base of our prosperity. The next along the line was reciprocity, which the people of this country turned down in a very decisive manner. In as much as this government has by indirect methods tried to introduce reciprocity with the United States, they should have the courage to go to the people and tell them they are trying to inflict reciprocity on them again.
However, that is up to them and their conscience, if they have one.
Our standard of living has advanced, in spite of this government, because of the initiative and incentive of our people. They are the ones who have created the wealth of this country. Our wealth has been created through labour's continuous productivity, and it is not the invention of Mackenzie King, Louis St. Laurent or even the wizardry of Ilsley, Abbott or Harris. They were just the factual, physical substance that was carried forward on the strong flow of the nation's destiny, and if we have prospered it has been in spite of them.
Last year when the minister of finance presented his budget he was most nonchalant, free and easy and indulged in many loose conjectures, or what you might ordinarily call economic double talk, the gist of which was that we were going to have a good year if we did not run into the hard times that he saw ahead and hoped we would miss.
He forecast a surplus of $4 million, with a possible deficit of $140 million if the tough times he saw ahead arrived. Well we did have the tough going to the tune of a $160 million deficit.

The Budget-Mr. Small
There was considerable similarity between the budget of last year and the budget of this year, but they could not be called twins by any stretch of the imagination. This year the nonchalant manner of the previous minister of finance was lacking. Because it was his initial appearance the Minister of Finance this year was rather tense and nervous, which we all rather expected, but he did not abandon the same chopstick logic in the juggling of finance practised by his predecessor.
Last year the minister of finance played up the recommendations of the Randall commission in the United States, which were rejected, or which if accepted were ignored and not enforced. Here is what the Minister of Finance said last year, as reported at page 3724 of Hansard of April 6, 1954:
For most of this period the United States has been in the process of re-examining its foreign economic policies.
And again:
The recommendations of this commission-better known as the Randall report-provide, in my view, a reasonably promising basis for action by the United States in a co-operative movement towards a sounder system of trade and payments.
And further down:
-and it was recognized that enlightened economic policies on the part of both the United States and Canada would contribute materially to the achievement of a better trade and payments system throughout the free world.
And again:
To this end the United States administration has just placed before congress a program designed to give effect to the main recommendations of the Randall commission.
And finally:
As might be expected, this development has brought with it growing protectionist pressures in many countries, including Canada.
Here is what the present Minister of Finance said this year, as reported on page 2727 of Hansard of April 5:
In the past twelve months, however, while there was no basic change in American policies, there was a disappointing lack of progress toward actual reductions in trade barriers and there were disconcerting signs of a revival of protectionist feeling in response to the increase in competitive conditions.
I should remind the house that the United States administration has resisted proposals which, in our opinion, would not advance the cause of friendly and mutually advantageous trade. This resistance we welcome. On the other hand, it must be confessed that the resistance has not been uniformly successful. We all have our difficulties and it is not always possible to achieve ideal solutions. But it must be recognized that actions taken or even implied by the government of the United States may weaken support for liberal commercial policies and may impose upon those of us who are firm supporters of such policies a greater burden in defending them in our own countries.

And later:
It is of the utmost importance for the future of international economic co-operation that the United States should continue to give positive direction and leadership in reducing barriers to the free flow of world trade.
I could go on and quote more of this, but I think I have quoted sufficient to show that while efforts can be made to bring discord and frustration and impotence into an acceptable medley, acceptable to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the minister of external affairs, they have simply ended up in a muddle. They are very sorry for what has taken place, and they have expressed their outstanding and emphatic dissatisfaction with the policies of the United States.
Nevertheless they say we cannot do anything about it, because if we do they might slap us down. Therefore we must remain on good terms with them. This effort to reconcile the glaring barriers of United States protective policy with the intangible devices of the free trade policy of this government gives you the picture I have just outlined; it is too bad, but we cannot do anything about it.
This year there is such a hullabaloo made about the few changes in the budget that you really would think it was something. The budget contains a very few changes. The benefits certainly are lean, and they will not bring the kind of relief the taxpayers have been looking for. They have been looking for an increase in their exemptions and a considerable reduction in the hidden sales taxes of this country. Changes of this kind would have made an immediate and, I would say, effective improvement in the financial position of the average taxpayer in this country. Particularly if they would allow greater exemptions up to the $5,000 a year wage earner it would give immediate relief.
The budget is deceptive because in it there appears to be a great deal but in reality it gives very little. Its augmentation of the pay cheque of the average worker will scarcely be noticed. It is also an insincere budget because it enters the field of deficit budgeting in order to take care of a condition the existence of which the government denies. It will lengthen the life of the inflationary situation in which we are living and which has such a dire effect on the living costs of those who are on fixed incomes.
The government should be ashamed of themselves for the plight in which they have placed these people. They have allowed inflation to take place; they have allowed prices to rise and spiral. Everyone else has been in the position where they have had their wages

increased and have had allowances made to them, whereas these people must subsist on what they were expected by this government to live on some 10 or 15 years ago. True, there has been a little added, even to the soldier's pension. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe) probably summed it up right when he said, "A little more for the soldier"; just a little and that is all.
Of course we all know that it is too soon to expect alluring programs of continued prosperity, pie in the sky and job security. These things must wait for an election year. The taxpayers know by now that they cannot expect these things at present because it is too soon for the promise of an improvement in financial conditions that will be offered as bait for votes. Probably that promise will come next year. We can hope it may be next year. For the sake of the people of this country I hope it is. However, financially the budget itself is a dud.
Everyone is anxious that our economy shall continue to expand. While the economy is now in an apparently healthy condition, this condition will not continue unless business expansion accompanies it. Such an expansion will spur a general activity which will create new employment. The reappearance of unemployment every year can no longer be regarded as of only temporary concern in view of its increasing proportions and lengthening periods. The recurrence of unemployment every year is extremely ominous.
Everyone seems to indulge, year after year, in giving a name to the budget. Some call it an alluring one. Some call it ambidextrous because one hand does not know what the other hand is doing. I think the hon. member for Eglinton started out by saying that it was a budget of crumbs. He probably made a mistake and should have said that it was a crummy budget. I probably would accept the Minister of Finance's own description of it. An article appeared in the Telegram of April 16, when the furor took place about the other convention that was being held and some reference was made to Trotskyites or something like that. I do not know the interpretation of these academic questions. I read the article and after I read it I said to myself, "This is an amazing statement to come from the Minister of Finance", so I read it again. The article reads in part as follows :
The Finance Minister called his recent budget "a pain, ordinary Liberal budget," not "a fantasy of imagination or a stand-pat budget."
I think everyone will agree that it is a pain budget because everybody in the country has a pain from it or is going to get a pain
The Budget-Mr. Small from it sooner or later. As he said, it certainly is not a fantasy of imagination, because if you have a pain, there is certainly no fantasy about it and it is not imaginary. It is not a stand-pat budget-and again he has aptly described it-because if you have a pain, you do not stand pat; you do something about it. I therefore think we will probably let the budget go at the Minister of Finance's own interpretation of it, namely that it is a pain, ordinary Liberal budget.
I probably could go a little bit further with the Minister of Finance. The other day he was speaking to a luncheon club and made some reference to the coming provincial election, particularly to Premier Frost's 14 points that he had read in the newspapers. He said he was "astonished" at the premier's claim that his government was responsible for old age pensions at the age of 70 without a means test, and he wondered when one starts to rewrite history. The Minister of Finance ought to know that very well, because that is all the Liberal party have been doing during their existence. They have been rewriting the policies of the Conservative party ever since confederation. Not only that, but they have revamped many of the Conservative party's policies, have filched them from their niche of proven worth and time-honoured tradition and then have masqueraded them in a cloak of simulated free trade. What a predicament!
While I am at it, let me just say this to the pesky lot of free traders over there who ever since confederation have deluded the people by adopting all the protective policies which the Conservative party introduced in this country, disguising them or dressing them up, and then parading under them as if they were free trade policies. The references made by the Minister of Finance the other day when he was outlining a few of the outstanding finance ministers who had functioned in this great dominion and who did yeoman service, brought back to my mind certain things which happened and which cause one to do a little bit of thinking.
The minister mentioned the great finance ministers of the Liberal party since confederation. He also went on to mention some of the finance ministers of the Conservative party. One stood out in his mind and stands out in mine, because for a while I thought the day of political and intellectual honesty had departed. But here was a man who, because of his strong convictions at the time of the reciprocity campaign, left his party. Because he was conscientious, had firm convictions and a grasp of the circumstances of the situation he left his party and came over to the Conservative party.

The Budget-Mr. Small
The situation was repeated when the conscription issue was before the country in 1917. There was some soul-searching taking place, and there were those who walked from the government side of the house to the opposition side and those who crossed from the opposition side to the government side. They were showing the calibre of men there were in those days. Indeed, one does not like to see dissension taking place in any party or turmoil raising its ugly head in any organization, but it was heartening to see the action of the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) when he came to the decision a while ago, in good faith, that he must come to a parting of the ways with his party. I said to myself, surely this is a return to the days when conscience possessed each member and they could not live with themselves unless they did the honest thing.
I hope there will be a return to probity of conduct when each one will follow the policies he feels in his heart he should support, when there will no longer be any camouflage in this house or in the country. I said to myself, well, I guess others have offered up a prayer with me that honesty shall prevail.
In the short time I have been in the house I have listened to individual members on the government side stand up and give voice to utterances that are nothing but pure Conservative doctrine and policy of protection. They talk about the Conservative party all the time as the high protection party, but they only want for the nation protection that will give work to our citizens, that will keep them working and keep the wheels of industry turning. Surely this is the time there should be a grand exodus from the government side of the house to this side, because if these members were honest with themselves over 40 per cent of them would be over here with us fighting for the things their people need, and not hiding behind a simulated free trade cloak that is nothing more than protection. They are all giving vent, in some shape or form, to some protectionist policy or protective idea for the good of their ridings or for the good of the country, and eventually the Liberal party will be found out.
There is something in Abraham Lincoln's statement years ago that you may fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time, but you will not fool all the people all of the time. I think the day is near at hand when the people will waken up to what the Liberal government is doing to this great dominion. I should like to review a few of the things that have been done by
[Mr. Small.!
the Conservative party, not necessarily by the federal party but also by the party provincially. The reason I do so is that the Toronto Daily Star had an article a few days ago headed, "Mr. Frost Steals the Credit", which reads in part as follows:
Three of Mr. Frost's 1955 election planks are old age pensions, housing and the St. Lawrence waterway.
The article goes on to say that the federal government was responsible for these things. Mr. Frost is not stealing the St. Lawrence waterway, national housing or old age pensions. These all had their genesis in the Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Hardy Small: Yes.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Do you know any more jokes?


Robert Hardy Small: I have heard donkeys bray before. I will give you a few more in case you want another laugh.


An hon. Member:: Give us a good one this time.


Robert Hardy Small: Sure. They consolidated the Canadian National Railways. Laugh that one off.


George James McIlraith: They were going to amalgamate them at one point, too.


Robert Hardy Small: Unemployment insurance originated with Mr. Bennett. Then there is the province of Ontario, workmen's compensation and the hydro system. I suppose you will be delighted to hear that the national housing scheme, for which you take so much credit, germinated in the fertile brain of Tommy Church. You can laugh that one off too.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Hardy Small: You are entitled to laugh. In the predicament you are in you need to laugh.


An hon. Member:: Back to the barn, my boy.


Robert Hardy Small: Let me cover the situation as far as the St. Lawrence seaway is concerned. This undertaking was not brought about overnight by the government.


An hon. Member:: It has been there a long time.


Robert Hardy Small: May I remind you that the fight for this project was commenced about the same time as the hydro project in Ontario, over 50 years ago. It was a Conservative government in the province of Ontario that kept it alive. There were a goodly number of conscientious Liberals identified with it from time to time, but the outstanding

protagonist of the project in those years was Adam Beck. At that time the Evening Telegram was the most outstanding proponent of public ownership through its brilliant editor, John Robinson, and its owner, John Ross Robertson. They kept the campaign going over the years, and associated with it were Joe Oliver, Tom Foster, Tommy Church, Reg. Geary, Alf. McGuire, Tom Han-nigan from Guelph and a number of other individuals from the United States, whose names I have forgotten for the moment, who were greatly interested in the deep-sea waterway.
The power barons in Montreal were most desirous of seeing that the project did not come to fruition. Through years of frustration these people carried on the fight. It was very discouraging, but finally those in the province of Quebec, who thought their interests were going to be hurt, decided they would throw in their lot, making it possible to reach an agreement. Then came the lobbyists in the United States who were determined that the seaway would not be built. The only reason the project is going ahead today is that we have to have the iron ore of Ungava transported through the seaway and across the great lakes to replace the high-class iron ore that has been exhausted in the United States Mesabi range. That is the only reason the St. Lawrence seaway is being constructed today. If you want to know why it is coming into being the reason is the efforts of Conservative governments in the province of Ontario under James Whitney, William Hearst, Howard Ferguson, George Henry, George Drew and Leslie Frost. They are the ones who should get the credit for the seaway. That is a basic fact. They can take the credit for it.


An hon. Member:: A stout effort.


Robert Hardy Small: I think I have said sufficient. I could go on. Probably I had better give you another little tidbit that will do your hearts good. In 1944 the Toronto Daily Star-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was the Conservative party responsible for that, too?


Mr. Forgie:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Will he explain to the house, while he is on the question of hydroelectric power in the province of Ontario, why it is costing the people of the province $450 million to make the changeover from 25 to 60 cycles, and who was principally behind that, when he is talking about Sir Adam Beck?


George Alexander Drew: Perhaps I might answer that on a question of privilege.
50433-228J
The Budget-Mr. Small


James Moffat Forgie: I should like to hear the answer.


George Alexander Drew: I should like to very much. It was the Liberal government of Mitchell Hepburn that held the thing up and created that tremendous cost.


An hon. Member:: No, it was Sir Adam Beck.


James Moffat Forgie: May I reply to the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Robert Hardy Small: I think you should refrain from sticking your neck out any farther. Let me read you an editorial appearing in the Toronto Daily Star of July 25, 1944:
On December 22. 1942, Mr. John Bracken made his radio debut as leader of the Progressive Conservative party. Said Mr. Bracken; "Every human being that is born into our society has a right to feel that he is welcome in it . . . and that, in the event of old age, ill-health or other misfortune overtaking him, he will have the assurance of a reasonable standard of social and economic security."
In the following February, the Progressive Conservative leader made another speech in which he declared: "The human family is our greatest asset. There are 11,500,000 human souls in Canada. Some come into the world handicapped from the beginning. Many grow up ill-nourished. Some die at an early age. It is reported that there are a third of a million sick on the average every day, and that the sick bill comes to $300 million a year. We have made a poor job of conserving and developing our human resources. We must increase the preventive services. We must make ours a race of healthy and efficient men and women."
These and many similar statements which Mr. Bracken has made in the period which has since elapsed are in accordance with the purpose which was allegedly to be served by reforming the old Conservative party. It was to become progressive. It was to favour "a reasonable standard of social and economic security". It was to support social service measures. Well, it has now the opportunity to support two of these-children's allowances and a national health service.
I want you to get this.
But Conservative papers are already fearful about the cost, and there are indications that the party will oppose one or both of these bills in parliament.
Who is worrying about the cost? Is it the Conservative party that is worrying about the cost? Neither we nor any other party in the house except the Liberals are worrying about the cost.


An hon. Member:: No.


Robert Hardy Small: You sing a different tune when the matter is laid on your own doorstep. More than that, you have been sailing this Liberal scow with the chart that was given to you by William Lyon Mackenzie King in 1919 when he espoused, as one of the planks in his platform, a national health

The Budget-Mr. Henderson program. The clipping from which I have quoted was dated 1944, about 11 years ago, and the statement was made that the Conservative party would probably be opposed because of the cost. Yet 11 years later the government is singing the same old song, it is going to cost too much money. We could have told them that then, but they are waking up 11 years later to the fact that this is going to cost the taxpayers of Canada a lot of money. When will you get some sense and let a party that knows how run the country?


Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston):: I am quite sure the hon. member for Danforth would have been very pleased if he could sing words of praise as a result of tax decreases levied in the 1954 Ontario budget. I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister of Finance on the fine budget he has presented to this house. I might say that his record showed that he was a master at deriving sound results, and he has not let us down with his first budget.
My remarks will take a very short time tonight, and I should like to direct them in support of those men and women who are employed in the penitentiaries of Canada. I should like to support their request for the five-day 40-hour week. I might say that I am not alone in giving this my support. I am sure my remarks are in accord with the opinion of the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir). He has spent a great deal of time investigating matters and putting forth his ideas. He has joined me in all the work I could do on behalf of these employees. I might say also that I appreciate the assistance which has been given to me by the amalgamated civil servants of Canada and more particularly the local representative at Kingston, Mr. Reid.
Referring to the situation in Kingston alone, may I say that it affects 350 employees at the Kingston penitentiary, Collins Bay and the women's penitentiary. It is not limited to the employees alone but affects the husbands and wives of these employees. As I understand government policy, it is that civil servants are given a five-day 40-hour week in areas where the five-day 40-hour week is prevalent in industry. This is the case in the city of Kingston in so far as industry and the larger companies are concerned. Civil servants in other departments in that city have been granted these working conditions.
I must admit that the Department of Justice has a problem on its hands, because these penitentiary officers are dealing with
[Mr. Small.1

human beings. I suggest for these reasons that the type of men we need as guards, and which we have been fortunate in getting, are men of good character, alert, considerate and able to stand tension. In order to get this type of individual to work as a guard in the penitentiary we must be able to at least compete and have equivalent working conditions with other kinds of employment.
These men who work as guards and in other positions in the penitentiaries are working under hazardous conditions, and under great tension. As a result of tests it has been shown that the greatest cause of sickness and death amongst the employees of penitentiaries has been hypertension. This is another reason why these employees should have long periods of relaxation.
In order to put the five-day 40-hour week into effect I realize that additional employees would be required, with the resultant additional expenditure of funds. You cannot lock up human beings over the week end and let everybody go home. It has been suggested to me that there might be a shorter work week, without the inmates being locked up for additional time, if the shops were closed on Saturday morning, housekeeping activities such as haircutting, baths and clothing changes could be effected, and Saturday afternoon and Sunday left for recreational purposes. With a system of alternating the essential officers and increases in the number of custodial officers only, a shorter work week could be put into effect. Another point would be that the five-day 40-hour week would result in happy, contented guards, and I am quite sure this system would bring about, indirectly, the rehabilitation of the inmates. I am quite sure that happy, contented guards would impart the same feeling to the inmates of the penitentiary.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I appeal for the five-day 40-hour week for the penitentiary employees. I might conclude by saying that would be most difficult for any member of this house to explain to the wife and family of a guard, whose job is tense and hazardous and Who cannot spend two days out of seven at home, why the man next door, who is employed at a desk job by another department of government, is able to spend two days out of seven at home with his wife and family. I hope this suggestion will obtain some results.
I wish to adjourn the debate, Mr. Speaker.
On motion of Mr. Henderson the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: We shall continue with this debate tomorrow, and if it is concluded we shall go on with item No. 3 on the order paper concerning the Toronto Terminals Railway; item No. 4, the Veterans Benefit Act; item No. 5, the Government Employees' Compensation Act; item No. 10, the Precious Metals Marking Act and item No. 9, the Municipal Grants Act.
Business of the House


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the minister a question? When he says, "if the debate is concluded", does he refer just to the stage with the Speaker in the chair or to the consideration of the resolutions in committee?


Walter Edward Harris: No, just with the Speaker in
the chair.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 10, 1955