1955-03-15

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 246, for the relief of Ida Rose Amyot White.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 247, for the relief of Anne Gorin Seward.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 248, for the relief of George Daniel van der Beek.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 249, for the relief of Rhoda Beatrice Cree Denis.'-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 250, for the relief of Roma Gisser Baron.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 251, for the relief of Marie-Angeline Delledonne Salotti.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 252, for the relief of Mary Black Guthrie.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 253, for the relief of Albert Menard. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 254, for the relief of Patricia Galley Berger.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 255, for the relief of Elizabeth Glencross Marcoux.-Mr. Hunter.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. First, I should like to ask him why he chose a place outside of parliament to make so major an announcement on external affairs when he was not answering questions in parliament? The second question is as to whether or not, having regard to the fact that the Quemoy and Matsu islands were mentioned in the text, he meant to imply yesterday that in the event the United States became involved in a war with communist China'-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I realize that the question which is now being asked by the hon. member for Prince Albert is a very important one. But at this stage of our proceedings the hon. member is entitled to ask a question for the purpose of obtaining information, and I think he will realize he has not been doing just that.


John George Diefenbaker: My question was whether the minister meant by his words that in the event the United States of America became involved with communist China over the offshore islands, it would be unthinkable that Canada then would be neutral.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: In answer to the first part of my hon. friend's question, Mr. Speaker, there was no major pronouncement of government policy in my statement yesterday, nor did I say anything yesterday that I have not said previously in this house and outside the house.
With regard to the second part of the question, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I had better read exactly what I did say. I said:
Today, I think that the neutrality of either of us,-
The United States or Canada.
-if the other were engaged in a major war in which its very existence were at stake, would be unthinkable.
Then, I went on to say:
Our position in this regard is something that we should never forget when we say, and correctly, that certain United States commitments, those, for instance, covering help to Chiang Kai-shek in Formosa and certain Chinese coastal islands, have not been accepted by us.
I added:
But that is not the same thing as saying that they may not involve us. And it is certainly not the same as saying that they do not concern us.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: May
I ask a supplementary question in view of the minister's statement, about which I was going to ask him myself? Would he expedite the debate on external affairs in order that we may have a very full discussion of this very important matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will do my best to expedite it. I would remind my hon. friends that this debate has been postponed in the past, not exactly because of views on procedure held on this side of the house. I made inquiries this morning and I understand that debate is to be held next week.



GRAIN COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkion):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister erf

Inquiries of the Ministry Trade and Commerce. Can he inform us when the annual report of the board of grain commissioners will be made available to the house?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The report of the board of grain commissioners was delivered to me about a month ago. It was delivered by me to the printing bureau on the same day. I assume the printing bureau is actively engaged in printing it, and as soon as it is received from the printing bureau it will be tabled in the house.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister seen the report in the Montreal Gazette of March 14 concerning the appeal of Dr. Stanley Livingstone which supplemented that of the American federation of scientists that the United States should undertake a study of the dangers from the fall-out from atomic tests, and in the light of this and other appeals of a like nature is the minister now in a position to tell the house if Canada is prepared to initiate such a move in the United Nations failing action by any other nation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In reply to this question,
I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to a similar question asked on March 7 last by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.



INQUIRY AS TO DETERMINATION OF RADIOACTIVE PRECIPITATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport promised the hon. member for Nanaimo an answer to his question of March 8, when he asked whether Canada's meteorological service is equipped to make tests to determine the level of radioactive precipitation in this country. In view of the fact that the defence research board is the principal agency concerned with this matter, I am answering his question.
The meteorological services of the Department of Transport are not, I am informed, equipped to collect data on radioactivity although, in northern regions, some of their officers do make certain checks on behalf of the defence research board. I might add also that radioactive snowfalls have been noted by scientists of the national research council
[Mr. Castleden.l

in the Ottawa area but they are not actively concerned with the study of this particular matter.
The defence research board, on the other hand, is equipped to make tests to determine the radioactive content of precipitation and does so at various points in Canada. The latest atomic tests in Nevada have caused a slight increase in the level of radioactivity but I am informed that it is not such as to constitute any hazard whatever to human, animal or plant growth in this country.


Mr. Knowles:: So far as we know.

The house resumed, from Thursday, March 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mrs. Fairclough.



UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, at long last the government is permitting the house to resume the debate on this unemployment question.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I suggest that the manner in which this debate has been delayed by the government is indicative of the attitude of the government to the problem. It would appear that they were hoping that by prolonging this debate, by stretching it out over a long period of time, it might decrease the amount of interest among members and might tend to minimize the importance of the unemployment question.


Mr. Mcllraith:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that when we recall the events leading up to the resumption of this debate we realize that it was on February 24 that the leader of this group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), moved the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the serious unemployment problem in Canada. This move followed on the heels of the last announcement that the number of unplaced applicants at employment offices throughout Canada as of January 20 stood at 569,000.
When the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar moved the adjournment of the house, the house leader was able to persuade him to defer the debate on unemployment until the following Monday when we were promised a supply motion. On that distinct understanding, and on the presumption that on

the following Monday the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar would be permitted to proceed with the matter he had initiated in this house, he agreed to forgo the motion at that time. Now, we know what happened when the supply motion was brought in not on Monday but on Tuesday. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was not permitted to proceed with the debate on unemployment that he had initiated.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should address his remarks to the subject matter which is now offered for discussion. In reviewing in the manner in which he has the other events which have happened in connection with either the motion under standing order 31 moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar or the beginning of the proceedings on this particular motion to go into supply, the hon. member is somewhat reflecting upon the proceedings of this house. He must not forget that the manner in which this debate has been brought under and the attempt made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to begin the discussion on unemployment on this motion to go into supply is one with which the Chair was involved. If the hon. member mentions anything indicating that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was refused the floor on that occasion he is reflecting upon the decision of the Chair. Surely the hon. member does not wish to do that. What he should do at this time is address his remarks to unemployment.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I had just reached the point in my remarks where I was going to indicate that what I had to say was in no way a reflection on the conduct of the Chair. All I was suggesting was that the way in which this matter was handled was an indication of the approach of the government. It is a lack of courtesy on the part of the official opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. To accuse his colleagues of lack of courtesy is tantamount to a type of attack or charge which should not be made. If the hon. member looks at standing order 41 he will see that he should not use discourteous language or offensive words. A decision has been made, and the procedure which is now being followed is regular, and the hon. member should not reflect upon it in any way.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, my references thus far were made in an effort to indicate what
Unemployment
I believe is the attitude of mind toward the problem under discussion, namely, unemployment. However, in deference to your advice I am not going to pursue this particular matter; but I do want to suggest the fact that hon. members of the opposition were prepared to forgo a private members' day in order to permit this matter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. When the hon. member says that the opposition was prepared to forgo a private members' day, surely he is aware of the fact that the private members' days were forgone because of unanimous consent. At this moment when he talks about the attitude of one or the other of the parties with respect to a decision that was made a few days ago he is reflecting upon the proceedings of the house. If he looks at standing order 41 he will see that he is not entitled to do that.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Mr. Speaker, there is one matter with which I feel I can deal without running foul of the rules of the house. When an announcement was made of a conference between the representatives of the provinces and the federal government, I am certain that all hon. members took it for granted that unemployment would be the first item on the agenda of any such conference. We were therefore quite amazed when the Prime Minister was questioned in this connection on March 10 and was asked whether or not unemployment would be on the agenda of that conference. It will be recalled that the Prime Minister answered in this way, as reported at page 1879 of Hansard. He said:
Mr. Speaker. I should be greatly surprised if that question was not discussed while they are here.
That was the answer to the question as to whether or not unemployment will be placed on the agenda of that conference. The Prime Minister told us that he would be surprised. He did not tell us that it is to be on the agenda. He told us he would be surprised if it is not dealt with. I am quite certain it is going to be discussed; but I suggest it will not be discussed because the federal government wants it discussed. It will be dealt with because there are premiers from some of the provinces of Canada who will come down here determined to discuss unemployment as the foremost of all problems.
When the Prime Minister was taken to task on this matter he went a little farther. He said:
.. .this is not something that can be dealt with and decided separately from the general problem

Unemployment
of the fiscal relations between the federal government and the governments of the provinces. It is an important factor in those fiscal relations and will certainly have to be considered as such.
Here again we have not a statement, not a commitment, that unemployment will receive top priority in the deliberations of that conference but just a weak sort of assurance that since unemployment does enter into the question of fiscal relations between the provincial and federal governments it unquestionably will be discussed.
I am certain that hon. members were anxious that the government should make its position quite clear that this would be taken up at the forthcoming conference the latter part of April in order to get to the heart of this unemployment problem in so far as co-operation between the provinces and the federal government is possible. I suggest that here is convincing proof of the refusal of the government to face up to the importance of unemployment in this country. The very fact that they have an important conference coming up and that they are prepared to discuss unemployment only as it relates to other matters to be discussed at that conference indicates this.
May I suggest that even if there was not a single unemployed man or woman in Canada there would still be a need for that conference and there would still be discussion about fiscal matters. To argue that we can take care of unemployment matters by any such incidental method is an affront to those who are looking for some leadership from the government at this time.
I submit that this problem of unemployment is a growing one and that procrastination on the part of the government is not going to bring about any improvement; all it will do is lead to very serious difficulties later on. The question of post-war unemployment is one that should have been given attention by this government a number of years ago. They should have acted to maintain full employment in the years immediately following the war; certainly in the last four years when they have seen a steady growth of unemployment they should have taken action. However, we have gone along the path each year seeing increasing unemployment but even if the government has failed to act in the past, the time to act is now instead of waiting until the situation becomes even more serious.
I would remind hon. members that the unemployment figure of 294,000 in 1951 has now risen to 569,000. We must remember that not all persons out of work at any given

time are registered at the national employment offices. One must also consider that before the end of winter this figure might well exceed 600,000.
The attitude of the government toward this unemployment question for many years has been merely to refuse to admit that the problem exists. They have adopted an ostrich-like attitude that if you deny the existence of the problem you will be spared the necessity of having to bring forth some solution. We have had at this session a sort of reluctant admission on the part of the government that unemployment is causing them some concern; but if the government is concerned its concern is manifested, not in positive action to solve unemployment but in making excuses and providing alibis for the past and present lack of action.
There are many excuses offered by the government for the present rate of unemployment. We are told that unemployment is frictional in character, that it is caused by seasonal or regional factors. We have always had seasonal and regional unemployment in Canada and the shameful thing is that year after year the government has taken that situation for granted and has never at any time put forth any effort toward the alleviation of the distress which occurs year in and year out owing to the regional and seasonal characteristics of our economy.
I would submit that most of these frictional causes might be examined. I would suggest that in a private enterprise economy full employment in peacetime is the exception rather than the norm. The only time that we have ever attained full employment in Canada has been during periods of war. During the latter few years of world war II we perhaps approached the closest to full employment we have ever been, and at no given time were there under 60,000 to 70,000 unplaced applicants in the employment offices. That figure, which represented about 2 per cent of the labour force, indicates perhaps the actual amount of unemployment which might be attributed to frictional causes. Translated into the terms of our present-day population and using that 2 per cent figure, my suggestion is that any unemployment in excess of 2 per cent of our labour force is cyclical or general unemployment, and that if the government chooses to argue that unemployment is due to frictional causes their argument is valid to an extent of not more than 2 per cent of the labour force.
If the government argues on that basis they could still not account for the fact that in excess of this 2 per cent we have around

half a million Canadians who are presently out of work and who have no immediate prospects of employment. My group have always suggested that we cannot look upon seasonal or regional unemployment as a normal thing. We have always maintained that the government should have planned to make provision for this yearly recurring problem in this country. This government through a public investment program should have created employment opportunities in those parts of Canada which are most seriously affected by regional unemployment and should have provided supplementary employment opportunities for those Canadians who must make their living on a seasonal basis.
When we consider the difficult times through which these people go who are unemployed annually for a period of time, we should also consider the tremendous wastage in manpower. The champions of private enterprise are always prone to point out the number of man-hours lost through labour disturbances, strikes and lockouts, but they never seem to pay much attention to the tremendous wastage of manpower due to unemployment. I suggest that this problem of seasonal and regional unemployment should have been faced by the government a long time ago, and their failure to deal with this problem now means that the unemployment problem they are faced with is a problem of cyclical unemployment.
I think the statistics bear out the facts of this situation. We know that during the years 1952 to 1954 the labour force of this country increased by some 122,000, yet during that time jobs did not keep pace. It is quite obvious that an increase in the labour force must be accompanied by a proportionate increase in the number of new jobs created if unemployment is not to increase. This places a responsibility upon the government because the government is the only agency in Canada which is in a position to do anything about it.
As compared to the increase in the labour force of 122,000 during the years 1952 to 1954 to which I referred, there was an increase of just over 73,000 in new jobs created through public and private investment. Not only did we fail to make a dent in the existing unemployment during those years, but in each year there was a net increase in the number of unemployed. It seems obvious that employment opportunities will have to be made for this net increase in addition to providing employment for those who are presently on the rolls of the unemployed.
If this is not done by private capital investment then it obviously must be done by public investment. In any event there can be no
Unemployment
excuse for delaying action and allowing a great number of Canadian citizens to go without jobs and remain in want. In addition to the increase in our labour force there is also the question of increased productivity of labour to be considered. The increased rate of capital investment in the post-war years is now paying off industry in increased labour productivity.
We know that important technological processes and new industrial techniques mean that fewer men are required to turn out the same amount of goods.
An official of the steel workers' union pointed out at a meeting held a few days ago that steel production in the United States this year would be about the same as last year but this year the steel companies will require 100,000 fewer workers to do the same amount of work.
This is a change which should bring about great benefits to the country as a whole. To the workers it should mean fewer hours of work and better wages. To the consumers it should mean lower prices. To the nation as a whole it should mean that the benefits obtained through these savings should be made available in investment programs to expand our economy. But what has happened? We find that instead of these benefits being apportioned throughout the country as a whole the benefits are going to the owners of capital and in many cases men are being dropped from the employment rolls and are now swelling the ranks of the unemployed.
It appears quite obvious this problem cannot be left to private business because private business economists have never in the past been able to correct the situation. This is simply due to the fact that a correction of the situation would involve a change in the system and they are not prepared to admit a change is necessary.
The hon. member for Hamilton South (Mr. Reinke), speaking in this debate, pointed that out quite clearly when he reminded the members on the government side of the house, and he might have reminded the hon. members on my right or my left as well, that they are believers in free enterprise and as such unemployment is one of those things which occur in the normal business cycle. Any college freshman taking an elementary course in economics is taught that under the free enterprise system you have a period of prosperity followed by a downward trend known as a recession. Then a depression occurs which is followed by a period known as a recovery and this is followed by another short period of prosperity which invariably occurs in wartime. The student is taught that this process repeats itself throughout history.

Unemployment
Under these circumstances, if we are going to tackle this problem intelligently we are going to have to think in terms of fundamentals. There is no comfort for the unemployed in this country in knowing that an argument is taking place between the government and the opposition as to how many unemployed there are in Canada. I am quite sure that if the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) is able to convince the opposition that there are a few thousand less unemployed than the opposition claims, it is going to be of little or no comfort to those Canadians who are without jobs.
I suggest we have to get down to the root causes of the problem if we hope to accomplish anything as a result of this debate.
The group I represent maintains that full employment is the answer. We insist that nothing short of full employment will meet the needs and the legitimate requirements of the Canadian people.
In case any hon. members are in doubt as to the meaning of the term "full employment" I am going to quote, by way of explanation, not from a socialist economist but from a statement made by the man who is possibly the person most directly connected with this concept, Sir William Beveridge. He sums up full employment in these words:
More vacant jobs than unemployed men. not slightly fewer jobs. It means that jobs are at fair wages, of such a kind and so located that the unemployed man can reasonably be expected to take them; it means, by consequence, that the normal lag between losing one job and finding another will be very short.
We maintain that full employment should be the goal of this government and that the Canadian people will be satisfied with nothing less.
One thing is certain, Mr. Speaker. Full employment will not be brought about without economic planning by the government.
Hon. members in this debate have stated that we should give assistance to private enterprise. They say the government should give handouts to private concerns in the hope that they will provide employment opportunities. It is the old story: when business is good and profits are rolling in, the government is told to keep its hands off private enterprise; but in difficult times private enterprise is the first to come running to the government asking for assistance of some sort.
I suggest that if private enterprise is going to reap the benefits and profits which come with prosperous times they must be prepared to accept the bad along with the good. I also believe if the government is going to be called upon to spend any money the money should be spent by the government in the interests of the people of this country.

I would like to remind the hon. members of this house that three of four groups in this house are by their own admission champions of the economic system which insists upon leaving to private business the conduct and control of the economic affairs of this country. I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that many hon. members of all parties understand the real cause of unemployment in this country that when we suggest a fundamental reform is necessary we are not suggesting anything which was not suggested many years ago by leaders of both the Liberal and Conservative parties.
Mr. Bennett, in January 1935, a week before the opening of the House of Commons, went on the air and announced his new deal. At that time he indicated that he understood the nature of the existing economic system when he spoke of "soulless corporations," and "corporations whose bankrolls loom larger than your happiness". He called for widespread changes in the economic system. His statements were apparently so radical that they offended and frightened his more affluent supporters and they deserted him and put their financial backing behind the Liberal party which soundly defeated his government at the polls a few months later.
The late W. L. Mackenzie King did not criticize Bennett because his program was radical. Indeed, he said that the trouble with the program was that it did not go far enough and did not reach the heart of the matter. In the debates of 1935 we find the following statement by the late W. L. Mackenzie King. I remind you that these are not the words of J. S. Woodsworth. These are the words of the late Mr. King, recorded in Hansard of January 21, 1935, at page 35:
You may have democracy in government combined with democracy in industry. You cannot have democracy in government combined with autocracy in industry. The latter two are as ill mated as the former are congenial. And as long as the capitalist system remains ... a system whereby industrial policies will be exclusively controlled by capitalist investors, parliament intervening here and there to correct incidental evils only, just so long you will have no reform that is fundamental or far-reaching.
On the same day Mr. King also said:
No changes in the capitalist system which keep the capital investor secure in his position as the controller of industrial policy will ever in this world bring about any reform worthy of the name.
It is quite evident, Mr. Speaker, that during the thirties both the leader of the Conservative party of that day and the leader of the Liberal party understood the true nature of the crisis of the time, but they gave lip service only and clung to the economic system which would not permit of a change.

This brings me back to the main theme of my remarks this afternoon. If we are going to face up to the unemployment situation in Canada we must recognize the real causes of unemployment. I may say that apparently not all hon. members in this house are in support of full employment. I recall not many years ago the premier of Alberta visited Ottawa and said that the attainment of full employment in peacetime is as antiquated as an old maid's dream and as improbable of attainment. A few years later the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) said any time the government sets out as its major conscious objective full employment, social security and economic planning, then that government is leading the people down the road to slavery. The hon. member says, "Right." Well, he should see the cleavage and the division there. If we want to bring about a situation of full employment we have to recognize that it involves planning by the government. The government is a democratic institution which represents the people of Canada. The main issue is not a question of whether or not we are going to have control and direction of our economic system. The control and direction of our economic system already exists. The question is whether those controls are going to be exercised by big business in this country in their own interests or whether those controls are going to be exercised by a democratic parliament in the interests of the people of Canada as a whole. That is the main issue.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other causes of unemployment which have been dealt with by some other hon. members. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) pointed out the other day or offered as an excuse the statement that the unemployment situation is as good today as it was last year. I think those are his exact words. He suggested that productive activity has not been sufficient to absorb the net increase in persons coming into the labour force. He suggested the problem. I now suggest that the government tell us what they are going to do about that problem. Are they just going to continue to see this trend continue each year where our unemployment situation is going to get progressively worse, or what measures are they going to undertake to see to it that there is sufficient investment-and I am afraid that of necessity it will have to be public investment-to take care of the increase in our labour force?
There are several other factors entering into our unemployment problem in this country. Our export markets and the increase in private investment capital have always been important factors in the employment picture
Unemployment
in this country. I am not going to say anything about our deteriorating trade position. That matter has been dealt with by some other hon. members on other occasions. However, I want to point out that this last year was the first year since the war in which private capital investment in this country dropped off. In each year since the war there had been an increase in private capital investment. Last year that dropped. Actually the amount is not too great, but when we consider that the population of this country has been growing and that the labour force has been increasing, a fall in the private investment capital in this country can mean only one thing, namely continued and growing unemployment.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a debate of this kind, if it is going to be more than an academic discussion of a vital economic problem, must take into account the political realities of the day. When we come to discuss unemployment, I hope hon. members in other groups, when they rise in this house to discuss this problem, will tell us just how they propose to go about bringing about full employment without government planning, or how they propose to undertake the necessary measures to alleviate the distress in this country without placing the responsibility where it must inevitably rest, namely on the shoulders of the government.
I am not going to deal with the question, Mr. Speaker, of the record of the Liberals and the Conservatives in the past. On a former occasion I had something to say about unemployment and some hon. member across the way said, "Why do you not deal with Social Credit?" I did not do so at that time because, as I suggested, that group, of their own volition, have placed themselves squarely in the forefront of the struggle to maintain the special privileges of private enterprise in this country. I think that the quotations I gave a short while ago indicate their thinking to some extent. I do not think I have ever heard any more conservative or reactionary point of view put forth anywhere in the house than that which has been put forward by the members to my left on this question of full employment.
There was a time, Mr. Speaker, when the people might have had some doubt as to where these people stood. I can recall, when I was a high school student, going out to hear the late William Aberhart. After entering the meeting I was afraid that I had got into a communist meeting by mistake because of the way he ran down the banks. Talk about radicalism! All the other groups in this country were moderate compared with the forerunners of the present group in parliament. But what is the situation today? We find that a few years ago in the Alberta

Unemployment
legislature the minister of mines admitted that while the government of that province had made $89-9 million out of oil, one man, a corporation lawyer in the city of Calgary who at that time was holidaying on a rented yacht in Bermuda, had made $90 million. In other words, one man had made more money out of Alberta oil at that time than had all the people of Alberta put together. Yet we are told that the natural resources belong to the people.
Let us now look at the amazing situation in the province of British Columbia. Here is a situation involving a political party which damned the banks a short while ago. They used to put posters out on the telephone poles saying: Tax the banks; it does not cost them anything. It was not many years ago that court cases were taken against some pamphleteers in the city of Edmonton for talking about bankers' toadies. What is the amazing situation today? We find that the former minister of finance in a Social Credit government and now financial adviser to that government has been appointed to the board of directors of the Canadian Bank of Commerce. I think an extremely interesting comment was made by a writer in the Financial Post on March 5. In discussing this matter he says in part as follows:
These debating points must amuse Premier Bennett, for they divert public attention from his master plan. That plan is nothing less than the liquidation of his old Conservative party, the seizure of the political Right in Canada-
With a capital "R" for right, of course.
-and the capture of parliament under a thin Social Credit label. To him and other former Conservatives around him, Victoria is only a whistle stop on the main line to Ottawa.
For these purposes, suitable obeisances are made to Major Douglas, the A plus B theorem and the original bag of tricks but Social Credit must be made to look safe, respectable and orthodox to the Canadian voter.
What could be better proof of safety, respectability and orthodoxy than the welcome of Mr. Gunderson, financial director of a Social Credit government, into the directorate of a great private bank? What more reassuring than Mr. Gunderson's belated discovery that private banks are immaculate under the new interpretation of Social Credit when they were a combination of Judas Iscariot and Jack the Ripper under the old interpretation?
It seems to me that someone is pulling the wool over someone's eyes. Either Mr. Gunderson is pulling the wool over the eyes of the people who, over the years, have supported the theories of Major Douglas, or he is pulling the wool over the eyes of the Canadian Bank of Commerce. For my money, Mr. Speaker, I am quite satisfied that neither the Canadian Bank of Commerce nor any of our
[Mr. Ellis. 1
other chartered banks is going to appoint to their board of directors a man who believes in the A plus B theorem.
Then, to bring the picture up to date, one need only look at the feverish attempts on the part of this group to find a leader somewhere in the province of Saskatchewan. They have an organization. They had a convention. They had a properly elected executive. But apparently outsiders had come into that province. These faithful, loyal Social Crediters are being stabbed in the back in the interests of the present British Columbia leadership who are contributing to the sabotage of the existing organization in the interests of those outside the province.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I know you cannot take it. I realize that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Alfred Claude Ellis: I am not going to discuss further this inner struggle between the two wings of the Tory party but I am going to suggest that, in our own province, the men and women who over the years have announced some faith and some support of these ideologies, fallacious though they may be, are nevertheless quite perturbed about not just interference but outright control from outside the province. I am quite certain that the people of Saskatchewan are as good as people elsewhere in Canada. I know that our Liberals are just as good as the Liberals of Ontario, and I am quite sure that our Social Crediters are just as good as the Social Crediters in British Columbia and Alberta. I suggest that our own people are well able to look after their own internal political organization.
I want to make this one observation. Often I find it difficult to distinguish between the three parties I have mentioned several times this afternoon, Conservative, Liberal and Social Credit, but there is one thing that I think must be said in fairness to the Liberals and Conservatives. Irrespective of their adherence to an economic philosophy, at least they do have conventions at which they elect their leaders in a democratic fashion. I must give credit to both the old established parties for that.


An hon. Member:: Different from the C.C.F.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Returning to the motion-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alfred Claude Ellis: -our main concern is what action the government is going to take at this time to meet the unemployment problem. I suggest

they can start first by assuring the people of Canada that they are prepared to honour the commitment they made in 1945 to take care of the employable unemployed. They can provide the necessary financial assistance to take care of those who are without jobs at the present time until such time as employment opportunities are provided for these people. They can also increase transfer payments to provide a higher level of purchasing power throughout the country. Through a properly planned public investment program they can develop our natural resources to expand the economy of the country and at the same time provide needed employment opportunities to the people.
Who in this house today, Mr. Speaker, can argue that there is not work to be done? When we consider the great need for new homes, the great need for schools, hospitals, highways, irrigation projects, railway grade crossing protection and the host of other much needed works, there is no excuse whatsoever for any government in Canada not taking action at the present time. I suggest, for example, that the government might begin on some of those projects that have been under active consideration for some considerable time.
Coming from the province of Saskatchewan, I suggest that the federal government should accept the generous offer of financial assistance by the provincial government and start work immediately on the South Saskatchewan river dam. We know that at the present time the unemployment problem has spread throughout the length and breadth of the country. There is not a province in Canada where there is not needed work to be done. As a specific example I repeat my suggestion that the government should announce at this time that it is prepared to go ahead with the immediate construction of the South Saskatchewan river dam.
There is a need in this country for work to be done. We have natural resources in abundance. What is more, we have capable people who are willing and anxious to work. What is the government waiting for? We have all the requirements necessary to put our people to work. All that is required is intelligent leadership on the part of the government. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent)-and reference has been made to this before-when he spoke to the New Reform club in Quebec on September 19 last told his hearers, and of course the country, that it was the government's job to find work for all. We agree. He said if the government was not smart enough to organize our economy to provide work for all it was incompetent. We agree.
Unemployment
If the members who support the government take the Prime Minister at his word, if they actually believe that the government has provided jobs for all, then I suggest they should go to the people of the country and explain away the over half million unemployed we have at the present time. If the government supporters admit, as they must, that the government has not provided jobs for all, then I also suggest that they take the Prime Minister at his word and vote nonconfidence in the government.


Mr. Speaker:: For a small part of the hon. member's speech I think he may have been slightly out of order. If that is so, I should like to ask hon. members not to take me to task because I did not do anything about it. It struck me that the hon. member was perhaps taking a tangent away from unemployment when he spoke about the method of selecting leaders among the various parties. Maybe he took advantage of the fact that for a while several of our colleagues came to the chair to speak to me. I hope that the fact I was not attentive at that particular moment is not going to be held against me and that the debate will not be too much out of order from now on, because I intend to listen.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, after your warning words I am rather circumscribed as to some of the things I might have said in answer to the hon. member who has just taken his seat. However, I will be keeping entirely within the limits of the subject under discussion if I suggest to my hon. friend that, in view of the fact there is a nursery of socialism in the province of Saskatchewan, it might be well for the hon. gentleman and those associated with him to apply the biblical injunction-physician, heal thyself. Unemployment in the province of Saskatchewan is in my opinion-and I have statistics here to bear it out-larger in proportion to population than in any other province in the Dominion of Canada. I have the records week by week of unemployment in Prince Albert, Moose Jaw, Regina, Saskatoon and Yorkton. These records extend from the 28th of January to the 18th of February.
These records indicate an increase in unemployment week by week in my own province which reveals a serious situation. During the weeks to which I have made reference there was an increase in unemployment of 26 per cent to 46 per cent over a year ago. In one case, the city of Regina, during a period of three weeks the increase is some 55 per cent. While I am in no way absolving and do not intend to absolve the government of the country for

Unemployment
its failure to act, I suggest to my hon. friend that, with the resources available in Saskatchewan, it strikes me as passing strange that the government of that province has not seen fit to do what the Frost government has done in Ontario-


An hon. Member:: Call an election.


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend says, "call an election". I am dealing at the moment with unemployment, but I shall return to that. The Frost government has brought into effect in Ontario a program of public works similar to though greater than that introduced in the legislature of Quebec in the month of November. While these other provinces, tired of waiting for the federal government to act, have acted, the government of Saskatchewan has sat in idleness in the face of the rising unemployment problem. I listened to the hon. member talk about private enterprise. I ask him: What has happened in Saskatchewan with respect to the public enterprises operated in that province? Have they thought of the employed? Go to the city of Prince Albert. What about the famous box factory there? Last September and October the employees of that government institution were told, "We are not making a profit, so out you go."


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon.
member at this point, because if he continues to criticize the provincial government of Saskatchewan he may prompt other members to come to the defence of the government of Saskatchewan and we will be discussing, during this debate on unemployment, provincial actions with respect to some problems. Inasmuch as the unemployment situation may be affected I think there might be some passing references to provincial action, but we must remain within the sphere of federal jurisdiction. I do not think we should undertake a debate on the merits or demerits of the various policies adopted from time to time by provincial governments.


John George Diefenbaker: I listened for 25 minutes to the excoriation of private enterprise. I was simply pointing out to my hon. friend, who says socialism is the answer, that it certainly has not been in Saskatchewan where several of the government businesses have had to close down because of the tremendous deficits which they suffered. I will say no more than that out of deference to Your Honour. I would have liked to place these things on the record before the house, so that my hon. friend speaking in theories might be answered by the experience of the party in power in Saskatchewan of which he speaks in such adulatory and eulogistic tones with regard to what it has done. Yet,

whenever there has not been a profit they have put the employees out to join the unemployed and go on unemployment insurance. Further than that I shall not go at the present time because of what Your Honour has said.
Now, sir, the resolution that is before the house was moved by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough). It reads as follows, as recorded at page 1606 of Hansard for March 1, 1955:
in the opinion of this house, because of the grave state of unemployment in Canada as disclosed by the joint statement of the Department of Labour-
And so on. Then, it continues:
-the government should immediately give consideration to the formulation of plans to deal with this emergency, and to the necessary steps to establish a long-term program for expanding employment to be presented to parliament during the present session.
It seems a long while ago, sir, that this debate started. So far as I am concerned, I sat here and listened to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) and to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). The debate started with two sets of figures as to the degree of unemployment. The minister finally supplied the revised version. His views, and I shall refer to them in a moment, were that conditions are not cheerful; not altogether black; the government is concerned; unemployment is not too serious. Then, a few minutes later he mentioned the reasonably good showing in 1954, and that it should not be forgotten. In another part of his speech he said men who are able to work but are without jobs, and who are receiving unemployment insurance benefits, exist in far too great numbers.
Well, what have the unemployed to hope for from the debate that has taken place? What has the government to offer? What salutary degree of hope and expectation may rise in the hearts of the unemployed of this country as they listened to the minister's lengthy speech in which he pointed out that conditions were not good, but they were good in one place. He said that we could easily have more unemployment and greater employment at the same time. In another place he said that the unemployment situation may appear a good deal worse than last year, and it may lead one to conclude that both the economic situation and the employment picture are deteriorating.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said he very seriously regretted the developing unemployment across the country when he spoke in the house some weeks ago. On another occasion he said, very seriously, that the government regrets the developing

unemployment. But what, sir, has been said by the government? Today I think the hothouse development of expanding production through defence has placed the government in a position where they are unable to even suggest that something be done about this problem. They express solicitude. They mobilize statistics. But the Prime Minister, from whom the people of Canada want to hear, with the prestige of his position, remains silent in the face of a problem that wrings the hearts of the people.
The government has been asked by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) to do something. The same request has been made by hon. members on this side of the house, yet there has been no word of hope. In so far as unemployment is concerned the government has been as idle as a painted ship upon a painted ocean. The Minister of Labour mentioned how good conditions were six months ago. This reminded me of an old story on the prairies. A man had died in a blizzard and sympathy was given to the mourners by saying, "Just remember, six months ago yesterday was the hottest day of the year." What a hopeless picture! The government, faced for the first time with serious unemployment that has been mounting over the years, is unable to give any hope. We are unable to rouse them into placing before the people of Canada some of the picture.
Mention was made of the fact that Mr. Bennett came into power in August, 1930, after unemployment had been mounting at a terrific rate following the stock market break in 1929. In the speech from the throne in 1930, we find these words; that were placed in the mouth of the governor general:
It affords me much pleasure to greet you at the commencement of another session of parliament, and to be able to congratulate you upon the continued prosperity of the country. The year 1929 was the most productive year in the history of Canada. In industries, other than agriculture, employment reached the highest point on record: new construction was the largest known. Mining production was of unequalled value. Manufacturing production surpassed all previous records. There was vast increase in the development of hydroelectric power. The products of our fields and our herds reached higher standards of excellence and quality than at any previous time. The dominion is already recovering from the seasonal slackness evident at the end of the year, and it is not to be forgotten that the bulk of the 1929 wheat crop still remains in Canadian hands for final disposition.
Sir, that was the picture in February of 1930. No one here wants to speak of depression. We on this side of the house hope that the government will act because there is no depression in other countries of the world. In Britain there is no such thing as serious unemployment today, the unemployment in
Unemployment
Britain being less than half of our unemployment with a population several times greater than ours. The same condition prevails in West Germany and in other private enterprise countries. For instance, the other day the Prime Minister of Australia said that in the face of one million immigrants who have gone into Australia in the last few years, he would welcome Canadians.
We do not believe in preaching pessimism; we do not want to see the condition of affairs brought about which will create panic; but we are asking the government to act now as they were asked to act in 1930. If hon. members will read that speech alongside the speech placed in the mouth of the Governor General this year they will see the similarity. Sir, this is not something new that has come to the attention of the government. It has been mounting for the last several years. The Leader of the Opposition over and over again has pointed out that we are pricing ourselves out of world markets. He pointed out the danger to our economic system of the acceleration of the trend toward increasing unemployment.
In 1954 the revenues of the Canadian National Railways were down by some $60 million as compared with 1953, and the Canadian Pacific revenues were down some $50 million. I mention at this time that we have been trying for days to find out what is the degree of layoffs on the Canadian National Railways. That information is denied us. We have got as far as to find out that some 3,500 were laid off between December and January. Why not face that picture? Is it not a fact that some 10,000 have been laid off? The railwaymen ask: what is the picture for the future? After all, it is a government corporation and they have a right to expect information regarding the railway company owned by the dominion.
What about trade conditions and agriculture? So far as agriculture is concerned, no matter what statistics may be mobilized by the government, there is a continuing reduction in purchasing power, there is a continuing reduction in the income of the farmer and an increase in the cost of the things that the farmer has to buy. When we think of the initial price of wheat at $1.40 a bushel we go back to 1935-39 and we find that today wheat has a purchasing power of 53| cents a bushel.
What about our trade with the United States? The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) said the other day that we are doing something to prevent their closing out their markets to us. We do not know what has been done. Certainly, whatever has been done other than the writing of two notes and

Unemployment
a visit to Washington has not brought about any change. What is our situation in the United States? In January, 1954, we imported from the United States $202 million worth of goods; in January of this year we imported $208 million worth. Our exports in the same period increased from $160 million to $183 million. In other words, the spread of imports into Canada is increasing at the expense of the exports. By our exports to the United States we continue to export employment to that country by shipping them tens of millions of dollars' worth of raw products or partly manufactured products and exhaustible resources that can never be restored in this country. In the face of that, and our importations of manufactured goods, the situation is continuing to become worse day by day and week by week. While we raise this matter, and have raised it for several years, the answer of the government is, in effect, we hope for the best. Now we have a serious unemployment situation and I am going to ask the Prime Minister a few questions that have to be answered. They cannot be avoided. They are questions that every municipality is asking today.
The municipalities are loaded down with unemployment relief. The residents of our urban communities cannot bear it any longer. What is to be done about the unemployed employables? What is the attitude of the government? Well, if I understand the press of this country, almost without exception the press says that constitutional matters are today being raised as a smokescreen to relieve this government of its responsibilities. You cannot feed 550,000 hungry stomachs by promising them that if the constitution permitted it something would be done. The government adopts that attitude. Who is responsible? In the 1920's we thought that the constitutional argument was sufficient. Over and over again Mr. Mackenzie King said that nothing could be done, and finally, when unemployment had risen to unheard of levels, the government went out of office. I do not say that the Bennett government did everything that should have been done. They faced a situation where there was depression everywhere in the world, where the situation was the same in every free enterprise and socialist country, where farm prices had fallen to unheard of levels everywhere in the world; but at least the government of Mr. Bennett said: we will give grants in order to relieve municipalities of the load of responsibility and also to assist the province. An amendment to the constitution was brought in with a great blare. Tremendous changes were being effected in 1941 or 1942.
[Mr. Dielenbaker.l
As a result of that amendment the Unemployment Insurance Act was placed on the statute books. I am asking the Prime Minister, and I think the country has a right to an answer: Does he accept the proposals of the government of Canada of August, 1945, made to the conference of that year? These are the representations made by the government of Canada of which he was then a member and of which the Minister of Agriculture was also a member. The proposals placed before that conference were as follows. I am quoting from page 42 of the proposals of the government of Canada:
Over the past 7 or 8 years there have been recommendations by the national employment commission, the Sirois commission and others, that the dominion should assume responsibility tor necessary relief to the employable unemployed. It has been generally suggested that the dominion should accept this obligation as part of any general settlement with the provinces.
After discussing the matter the government went on to propose:
As a part of the general arrangement with the provincial governments, the dominion government now proposes to establish a practicable and comprehensive system of assistance to ablebodied unemployed persons as soon as possible, rather than waiting until the need for it actually arises. It is thought necessary not to permit the recurrence of the problems of administration being separated from financial responsibility . . .
Then it says:
The dominion is therefore accompanying its proposal for general acceptance of responsibility with a concrete plan for its implementation in the field of assistance for employable unemployed persons.
And so it goes. The plan proposes acceptance of dominion responsibility for employable unemployed persons and provincial and local responsibility for unemployables. I ask the Prime Minister: Are you running away from that offer? Are you prepared to stand by that offer? If you are, when this preliminary conference takes place in April, there is nothing to stop you from placing this matter in the 1945 form before this conference to the end that action will be taken, late but not too late as compared with what the situation will be if the unemployed have to wait until fall. If there is anyone who wants to suggest that I have omitted any material part of that, let him say so. I have read every line of it. There is no excuse today for the government to hide behind a subterfuge as they are doing on this occasion.
What is going to happen at this conference in April? The premiers are coming and are going to decide what they will do when they start to do something. Why does not the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) gather together his economic committee and formulate a general system to place before this meeting

in April with regard to this problem of unemployment instead of postponing and procrastinating until September, October or November and then another possible postponement of action until another conference. This government cannot escape responsibility for its failure to have acted before now. Speaking in Quebec last September the Prime Minister used these words:
We have a country where there should be work for everybody and if we are not smart enough to organize the economy of the nation to provide work for everybody we are incompetent.
That is what one Canadian Press dispatch said. Another report placed an "s" on the "incompetent" and you can have it either way. That is what the Prime Minister said last September. Then the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) spoke to the congress of labour, and I quote the following from the report of that meeting:
Hon. Milton Gregg. Minister of Labour, cautiously predicted the coming year would see some improvement in the employment picture. "It is difficult to foretell long-range future developments, but there appears to be no real reason for being gloomy," Mr. Gregg declared.
Then we have the speech from the throne, that delightful document, which stated that unemployment is regional and seasonal. That is really reminiscent of the February 1930 speech from the throne. Then the Financial Post reported on unemployment and quoted one of these sources which are always anonymous; high in anonymity and low in permission for their names to be used. This was in January and this anonymous person is reported as saying that he believed that unemployment would fall behind last year's figure.
What about British Columbia? The government of British Columbia got in touch with this government and pointed out the situation which was created by people coming to that province because of the salubrious climate that exists there. In answer to a request for assistance, and referring to the post-war period, the Prime Minister said that he believed that the greatly improved economic conditions since that time and the additional fact that unemployment insurance, family allowance, old age security and other welfare payments, which cost the federal government about $1 billion annually, had reduced the cost of unemployment to a level within the financial capacity of the province.
I submit with great respect that that statement does not take into consideration that today the federal government is collecting almost 78 per cent of the revenues of this country. There has been a refusal to do anything in recent weeks. As soon as this debate got under way the Bank of Canada 50433-129
Unemployment
issued one of its optimistic statements and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) put out his booklet on private and public investment. Those things are not enough. The government does not even recognize that there is serious unemployment. Unless they do recognize that fact they cannot achieve in their minds any actuality of a solution for the problem. I was reading Edmund Burke the other night and I saw something that is quite fitting. He said:
We can never walk surely but by being sensible of our blindness.
How applicable that is to this government which is so insensible to its blindness, to its own postponing and procrastinating. It is ready to promise action some time in the future. The Prime Minister was asked by an hon. member from Toronto whether this matter of unemployment would be brought before this meeting of the provincial premiers in April and he refused categorically to say that that would be done and that action would be taken.
That is the position of affairs here in Canada, which is an island of unemployment, as it were, in the midst of other private enterprise countries which are going ahead and which have kept unemployment down to basic levels. Surely that fact alone and the loss of our trade from month to month and from year to year, accelerating as it has in the last few years, should cause this government to decide to lift itself from its supine attitude, not of indifference but of apathy coupled with hope, and actually do something to meet the situation of the unemployed who are today asking parliament to act. The municipalities are saying that they cannot continue to carry the load they are carrying today.
You say to me: What suggestions have the opposition to offer? I repeat that we do not believe that inaction should be allowed to continue. We believe that the Prime Minister spoke words of deep and abiding wisdom last September. All we ask is that those words of wisdom be translated into action, for the fact is that nothing effective is being done.
As to our suggestions, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) suggested that there should be a dominion-provincial conference on unemployment. Why could it not be held? Why could not this conference in April be held with reference to this matter and plans made respecting other fiscal matters? That is the first question I ask.
Next, what about a reduction in taxation? I think we are going to secure a reduction in taxation because of certain speeches that

Unemployment
have been made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) and also because of the suggestion the other evening by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that there might be a deficit this year. Those two things seem to telegraph an advance notice of a reduction in taxation.
As far as deficit financing is concerned, I believe that economists generally agree that it is a means of reducing unemployment and encouraging business. Seven American economists gave evidence before the United States Senate committee on the budget. Professor William Vickery of Columbia University said:
We should err, if at all. on the side of too much stimulus, too large a deficit, rather than too little.
Professor J. K. Galbraith, professor of economics at Harvard, advocated reductions in personal income tax as a means of restoring a weakened economy. I believe that there must be a reduction in taxation. Today company taxation is placing too great a load on initiative and in addition is taxing Canada out of the markets of the world.
Having said that, I should like to hear the Prime Minister, with that prestige to which I make sincere reference, say that we are going to give a lead to the people of Canada. One of the major causes of our loss of markets is the high cost of government. What have they done this year? They boast of a reduction in the cost of government. They reduced those costs by a paltry $4 million over and above the defence reduction. While we reduce by a paltry $4 million the United States, in the fiscal year ending in June last, by the application of business principles and by following the recommendations of the Hoover commission, was able to cut expenditures $6-7 billion and taxes by $7-5 billion.
I would like to hear the Prime Minister give to the people of Canada a message to the effect that as far as possible the dumping of our exhaustible and irreplaceable mineral wealth into the United States, which also means the export of employment would, as far as possible, cease. I would like to hear him say that we in Canada would follow the policy so often suggested by the financial critic of the opposition, and increase the fabrication of these raw materials in Canada. Such a move would give encouragement to Canadian producers and would ensure an expansion of jobs for the unemployed.
As an essential method of tax relief and a means of revitalizing industry there should be provision for an accelerated write-off to encourage capital expansion by industry. These are the kind of things we have been advocating for the last three or four years. The

answer in every case has been that these things are unnecessary. We are forced to conclude that this is the answer, because action has not been taken upon them.
I would like to speak about trade. If four years ago the government of this country had followed the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition, which was supported by other hon. members, and given leadership in the convening of a British commonwealth conference, it could not have been but beneficial. However, we were answered by jeers and no action was taken when we made this suggestion. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is about to take a trip to Australia and New Zealand in order to discuss trade. That is all to the good. I hope, however, he is more successful in that trip than he was in the trip to South America. In the year following his South American visit I believe our trade fell by something like $50 million, although I do not attribute the result to that cause.
When the Prime Minister was asked, before departing for the prime ministers' conference, what stand he would take on the question of trade we were unable to get an answer. Since his return we are forced to conclude from his statements that little was accomplished in this regard, the reason being that international problems crowded out the consideration of matters which are particularly pertinent and appropriate to the preservation of our economic life. It must never be forgotten that Lenin predicted in 1923 that communism would never come into control until such time as the private enterprise nations engaged in a major economic conflict, the have-nots against the haves. Only then, he indicated, would there occur that breakdown in economic life under free enterprise that would permit communism to take over.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in 1945 and 1946 the government told us about a shelf of public works projects. Where is that shelf? I think you can find it filed under "E", bearing the heading "Elections". Certainly the subject of public works projects is never discussed except during election periods. It is only at election time that the shelf is pulled partly open and the hope is expressed that great public works projects will be proceeded with. At election time the old perennial, the South Saskatchewan dam, is hauled out and repolished. Where is the shelf?


An hon. Member:: It is bare.


John George Diefenbaker: What is being done about public works projects? What are some of the things that could be done? I know that when I mention this subject someone will refer to the constitutional division of powers. Although

constitutional difficulties in the United States so far as highways are concerned are somewhat similar to those in Canada, the President of the United States in the interests of defence and also to increase tourist traffic and facilitate transportation between states has undertaken a $100 billion project for new highways.
What about northern Canada? Today we are building radar defence stations in the north. Military authorities have told me those radar defence stations can be easily rendered inaccessible. For that reason I believe defence highways have a place in our NATO expenditures and in our continental defence program for North America. In 1919 assistance was given to the provinces. In 1912 Sir Wilfrid Laurier joined with Sir Robert Borden in supporting a similar project in order to foster development within the country.
These are a few of the matters I believe should be considered today. I ask the Prime Minister now, before taking my seat and before my time elapses, will he not arise and offer some hope to the people of Canada. Five or six hundred thousand people are asking, "What is the government going to do?" By way of reply I do not want to hear the kind of speech my gallant and hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) gave to this house, which was simply a conglomeration of incongruities. The people are asking for a promise of action. Will the Prime Minister not assure the Canadian people that he believes action is necessary and that when this conference meets in three, four or five weeks, one of the first things to which this conference will give consideration is the problem of unemployment? Will he not state that he realizes that if we continue to deliberately delude ourselves concerning the unemployment situation we shall bring about a fear complex in this country which will have serious results in the future?


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I have two reasons for taking part in this debate. The first is a statement made by the hon. member for Regina City to the effect that the government has never done anything for the unemployed. If unemployment insurance were suddenly cut off in the city of Regina he would know that something has been done. The hon. member for Prince Albert also said the government is doing nothing at this time to alleviate the unemployment situation. I would ask both hon. members to refer to a speech delivered by an hon. member on this side of the house.
Some things which have been said on this side of the house are worth repeating. Hansard of March 1, 1955 contains a statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce concerning what has been done to assist the unemployed 50433-129J
Unemployment
in Canada. Although there is a list of the economic policies which the government has pursued I shall refer only to No. 11. He said several major projects were completed or were nearing completion, such as the great lakes waterway, the Canso causeway, and railway extensions to Lynn Lake and Kitimat. In addition the major projects initiated last year included a $30 million military camp and housing project at Gagetown, dredging at Yarmouth, and dredging in the first narrows at Vancouver. In addition the Minister of Public Works has been urging the provincial governments to get busy on the development of the trans-Canada highway. I just wonder at the imagination of hon. members who can say the government is doing nothing.
The other reason I rose is to show what Fort William is doing. I represent Fort William. I should like to quote from the Times-Journal of February 22. This Times-Journal is one of the great papers of Canada. Christmas week they published on the front page "No Bad Deeds Published on the Front Page this Week". They seek to tell the truth.
This is what Fort William had been doing prior to February 22. They organized a "do it now" campaign. I remember that during the first war there were two things of which we tried to remind ourselves at home. The first was to keep the home fires burning, and the second was that everybody should do his bit. I think doing a little bit is far better than talking a great deal. This article in connection with the "do it now" campaign is headed "Job Drive Cuts Unemployment" and reads as follows:
Proportionately, unemployment is being held down as compared with last year as a result of the "do it now" job campaign now under way in the city, G. J. Turgeon, manager of the Fort William national employment service office, reported today.
"Last year about this time, the figures were soaring," Mr. Turgeon said. "This year, the weekly figures are fairly steady. Instead of 175,200 persons reporting in each week, we are getting 35 or 40, and many are being provided with jobs in short order."
Mr. Turgeon said the campaign to get industry, merchants and householders to do all possible work now when skilled tradesmen and plenty o' '*bour is available is "really paying off".
"We are getting a very good response," he said. "We have been advised by a number of firms that they are proceeding immediately with work they might otherwise have left until later in the year."
He said one firm has advised the N.E.S. office by letter this morning that work had been provided for 20 extra men. Another firm which plans to build a number of homes has decided to go ahead "as soon as possible", he said, without waiting for the frost to get out of the ground.
"These are typical of the response we have been getting to the publicity campaign the advisory committee sponsored," Mr. Turgeon said. "In addition many private home owners-

Unemployment
And these home owners are not Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation owners only.
-are hiring men for interior work. Some of the jobs may not be big but they are jobs nevertheless and all help to improve the unemployment situation."
Fort William congregations of all denominations Sunday heard an appeal from their clergy to join in the campaign and help provide employment "as an act of charity to your fellow man."
"No matter how large the job or how small," Mr. Turgeon said, "we have the men who can do it now rather than later when work will be more plentiful."
The McKellar general hospital, which built a large wing within the last three years, have decided not to wait until the summer to renovate the old part of the hospital. They joined in the "do-it-now" campaign, and they are doing it now. Plumbers, painters, paper-hangers and labourers are employed.
I know what unemployment is, Mr. Speaker, though not through personal experience, because I have never been out of work. However, I know that when a man is out of work he needs to eat, and sometimes he is job-blind. It is the duty of the government to do everything possible to provide work. I am sure the Minister of Labour is just as keen on doing this as is anybody who has spoken from the other side of the house. Everything possible must be done to get men work.
We have always had unemployment at the lakehead. When it freezes up, what happens? The deckhands and those who work on the boats are laid off. Elevator employees are reduced in number, as well as railway employees. Employment at the Great Lakes Paper Company Limited is cut down. It is our duty to do everything we can to get work for men.
I am asking this question of hon. members opposite, Mr. Speaker. Have you a "do-it-now" campaign in Regina? Have you a "doit-now" campaign in Winnipeg North Centre? Have you a "do-it-now" campaign in Hamilton? Have you a "do-it-now" campaign in Vancouver?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do you know how many unemployed there are in Fort William? There are 6,000.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I remember once seeing a picture of a boy helping a lame dog over a stile. Underneath were the words, "A little help with a lot of pity". I would just close by saying that a little bit of help, a little bit of action like that which has been taken by Fort William, is worth a great many telegrams and a great deal of talk.
' Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Fort William told us that in his opinion the

government already have done a good deal for unemployment. That statement is probably quite true. But the fact remains that they obviously have not done enough. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre just mentioned, in the city of Fort William alone at this moment there are 6,000 people unemployed.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: No.


Mr. Thatcher:: The Canadian Press figures are here, and I saw them.


Mr. Martin:: That is the figure given by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: It is a harsh and unpleasant fact that each year since 1951, this nation's army of unemployed has been increasing. In 1951 Canada had a peak of 296,000 unplaced applicants. In 1952 the figure increased to 382,000. By 1953 it was 408,000. Last year it was 570,000 and today it is over 600,000. In other words, Mr. Speaker, despite what has been said in this debate by the hon. member for Fort William and other Liberal members, the harsh fact is that unemployment is getting a little bit worse each year.
I feel that those figures are all the more disgraceful when we realize, first, that this trend is taking place at a time when Canada's national income is almost at an all-time high; second, that by almost any statistical standard we are living in one of the wealthiest countries in the world; and third, that the problem is less acute in other western countries which have fewer natural resources than Canada has. Most Canadians simply cannot understand why a country that can split the atom cannot put its people to work. They cannot understand, moreover, why this government, if it could solve the problem in wartime, finds it so complicated in peacetime.
I am not going to contend this afternoon that there is any easy or simple solution to the unemployment problem. I do not think there is any magic formula nor any pat answer. However, I am convinced that there are certain steps which the government could and should take and which, even if they would not solve the problems, would at least greatly alleviate it.
What are those steps? I found the speech made by the hon. member for Spadina earlier in this debate to be a good one, and one with which I could agree to a considerable extent. In the first place I agree with hon. members who have taken part in the debate and have urged substantial spending on public works. As I see it there can be no half measures in this connection. I am not going to dwell on the matter. I feel there is merit in such projects as a public housing program, a proper

highway system, slum clearance, conservation schemes and irrigation projects such as the South Saskatchewan river dam. In my opinion aggressiveness in this field could be a real stimulant to our economy at this time; it could be a shot in the arm.
But there is a second step which in my view would be even more effective in solving our unemployment problem. I shall contend today, as I have contended many times in the past, that the savage rates of taxation imposed by this government are having a good deal to do with the present slump in our labour market. During the debate one speaker after another has emphasized that if we are going to have full employment, consumers must have adequate purchasing power. Yet it seems to me that the present tax policies of the government are draining off purchasing power from consumers at an alarming rate. In 1954 the three levels of government in the country took 33 cents out of every dollar earned by the average Canadian. This government alone took 21 cents out of every dollar earned. The sums which the government is siphoning off in this manner would otherwise, I think, have been used by consumers to build homes, to buy automobiles, to buy farm machinery and to purchase clothing. I suggest that inevitably reduced purchasing power because of the level of taxation is reflected in reduced demands for labour.
The government is taking very large sums of money from people in the lower income groups in direct personal income tax. It is taking even more substantial amounts by indirect taxation. In Canada today, as every hon. member knows, we have a 10 per cent sales tax on almost every manufactured article except foodstuffs. We have a 15 per cent luxury tax on dozens of necessities. We have customs duties and tariffs. In my opinion these indirect taxes contribute very substantially to making Canadian prices among the highest in the world.
Take, for example, the automobile industry. As the house knows, the automobile industry is having unemployment troubles at the present time. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder? I have seen figures put out by the automobile industry which indicate that on a standard car manufactured in Canada there are today direct and indirect taxes approximating almost $600. That of course forces up the price of cars to a point where many labourers and farmers find it very difficult to buy automobiles. So it is with hundreds of other products. High taxes are contributing to high prices, high prices are contributing to decreased demands, and in
Unemployment
my opinion decreased demands are resulting in additional unemployment.
Therefore I suggest to the government, as a second step to alleviate unemployment, that it should reduce the tax burden on individuals, particularly those in the lower income groups. I propose first of all a cut in personal income taxes for all Canadians earning $5,000 a year or less. Second, I suggest a sharp cut in sales and special excise taxes. In my opinion such action would restore a good deal of purchasing power to Canadian consumers. In the third place-I speak personally now, and there may be few who will agree with me but I make the suggestion anyway-I suggest that the government should alter its tax policy in order to give greater encouragement to business expansion and investment. Today, as hon. members know, the standard rate of corporation tax is 49 per cent. In other words the government is taking roughly one-half of the profits earned by large companies.
If the Minister of Finance were here, even he would agree that such rates are pretty severe. He has said so publicly in the past. It seems to me fairly obvious that this high rate of taxation must tend to be harmful to the nation's investment program in new plant and equipment. Our population and our labour force are increasing rapidly each year. We have to depend on investment in new factories and new equipment to provide jobs for those added to the labour force. I should like to remind the Minister of Finance of a speech he made before the Canadian Tax Foundation on November 16 last, on which occasion he said:
In this country it is still left mainly to the private business world to plan expansion and development, to supply capital for new ventures, assume the financial risks and take the initiative in all the ways that provide employment and careers for those who work for salaries and wages.
In other words, the Minister of Finance said at that time that we still depend primarily on the business world to provide employment opportunities. If the Minister of Finance really believes that, and I am sure he does, I cannot understand why he continues to hobble industry in carrying out that responsibility effectively, by imposing on it such crippling taxation. To the extent that high taxes prevent either individuals or companies from expanding, new jobs are jeopardized. I am absolutely convinced that business would respond with increased activity and greater expansion if their taxation rates were reduced to more realistic levels. Speaking only for myself, I ask the Minister of Finance to contemplate such action as a

Unemployment
major step in combating unemployment. I believe the cut should be both deep and substantial.
I should like to draw the attention of the house to an experiment recently tried in the commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The standard of living in Puerto Rico is considerably lower than in Canada. One of the major problems they have had to deal with has been unemployment. In the past that country has had very heavy unemployment. In an effort to cope with it the government of Puerto Rico several years ago asked Mr. Beardsley Ruml, one of the foremost United States economists, and a few other advisers to come to Puerto Rico and look into the problem. They came up with a solution which I think is rather unique. I have in my hand an advertisement taken from Newsweek of February 28, and I should like to read a number of excerpts from it. It is headed: "Now Puerto Rico Offers 100 Per Cent Tax Exemption to New Industry". The advertisement goes on to say:
. . . "we do seek new and expanding industries". Federal taxes do not apply in Puerto Rico, and the commonwealth also offers full exemption from local taxes. That is why 300 new plants have been located in Puerto Rico, protected by all the guarantees of the United States constitution.
In a dramatic bid to raise the standard of living in Puerto Rico, the commonwealth government is now offering United States manufacturers such overwhelming incentives that more than 300 new factories have already been established in this sun-drenched island . . .
First and most compelling incentive is a completely tax-free period of ten years for most manufacturers who set up new plants in Puerto Rico.
The advertisement continues:
The commonwealth will leave no stone unturned to help you get started. It will build a factory for you. It will help you secure long-term financing. It will even screen job applicants for you-and then train them to operate your machines . . . Says Governor Munoz: Our drive is for new capital . . . The commonwealth is interested in attracting all suitable industries . . .
I think that experiment has a great deal of merit, and I am going to send the advertisement to the Minister of Finance. Today in Puerto Rico almost 50,000 people who a few years ago were unemployed are working in plants which were brought to Puerto Rico because of the tax incentives offered by the government there. Perhaps the same kind of scheme would work in Canada, even if details had to be changed. I do think the government should examine that scheme thoroughly to see if the same thing could be of value here in Canada.
In combating unemployment we should consider giving tax exemptions to certain types of industry for a limited period while they are becoming established. If the minister thinks such a procedure is a little too extreme, I would certainly add my voice to

those who have urged that at least he allow accelerated depreciation on new plants. This method worked very successfully during world war II and during the Korean war, so I feel it should be equally successful at this time in encouraging employment.
I am convinced, too, that the fiscal weapon could be used to combat seasonal unemployment. One of the industries which is hardest hit at the present time is the construction industry. It is always so expensive to build in wintertime that most companies prefer to build in the spring, summer or fall. But there are many parts of Canada where construction can go on during the winter.
I am absolutely convinced that if the government would give contractors, or people who were building, tax incentives to construct in December, January, February or March, more building would be done. If tax incentives are not sufficient, then perhaps we should even consider subsidies. In the long run I feel it would be cheaper to take such action than to keep people on unemployment insurance during the winter months.
Today I have urged both greatly increased expenditures on the part of the government, and reduced taxation. I suppose some may argue that this is not being consistent. In speaking in parliament I have always urged strict economy in government spending, and I do not think I will ever change my views. I cannot concede that waste or duplication in governments is of any use to anybody. I cannot concede that it is fair to pay large subsidies to certain specific groups at the expense of others. Canadians are a thrifty people. I think most Canadians would like to see the budget balanced. But at this time I feel that more important than balancing the budget is the welfare of our Canadian citizens. Today our country is badly in need of a stimulant, even if in the process the government is forced into deficit financing.
In a period of full employment I feel the budget should show a surplus, and the bigger that surplus the better. Today inflation has been replaced by deflation. Business seems to be contracting, and full employment has been replaced by heavy unemployment. Thus I say that the considerations which formerly called for balancing the budget now point in the opposite direction. I say again that deficit financing, probably heavy deficit financing, could help to alleviate unemployment. This is no period for timidity. It is not a period for half measures. There are 600,000 Canadians out of work. Parliament must act quickly and with efficiency. Perhaps fiscal policy cannot end unemployment, but I certainly feel it can alleviate it.

The one man upon whose shoulders the responsibility must tall during the months ahead is the Minister ot Finance. I call on the Minister of Finance and the government to increase spending, decrease taxation and not fear a deficit budget.


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: A great number of members of the house have taken part in this debate on employment and unemployment, Mr. Speaker, and I feel it is one of the most important problems facing Canadians at this time. It is because of the importance of the subject that I rise to take part in this debate.
There are a good many angles to the unemployment and employment problem, and rather careful study is required to arrive at a solution that will be suitable to this varied economy. I am going to pause here a moment to point out to the government that Liberal members across the country, and some newspapers, are saying that already too much has been said about this unemployment question, and that in itself may cause some dismay and some hesitation on the part of individuals and industry. I want to point out also that in the 25 years since 1930 the Liberal party has never failed to try to saddle the Conservative government that followed the Mackenzie King government with responsibility for the depression and unemployment of that time. Even at this late date they still try to do that, so it apparently depends upon who is blaming whom whether or not it is a good policy.
There are three major factors, as I see it, that are causing unemployment, and for the most part they are the result of government policy or, shall I say, lack of policy. First of all the fiscal policy has priced us out of many markets, not only markets abroad but domestic markets. People in Canada are finding it difficult to purchase the things they need. I think our trade policy is probably the biggest factor in unemployment and the loss of markets. Our trade policy is inflexible; it is unrealistic, and it is largely controlled from beyond the shores of Canada, at Geneva. The third item is taxation at the federal level. It is so high that competitors are able to undersell us. When we add declining farm prices to this list, we find that the farmers are without the purchasing power they require. Many of the things the farmers have to buy are either high in price or increasing in price.
Just at this moment I have two or three quotations from newspapers that I wish to use to emphasize what I have already said. The first has to do with trade, and it is from the London Free Press of March 12, 1955.
Unemployment
The newspaper article is based on the report of the dominion bureau of statistics and it says in part:
Canada's share of an expanding world wheat market has declined.
Farther down it says:
Canada's exports dropped by 3,600,000 bushels to 135,100,000-
At another point it says:
During January, Canada's wheat exports totalled 17,900,000 bushels, down from 19,900,000 shipped in December-
There is an indication of a loss of markets, yet I believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce was trying to indicate to the house that Canada's wheat trade was in a flourishing condition. Then in the Ottawa Journal of March, 1954, there was an editorial headed "Pricing Canada Out of Trade". This editorial quotes from the New York Times as follows:
The administration has two powerful anti-recession weapons at its disposal; easy money and tax-reduction incentives. Few will disagree, either in Wall Street or Main Street, that tax reduction probably would be the more effective at this juncture.
These words relate to the United States economy, but I was struck with their applicability to our own conditions. I just weigh those words because of my own look at the results of inflation and the certain amount of inflation that exists now.
You can increase employment by increasing the farmer's take-home pay, and the reverse is also true. I point out to the government that if they want to increase the army of unemployed, all they have to do is take measures to further reduce the income of the farmer by reducing or eliminating floor prices. If they do that they will have still more unemployed on their hands. There are approximately 600,000 unemployed, and there are at least 1,200,000 dependents of those unemployed, people who are no longer able to purchase in quantity the goods they otherwise would buy, and that is acting also as a brake on our economy. They are no longer able to purchase the products of either factories or farms. Right here I would point out that urban prosperity is closely linked with rural prosperity.
There are those in the country who believe that heavy taxation to level out income so those in the high income brackets can contribute to the well-being of those in the low income brackets can result in a levelling of poverty instead of a levelling of wealth. We can go too far along that road. In fact I think we have already gone too far, and the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, who has just taken his seat, emphasized that very clearly.

Unemployment
I should like to quote from the London Free Press of March 8. The heading is: Farmers need intelligent aid measures
Canada's federation of agriculture representatives were certainly on sound ground when they drew attention of the federal cabinet to the cost price squeeze from which Canadian farmers are suffering. There is no doubt that farm prices have gone down during the last two or three years, while there has been no corresponding decline in costs.
Difficulties involving the farm population are serious, partly because of the number of farmers and their families, but also because farming is still so basic to our whole economy that agricultural depression tends to spread to many other parts of our system.
Since 1945 the government has failed to halt inflation. In fact, as I have pointed out more than once, the government has welcomed it because it brought more income to the tax collector and helped the former minister of finance with his buoyant revenues that he boasted about. Graham Towers intimated that a warning light might flash if our economy were in danger. I wonder very seriously whether his resignation was the warning flash he mentioned, because after his resignation the interest rate of the bank was reduced one-half of 1 per cent. Is this the needle of inflation? While there were protests to the contrary on the part of those in high places, it has not changed, as far as I and a good many other people in the country are concerned, the fact that it is an inflationary move.
I want to contrast that with the action of the Bank of England. Since the war the people in that country have been able to rebuild a nation and an economy that was practically down and out owing to the ravages of the war of 1939-45. Their policy has been almost the opposite of ours, and still is. It was indicated in the press not too long ago that the day was fast approaching when convertibility would be a reality.
The forecast of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that when the budget is brought down this year there is likely to be a deficit of some $50 million was an inflationary measure, even though it was only a forecast. I submit that we have already inflated our economy to the point where we have priced ourselves out of world markets. The Minister of Trade and Commerce forecast a very prosperous year in 1955. True, he said there would be some soft spots. I am wondering whether the 600,000 unemployed in this country like to be referred to as soft spots in the economy? Do the 600,000 unemployed and their 1,200,000 dependents think 1955 is likely to be a prosperous year? I doubt it very much.
The minister referred to Canada's vast natural resources. We had those vast natural

resources from 1926 to August 7, 1930, but they did not head off the depression and the unemployment of those days. From 1926 to August 7, 1930, were the days during which the government of Mackenzie King held office.
I wish to refer to another clipping from the London Free Press, and quote only part of it:
Cutting taxation is a positive and immediate stimulation to business, and government economy which permits real cuts in the amount collected from the taxpayers will be of great value.
They deal with the unemployment situation, which they say demands action. What is the government's policy on unemployment? A dominion-provincial conference on fiscal matters is mooted for April, but apparently there is to be nothing on the agenda about unemployment. Apparently the policy of the government is to say, let us sit this one out, or let us wait and see. So far not one really constructive suggestion has been brought forward. It is true that there was a commonwealth conference in Britain, but it has failed to inspire any confidence in the future so far as industry or labour is concerned. The Prime Minister's reports were platitudes, pious hopes and good wishes, but these things do not create jobs. I would say that they were void of any constructive policy on trade or fiscal matters.
I have two more clippings which indicate what is going on. The first is from the Financial Times of March 11, and the heading reads:
Ottawa buys armed forces tools abroad-industry irked.
They can be irked, but they dare not protest or they would not get a contract. Then "Tempus" had this to say in the same issue of the Financial Times:
The Liberals somehow have managed to keep the subject of falling export trade off the front pages and chances are that, with the new policy of inflation, they will have that job fixed by spring.
I would say that he is at least hopeful. No indication came from the commonwealth conference that the question of convertibility had been discussed or even thought about. The commonwealth conference ended just like the trip of the three travelling salesmen of the cabinet who journeyed to Washington early this year. The end results were nil. I again ask, what is the government's policy? The Minister of Labour will probably follow the lead of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and end up with Mackenzie King's infamous five-cent speech as a statement of policy. Probably they will hold a seance. It would be just as effective as conferences that have been held so far.

I return now to the municipalities, because after all they represent the grass roots of this country. The municipalities are staggering under a burden of taxation, and are rightly resisting and evading in every possible way responsibility for the care of the unemployed. They know that once they accept that responsibility the burden will never be lifted from their backs.
The other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce announced a 1956 census. This will cost $5 million and will employ 15,000 people, but it will not add one iota to the wealth of this country. I never realized until I read about it that the agricultural industry of Canada was so important. The minister indicated that they are going to ask the farmers 75 questions as against 7 to be asked the residents of cities. Back in 1951 when they took the regular census 200 questions were asked the farmers and only 75 of residents of cities. I am going to suggest that the government add one more question to this list, and I suggest the following: What are the basic causes of unemployment? I venture to say that the 600,000 unemployed and the 700,000 farmers will come up with more correct answers than we have heard from the government.
When the resolution dealing with the grade crossing fund was being dealt with last night the hon. member for Waterloo North indicated twice in his speech that there was serious unemployment in his area. I think if all hon. members would tell the truth, like the hon. member, we would soon begin to realize how serious this situation is.
I want to return for a moment to the argument we hear so often that Canada has such vast natural resources that it does not matter what happens. I would point out that Switzerland is a country with few natural resources, but it has built up an economy by importing and exporting, similar to what Great Britain was able to do. This economy was built up through industry, labour and the employment of their people, not by unemployment.
We could take a lesson from history, and I need mention only two nations, ancient Rome and Spain. In their heyday those countries held the greatest natural resources known at that time, but they both went down the drain because they failed to employ their own people. They employed people outside their lands to make the things they needed, and where are they today?
There are indications that a great portion of Canadian resources are being shipped out of this country to be processed by labour in foreign lands, by foreign wage earners, while 50433-130
Unemployment
our people stand idle. Natural resources alone do not make a great nation; it is the industry of its people that makes a nation. Let it not be said that our natural resources are being used to keep people employed in other countries.
Before I close I should like to quote shortly from a brief submitted to the Minister of Finance by the Canadian institute of stove and furnace manufacturers. I quote as follows:
In warm air furnaces, Canadian production is down 6J per cent and imports are up 195 per cent.
And again:
Imports into Canada, in nine months only of this year, totalled 986 carloads of cooking and heating appliances.
If that is not an indication of a lack of foresight on the part of this government in protecting Canadian labour and ensuring jobs, I do not know what it is.
I should like to turn now to the annual report of the Royal Bank of Canada and the speech of Mr. James Muir. I am going to refer only to two or three quotations, where he is dealing with the unemployment problem. I wonder what Mr. Muir's reaction would have been if he had found in his pay envelope some six or eight months ago a little note saying "Your services are no longer required." I wonder what he would think if he found himself among the unemployed. I often wonder what people who are unemployed are thinking. It is quite easy when you are in a secure position like a member of parliament or like James Muir to pass this off lightly, but when you are out of work and hungry it is a different matter. Dealing with the economic welfare of Canada Mr. Muir had this to say:
The first of these is to ensure that our human resources are not wasted in involuntary idleness; that is, we should try to maintain a high and stable level of business activity and employment.
And again:
But general business stability has been continually threatened by inflationary pressure.
And further down:
The noticeable decline in exports since 1952 may also be attributed to a number of interrelated causes:	price declines, increased competition
from low cost producers abroad, the recovery of industrial capacity in war-torn countries, and the like. All these tend to alter relative cost and price relationships in the world market to Canada's disadvantage. But, in addition to the important matter of relative costs, a new factor has been injected by European suppliers who are able, with government support, to offer long-term financing to their customers in the world market. This type of financing is especially important in sales of heavy equipment; and, in one form or another, notably through the export-import bank of Washington, it has been available for many years to American export houses. We are aware that some very large foreign orders for equipment

Private Bill
which might have been obtained by Canadian firms, were lost to competitors during the year, largely owing to relatively favourable terms of payment.
I do not think we can say too much about this serious situation created by unemployment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: It
being five o'clock the house will revert to the consideration of public and private bills.



PRIVATE BILL


Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-mont) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 244, to consolidate and amend acts relating to the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada.
He said: The Royal Architectural Institute of Canada was incorporated in 1908, and the act was amended in 1912 and 1929. That act is being repealed by the present bill, which is a consolidation bill. The royal institute will carry on under the same name and with its existing membership. There are only a few new clauses which do not affect directly or indirectly the privileges, rights or prerogatives of any existing body or any other profession.
The purpose of this bill is to facilitate the relations between the institute and various provincial associations of architects, and to add new powers in order to improve as much as possible the welfare of architecture in Canada and its various aspects. There are no other special details to be outlined, except to say that this bill indicates the importance of the institute and the classes of membership, and it enumerates the associations which will compose the institute. It establishes conditions under which the council of the institute can pass rules and regulations. There is also a modification in the value of real property which may be held, which has been increased from $200,000 to $500,000.
Architecture is the only profession, I think, which is not represented in this house. In view of the tremendous contribution of architects to the expansion of this country it is to be hoped that some day an architect will have the privilege of sitting in this house.


Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to endorse the principle of the legislation which is proposed. I listened with a great deal of care to the speaker who is proposing this legislation, and I noticed he indicated that no major change is proposed. I agree in part with his closing wish that some day we might have a registered architect as a member of this house.

I hope nothing I might say in the few minutes I intend to speak will be taken as a reflection on the institute or on any of the members of that institute or its affiliates. However, I have long felt that the legislators of Canada have a responsibility to the general public that supersedes any personal desire they may have for the advancement of a particular occupation or profession to which they may happen to be attached. I myself am a member of what is in effect a closed shop, the British Columbia teachers federation. I have heard on many occasions throughout Canada expression given to the feeling that the public welfare is not always adequately represented with those who wield a great deal of power wherever these institutions, associations or labour unions, if you like, exist.
I think the policy I wish to enunciate can be applied even to the closed shop labour unions. I hope the day is not too far distant when legislators in amending these acts will remember that the public welfare should also be represented in those who have charge of the administration of these professions or occupations.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Argue for the second reading of Bill No. 126, to amend the Canada Elections Act (age of voters).
George Hugh Castleden: In speaking on this motion I wish to state at the outset that I give it my full support. This amendment would reduce the age of voters from the present 21 years of age to 18 years of age, with regard to federal elections.
The trend of the arguments which have been presented against this amendment have been to the effect that young people are not politically mature at the age of 18, and are unable to accept the responsibility imposed by the franchise. In fact someone quoted from a paper which stated that most 18-year-olds live in a world of hot dogs, popcorn, soft drinks and juke boxes, indicating that they were not sufficiently mature to accept this responsibility.
The same argument was used in the province of Saskatchewan when the provincial government introduced similar legislation to reduce the voting age in that province to 18. The opposition at that time referred to



IS. 1955

[Stage Direction]
this vote as the chocolate bar vote and contended that the government was endeavouring to take advantage of the youth. They spoke very strongly against granting this right.
I would like to point out that in wartime every young man of 18 is eligible for military training in Canada. In wartime we do not hear any talk about the immaturity of the young people. Young Canadian men who came from average Canadian homes astounded the world with their judgment and ability during the last two world wars. In fact it was the ability and the judgment of our young people which constituted a barrier which saved Canada and the world from the threat of fascism during the last two great wars.
I would also point out that if voting privileges are extended to people at the age of 18 it does not mean that every young person of 18 will vote at that age in Canadian elections. Elections are held only once every four years which means that only one-quarter of the voters would have an opportunity of exercising their franchise at the age of 18. Those who are 17 will not vote until four years later, when they are 21. This means that the average age of the young people voting for the first time will be 20 years of age.
I have watched Canadian youth in their colleges and universities. I maintain they are interested in the political life of Canada. They are interested in the history of Canada, and they understand democracy. In most provinces we grant young people of 18 the right to select their lifetime partner. That is a very grave step, but their judgment is not questioned. If they choose wrongly they have a lifetime in which to suffer as a result of their mistake. If they happen to make a mistake when voting they have an opportunity every four years to rectify the situation and make another choice.
I believe if young men and women are allowed to vote at 18 years of age they will have an interest in the proceedings in the House of Commons. They will be eager to see what their representatives are doing here, and whether or not they are speaking on behalf of the young people of the country. They will watch how the members serve and represent their constituencies. If they are denied the right of voting at 18 they can readily become indifferent to what is happening in parliament. As a matter of fact surveys have been made across Canada and their results reveal that a surprising number of Canadian people know very little about what happens in parliament, how parliament is conducted and what votes are taken here.
Canada Elections Act
I am definitely of the opinion that many of the speeches made in this parliament should be broadcast over a nation-wide hook-up in order to inform the people of Canada of what goes on here. I think such a move would help implant in the minds of the people a sense of their responsibility, and would give them actual knowledge by having them hear what goes on within parliament. By giving them the opportunity to hear some of the speeches, and the recording of the votes, they would be informed as to what the issues are.
At the present time the only sources to which they have access for information as to what is happening in the house are the copies of Hansard which are distributed daily, which they can procure for about $3 a year, and which take a great deal of reading; or the summarized reports which are carried in the daily press across the country, or the radio at news time. It would be much more realistic and would bring home to the people much more forcibly what happens here if, even for an hour or two each day in the months parliament is in session, there were broadcasts of the actual proceedings of this house, particularly when important issues are being discussed such as external affairs and unemployment, in order that the people might find out exactly what is going on in parliament.
That is something that is being done in the province of Saskatchewan at the present time. I would say that my own observation-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I dislike interrupting the hon. member, but I am afraid he is using a bill which has as its sole purpose a reduction of the voting age to discuss the merits of broadcasting or otherwise publishing the affairs of parliament. I am not suggesting there is anything objectionable in the hon. member's remarks, but if he is allowed to carry on along those lines I am afraid almost any subject under the sun could also be discussed on the motion for second reading of this bill.


George Hugh Castleden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just going to point out that in my province we have found that it is the young people who are interested in what is going on in our own legislature. At the age of 18 people are more politically mature than the average person here believes them to be.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Hugh Castleden: At any rate, all the arguments that have been presented against this bill have been to the effect that they are not politically mature. If hon. members opposite believe they should grant this voting privilege to people at the average of 20 years,

Canada Elections Act
they will have an opportunity of voting on the matter. When the vote comes I would suggest that they stand up and be counted. The arguments that have been presented have been largely to the effect that people at that age are politically immature. I suggest that this bill would be a good thing for Canada, a good thing for democracy and a good thing for this house.


Mr. Argue:: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: the hon. member for Assiniboia speaks now, he will close the debate.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the discussion when the bill was first moved, and particularly to the contribution made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard). I do not believe he dealt with the main argument I advanced in support of this measure, namely that young people 18, 19 and 20 years of age are sufficiently mature to cast an intelligent ballot and that, on any basis of comparison with those in any other age group in the country, they compare favourably indeed.


Mr. Byrne:: The bill makes provision for the age of 18.


Hazen Robert Argue: Of course. I think the hon. member is capable of realizing that if anyone at the age of 18 is eligible to vote, anyone over the age of 18 is automatically also able to cast a vote.
I had hoped that arguments might have been directed to the question of whether or not young Canadians in that age group in fact have sufficient intelligence and sufficient knowledge to cast a responsible vote. I believe that they have sufficient intelligence and sufficient responsibility. I felt that the contribution made by the hon. member for Saskatoon was excellent. He advanced a number of arguments in favour of this bill that were not advanced by any other member who spoke. He pointed out that young people ordinarily reach maximum intelligence at the age of 15 or 16. He went on to explain that intelligence did not mean knowledge but something different, namely the ability to acquire knowledge. That being the case, I think it is reasonable indeed to ask that the voting age be reduced to 18.
Another excellent argument made by the hon. member for Saskatoon was that in relation to public affairs, as in relation to any other aspect of life, people learn by doing and that the way for young Canadians to acquire a better knowledge of public affairs is to have an earlier opportunity to develop such an interest. He went on to say that from his experience he thought it took from
fMr. Castleden.]
two to ten years after the age of 21 before most people became politically mature, and that since that length of time was necessary for people to reach political maturity he felt it would be a good thing for them to have the opportunity to vote at an earlier age, as they would therefore become politically mature at an earlier age.
I listened with great interest to the speech made by the Secretary of State. In his statement I do not think he advanced any important arguments-and I say this with great respect-against the proposition contained in this bill. As a matter of fact, as one looks over the remarks he made one will find that the Secretary of State does not advance any argument at all against the passage of this bill until he gets more than half way through his speech. For example, after he was well into his speech, as reported at page 1621 of Hansard, he said:
The sponsor of this bill has pointed out that my predecessor last year mentioned the question of expense. It is, of course, true that this consideration should not be a reason for opposing the measure.
Then he went on to point out that there would be some expense attached to the passage and the adoption of this measure, and that there would be expense attached to granting the vote to persons at the age of 18. The important sentence in that statement was this:
It is, of course, true that this consideration should not be a reason for opposing the measure.
If the matter of a small additional expense cannot be used as an argument for opposing the measure, I am wondering why that matter should be mentioned at all. If the matter of incurring additional expense is not a valid reason for opposing this measure, surely there was no point in the minister using this argument in his speech and, though not calling it a reason, apparently using it as an excuse for not supporting the measure.
He went on to say that he was of opinion that the provinces should take the lead in this question. Of course some of the provinces have already done so. He said he would like to see other provinces lower the voting age rather than see the federal government do so at this time. Then he said:
However, I do not want to put this forward as a reason for opposing the measure.
He wants the provinces to go first, but he says that is not a reason for opposing the measure. If we are to consider a vote on this subject in an intelligent manner, we should be given some reasons. If we are inclined to vote against it we should have some reasons and some arguments for doing so. We should not list a number of hypothetical

objections and then say these are not reasons for opposing the measure. The Secretary of State had this to say a little later:
We should deal with that matter first-
He was referring to making sure that more people over the age of 21 have in fact the right to vote.
-and so arrange things that as many Canadians as possible who come within the section of the act defining the voting age and the conditions of voting will be able to exercise the right of franchise.
I am all in favour of that. I am all in favour of making it possible for all those who have the right to vote under the act to cast their votes. The minister went on to refer to persons abroad at the time of voting as a group of Canadians eligible to vote who should, by amendment of the act, be given the right to vote. But surely the adoption of the bill would in no way affect or prevent action being taken along the lines suggested by the minister, namely all possible steps to see that the greatest number of persons possible who are eligible to vote do have the right and opportunity to vote on election day. I do not think the fact that certain necessary amendments must be made to the act can be advanced as a valid argument for turning down the bill now before us, which is merely a further amendment to the act.
The last argument of the minister with which I wish to deal was advanced in reference to a speech made by another member. He said he thought the age of majority should be studied before the age of voting is lowered. I do not think the fact that a person must be 21 years of age to sign many civil contracts can be advanced as a substantial reason for opposing this measure. As has been pointed out this afternoon by the hon. member for Yorkton, in a great many provinces young persons of the age of 18 are able to sign a very important contract, a marriage contract, that is considered valid under the law. If a person of the age of 18 can enter into such an important contract, then surely the argument is not valid that such persons should have to wait until the age of majority in order to vote.
We also know that under Canadian law persons 16 years of age and upward who are found guilty of murder may be hanged. If we are going to make persons responsible for such an act at such an early age and consider them adult in every respect when it comes to paying the death penalty, then we might consider reducing the voting age even though the voting age would then be lower than the age of majority. We also know that in most provinces a young person can obtain a driver's licence at the age of
Canada Elections Act
16 and operate a vehicle on our highways. With traffic accidents as frequent as they are in these days, that is certainly putting a great deal of responsibility on young shoulders.
As was suggested by the present Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickers-gill) last year, I hope each member of the house, more particularly those on the government side, will cast his vote on the basis of his belief as to the merit of the measure, and will not be influenced in any way by a party decision. As the minister said last year, the election law should be a law of parliament as a whole and not a law based upon the decision of the government in power.



REPRESENTATION ACT


Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Northumberland, N.B.) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 194, to amend the Representation Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
! -
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker:: The business which had been reserved for this hour having been disposed of, the house will now revert to the business which was under consideration prior to five o'clock.
Since it is ten minutes to six o'clock, will hon. members agree to my calling it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mrs. Fair-clough.

Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened for several days to hon. members from practically every section of the house expressing their views on this matter of unemployment. In my judgment this is one of the primary problems facing the country today. We hear a lot of talk in the house and over the air and we read a lot in the press about our way of life as against the way of life that is offered to us by another contending order. Our way of life is the way a person lives, how he is housed, how he can look after his family and what are his income and standard of living. There are 600,000 people in Canada today who are unemployed, and in their minds there may be growing shadows of doubt as to whether a change of some kind might not be beneficial.
In discussing this question of unemployment, when we say it is regional or seasonal or not serious, or use any of these other slogans, we are not helping the situation very much. I think hon. members of this house, particularly members of the government, have to take a square and objective look at the matter. Neither will a lot of acrimonious debate or name-calling do very much to help the situation. What I am going to try to do this evening is tell the house exactly what I think about it.
In 1939 there were 523,000 unemployed in this country and things were pretty serious, as that was 11-4 per cent of the then working force. Today there are more unemployed, and taking the country as a whole they represent about 6 per cent of the working force.

However there are many communities in the country where the unemployed number more than 11-4 per cent.
I think the time has come when instead of just trying to rationalize the problem and hoping for some miracle to happen we should provide some concrete plans to do something about it. In my judgment we have two alternatives. Either we go back to 1939, and we are pretty close to that, or we go back to 1945 and start to take some authority if the government is expected to have at least some say in the management of our economy. If we are not prepared to do that, then we are not going to do very much about unemployment.
In looking at the thing in a broad way, considering the country as a whole and who owns and controls the economy, one must realize that there is not much the government can do in connection with unemployment except to put patches on it here and there and provide cushions such as unemployment insurance, family allowances and so on. When it comes to telling General Motors or Dominion Steel and Coal or any of these other large organizations who actually control the economic processes of the country what they should or should not do, the government has no authority.
There are some hon. members in this house who are quite loud in their demands that the government do this and that. I am sure they realize as well as I do that the government has no power today to say anything to the people who actually control the economic processes of the country. When the government does attempt to take some authority they are the first to get on their feet and scream "dictatorship; the government should not have that authority." Only yesterday when the Minister of Defence Production asked for the continuation of certain powers that might be used in an emergency those same people, who today are ready to hurl accusations at the government and demand they do something, were the very ones who were on their feet screaming "dictatorship".
The Minister of Defence Production pointed out to the house quite clearly that in his judgment some controls of this kind were necessary if he and the government were to be expected to do something in the event of an emergency. As far as this group are concerned we realize that the government has to have some authority to direct and manage if it is going to do something about unemployment. While the democratic system exists and parliament meets we are not afraid to grant certain emergency powers to the government in order that they may do certain things. We always come back here and
Unemployment
examine the actions of the government in the light of what has taken place.
I said a moment ago that we either had to go back to 1945, when there were certain controls, or we had to go back to 1939. Press reports at this time indicate clearly that we are practically back to 1939. Many of us lived through that period, and we can remember press reports like this one which is datelined Whitby, Ontario, and states that three men were picked up after committing a robbery. It came out during the trial that they had gone out to try to get something for their children to eat, as there was not a bun or a loaf of bread in the house. Unemployment forced those men to become criminals, and for the rest of their lives they will bear the stigma of having been convicted. They are the victims of a faulty economic system. That is the kind of thing that was so prevalent in 1939, and there are all too many press reports like this today from various parts of the country.
Then I pick up another one which reminds me of 1939. This states that the mines will be on half time next week. I do not suppose these men will show in the total of unemployed, but since last November the coal mines of Nova Scotia have been working on a broken schedule of three days a week because of lack of markets and so forth. While the government cannot tell Dominion Steel and Coal when to work and when not to work they can at least avoid doing anything that aggravates the situation.
Yesterday I asked the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys why the subvention on the movement of coal from Cape Breton to Newfoundland was being discontinued. The answer I got was not an answer at all. I read it over again today and found that I did not get any reason.


Mr. Prudham:: That is in force until the end of the month.


Clarence Gillis: I hope it will be continued in force. This matter is not as unimportant as it may look. United States coal can be landed in Newfoundland at $2.40 per ton cheaper than DOSCO can put coal into Newfoundland. I do not know why but that is the actual fact. The subvention was put on to level off the cost and put Nova Scotia coal in a competitive position. That subvention was applied to the movement of 250,000 tons of coal into Newfoundland. If the subvention is withdrawn that coal will no longer be in a competitive position, and that market will be lost when it is very badly needed.


George Prudham: We do not think it will be lost.


Clarence Gillis: I hope the minister will continue that subvention. I hope he will see that

Unemployment
this market is not lost. I think I know some of the problems. I have been checking the matter since I spoke to the minister yesterday. Shipping facilities are not good. Boats that generally haul this coal are tied up in Sydney harbour while 10,000-tonners are being loaded. They stand there for a week at a time and charges pile up which are added to the total cost. On the other hand there are no storage facilities in Newfoundland. These are things which that company should provide. I mentioned that because I thought the subvention was being withdrawn, and I hope now it will not be.
Let us now approach this question from another angle. I hold the great majority of the people of Canada largely responsible for the situation which exists today. In the last election the people of this country had four choices; they could vote Liberal, Conservative, C.C.F. or Social Credit, in some parts of the country.


An hon. Member:: Or Clarie Gillis.


Clarence Gillis: They fully understood what they were voting for. The government candidates clearly stated that they stood for the system of free enterprise. The Conservatives said they also believed in free enterprise, but added that they would make it freer. We made it quite clear straight across the country that as far as we were concerned, if we had enough members in this house we intended to change the mechanics of society to avoid a repetition of what occurred in 1939. The people of this country, however, voted for the government we have today by a huge majority, and gave that government a mandate to do exactly those things which they are doing now.
The unemployment situation last November was practically What it is today. When the by-elections were held in this country about 40 per cent of the people in the various ridings came out to vote and the other 60 per cent stayed home.


An hon. Member:: They were satisfied.


Clarence Gillis: They were not interested, they were apathetic. Their attitude was, let Joe do it. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is how fascism began. If the Canadian people are not sufficiently interested in the affairs of their country to go out and exercise their franchise by voting for someone who will accomplish things for them; if they want to stay home and let someone else run the show and state they are satisfied with what little is being done, I am convinced that process will not continue for long. Someone will rise and say, "O.K., I will run it for you and from now on you Will do what you are told to do." I think a lesson must be taught the

people of Canada. It must be driven home to them that if they want democracy they will have to get out and work for it. If they want to avoid unemployment they will have to do something about it. If the government is doing nothing about it, then the people must elect a government which will do something about it.
While the hon. member for Prince Albert was speaking this afternoon and waving the green book containing the proposals of the government, I sat thinking to myself, "You are a little bit reckless in using that book." If there is any party which is vulnerable in so far as the 1945 dominion-provincial conference is concerned, the members of that party do not sit far from me.
I remember the dominion-provincial conference of 1945, because I was interested in it. At that time the dominion government proposed to take the responsibility of looking after the employable unemployed, and also offered the people of Canada a health program to be paid for by the federal government which would have been put in operation from coast to coast. This would have been one of the biggest assets in this country today had that proposal been accepted. However, neither proposal was accepted because three provinces wrecked that conference. It will be a long time now before these proposals can be put into effect.
The hon. member for Prince Albert should have remembered that conference when he was speaking this afternoon, and he should have remembered the people who wrecked that conference. The proposals at that conference were the last evidence he should ever have used in this house to justify his criticism of the government in the matter of unemployment.
I have heard it stated by hon. members on my right that there is no unemployment in New Zealand, Australia or in Britain. The hon. members who mention this make no attempt to tell us why this is so. New Zealand elected a Labour government in 1935 and abolished unemployment at a time when we were confronted with it. Australia has had a Labour government for many years, and Great Britain formed a Labour government following the war which had to deal with the aftermath of war. The Labour governments in Great Britain and the other countries changed the mechanics of society in those countries and set machinery in motion which has not been touched since by succeeding governments. They succeeded in abolishing unemployment, and the machinery which was set up is still there.
The same thing could be done in this country providing the government were given

a mandate to do it. When you run on the ticket of free enterprise, however, and receive a mandate from the people of the country on that ticket, then you have to follow the rules of the game as they are until such time as the people of the country give you a mandate to change them. The reason there is no unemployment in Britain, Australia and New Zealand is that the mechanics of society were reset to meet the needs of a modern world. In Canada we continue to jockey along in the old style of 1867, instead of changing the constitution to suit the times.
The chamber of commerce frequently advances a reason for unemployment in these words: "The answer is very simple; labour is pricing itself out of the market. That is the answer. Wages are too high." That is not a sound argument at all. It is merely an excuse which cannot be justified. If you examine the import-export picture of the last few years you will find it is not the low-wage countries where we have trouble in marketing our goods, it is the country which has the highest wage structure in the world, the United States, where we conduct about 60 per cent of our export-import trade. Last year, in 1954, we had an unfavourable trade balance with the United States of some $758 million. Wages in Canada are much lower than in the United States. On the other hand we had a favourable trade balance with Britain and other non-dollar countries of some $633 million, which enabled us to emerge at the end of 1954 with a very small deficit in our trade balance. The argument that labour is pricing itself out of the market does not hold water.
Let us look at the other side of the picture. I think profits might have something to do with it, and I think the proper industry to examine is the farm implement industry. One of the biggest factors in the unemployment picture today is a 44 per cent drop in farm income. I have examined figures relating to the farm implement industry for the period 1945 to 1951, which were the latest figures I could get. In that industry in 1945 the wage share of the dollar was 42-4 per cent. In 1951 the wage share of the dollar in that industry had dropped to 29-9 per cent. Wages came away down in the farm implement industry, and the profit picture in 1945 for the entire industry was about $1,500,000. By 1951 the profit picture in that industry had changed and had risen to $13 million, or an increase in profits of approximately 700 per cent, while the wage share of the dollar had declined from 42-4 per cent to 29 per cent. If anyone is pricing himself out of the market it is the group of money grabbers who want to
Unemployment
skyrocket those profits and share them among themselves, regardless of the best interests of the country.
We hear much talk to the effect that we want export markets. What about the home market? You never hear anyone say anything about the unmet needs of the people of Canada, and there are plenty of them. If we met the needs of the people of this country we would not have any unemployment. The few items I have listed here were taken from the last census. There is a tremendous market for these things if we could meet the needs of this country. For example, in the matter of housing, we need at least half a million dwellings in order to catch up on our accumulated backlog. Of the dwellings we have, the 1951 census showed that 940,000 were either overcrowded or in need of major repairs or both; that 900,000 had no inside running water; that almost 1,500,000 had no bath or shower for exclusive family use; that over 1,200,000 had no flush toilet; that nearly 600,000 had no hot water supply.
In a modern age in a country like Canada that is a rather terrible picture. I do not say the government can undertake a proposition of that kind, but what is the matter with the appliance industries? What is wrong with those who make and supply that type of equipment? Surely they have brains enough to organize the means whereby these facilities could be supplied and financed through some kind of company, so people could be put to work supplying these modern facilities. But nothing is done about it. Oh, no; we want free enterprise. We want to come to the government. We want a guarantee on every line. We want a guarantee of this, that and the other thing. There is no longer risk capital. Enterprise is no longer free, and it is no longer enterprise. It is a straight gangster machine with an economic gun at the head of the government, still trying to extract profits and at the same time get guarantees for whatever it may put into it.
The same thing applies in the appliance industries in connection with stoves, refrigerators, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, furnaces, telephones and so forth. These things are no longer luxuries; they are necessities in this modern age. If an industry is turning out commodities of that kind, with a market readily available at home, then I think they should have a proper sales organization and proper financing methods so as to make this equipment available to the people of Canada over a long-term period. But no; they want someone else to go out and do the selling for them.
The easy thing to do today is borrow money from the government, with an accelerated depreciation clause in the contract

Unemployment
so these costs will be written off in four or five years without their paying anything. They say, we will get it in that way; we will improve our plant and equipment; we will put in more modern devices. We will get more production with fewer men. We will make men the slaves of machines instead of machines the slaves of men. All that modern technological advances are doing today is creating misery on the one hand and huge profits on the other, throwing men onto the streets. It is not much of an argument for modernization, but that is exactly what is happening.
The steel plant in Sydney borrowed money from the government, as did Algoma and the others. They modernized their plants. There is no expansion; they maintain the same ratio of production, but they put 1,600 men on the road. That kind of thing is not good enough. I think it is time for the people of this country-and I hold the people responsible-to wake up and demand the kind of machinery in the hands of government whereby there could be brought into society some regulation that would protect people, instead of figures on the right side of the balance sheet in the ledger for someone who did not think enough of the country to provide those who produce the wealth with at least enough food, clothing and housing.
As I think about those people, Mr. Speaker, I often wonder what kind of minds they have. Do they ever stop to realize that they are passing through this world only on a short visit, and that when they take out the time occupied in sleeping the visit is extremely short; that while they make millions, some day they will have to lie down on a bed by themselves, without any executive board, and must close their eyes and say, "Now I meet the unknown future"? That is the end. There are no pockets in their shrouds. There is no balance sheet over there, because they burn up, where most of these people go. I think it is nearly time that lesson was driven home to those people.
I think there are many things the government can do. At a time like this I do not think the tax relief which was advocated this afternoon is what is required, because I would judge that those who advocated tax relief meant tax relief for corporations. What for? So they will expand their businesses? Then this other fellow says, "What do they want to expand them for? Their inventories are piled sky-high today. They do not know what they are going to do with them." If you give tax relief in order to pile up more goods, no solution is to be found there. The kind of tax relief that is needed is the
[Mr. Gillis.l
stepping up of exemptions in the lower income tax brackets. That is the place where the relief is needed.
The problem today is purchasing power. You must get that purchasing power in the hands of the people. In my judgment there is no other way in which the problem can be solved under our present scheme of things. The first step is to increase these exemptions. The second thing is to increase family allowances and old age security pensions. The government should accept 75 per cent of the responsibility for the trans-Canada highway, at least in the provinces that are in the have-not category. Quebec and Ontario may be able to meet the cost on a 50-50 basis-


An hon. Member:: We do that now.


Hazen Robert Argue: No, you do not; not at all. The province buys the right of way.


Clarence Gillis: I think the federal government should, to a greater extent, assist in that financing. As to the St. Lawrence seaway, now that it has gone through in spite of my opposition I think the government should speed up its construction and get it under way.
The matter of getting something done is, to my mind, a simple one. Maybe I am simple-minded. I think all the government needs to do is this. The statistics are available. First they should take a look at the inventories in the country or the surpluses that are on hand, the production that is lying there that cannot be purchased. I refer to surpluses in foodstuffs, in appliances, housing and so forth. Once they find out just what surpluses they have on hand, the next thing they should do is ascertain the amount of purchasing power that must be put into the hands of the people in order to buy back those surpluses, get them off the market and get the young productive workers back to work producing more goods.
This is the way to do it, and it is not my scheme at all. The United Nations has the best economists in the world, and they tell us that when over 5 per cent of your working force is unemployed you are getting into trouble and something should be done about it. The something that should be done about it is exactly what I said a moment ago. They advise the priming of the pump, the increasing of social security benefits so as to get purchasing power in the hands of the people and keep things rolling until such time as conditions change and more favourable winds blow.
But there is no permanent solution to be found for any of these things in public works. Such works are good. They create new

wealth, but they are only palliatives and the condition will arise again once they are finished. Today the labour content in any public works program is so small that it does not help very much. For example, when the Canso causeway was being advocated in 1942 I was a member of the reconstruction committee, and I heard the estimate made that it would take 1,500 men three years to build the causeway. With the equipment that was used it was built in 18 months by 262 men. The same thing will be found equally true of the St. Lawrence seaway project.


An hon. Member:: Now they are unemployed.


Clarence Gillis: Yes, they are unemployed. There is no permanent solution in public works. We have to get down to brass tacks and do the kind of thing that was done in Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain. We have to assume some control of our finances. The old Bank of England was nationalized, and even Churchill did not denationalize it. The present government of England is making use of the changes the Labour party brought about.
The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) eulogized Sweden today. He did not stop to think that Sweden has had a socialist government for a good many years. Certainly Sweden has no unemployment, and she will not have any. These countries are looking for workers while we, with our great natural resources and our handful of people, are arguing and calling names when there are
600,000	people idle and we should be doing something about it.
There will be nothing done about it until such time as the government of the country has the authority to tell those who have leases on our resources that they have to do certain things at certain times and in certain ways in order to avoid getting into the kind of tangle that we have today.
My time is just about up and I am going to take my seat, but I hope members on the government side at least will pay some attention to my little lecture.
(Translation) :


Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker-
{Text):


An hon. Member:: How about a quick one?


Some hon. Members:: A quick one.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: It is going to be a long one.
(Translation):
The Liberal members, particularly those from the province of Quebec, have not yet seen fit to take part in this extremely important debate and, with the exception of
Unemployment
the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Legare), not one of them has yet dared to deal with the subject. As far as I am concerned-


Some hon. Members:: Quack, quack! Quack, quack!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform those concerned that, to me, this cackling is just so much water on a duck's back. It leaves me utterly unmoved. I have a speech to make-


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: You should have said a "beaver".


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: It would have meant someone more industrious than the hon. member for Portneuf.
As far as I am concerned, I waited in vain for some of them to rise and deal with this matter, before making my own speech and discussing the sad and tragic situation resulting from unemployment.


Some hon. Members:: Quack, quack! Quack, quack!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, some hon. members seem to think that they are in a kindergarten.
The reason for their silence is readily understood since their party has to face a veritable barrage of protests and sharp accusations on the part of labour organizations representing millions of workers, of the press and of all those who, directly or indirectly, have an interest in the economic life and prosperity of the Canadian people. It is certainly no easy thing for members of the party now in power, which is responsible for the present state of affairs, to shower upon their government and their Prime Minister the praise and congratulations which are usually so lavishly distributed.
(Text):


An hon. Member:: A quick one!
(Translation) :


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The Liberal government, which is now directing the destinies of this country, and which has ever been the sworn enemy of a laisser-faire and haphazard policy, no doubt prefer not to see too many of their members touch upon a most embarrassing subject, with which they are not acquainted, since this very government has always refused to recognize its importance and its seriousness-


Some hon. Members:: Quack, quack! Quack, quack!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is no place for penguins. Some here seem to forget that this is the drawing room of the nation.

Unemployment


An hon. Member:: Back to Quebec!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: In the past three years employment in this country has decreased alarmingly and all Canadians, with the exception of the government, have noted that fact. The official opposition, ever since the opening of the twenty-second parliament, has consistently warned the government against growing unemployment. As far as I am personally concerned, I have not missed a single opportunity of telling the house that, in my own constituency of Quebec West and throughout the Quebec district, more and more people were out of work and that the situation was becoming most alarming.
But the government steadily refused to see or to grasp the seriousness of the situation and constantly refused to discuss it. I have myself been accused more than once of quoting exaggerated figures. And yet I have certainly realized afterwards, and realize even more at this moment, that I had been right then, and that my statements had been correct.
This reminds me of a question I directed, about this time last year, to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg). I asked if the government intended to do something to help the
22,000	unemployed we had at the time in the Quebec area.
Ignoring the question I had put, he jumped to his feet and, after striving to give the house the impression that the figure of 22,000 I had quoted was quite exaggerated, endeavoured to define in his own way what he considered to be the Quebec area, which I know better than he does, and which he stretched over a distance of 90 miles from the old capital. And he added, with some personal satisfaction and to the obvious satisfaction of members of his party, that the member for Quebec West had been very cautious and well-advised in mentioning the Quebec area.
(Text):


Pierre Gauthier: What a man! (Translation):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: As the rules of the house did not permit me at that stage to start a discussion or even to reply to the minister, his statement was not denied and newspapers in my district had to print it as stated.
I was nonetheless convinced that I was right and that there was nothing exaggerated in my statements. Official statistics confirmed them when, less than two weeks later, they showed that more than 21,000

persons were jobless in the Quebec and Levis district alone.
Under pressure exerted from all parts, the government, after standing aloof for too long a time in the face of the sad situation in which labour finds itself, finally agreed to discuss this thorny question, which should have roused the authorities out of their complacency.
Yet, members on the other side of the house continue to consider this problem as unimportant and seem by no means inclined to adopt the necessary measures to bring an early end to the sad predicament of more than half a million workers.
The Minister of Labour keeps on making statistical speeches and persists in saying that conditions are not as described by this side of the house. He refuses to use any other basis than the incomplete statistics collected by his department and relies solely on them to refute the arguments of the opposition and all those who take a real interest in the sorry plight of our workers.
As to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), he clings desperately to his out and out optimism, and imparts it to the cabinet, whose master and guide he is, in order to better hide from the nation the gigantic failure of this baleful administration wherein he personally controls, in dictatorial fashion, the whole Canadian nation's economy.
And yet, Mr. Speaker, while this government deceives itself into thinking that conditions could not be better, hundreds of thousands of workers are suffering hardships because of the lack of action and of understanding of a government whose only aim is to stay in power when it seems to be slipping slowly from power-


Pierre Gauthier: No, no.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: This government is not concerned with the distress of our working people, or with the anguish of an important section of our people, or with the pain and want which are felt in our Canadian homes. The only thing it is concerned with is its own deep satisfaction of being able to stay in power to the advantage of a political party but to the disadvantage of the community.


An hon. Member:: Come now, this is nonsense!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: From the very start of this debate, Mr. Speaker, we have heard moving descriptions of the state of affairs in various parts of the country, and we come to the con-

elusion that things cannot remain as they are any longer and that this government must act quickly to prevent the general disaster which seems inevitable.
If the situation is grave everywhere, there is no region more severely stricken than that of Quebec, and more particularly the riding of Quebec West which I represent in this house. A look at the past shows that history is repeating itself. Quebec has always been the first to suffer from the unemployment crises which we have had to face, with their aftermath of desolation, suffering, hardship, sorrow and malnutrition. Unemployment has created and still creates every condition calculated to cause the nation's misfortune, to strip people of hope and to inspire fear of the future. Suffering and hardship will not strengthen a population since the morale of a human being can withstand suffering only for a definite period of time, especially when he realizes that he is surrounded by riches. Those riches, put on earth by Providence, must be used to further the happiness and the prosperity of all, and the average worker is understandably unable to see how the people responsible for the development of those resources choose to use them for the benefit of a few, when the mass of the population is starving. That is the first duty of the government and I ask it to be courageous enough to face this duty.


Mr. Habel:: Is that why Premier Duplessis is giving away all the forest resources of his province?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: If my hon. friend is so able, why did he not try to win a seat in the Quebec legislature?


Mr. Villeneuve:: He has no time to waste.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: No, because everything is done.
(Text):


Pierre Gauthier: That's a good one. (Translation):


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I say again that if there is a place where unemployment is most acute, where it constitutes, if I may say, an epidemic, it is in Quebec West and Quebec East, the last mentioned being represented here by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent).
Figures never had the virtue of changing an actual condition, particularly when an attempt is made to use them for masking the truth. And the truth is, Mr. Speaker, that in the city of Quebec, at this time, in the city of Quebec alone, there are more than
Unemployment
20,000	unemployed, 13,000 of whom live in my county of Quebec West, while the others are mostly in the Prime Minister's county.
Now I know that the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) will try to refute me by quoting the figures supplied to him by the unemployment insurance commission, and I also know these statistics as well as he does. But I repeat that those figures in no way reflect the true conditions.
A certain number of workers are not eligible for unemployment insurance, and thousands of others cannot get the benefits because they have not accumulated enough working days.
As unemployment in the Quebec district has kept growing at an almost fantastic pace, and has spread to every season of the year, the government is ill-advised in contending that it is seasonal. This unemployment situation, Mr. Speaker, has now become permanent, alarming, ruinous. Not only does it jeopardize in our district the welfare of our workers and their families, but it threatens, to a great extent, the economic activity in our whole district.
The number of salaried people in the Quebec-Levis metropolitan area is estimated at 121,000 approximately, of which 100,000 at least are to be found in Quebec city alone. Since the end of the war, the percentage of people applying for jobs, in our metropolitan area, has been one of the highest of any area. This condition has been reflected, since the end of the war, in the tables published by the federal Department of Labour in the "Canadian Labour Market", and also in the monthly tabulations of the Labour Gazette under the title of "Labour Market by Districts".
It is obvious that unemployment, in the metropolitan district of Quebec, is not merely seasonal, it is a chronic, frictional unemployment, which is due, I believe, to permanent factors such as:
1.	The geographical situation of our district, the last great urban centre in eastern Quebec, which receives a regular flow of rural workers who come from the east;
2.	The coming on the labour market of a great many young people, more numerous each year.
There are many other factors to which I shall refer later on.
That additional manpower adds greatly to our labour force from year to year, far more than what the local economy can do to absorb it.

Unemployment
Of course, the Canadian government has set forth a policy of full employment throughout the country, and proposed to carry it out. But the truth is that it has made a pitiful failure of it.
Nobody in Canada can forget these words of the Prime Minister-which were so pointedly recalled the other day by my distinguished colleague from Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) and by my no less distinguished colleague from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker)-and I believe they should be quoted again because the man who uttered those words may try to forget them. I quote the Prime Minister:
We have a country where there should be work for everybody and if we are not smart enough to organize the economy of the nation to provide work for everybody we are incompetent.
Mr. Speaker, never have I been more fully in agreement with the Prime Minister in awarding him this certificate of pathetic incompetence in the management of government affairs.


Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):: What a judge!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: In view of his complete, total failure, there is nothing left for him to do, after making this general confession, but to abandon public life and the managing of the government and to let others, abler and better intentioned, settle this serious problem without delay.
The present federal government seeks to shirk its responsibilities and lay on the shoulders of the provinces the burden of remedying this situation. We have never seen so much smugness on the part of a government, unaware of its responsibilities and lacking courage to face them. That is a very sad realization for men who think themselves infallible and who do not dare tackle problems that might prove embarrassing for the political future of their party.
We should at least have enough heart and conscience to stop playing politics when the misery of our fellow citizens has reached its limit. The federal government will soon realize that it cannot indefinitely play on the feelings of our fellow citizens, because there comes a time when they react. The government would not dare at this time go before the people on this matter, because it would suffer a defeat such as it had never thought possible.
Let government resort to any argument, the fact remains that unemployment comes under federal jurisdiction. In that connection, may I quote some quite sensible remarks from Notre Temps of March 5, 1955:
[Mr. Dufresne.l
Unemployment is a Federal Responsibility
From a constitutional point of view it is clear that the question of unemployment is a federal responsibility. The federal government admitted as much during the 1930-1936 depression. It recognized its duties in that regard through the institution of unemployment insurance which ensures the jobless a meagre pittance when they fall upon evil days. Let us not becloud the issue. Let the federal government concern itself with its own responsibilities and let us also see to it that the provinces retain what is theirs by virtue of the constitution.
For my part I find that these attempts at confusing the issue are strange indeed. The federal government, whose centralizing practices are growing apace, is very prone to make grants to universities, to grant scholarships and to worm its way even into the educational field. But it is slow in recognizing its own proper responsibilities. It should leave education to the provinces and look after the jobless. This would be more normal, and safer too.
I am far from being opposed to a general national conference where representatives of the federal government, the provinces, the employers and the workers would meet to set up a coordinated plan for an efficient attack upon unemployment.
But if the federal government wishes to enlist provincial co-operation, it should at least ensure that the provinces enjoy those sources of revenue which they need to carry out their new social obligations.
Once again, unemployment is showing up the weaknesses of centralization. In a country as large as this, the Ottawa government can hardly take steps to relieve unemployment in a particular locality. The first responsibility, in this connection, belongs to the municipality, then to the provincial government and finally to the federal government. The latter has not wished it to be so. It has centralized sources of revenue and fiscal powers. It is now up to it to demonstrate in a practical way the alleged advantages of this policy of centralization it has foisted upon the provinces. The virtues or failings of any political system can only be judged by its performance.
The government has certainly failed in tact and ability when, on the very last day of the provincial session in Quebec and with the evident intention of confusing the issue- and public opinion by the same token-the provincial Liberals, in Quebec, initiated a debate on this matter in the legislative assembly.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: This clumsy attempt was no doubt inspired by their Ottawa masters, from whom they get their orders.
The Liberal party, Mr. Speaker, is ready to resort to all kinds of schemes and to the worst contradictions for the sake of its own safety, even at the expense of the interest of the Canadian nation. Its contradictory attitude on this matter is glaring and hardly creditable, and, as it will be seen later, deserves the disapproval and contempt of all those who care for frankness and truth.
If honesty towards the electors is the proper basis for statements of policy, let us

realize, once and for all, that the electorate, purposely ill-informed by some unscrupulous politicians, should not be used as a stepping-stone for the rise to power of a political party, no more than the electors should be considered as puppets or jumping jacks in the pay of some politicians.
The elector is a citizen who deserves respect from his representatives and we, representing him in this house, have no right to make fun of him or to mislead him deliberately. I urge the government to ponder over this before calling upon themselves the vengeful anathema of this electorate who can no longer be laughed at with impunity.
I wish to thank the Toronto Globe and Mail for giving me an opportunity of bringing to light and to the attention of the country a contradiction on the part of the Liberals which I shall not qualify, as the only terms that I could use for that purpose would be unparliamentary. However, I reserve the privilege of qualifying it in my own words when the opportunity arises outside this house.


Pierre Gauthier: As you usually do.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The Toronto Star-


An hon. Member:: Knave! Sneak!


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The Toronto Star, on February 26 last-there are some who have plenty of courage, Mr. Speaker, but not enough to speak on behalf of their constituents, of those whom they represent, those who, in their constituencies, are hungry, cold and often undernourished. They do have the courage to interrupt men who do their duty as representatives.
On February 26 last, the Toronto Star favoured us with a feature article in which it was stated that the unemployment problem is one for the government of the province of Ontario and for municipalities to deal with. Without denying, however, that the federal government can also do something in this field, it did not hesitate to place full responsibility on Mr. Frost's government.
But it appears, always according to the Globe and Mail, that on August 6, 1935, that is nearly 20 years ago, the same Toronto Star carried an article clearly stating that unemployment was the sole and exclusive field of the Ottawa government.
Ottawa, it said, is responsible for unemployment. Ottawa should pay the cost of relief. Ottawa can do something to relieve the hardships of the jobless.
Unemployment
Ottawa, "like an eternal spider" is creeping into the lives of all our people through its customs tariffs and its taxes which burden every business. The whole thing must rest1 on the shoulders of Ottawa and the federal government.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the way the Liberal party, through its press, deals with responsibilities and bestows them on whom it chooses, provided it can free itself from them and have someone else shoulder them.
Why does it act that way, and why would it have our Canadian people believe that unemployment has become a provincial responsibility? The answer is very simple. It is that in 1935 Ontario had a Liberal administration, Mr. Hepburn's, while Ottawa had a Conservative administration, Mr. Bennett's. Now that the situation is reversed, and that Ontario has a Conservative administration headed by Mr. Frost while Ottawa has a Liberal administration, this government wants the provinces, which it deprived of all their income sources, to shoulder the responsibilities it lacks the courage to face.
Mr. Lapalme, head of the Liberal party in the Quebec legislature, is doing the same as the Toronto Star and the Liberal party in Ottawa. This stand is just the opposite of the one advocated by Mr. Alexandre Taschereau, in Quebec, in 1935.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: We will let the Canadian people, Mr. Speaker, pass judgment on such inconsistent stands which show a complete lack of frankness, as well as on those who are responsible for such inconsistency.
To come back to the alarming unemployment situation in the city of Quebec, and more particularly in Quebec West and Quebec East, let me state that that situation is one of the worst tragedies suffered by our people since the dark days of 1929.
There are some who will say, I know, that the setting up of unemployment benefits has been of considerable help to those who were periodically unemployed. I am not questioning that, even though benefits have never been anything but a means of providing partial support to those who have been forced out of work. It is certainly not a means to cope with unemployment or to get around a critical situation, as benefits paid to the unemployed only prevent them from dying of starvation and are paid only during a limited period.

Unemployment
Before resorting to the measures necessary to give back to our economy its full wartime vitality, and to the unemployed a steady and permanent job, we ought nevertheless to provide a temporary solution to the problem. The only remedy would be a program of public works of the same magnitude as the problem that we have to face today.
The public works program intended for Quebec city, to which the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) referred recently, is in no way likely to meet the situation. It consists in the construction of some buildings for which two-thirds of the amount appropriated will be used in buying materials. The balance will go to labour, which therefore will be very limited. Only a few will find employment and only for a short period of time.
Let us hasten to give the necessary orders so that the large projects which I have been requesting in the house since I came here for the first time, almost two years ago, might be undertaken without any more delay. I am not the only one who has been asking for these public works. They were requested on several occasions by the Quebec city municipal council and all important public bodies.
Last year, His Worship the mayor of Quebec city, when the unemployment situation was already alarming in our district, rushed to Ottawa, and urged the federal authorities to bring some relief to our fellow citizens. And according to the reports then published in the press, the answer he got was that, in a year or two, there was a possibility that Ottawa might contribute to a certain extent to the implementation of certain projects. There is a proverb, Mr. Speaker, which says that time heals everything. However, may I point out to the Prime Minister and to the government that this proverb does not apply to this particular case. According to its haphazard policy of wait and see, the government, no doubt, thought that time might bring an improvement in the employment situation which might silence those who suffer and appease their minds. Once more, the government has walked into the trap for, instead of improving, conditions are getting much worse from day to day. We have now reached the point when our welfare organizations, like the St. Vincent society, our public welfare services, our family welfare association, and all our charitable institutions cannot meet the situation. With poverty and hardship increasing as they do, the government will

soon be held responsible for the one and only increase, that of funerals in the city of Quebec, funerals of the victims of hunger, cold and malnutrition.
I note that some members on the other side of the house seem amused.


Pierre Gauthier: If you could only see the smile on the face of the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer).


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Yet, I would like to see them change places for some time with those poor workers at home, who are not paid the $10,000 we voted ourselves here.


An hon. Member:: And which you wanted yourself.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: And which I did not want, as I opposed the bill. I know my responsibilities.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would ask the house to let the hon. member for Quebec West conclude his remarks without any more interruptions.


Pierre Gauthier: Conclude his
reading.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again I repeat that the only projects-urgent projects-that are needed, if we want to preserve the health and life of our fellow citizens, are the purification of the waters of the Lairet river, the deepening of the St. Charles river bed and the elimination of level crossings. You could add to this the rebuilding of our docks in the port of Quebec, that are disintegrating rapidly and will soon fall to pieces.
I shall probably be told that there are no funds available for these projects. There is nothing new in this, for as we find huge sums of money to make war, I do not see why much less considerable amounts could not be raised for the protection of all that is most dear to us, that is, our human resources.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Will the hon. member allow one question?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Certainly.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Is the hon. member aware that he belongs to the Progressive Conservative party, and that according to his party, there was never enough money spent for war purposes?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I am not here to bear all the sins of Israel, but to speak for myself. I know very well that if my party

had been in power during the last war and had done only half the things the Liberal government did, the most powerful machine guns would have been brought out to shoot us.
If the government does not wish to vote the amounts required for the completion of the works I just mentioned, why does it not seek permission to use a portion of the hundreds of millions collected through the unemployment insurance contributions, millions which after all came from the employers and the employees of the country. Our people would thus obtain work, since I am convinced they do not wish to live on public charity. Being in a position to earn an honest living, they would contribute to the expansion and to the prosperity of the economic life of our district.
This year, we are contributing $26 million to the Colombo plan and we are glad to do so. Not a single dissident voice was raised in this house when that item was voted, since its aim is to enable poorer countries to raise their standard of living and to carry out various works for the protection of public health. That is a most praiseworthy endeavour, I admit. What I cannot understand, however-and I am speaking here for everybody in Quebec I have met-is that Canada, using the taxpayers' money, has irrigation work done in India, has infectious swamps drained because they constitute a danger for the health of Indian people when, right in the midst of Quebec city, in the heart of the riding represented here by the Prime Minister, two foul rivers are flowing, two real open air sewers, whose stench is no less foul and which are a source of most dangerous germs which the wind carries to the population. I do not object to the work we do to protect the health of human beings living thousands of miles away and I am not asking for a rigorous application of the saying "Charity begins at home" but I believe that it would be more logical to protect at the same time the health and the life of those whose daily work contributes to the greatness and prosperity of Canada.
Public enemy No. 1 in Canada today is therefore unemployment, which is becoming a real epidemic. Such a tragedy cannot last any longer and I will say to the government that it is urgent that a solution should be found to this distressing problem and since there can be no further delay the appropriate steps must be taken now, not in April when the preliminary federal-provincial conference, which will be simply a prelude to a similar conference to be held in the fall, will take place.
Unemployment
We cannot have a large portion of our population remain in the most absolute destitution for months to come. Since unemployment is above all a federal responsibility, I ask the federal government, in conclusion, to get busy as soon as possible with the solution of its problem.


Mr. Boisvert:: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to direct a question to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: You have my permission.


Maurice Boisvert: Does the hon. member
know that, under the constitution, the provinces could undertake public works coming within their jurisdiction to help alleviate unemployment which may exist in certain areas?


Mr. Balcer:: That is what they are doing all year round.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, the provinces surely can, under the constitution, if they wish to do so and if they have the means to do so, undertake works to take care of the alarming unemployment situation, but they are unable to do it now because the government which administers the affairs of the nation has taken over the sources of revenues of the provinces.


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: May I ask the hon. member a question?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Surely.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Has not the province of Quebec declared financial surpluses for the past five or six years, according to the report of its Minister of Finance?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I did not understand your question.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Has not the province of Quebec shown surpluses for the past five or six years, according to the financial statements of its Minister of Finance?


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: The province of Quebec has shown surpluses in the past few years thanks to the considerable development of the natural resources of the province, and to the vision, astuteness and sound administration of the Hon. Maurice Duplessis.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I follow the hon. member for Quebec West

Unemployment
(Mr. Dufresne), if only to prove to him that Liberal members from the province of Quebec are not afraid to deal with the matter of unemployment.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: They are not afraid, they are merely late.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I would ask you to remain silent as I did when you were speaking. If you want to ask questions, I would be pleased to answer them at the end of my speech.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal members from the province of Quebec believe, and rightly so, that speeches alone cannot solve the unemployment problem; if there had been fewer speeches in the house for the past ten days, we would now be in a position to vote money to cope with the situation.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Ellis) implied this afternoon, and I believe I have well understood what he said, that the government had deliberately delayed this debate on unemployment. Nothing could be more unfair. My hon. friend will find I hope, if he will examine Hansard, that he himself and members of his own group have greatly contributed to this delay, with boring and endless speeches on the various matters discussed in the house during the past ten days.
Since the beginning of this debate, Mr. Speaker, I have listened closely to the various speakers of the opposition who, one after the other, would have had us believe that the situation is far worse than it is in reality. In other words they have attempted to use the problem of unemployment as a political football. They have advanced no practical solution and, may I add, it is certainly not in the speech made by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) any more than in that of the hon. member for Quebec West that we can look for interesting or practical ideas.
It is inaccurate and absolutely contrary to the true facts of the case to claim that the government have not concerned themselves with the problem of unemployment. It would be just as inaccurate to claim that the government have refused so far, or still refuse, to carry out their responsibilities in the present circumstances.
The people of this country have put their trust in us and that trust is justified by the frankness and willingness with which we face up to this problem. There are serious difficulties in the field of employment, but the reason we are here today is precisely to eliminate these difficulties.
On March 1, the Minister of Trade and Commerce and of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) described the situation in a masterly way. He is confident and again the future will prove him right. Unemployment should be considered in relation to the other perspectives of our economy. In fact, the level of employment must not be taken as the only yardstick of the prosperity of our country. If we consider the prosperous and sound situation in other sectors, we are justified to suggest that the unemployment situation will correct itself shortly. In fact it has already begun to do so. I am informed that, for the first time since last January, there has been clear evidence of an increase in the demand on the part of employers in the various offices of the employment service of the unemployment insurance commission in Montreal.
Contrary to statements made by pessimists of the opposition, the number of jobs continues to increase in Canada. However, the increase in population has been more rapid than that of available jobs. If proof of our industrial and commercial expansion is required, we only have to realize that, since the end of the war, more than a million immigrants-of whom more than half were workers-have been added to our people, hundreds of thousands of veterans have come back to their jobs in civilian life, and hundreds of thousands of young men and young girls have become old enough to work and are now part of our labour force.
In the face of such figures, the employment situation is amazingly good, and we are justified in being confident in the immediate future of this country.
I know that public works are but a palliative to the present situation. However, they constitute one of the means we have to fight unemployment. I therefore ask the government to start those works as soon as possible; the matter is urgent. I hope that the St. Lawrence seaway project will soon be in full swing which should improve substantially the situation in Montreal and in the south shore district.
Once more, as I did a month ago in this house, I ask that another bridge be built in Montreal at the foot of Pie IX boulevard. I do not ask for such a bridge in order to improve the traffic situation in Montreal-which is a purely municipal matter-but in order to avoid the chaos which the establishment of the St. Lawrence seaway will bring about. If steps are not taken right now to provide for the extraordinary development of the south shore, which in a few years will be changed from an agricultural section into an industrial and residential area, and if this
[Mr. Desehatelets.)

third bridge is not built as soon as possible, Montreal might find itself in a few years from now in an inextricable situation.
My suggestion, which is designed to help the eastern section of Montreal, would nevertheless be in the national interest; I feel indeed that such an important improvement would eventually benefit the whole country.
I understand the government has contributed towards the construction of a sports centre in St. John's, Newfoundland. They could also help the authorities of the city of Montreal to complete the construction of the sports centre on Pie IX boulevard in the constituency of Maisonneuve-Rosemont. This sports centre will be something unique in America.
Those are important public works which would help fight unemployment in Montreal.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government to consider the advisability of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act. In this connection, I would like to subscribe to what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, as reported at page 1634 of Hansard:
To help the unemployed, particularly during the winter months, the Unemployment Insurance Act was amended earlier this session to provide for an increase in the duration and scale of supplementary benefits. A major revision of this act is proposed during the present session.
The position of the unemployed who have exhausted their benefits and cannot find work is certainly a matter for concern, particularly when they are the heads of families, and any amendment to this legislation that would bring these people some relief would be welcome and would greatly help our municipalities and welfare organizations.
In this fight against unemployment, there are many aspects we cannot readily control; but public works may be resorted to. I may add that the people of this country expect us to take action without delay.
The government has taken the necessary steps to solve the unemployment problem, and the next months should prove that the government forecasts, based on unquestionable statistics, have become facts.
(Text) :


Mr. J. A. Charlton (Branl-Haldimand):: believe most of the members in this chamber realize the importance of agriculture to the economy of the nation and its relationship to the unemployment situation today. Before speaking of that, however, I want to suggest that the Minister of Agriculture and his parliamentary assistant might get together on their statements.
Unemployment
I commend the minister for the statement he made some few days ago in relation to the further importation of New Zealand cheese. He made it quite clear to the New Zealand embassy in Ottawa, I understand, that there is not much room for more New Zealand cheese in this country at the present time. Strangely enough, however, while the Minister of Trade and Commerce suggests to industry what they should do, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture suggests to county councils what they should not do. I would like to quote from an article which appeared in the London Free Press on March 11.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I ask the hon. member what is the relationship between statements made by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and statements made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce with respect to cheese, and the present debate on unemployment? I know the hon. member will want to speak about unemployment on farms and its relationship to unemployment in the cities, but I do not see the relationship of unemployment to the alleged contradictory statements with respect to cheese.


John Alpheus Charlton: I am sure if I am given a chance to explain you will understand why I made reference to the two statements, because their content does relate to unemployment in this country and I say that advisedly. The importation of New Zealand cheese has a great deal to do with the unemployment situation in Canada. However, having stated that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture seems to want to advise county councils on what they should not do, I wish to quote from an article which appeared in the London Free Press under the dateline of Hensall, March 10. This is what the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture is purported to have said:
"Canada is an exporting country," he said, "and we'll find ourselves in serious difficulties if foreign markets, through reprisals, were shut off to us."
A little further in the article he goes on to say this:
"I don't like to see county councils and other organizations asking the federal government to shut off imports. I don't believe restrictions are the answers to our problems."
Then a little bit further on again we find this:
. . . Mr. McCubbin said, "importation of New Zealand cheese this year is similar to that of the last five years."
"About 2,250,000 pounds of New Zealand cheese has been imported this year for use in process cheese products."
Mr. Speaker, that statement is not correct.
As to the importation of New Zealand

Unemployment
cheese, the parliamentary assistant quoted the figures lor 1950, 1951 and 1952 and implied that the same amount of cheese had been imported in 1953 and 1954.


Mr. McCubbin:: I did no such thing, Mr. Speaker.


John Alpheus Charlton: I repeat the quotation, Mr. Speaker:
. . . Mr. McCubbin said, "importation of New Zealand cheese this year is similar to that of the last five years."
If that is not the meaning I do not know what it means. Here is the importation of cheese for the last five years, and it was only in 1953-


Mr. Speaker:: I still do not see the relationship of this analysis of statements made by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture to the unemployment situation. I would ask the hon. member to go into the question of unemployment as soon as he can.


John Alpheus Charlton: I am just pointing out that there are over one million people employed in connection with the dairy industry in this country. Anything that reduces the income of those dairy farmers is bound to cause unemployment. In 1953 there were no importations of New Zealand cheese, and last year there was importation to a total amount of 540 pounds. If that is the same amount over the last five years, I cannot understand it.
Good wages plus cheap food do not equal full employment. Even though the government does not realize that fact, most labour unions do; and it has been mentioned in many of their briefs during the last couple of years. If the farmer's cash income is at a reasonable level, he will buy. Of necessity, in order to protect himself or to assure his future income, he must keep up to date in order to keep his costs down. With costs remaining high and with the farm income or farm prices going down, his only possible answer is to produce more at a smaller unit cost, if possible. A small percentage of overproduction often results in just enough surplus over domestic consumption to seriously depress the price if that small surplus is not readily disposed of in the export market.
That is what I referred to Mr. Speaker, when I was talking about the importation of cheese, and how a small surplus of any commodity can depress the domestic market and in that way reduce the farmers' purchasing power. There can be no doubt about that fact. It has been proved beyond a doubt during the last three years, because the farmers' purchasing power or the net

farm income has gone down over 30 per cent in that time. We wonder why it has gone down.
I might say here that the Ontario cheese producers were doing a magnificent job in marketing their own cheese, looking after their own surplus and collecting from their own producers. Then what did this government do? They cut the feet out from under them by importing cheap cheese from another country. Yet the parliamentary assistant to the minister thinks it is all right to keep on doing that. He implies that it is perfectly all right. He says that county councils should not send in these resolutions requesting the government to restrict the imports of cheese.
For instance, the poultry producers were in trouble last year. Prices were greatly reduced. Their purchasing power was down. They therefore could not buy the things they ordinarily would buy to keep factories in production and keep the wheels of industry turning. I wonder why. Here are some figures that might tell us why. In 1953 a total of 311,769 dozen eggs were imported into this country. In 1954, up until November 30, 472,404 dozen eggs were imported. Those figures are for eggs in the shell. Then we come to egg yolk. These figures are in pounds. In 1953 there were imported 64,997 pounds or almost 65,000 pounds. In 1954 that figure jumped to 150,246 pounds. Then again-


Robert McCubbin: I should like to ask the hon. member a question. If we are going to discuss agriculture, I am going to ask him this question. Is there any unemployment on the farms?


John Alpheus Charlton: There is a good deal of unemployment among farm labour, not among farmers. Farmers are not unemployed. Farmers do not need to be unemployed at any time. There are always a great many jobs to do around farms. But there are many farm labourers who are unemployed. '


Robert McCubbin: Where?


An hon. Member:: In Middlesex.


Mr. Rowe:: All over Ontario.


John Alpheus Charlton: All over the country.


William Earl Rowe: Especially in the beef cattle business.


John Alpheus Charlton: The farmers are doing just what they can do themselves and they are not hiring any extra labour, in many instances. They cannot afford to do so. They are doing what they can do themselves and letting the rest go.


Mr. Hosking:: Surely you are not saying the farmers are that bad, are you?


John Alpheus Charlton: I wonder whether the hon. member for Wellington South ever worked on a farm in his life?


Henry Alfred Hosking: I was raised on a farm.


John Alpheus Charlton: You did not stay there very long.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Alpheus Charlton: To go on with the egg business, Mr. Speaker, I should like to give these further figures. As to egg yolks in the dried state, 413,037 pounds were imported in 1953 and 453,012 pounds in 1954. Then we come to meats. I am just pointing out these figures because this government does not seem to appreciate the fact that farmers want and need a good market in order to purchase manufactured goods so as to keep the wheels of industry turning and people employed.
In 1954, from January 1 to November 30, a total of 3,034,181 pounds of fresh beef and veal were imported into this country. Then here is a figure to which I should like to direct attention. The price of pork has been going down steadily practically all this year. Yet 1,312,162 pounds of fresh pork were imported into the country in 1954 in order to further depress the price of pork to the farmer. As to fresh lamb and mutton, importations in 1954 were 7,207,902 pounds; chickens and fowl, 2,600,250 pounds; turkeys, 3,719,749 pounds. I might say that was only until November 30. I understand that the figure for the total importation of turkeys last year was away up over the 5 million pound mark. Therefore quite a few must have been imported in the month of December.


An hon. Member:: What about exports?


An hon. Member:: He is not interested in exports.


John Alpheus Charlton: Cheaper consumer foods are of little value to a person who is unemployed, especially when that lower price has actually caused him to be in that position. Many cases could be cited of people who are unemployed because of cheap imports into this country. The average farmer spends four to five times as much on manufactured goods as does the average urban dweller.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Are you saying your farmers are very well oil?


John Alpheus Charlton: I am making that statement. If you want to make a speech you will have plenty of chance.
Unemployment


Henry Alfred Hosking: I was hoping you would be accurate.


John Alpheus Charlton: If the hon. member wishes to ask me a question I shall be glad to answer it. I am saying that the average farmer spends four or five times as much on manufactured goods as the average urban dweller. That will go to show just how important the farmer is as a consumer of manufactured goods, and how little his income would have to be reduced before it would be felt by industry and retailers alike. Farmers buy the same household goods. They buy practically the same clothes. They buy almost the same food and on top of that they buy all the implements of their trade, machinery, tools, feed and fertilizer. Why is it that in my own city of Brantford the implement manufacturing companies have been so badly off in the last two years? Unemployment has probably been greater in that industry than in any other in the country.


Henry Alfred Hosking: Evidently you want a tariff imposed.


John Alpheus Charlton: I cannot hear the hon. member.


Henry Alfred Hosking: It becomes evident that you want a tariff put on. You want to protect the manufacturers.


John Alpheus Charlton: The hon. member has never heard me ask for a tariff on farm implements, and he never will. I do not know whether he is having a pipe dream but I wish he would not try to put words in my mouth. The fact is there is a terrific unemployment situation in the farm implement manufacturing industry. There is just one answer to that. The farmer's purchasing power is down, his income is greatly reduced, and he is getting his old equipment fixed instead of buying new machines. You can see that all over the country in the machine repair shops. You can see many implements being repaired which farmers ordinarily would be turning in on new ones.
Any reduction in the farmer's purchasing power is bound to be felt by industry and retailers. Hence a large percentage of the present unemployment can be traced directly to reduced purchasing by farmers. There never has been a year in the history of this country as far back as the statistics go when an hour's wages would buy so much food. I repeat; there never has been a year in the history of the country when an hour's wages would buy so much food. Does that lead one to believe that the farmer's purchasing power is high compared with other years, or does it give a fairly good reason for the present level of unemployment?

Unemployment
I should like permission to place upon Hansard a table taken from page 2177 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the royal commission on prices, of December 14, 1948. If I have that permission it will save me the trouble of going over the figures. I shall merely cite some of them to prove the statement I have just made. These figures have been transposed by the economist of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture from government figures having a base of 1935-39 to a base of 1925-29. Although it makes no difference whatever in the final figures, it does show a better comparison in relation to farm prices at that time than it would using the 1935-39 period. Have I permission to put this table on Hansard?
Mr.	. Deputy Speaker: Order.		I notice that
the hon. member		has a rather formidable	
book	in his hand.	Has he identified the par-	
ticular table he wishes to place			on Hansard?


Mr. Weir:: He is	going to put	the book in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member		
unanimous consent		to place this table on	
Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Alpheus Charlton: The table is as		follows:
Relation of index of hourly wage			rates of nine
major	industries and	index of retail food prices.	Canada 1913 to	1948-(1925-29	is 100)Retail Food Hourly Wage	Ratio WagesYear	Costs	Rates	to Food Costs1913 .	
68	54	791914 .	
70	55	781915 .	
71	55	771916 .	
79	59	751917 .	
102	68	661918 .	
117	80	681919 .	
125	93	751920 .	
144	111	771921 .	
Ill	101	921922 .	
94	94	1011923 .	
94	97	1031924 .	
92	98	1061925 .	
97	97	1011926 .	
101	98	971927 .	
99	100	1011928 .	
100	101	1011929 .	
102	103	1011930 .	
100	104	1041931 .	
78	100	1281932 .	
62	93	1491933 .	
65	88	1371934 .	
70	89	1261935 .	
72	92	1281936 .	
74	93	1261937 .	
78	100	1281938 .	
79	103	1311939 .	
76	104	1361940 .	
80	108	1341941 .	
88	117	1331942 .	
97	127	1211943 .	
99	138	1291944 .	
100	143	1431945 .	
101	147	1461946 .,	
107	161	1511947 ..	
121	180	1491943 ..	
155	202	130
I wish to refer to only three or four figures. In 1913 the retail food costs index was 68, the hourly wage rates index was 54 and the ratio of wages to food costs was 79. In 1932 the retail food costs index was 62, the lowest figure in the table, hourly wage rates stood at 93 and the ratio of wages to food costs was 149. The figures in the table only go as far as 1948. I have here the figures for 1954. In December, 1954, the retail food costs figure was 172, the hourly wage rates figure was 291 and the figure for the ratio of wages to food costs was 169.
Most people would think that during the 1930's food costs in comparison to wages were rather low. The 1913 figure of 68 for retail food costs had risen by 1954 by not quite three times. Hourly wage rates have increased by better than five times. The ratio between wages and food costs has risen from 79 to 169, an all-time high in the history of these figures. With such a ratio between wages and retail food costs cheap food plus high taxation is bound to equal high unemployment. The government has never considered that high taxation plays any part in the cost of living. Rather than saying we have priced ourselves out of world markets, it seems to me we would be just as correct to say that we have taxed ourselves out of world markets.
I should like to make three suggestions to-the government which I believe would go a long way toward solving our unemployment problem. First, I suggest that the farmers should be assured of reasonable prices for their products. Second, taxation should be reduced and, third, there should be strict administration of the anti-dumping regulations.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Of all
the speeches that have been delivered up to the present time today, Mr. Speaker, I believe that delivered by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat is the only one that offered anything positive in relation to the problem of unemployment. It has been rather disheartening to listen to the debate this afternoon. Anyone endeavouring to gather any concrete ideas as to how to attack our problem would surely find his time utterly wasted, because so many of the speeches have completely cancelled themselves; out. For example, the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre (Mr. Thatcher) suggested that we increase expenditures and cut taxation, but he gave no means whereby we could obtain any supplement to the revenues we are now receiving. He left us more or less in uncertainty.
Since this debate began so much of thetalk has been of that nature that I hope-

to be able to follow a line that may at least give some hint as to what might be done. I agree with the hon. member who has just taken his seat that, in the main, it is far better for us to use our own production in our own country rather than import goods from another country and thereby export employment to that country. Several hon. members have made remarks tending in that direction. I should like to attack the question from the standpoint of increasing the purchasing power in the hands of the people.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: That's the ticket.


John Horne Blackmore: If hon. members do want
to solve the unemployment problem I suggest they listen. They have no ideas themselves. They are just as empty as an empty barrel. They are just full of a lot of silly babble when somebody else begins to talk. Now, there is something to which it is worth while listening. The Liberals have nothing to which it is worth while listening. The only thing in the world the Liberals have been able to do in the way of providing employment in this country is go to war.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: We did not go to war.


John Horne Blackmore: Certainly you went to war.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: We did not cause the war.


John Horne Blackmore: I did not say you did,
but that was the only thing that brought us out of the depression in 1939; and the only thing that saved us from a depression in 1949 was the preparation for the Korean war and participation in that war. Anyone with any sense of reality knows that. Having that in mind, let us face the facts as they are without a lot of silly babble such as you will And in pool rooms, restaurants and all sorts of idle places. Let us not have anything of that kind in the House of Commons where we are supposed to be responsible people.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) a number of questions. I expected he would be here tonight, but the fact he is not here will not prevent me from asking the questions. Probably the Prime Minister will require the assistance of the best brains in his party in order to answer these questions. I have been very sympathetic with the Prime Minister ever since this debate began. I do not think I have ever seen a man so full of regrets, chagrin, sorrow and dejection as the Prime Minister has been while sitting here wondering in his own mind whatever could be done about the unemployment problem. Two years ago he came before the Canadian people full of confidence, representing himself as a man
Unemployment
who could take them through the difficulties ahead. He used ways and means whereby he persuaded them to elect him to office. He came out and asked for the position. He took the responsibility, and now he simply cannot discharge it by any means which any of the men in his party are able to suggest to him, or, I venture to say, anyone in the Conservative party.
The C.C.F. does offer something a little different, but the Conservatives do not offer anything different. I listened this afternoon to the fine talk by the hon. member for Prince Albert. If a person had stepped in at any time during his talk and asked him what he would do about this problem he woudl have gone up in smoke, because he as nothing to offer.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Is that why you get along so well with the Conservatives?


John Horne Blackmore: Well now, that was a brilliant question; it is one of those things that indicate profundity of comprehension and erudition behind it.
The first question I should like to ask the Prime Minister is, is it in the Prime Mim ister's opinion financially possible in Canada to do a thing which in Canada is physically possible? With that question answered he will be on his way to a possible solution to the country's problems. There is no question but that there are plenty of resources in Canada and plenty of demand for goods in Canada to provide employment for all the people; that has been proven. It is physically possible to provide employment for Canadians. Is there any reason why it cannot be made financially possible?


An hon. Member:: Old age pensions.


John Horne Blackmore: There is another lot of brilliant foolishness, just cheapskate nonsense. That is the size of the hon. member who spoke. He has no ideas of his own, yet he is always making fun of anyone who offers a possible solution to the difficulties. Let the hon. member take that home and sleep on it, and come back with an answer tomorrow.
When the Prime Minister gets an answer to that first question I asked he will be on his way. If it is not physically possible to employ the people of Canada, then we might just as well attack the problem from that angle. If it is physically possible, then our problem is to make what is physically possible financially possible. We want an answer from the Prime Minister to that question: Does the Prime Minister believe that what is physically possible can be made financially possible; yes or no?

Unemployment
We pretty well agreed that during world war II what was physically possible could be made financially possible. I believe the government agreed that such was the case, and undertook to make what was physically possible financially possible.
Following that, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a second question. By what means can what is physically possible be made financially possible? Now, get the answer to that. We can get foolishness down on the street, but what is the answer?


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, another empty head, full of sound and fury signifying nothing. It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, how many people in this house do not want to solve the unemployment problem in Canada. They are not interested in solving it. All they are interested in is making some silly remarks which they think will get into Hansard and delude the voters. They do not want to solve the unemployment problem. If they did, they would at least listen to something that might offer a solution.
I asked the Prime Minister, by what means can what is physically possible be made financially possible? For example how in world war II did we make what was physically possible financially possible in the war effort?
The third question I want to ask the Prime Minister is this. Does the Prime Minister agree that Canada was able to rather adequately employ all her people during world war II? The answer to that would have to be yes, because we did. The fourth question is, by what means did Canada render financially possible what was physically possible during world war II? By the time we get these four questions answered we should have some ideas with which to go to work to solve the problem before us, as responsible members of the Canadian parliament should be expected to be able to do in this year 1955.
Will the Prime Minister agree that Canada created much of the money with which she rendered financially possible what she achieved during world war II? I ask that of all those brilliant ones who have so much to say, and who had better not talk so much but should do a little thinking. Did Canada create money with which to make what was physically possible in world war II financially possible? I am not sure the Prime Minister will know that. I wish he were here so he could answer it. But just so he can be guided, and several of the bright boys over across the way may be guided also, let me

read something to them from A. F. W. Plumptre which appeared in the Financial Post of October 15, 1940, right after we got into the war. He had this to say:
There are some general matters of theory which must be kept in mind in preparing for the next war loan. It must be remembered, primarily and seemingly paradoxically, that the government's object is not to get money but merely to reduce the public's spending.
The government can always "get money" because it may, as an alternative to borrowing or even to taxation, create the required funds. This- it can easily do nowadays through the leadership of the central bank and the co-operation of the chartered banks. In this way $200 million were created in this fashion last autumn.
That was right after Canada entered into world war II. In Canada we created $200 million. All our babblers about funny money can just take that away and think about it.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Will the hon. member not say that almost immediately following the time this $200 million was created prices began to rise? In effect it did have an inflationary tendency.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, that is an intelligent question.


Mr. Low:: One mark for you.


John Horne Blackmore: There is a possibility that prices would begin to rise for several reasons. In the first place, Canada was enlisting men and drafting them into the war, and was hiring men in great numbers to go into the munitions plants. All those men were producers or potential producers of goods and services.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Will the hon. member-


John Horne Blackmore: Let me do the talking. You can ask all the questions you wish, but for goodness' sake be quiet as I talk and I will keep quiet when you talk. Those facts have to be borne in mind. The hon. member does not question that, does he?
In addition to that we began putting money into the economy where, because of unemployment that had gone on for practically ten years, the country's production effort was at a low ebb. We began taking up great quantities of goods that were in the country to use in the war effort. For example, we began feeding our men as the poor creatures had not been fed for ten years, and we began clothing them instead of allowing them to travel about in rags. We began sheltering them instead of letting them ride on freight cars and camp in the woods. We began immediately to use goods and thereby took them off the market, which tended to create a scarcity of goods.

It was not because the money was going into circulation. It was because of the scarcity of production and production capacity which had been brought on immediately by the war effort. If the goods supply had been kept up that $200 million would not have caused any rise to speak of in prices.
In further answer to my hon. friend's question, I point out that there was not any appreciable rise in prices until 1941, because the wartime prices and trade board was not set up until about that time, which indicates that the $200 million had not caused very much difficulty. To that intelligent question I believe my hon. friend has had an intelligent answer, which he will agree is correct.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I do not agree.


John Horne Blackmore: Well, I do not think you would agree to anything that would mean anything at all. I do not know whether you have the apperceiving mass to grasp it. But the important thing is that, regardless of what the effect was, Mr. Plumptre points out that $200 million was created and it was not funny money, not by any means. It was created by the banking institutions in Canada. Is there any conceivable reason why in an emergency such as unemployment the same device cannot be used to solve unemployment problems? I invite Liberals, Conservatives and C.C.F.'ers to concentrate their attention on that question and answer it with the intelligence that befits members of this house; but do not tell us any more that money cannot be created or that money that is created is funny.
These are the first questions I should like to ask the Prime Minister. I would like to
15. 1955	2069
Unemployment
go on with a few more. This is question No. 5. Would the Prime Minister be willing to create money now in order to provide Canadians with adequate employment? If not, why not?


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


John Horne Blackmore: This cackling is going on again.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


John Horne Blackmore: I understand Mr. Speaker is in the chair and is watching the clock. I expect him to tell me when the time is up, and not necessarily hon. members. Canada wants to find out whether the Prime Minister of Canada is more interested in refraining from creating dollars than he is in solving the unemployment problem. In other words, is he willing to solve the unemployment problem?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am accepting the hon. member's invitation, and I understand that he is adjourning the debate.
On motion of Mr. Blackmore the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Sinclair:: Tomorrow we shall continue with this debate, and if we finish it we shall call four items in supply and go back to the item on grade crossings, which is No. 4 on today's order paper; then item No. 5, the resolution on radio, and then Bills Nos. 183, 184 and 195.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]

[Stage Direction]
	
	
	

.	
	
	
	
	
	
[Stage Direction]
	
	
	
	
	
	

	 * ;
; ' ' ' [DOT]
,
.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, March 16, 1955