1955-03-29

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Croll.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. P. Cavers (Lincoln) presented the first report of the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No 303, to amend the Interest Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Hazen Robert Argue: The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to place a ceiling on interest rates that may be charged, providing a maximum of 12 per cent per annum.
Motion agreed and bill read the first time.



SMALL LOANS ACT


Hazen Robert Argue: for leave to introduce Bill No. 304, to amend the Small Loans Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Hazen Robert Argue: The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to provide for a reduction of the rate of interest or cost of loans provided under the Small Loans Act from 2 per cent per month to 1 per cent per month.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 286, for the relief of Joseph Alexandre Roland Simard.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 287, for the relief of Winnifred Blanche Brook McGurk.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 288, for the relief of Gitel Shepsel Moscovitch.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 289, for the relief of Susan Frosst Cohen.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	290,	for	the	relief	of	Norma
Constance Parsons Lindsey.-Mr Hunter.
Bill No. 291, for the relief of Erna Reiter Kastelberger.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	292,	for	the	relief	of	Nickola
Bochna, otherwise known as Nicholas Bockan. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	293,	for	the	relief	of	Robert
Fraser Callahan.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 294, for the relief of Ruth Barsuk Cohen.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 295, for the relief of Bernice Noble Comm.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill	No.	296,	for	the	relief	of	Francis
Ambrose Higgins.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 297, for the relief of Elizabeth Coyle Ellis Gibbons.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 298, for the relief of Blanche Mary Shurge Labelle.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 299, for the relief of Beatrice Teressa Mathewson Connell.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 300, for the relief of Joyce Hilda Street Janson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 301, for the relief of Joyce Gertrude Haworth Rawlings.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 302, for the relief of Jean Eudes Deschenes.-Mr. Hunter.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is there any foundation for the general statement that is being made in the press of the United States that an imminent attack on Quemcy and Matsu by red China is anticipated? Would the minister say whether he has any information that would confirm or deny this statement. Would he also give a general resume of the present situation relative to those two islands.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the reports to which my hon. friend refers
2478	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry and I have no information from any official quarter which would confirm them or that an attack on these islands is imminent. Of course, in the present situation it always remains a dangerous possibility. As far as our policy in respect to this matter is concerned it has already been made clear, and I do not think I need repeat it here, that if an attack were made on these offshore islands it would not involve the intervention of the Canadian government.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I did not notify him of my intention to ask this question because I did not think it required notice. Is it the intention of the government to amend Bill No. 164, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, to make the allowance payable in April regardless of whether or not that bill is passed in March?


Mr. C. E. Bennett (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs):: The hon.
member is wrong, in that I do require notice of this question. I shall bring it to the attention of the minister and will let the hon. member know in the near future.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence when I might expect to receive answers to two questions which were passed as orders for returns on February 28 and * which concern entirely the Department of National Defence.


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: I was not aware that any of our orders for returns were delinquent. I shall look into the matter.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: Yesterday the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. McBain) asked my parliamentary assistant whether I was aware of the widespread storm damage caused to the fishing industry
TMr. Pearson.]

on the north shore of lake Erie and whether representations were made to me by fishermen's associations or by the provincial government.
I am aware of the damage that was done last week. The hon. members for Kent, Ont, (Mr. Huffman) and Norfolk (Mr. Anderson) brought to me wires from fishermen's organizations. I pointed out to them, however, that both commercial and sport fishing in the province of Ontario are entirely under the jurisdiction of the province, other than the inspection of fish at points of export. I told them that the practice in the provinces where we do control the fisheries is for the provincial government to assess the storm damage. If the province decides to assist, and the amount of assistance is beyond the financial capacity of the province, the federal department of fisheries has assisted.



LEAD AND ZINC


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday I asked him if the government had lodged a protest with the United States government about the possible restrictions against imports into that country of lead and zinc. At that time he said he would take the question as notice and give an answer today.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, when proposals of this kind were made previously in Washington, which would have increased the duty against Canadian imports of lead and zinc, official representations were made. Since then a new proposal to this end has been put forward. It is at present only a proposal, made in connection with the consideration of a congressional bill. However, since this proposal was advanced our views on the matter have once again been brought to the attention of the United States authorities and our position has been restated and, I hope, reinforced.



INQUIRY AS TO ACTION ON UNITED STATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has the minister yet received any communication in regard to the request for the release of the reply of the government of the United States to the representations made by thp

government of Canada in connection with the movement of oil across the border from Canada to the United States?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, as I stated at the last sitting, a reply has been received. This reply can only be made public with the permission of the sender. We have asked for that permission but, to the best of my knowledge, a reply to that request has not been received.



REFERENCE TO SESSIONAL PAPER NO. 80-C

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour with respect to sessional paper No. 80-C which he tabled on Thursday, March 24. He will recall that he and I agreed that representative communications would be satisfactory with regard to the subject matter of the return, namely unemployment, rather than all the communications. In view of the fact that in these documents there is no communication from Winnipeg, will he not agree that it is hardly representative and will he bring down a supplementary return?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to see that any representative documents from Winnipeg are added to those the hon. member has in his possession.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you.



REFERENCE TO CANADIAN PERCENTAGE OF WORLD SALES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister care to comment on the fact that the percentage of Canadian wheat sales to world wheat sales is down? Would the minister care to say whether Canada's percentage of such sales is likely soon to be recovered?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has sent me a document entitled The Wheat Review, published by the department of which I am minister, which shows that for the full year last year Canada supplied 42 per cent of the world's wheat and that for the first six months of this year Canada supplied 36.1 per cent of the world's wheat. May I say that the figures are not comparable. The shipment of wheat from Canada is largely
Unemployment
seasonal. Our ports are closed, except for the Atlantic ports and Vancouver, from about December 10 until some time in April. We have a heavy movement booked out of the St. Lawrence for the opening of navigation and I have no reason to believe that, when the year ends, we shall not hold our percentage of total world sales. I may say that in some markets our percentage of sales is well ahead of last year.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether the minister would take a second look at those statistics. If he will do so, he will see that the periods quoted in each year are the same periods, and not a part of the year against the whole year.

The house resumed, from Wednesday, March 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mrs. Fairclough, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Regier.



UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, in the earlier part of my speech in this debate last Wednesday I referred to the rapid growth in recent years of western Canada's oil and gas industry, and to its importance in creating jobs for Canadians. Today this industry is directly and indirectly supporting some half a million Canadians, of whom about 300,000 are in the west. Continued growth of the industry-which is inevitable provided there is the incentive of expanded markets on an economic basis for its oil and gas-could rapidly expand the number of Canadian jobs and the number of Canadian families supported by this industry. Many thousands of additional jobs could, in fact, be created in Canada over the next few months by the natural gas phase of the oil industry if this government would remove the shackles of political expediency with which it has tightly bound up this resource.
Only one man in Canada, namely the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), has been in the position of power to wrap the shackles around gas. He is today perhaps the only man in Canada with sufficient power and influence to tear off the shackles. Under the circumstances, I must attach to him the credit, if credit it be, for the gas mess the nation is in today and the credit, if credit it be, for the disappearance of the thousands of jobs that so many Canadians had counted on to start in 1955. These gas shackles I will therefore label "Howe's folly", in doubtful tribute to a man whose

Unemployment
many real and great contributions to Canada must now be somewhat dimmed by the unrealistic thinking that produced his natural gas policy.
That does not mean that "Howe's folly" will not create any new jobs in Canada this year. It could, for example, put a stenographer or two to work preparing dismissal notices for a considerable number of western Canadians working for companies with shut-in gas reserves, or on drilling rigs that need no longer be kept at work drilling more gas wells to join the hundreds already shut in. These notices might read: "Gas jobs cancelled by Howe's folly. Glory be to nationalism and Howe". We can also put some sign painters to work painting signs to decorate several score idle gas fields in western Canada. Some of these signs, to be different, might read: "This gas field is graciously permitted to remain shut in, by authority of the Canadian government, in order that it may have the privilege some day, some way, of serving the nation".
Then of course we shall need signs for the information of job seekers who have been looking forward to starting work this spring building gas gathering and transmission pipe lines from Alberta to Winnipeg and southward; who have been looking forward to building distribution systems in Moose Jaw, Regina, Brandon, Winnipeg and other western communities; to building some more eastern Canadian transmission pipe lines in southern Ontario and perhaps also through to Montreal and Ottawa; and to expanding gas distribution systems in many southern Ontario and Quebec communities. Those signs might be for the information of the host of Canadians who had looked forward to new jobs in the manufacture of line pipe, or in the manufacture, transport, sale or installation of gas furnaces, stoves, water heaters and other appliances. These signs could keep a few painters working, for there are a great many national employment service, utility, contractors' and manufacturers' offices where the signs might be hung. These signs might read: "Howe's folly still in; jobs still out-but give thanks for unemployment insurance".
Of course, Mr. Speaker, it may still be possible to get gas and jobs unshackled this spring. Maybe the Minister of Trade and Commerce will suddenly see the light, and apply to gas the same realistic and sound thinking he has previously applied to many other Canadian problems. Maybe the members of his cabinet who in recent weeks successfully resisted his demand that an all-Canadian pipe line be built with backing of the Canadian taxpayer will now persuade the government to put gas in its proper light,

and regard it as simply one of several competing fuels, in increasingly surplus supply, and desperately needing freedom to market in an economic way; and that means yanking down the barriers erected by Canada at the international border to its south.


Mr. Prudham:: You are more interested in American jobs.


Carl Olof Nickle: Because maintenance of present jobs is important to Canada and creation of more new jobs is even more important, I hope the minister and/or his colleagues will act quickly enough to beat the fast approaching deadline beyond which no project can be started this year. As of now, there are only a few days left. After that? Oh well, the 1956 construction program is only a year away and maybe job-hungry Canadians will not mind waiting.
But in fairness to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) I should like to explain what I mean by "Howe's folly", as well as outline what can be done to replace folly with common sense. To do that, let me first quote from the speech made in Dallas, Texas, last night by an outstanding Canadian, Arnold Heeney, our ambassador to the United States. I presume Mr. Heeney spoke officially for the government. Mr. Heeney had this to say in Texas last night with reference to oil and gas:
But when full provision has been made for Canada's own foreseeable requirements, we will still have large surpluses of those two energy resources. It is our hope that they can be exported to the United States and used to fill such shortages as are apparent or may develop in this country. Here, as so often, wide scope would seem to be left for profitable co-operation between the two countries even after each government has given first consideration to the needs of its own citizens.
From time to time we in Canada have been disturbed by doctrines expressed in the United States which, if applied in full rigour, would seem to make such sensible co-operation impossible. In addition to the difficulties we have been encountering for some time with regard to natural gas, we have been disturbed by recent efforts to restrict imports of crude oil into the United States.
That is one quotation from the speech last night by Canada's ambassador to the United States, a speech delivered, I presume, with the full approval of the government and expressing the government's policy. May I say that I fully agree with the conclusion of Mr. Heeney, which I presume is now shared by the government, that Canada will still have large surpluses of both gas and oil over and above Canada's needs which will have to find markets in the United States. In general, this government has fully recognized that fact in regard to oil and has thug permitted oil pipe lines and market planning on economic, international lines. But unfortunately its whole

policy on gas has been based not on recognition of surplus but on fear of shortage, not on international co-operation but on denial of economic sense in favour of nationalism.
There was one statement made by our ambassador to the United States in Texas last night which I am sure many people in that country will find, as I do, closely resembles a three dollar bill because it is just as phony as a three dollar bill would be. That is the argument contained in these words in Mr. Heeney's speech:
From time to time we in Canada have been disturbed by doctrines expressed in the United States which, if applied in full rigour, would seem to make such sensible co-operation impossible.
He referred directly to the problems related to the marketing of Canadian natural gas. Our problems having to do with the marketing of Canadian natural gas are in no way due to conditions created in the United States. They are 100 per cent due to the policy of the government in placing artificial restrictions upon the movement of gas on economic lines and the policy of the government to completely disregard economic factors in planning for the marketing of Canada's surplus gas.
Just as will the Americans who are going to digest Mr. Heeney's speech, I should like to point out in what way the government of Canada and those in charge of things in the United States have acted on this general principle of co-operation between nations in regard to gas and oil. In 1952 the Minister of Trade and Commerce made a statement in the house in reply to a speech by me in which he stated conclusively that based upon his findings co-operation between the United States and Canada in matters related to natural gas was not possible. A few months later, in October, 1953, the federal power commission of the United States offered a supply of gas for a long-term period to the city of Toronto. It took six months, until March, 1954, for the federal government to finally decide that the offer of American gas for Toronto made common sense and would best serve the interests of this country.
Then we find the argument expressed so often on both sides of the house that we cannot trust the Yankees to allow a Canadian pipe line between Canadian gas fields and Canadian markets to pass over United States soil. We find that as a result of that policy of the government the federal power commission in Washington decided in June, 1954, against allowing Canadian gas to serve the northwestern United States, a market without which no pipe line would be possible to service the needs of British Columbia. Why did the federal power commission of
Unemployment
the United States turn down Canadian gas? For one reason. They turned it down because of the policy of the government in refusing to give the United States security of either supply or price. In effect we were asking United States consumers, through their federal power commission, to accept Canadian gas offered by us with one hand with at the same time the Canadian government holding a meat cleaver in the other hand to chop off the hand of any Yankee who reached out for that Canadian gas. We reserved the right, without even a public hearing, to cut off the flow of gas at any time, to curtail it, or to impose a prohibitive export tax.
After all the damage was done the government finally saw the light. Two years after I called this matter to the attention of the house and the government, the government introduced amendments to the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act last month which finally removed the barriers to common-sense arrangements for the sale of gas to the United States offering security of supply and price to the American consumer which had been responsible for the loss of the northwest Pacific market. We come now to recent months and we find the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines project which, on the basis of a great deal of information available to the government from a great many sources, was not economically sound, a project which the government, on the basis of the information it had in its possession two years ago and supplemented last year, was a project that would have to be subsidized by the Canadian taxpayers and its bonds guaranteed by the Canadian taxpayers in order to make the project feasible.
All those facts were disregarded, the Stanford survey, the three Bechtel surveys, the conclusions of the gas utility companies of eastern Canada and several other surveys, including one made for the Ontario government a year ago, all of which condemned an all-Canadian pipe line as uneconomic. It was recognized by Trans-Canada Pipe Lines itself that access to the middle western United States market was vital to the economic success of any pipe line from Alberta. So what happened? With the full knowledge of the government months ago that the project was not sound, Trans-Canada went before the federal power commission in Washington to ask permission to enter the Minneapolis market. Under the rules of that commission, sound rules based upon proof of the economic soundness of any project, based upon proof of gas reserves and so forth, the federal power commission should have thrown out holus-bolus Trans-Canada's application last month because Trans-Canada had neither the

Unemployment
gas to sell nor places to sell it in eastern Canada. They had no contracts, nor did they have the finances with which to build the line. What did the United States federal power commission, which according to the statement of opinion expressed by Mr. Heeney on behalf of this government was opposed to Canadian gas, do? They did not throw out the application. They said that they are not going to throw out the Trans-Canada application for the import of gas into Minneapolis. They believed that to do so would sound the death knell of the Trans-Canada project to the possible economic detriment of both Canada and the United States. In other words, the United States federal power commission, with a far greater knowledge of oil and gas matters I am afraid than is evidenced by this government in Ottawa, kept this project alive in the hope that Canada would use common sense and allow the gas to be marketed in an economic way.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we then come to Mr. Heeney's speech of last night, and against that we must weigh another statement made by this government last Friday and Saturday, which is reported in a number of newspapers in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member embarks upon quoting again from the statement, perhaps he would care to be informed that his time has elapsed.


Carl Olof Nickle: I appreciate that my time has run out. I might say that during last Wednesday's portion of this address approximately half of my time was taken up by interruptions. I would appreciate it if the house would give me its permission to carry on for a few more minutes to complete this statement.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Philpolt:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Would the hon. member say that the decision of the federal power commission was designed to make sure of getting enough gas for the United States or was it designed to prevent Canada from building a pipe line where Canada wants to build it?


Carl Olof Nickle: No, the decision of the United States federal power commission was based upon the recognition that the mutual interests of both Canada and the United States would be served by a little greater degree of co-operation on gas than this government has seen fit to allow.


George Prudham: May I be permitted to ask the hon. member a question?
[Mr. Nickle.1


Mr. Speaker:: May I point out that the hon. member's time has expired, and if unanimous consent is not given he cannot continue. If before that question is decided hon. members ask questions, naturally he will have to answer them. We are not in committee. I do not think that the hon. member can say that half of his time was taken up by interruptions. I have before me pages 2324 and 2325 of Hansard for March 23, 1955.


Carl Olof Nickle: Well, about ten minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. gentleman
unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Assiniboia.


Mr. Mclvor:: I should like permission to ask the hon. member who has just taken his seat a question.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Ferguson:: There would be no more sense to it than we get from this government.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I was going to ask the hon. member what the Alberta government, which is making millions out of oil, is going to do to make the construction of a Canadian pipe line possible?


Carl Olof Nickle: I should like to answer that question because I believe it is one of the most important questions asked in this house on this subject for a long time. I am going to answer it this way. I have heard the so-called oil millionaires in the west charged with killing the trans-Canada project. Let me answer it this way. The price of gas in Toronto, that is the average price at which gas will be sold in the 1955-56 season, is $2.64 per thousand feet. Out of that the Canadian government will collect in income tax about 22 cents a thousand feet. Out of it also the municipal, provincial and federal governments will collect another 20 cents per thousand feet in other forms of tax. Out of that $2.64 per thousand feet, which is the average cost of gas to the consumer in Toronto, the producers who bear all the risks of exploration and the Alberta government which owns these oil resources will actually share five cents per thousand feet or 2 per cent of the price the consumers in Toronto will pay.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if we had butter sold at $1 per pound in Toronto, I am sure the butter producers would set up a merry old fuss if they were asked to accept 2 per cent of the official price of that product. I am sure that if this government is satisfied it is entitled to 22 cents out of that price of $2.64, then the producer and the government of

Alberta are entitled to more than one-quarter of what the federal government may collect in income taxes for doing nothing toward the exploration and development of gas in Canada.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: They have collected all their taxes for doing nothing.


Hazen Robert Argue: As the
current debate on unemployment progresses, it becomes more and more evident that this government has no policy whatever for dealing with this very important problem. As a matter of fact, as more and more statistics become available as to the magnitude of the unemployment problem, and as statistics become available regarding the continuous drop in farm income, it is becoming evident that this is a depression government led by an indifferent Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). It is a depression government because over 600,000 persons in Canada are out of work and have no visible means of livelihood. When one adds to the list of unemployed those who are dependent upon the unemployed, their children and their wives, it is clear that at least a million, if not more, Canadians have little or no income.
I am amazed that the Prime Minister has not entered this debate long ago and presented the policy of the government of Canada for dealing with this most important current problem. Instead, we had speeches from two cabinet ministers on the first day of the debate, almost a month ago. Even though the unemployment situation has become progressively worse, the government is silent. So far as dealing with unemployment is concerned apparently the Prime Minister is on strike. He is sitting it out. He is not entering this debate, as I believe he should, to place before parliament and the people of the country the policy of the government for dealing with this most important problem. When asked in the house if the matter of unemployment would be a subject for discussion at the coming dominion-provincial conference, the Prime Minister replied that he would be greatly surprised if that question was not discussed while the provincial premiers were here.
Instead of saying that he would be surprised if the question were not discussed, the Prime Minister should have given this nation some leadership by outlining in parliament the proposals his government was prepared to make to the coming dominion-provincial conference. This is a far cry from the attitude of the government 10 years ago when it faced a similar dominion-provincial conference and it brought out its voluminous green book proposals. There was no question then as to the policy of the government. Its
Unemployment
proposals were clear, and all could see them. This time the government is saying nothing. The Prime Minister is not even telling the country whether or not he is prepared to place the subject of unemployment high on the agenda of the coming dominion-provincial conference. A statement that the Prime Minister and the government are not prepared to set forth a program to deal with unemployment shows me that the government and the Prime Minister have abdicated the role of leadership.


Mr. Marlin:: Why don't you read the exact words of the Prime Minister and not give your own interpretation, which is wrong.


Hazen Robert Argue: There goes the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) again. I quoted the Prime Minister's exact words, and I would be very happy to have-


Murdo William Martin: The Prime Minister-and I hope I have the hon. member's permission to interrupt-


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Murdo William Martin: The Prime Minister did not say what my hon. friend is now paraphrasing as to what he did say.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Prime Minister said that he would be greatly surprised if that question was not discussed while they were here.


Murdo William Martin: Yes.


Hazen Robert Argue: And that is exactly what I said he said.


Murdo William Martin: No. My hon. friend said that the Prime Minister was not prepared to discuss this question. Now, the Prime Minister never said that.


Hazen Robert Argue: I never said what the Minister of National Health and Welfare has said I said. But I would suggest to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, as one of the frontbenchers of the cabinet, and as a minister of the crown, that he stand up in this debate now and say what the government- his government-is prepared to do about unemployment. Instead of that, what does he do? He interrupts, that is all. He interrupts opposition members when they are trying to get some action out of the government. I will quote what the Prime Minister said.


Murdo William Martin: That is better.


Hazen Robert Argue: On March 10, in answer to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), he said this-and perhaps I had better read the question. It is as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that this preliminary

Unemployment
conference is taking place in April, he will consider the suggestion I made earlier, namely that this opportunity be taken to discuss the unemployment situation and the manner in which the federal government and the provincial governments can best co-operate to meet those problems which are in their own fields.
And the Prime Minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, I should be greatly surprised if that question was not discussed while they are here.


Mr. Martin:: Is that not what I said?


Hazen Robert Argue: The record will speak for itself, that that is precisely and exactly what I said, when I was quoting the Prime Minister's remarks originally. And I would like to ask -I would challenge-the Minister of National Health and Welfare to tell parliament and the country what his government is prepared to do to solve the unemployment problem. And the unemployment problem is a pretty important thing in the minister's own city of Windsor. I am sure the constituents of the minister would like to know what plans the government has, if any. But all I can tell-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: All I can tell him-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon. friend permit me to ask a question, a very important question?


Hazen Robert Argue: The answer is no. No, not at all. I know Mr. Speaker has a clock, and when 40 minutes have gone I will have to take my seat.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The record will show that you refused to face this problem, just as you have accused the government of refusing to face it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let the minister make his own speech next.


Hazen Robert Argue: There is a fine admission, when the minister admits that he himself will not face this problem.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Hazen Robert Argue: He makes these interjections, and that is all the statement the minister makes. And, Mr. Speaker-


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order. The Minister of National Health and Welfare-


Hazen Robert Argue: No, no.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend ought to have patience, and he should not get unduly excited.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is that your point of order?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I rise to say that the hon. member, when he said that we were not facing this question on this side of the house, and when he said he was quoting the words of the Prime Minister in support of that, was inaccurately quoting what the Prime Minister had said. Then he himself later correctly quoted what the Prime Minister had said, by referring to the willingness and the desire of the Prime Minister to face this important question. And I might tell my hon. friend-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now who is misinterpreting?


Murdo William Martin: And I might tell my hon. friend that there is no one in this country who is more anxious to deal with this problem than the Prime Minister of Canada.


Mr. Slewarl (Winnipeg North):: Why doesn't he do it, then?


Hazen Robert Argue: That is the contribution that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is prepared to make to solve the unemployment problem: Leave it to Uncle Louie; he is a great man, and somehow or another something will happen to take care of this situation.
I issue a challenge to the Minister of National Health and Welfare to take his place in this debate and tell the people of Windsor what he is prepared to do to help solve unemployment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will you be here when I speak?


Hazen Robert Argue: But he prefers to rise and chisel in on my time. Let him speak. He can have his 40 minutes-and I think he will need all of them to explain why the government has not done something long ago to meet this very desperate problem. But instead of a minister of the government leading the fight to solve the problem of unemployment, they have retreated to the swamp of unemployment, with all the human misery and degradation that attaches to a situation when there are 600,000 unemployed.
And I would ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he has read the contribution made by a gentleman by the name of Duncan K. MacTavish, O.B.E., Q.C., president of the national Liberal federation, yesterday in Ottawa, when he charged that opposition parties are conducting a deliberate campaign to undermine the economy of the country. I would like to know if the Minister of National Health and Welfare agrees with that statement, and with his-


Murdo William Martin: You ask me?


Hazen Robert Argue: -further statement, when he says:
The prophets of gloom-
Just listen to this.
The prophets of gloom reported the fact that unemployment was up but not the encouraging fact that employment is also increasing.
You ask the 600,000 who are unemployed whether-


Murdo William Martin: Are you asking me?


Hazen Robert Argue: -it is any help to them if there is going to be one more on the employment rolls next year, and we shall be happy to listen, and without interruption, to a 40-minute speech by the Minister of National Health and Welfare explaining his position on the statement.


Murdo William Martin: I have.


Hazen Robert Argue: And Mr. MacTavish goes on to say:
Mischievous little boys who play with fire and cause public damage can be punished, but mischief committed in the guise of free speech which results in serious damage to the common welfare escapes the punishment it deserves.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that such a statement is an affront to parliament. It is an insult to members of parliament. And that statement, made by no less a person than the national president of the Liberal federation, should be repudiated by the Prime Minister of this country.
Talk about the Liberal party being on a one-way track to the one-party state. According to the national president of the Liberal federation he would like to punish the opposition members for daring to suggest that this is not an all-beneficent government, and that this is not the greatest government anywhere in the world.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: He was speaking for the Liberal party.


Murdo William Martin: When was the speech delivered?


Hazen Robert Argue: It was delivered in Ottawa, and I will send it across to the Minister of National Health and Welfare after I have concluded my speech, so that he will have it when he makes his contribution.


Murdo William Martin: I will be very glad to have it.


Hazen Robert Argue: But I say again, Mr. Speaker, that this is further evidence of the attitude of the Liberal party. It is bad enough that we have to deal with statements of policy by the Liberal party and the Liberal government when made in this house. But now, apparently, we are going to have to deal with
Unemployment
more persons making statements outside the house, reflecting on the proceedings of parliament.
I say that that is a statement that will not be forgotten in Canada for many months, and perhaps for many years to come. And I should like the Minister of National Health and Welfare-and again I challenge him- to stand up in this house and tell us not only what he and the government are going to do about unemployment, but whether he agrees with the statements I have quoted, as made by the national president of the Liberal federation of Canada.
Not only does the government offer no solution for the employment problem; now we are being subjected to insult, and the people of Canada who are unemployed are being subjected to this abusive treatment. I have heard it suggested that in this debate the C.C.F. members are conducting something of a filibuster. Well, I suggest that is a much better attitude than the attitude taken by the government, which is to say nothing, fold their arms and hope something will happen to relieve the unemployment situation.
We had two contributions by cabinet ministers. We had the contribution of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), which was a kind of academic discussion as to whether one set of figures issued by his department was more reliable in interpreting the exact unemployment situation, or whether the other set of figures was more reliable. But in the long speech of the Minister of Labour there was not one sentence on the government's policy to relieve this critical and terrible situation in Canada. There was some very amazing information given in that speech. The minister told us that there were 543,000 applicants for unemployment insurance in January, and that 450,400 persons were receiving unemployment insurance in January, amounting to $28,400,000 in total. What does that mean by way of income to those persons and those families who have to exist on unemployment insurance and unemployment insurance alone?
Let us assume that each person receiving unemployment insurance has just one dependent and does not have a whole family that has to live on the small unemployment insurance payment. Let us assume that each person's unemployment insurance payment has to maintain only two persons. What does the payment amount to? It amounts to $31 each for the month of January; in other words, $1 a day. I tell the Minister of Labour that that kind of a program for the unemployed is a disgrace to Canada; it is a disgrace to the government. A dollar a day is not very much better than the treatment

Unemployment
in the 1930's when the young men of Canada were sent to work camps and given a few meals a day and 20 cents. A dollar a day at home with which they have to provide their own meals is not much better than the treatment of the unemployed in the 1930's.
The government now says, wait and see. Maybe spring will do something, and the president of the Liberal federation insults the opposition members who are continually endeavouring to get this government to do something about the horrible situation that prevails in all of Canada. Read the unemployment statistics of almost any city in the country and you will see that the unemployment problem has created and is creating an unbearable burden on the financial resources of the municipalities involved.
Over the week end I had the privilege of speaking to an alderman from the city of Toronto. He said that over a week end he often gets as many as 50 telephone calls from persons who have no income at all and do not know where they are to get enough money to buy the next meal. I read a report in the Toronto Daily Star of March
26.	The articles reported in that paper generally reflect credit on the government. Certainly, it is not an organ of any opposition group. Yet, it reported something that casts a very serious reflection on the adequacy of the legislation implemented so far by this government. I refer to the report headed:
2,552 jobless in city find there's no way to get financial aid.
It says:
According to Reverend J. F. Culnan, director of the Catholic welfare bureau, cases of hardship, want and suffering-where in some instances whole families with several children have been required to live on as little as $9 a week-have been common in Toronto since unemployment worsened in December.
"Generally speaking, a person who is old or sick in Canada can count on being taken care of," said Father Culnan. "But if a person who is unemployed is able-bodied and ready to work- in other words, if he or she is employable-there is no agency to assist such a person when his or her funds disappear and still no work has been found."
Some specific examples are given of unemployed families. I shall refer to only one.
Case 2: A landscape gardener with six children, from 12 to 5 years, who lives near Spadina avenue. Up to now he always had a job during slack season. This winter he pounded on doors-no luck. The family has two rooms and a hall entrance with rent at $19 a week. His work has never brought him within the unemployment insurance bracket. He is not eligible for D.V.A. or city relief. The family has got some assistance from the Catholic welfare bureau but there is not enough money to buy food.
I ask the government what it intends to do to provide employment for a man in that

situation? There are 600,000 unemployed in Canada. There are all kinds of people who are undernourished, but still there are huge agricultural surpluses. We need more schools, more hospitals and more civic buildings. We need irrigation projects; we need public works of all kinds. The government does nothing. Many people are suffering from malnutrition. The best that the Minister of National Health and Welfare can do is to interrupt on minor points of no significance. We heard from two cabinet ministers, but not a word on what the government is going to do about the unemployment situation.
We had an amazing statement read to the house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I should like to refer this paragraph to the gentleman who holds an office in the national Liberal federation, to whom I have already referred. I refer him to a paragraph of the minister's speech at page 1630 of Hansard, in which the Minister of Trade and Commerce lists the factors that led to unemployment in 1954. His first statement is as follows:
This levelling off in productive activity was a result of certain new influences which began to affect the market situation in the latter part of 1953 and early 1954. Hon. members are no doubt aware of most of the difficulties encountered- a general business let-down in United States-
They used to call it a depression. That became a bad word; you should not use it; it might cause a depression. Therefore, when you are in a depression do not use the word; say "recession". Well, that became a bad word also, and they dropped it. Now it is a let-down. The next time it will be a turndown. Somebody says behind me an adjustment. They will use a lot of words, but as the significance of each word becomes known to the Canadian people, then they will change the word and use another. The minister went on: the trouble in 1954 was caused by a general let-down of business in the United States. He continued:
-a consequent decline during 1954 in Canadian exports to that market; reduced incomes of grain producers-
I wonder who is talking blue ruin now? These are all the things that happen when you are in a depression; a general business let-down, a drop in exports and reduced incomes of grain producers. The minister continued:
-and the effects of this on sales of farm equipment and other manufactured goods; reduced procurement in 1954 of defence goods-
In other words, less armaments, more unemployment, the thing that the C.C.F. says always happens when a Liberal government is in office.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The government will be reading MacTavish out of the party.


Murdo William Martin: Don't interrupt.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister continued:
-a tendency during 1954 for businesses to meet orders from inventories rather than new production;-
In other words, to use surpluses in hand instead of producing more. That is what I take that sentence to mean. The minister went on:
-and, finally, intensification of international competition in manufactured goods which presented new difficulties to some manufacturing industries, in foreign and also in domestic markets.
This government loves competition, and as soon as their free enterprise friends find a little international competition, what is the result? Unemployment at home and a statement from the Minister of Trade and Commerce listing all of the reasons for this dreadful situation in 1954. How does the minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) summarize somewhat later that very realistic statement that he himself has made? Listen to this; a real gem-two pages later, 1633, same speech, same minister-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Same time, same station.


An hon. Member:: Dragnet.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister said:
I do not want to claim that the economic policies which were followed were solely or mainly responsible for the reasonably good showing in 1954.
In one breath he tells us we are in a terrible position and he says next that it was a reasonably good showing. Half a million unemployed and the Minister of Trade and Commerce says it is a reasonably good showing. That was his contribution to the debate. He said nothing at all as to government policies. He gave us a review of past history while the situation grew steadily worse.
Then I shall have to again paraphrase this statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). He said in his Reform Club speech, "If my government cannot solve the unemployment problem, then the public of Canada should turn us out of office as being incompetent". That is cold comfort to the unemployed. The people of Canada will have to wait until there is another election in order to do something about it. That is not good enough. This government has accepted the responsibility of office given to them in a democratic manner by the Canadian public and given to them on a platform of full employment and jobs for all. The Liberal party has electioneered on the same platform in 1945, 1949 and 1953; full employment.
Unemployment
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) shakes his head in the negative. That is a fine attitude for the minister to take.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: No, I shall not permit the minister a question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Then you do not believe in the democratic procedure of free speech.


Hazen Robert Argue: Well now, I would ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to resume his seat.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: The answer is no. When I outlined the statement made by the Liberal party election after election, a belief in full employment and a campaign program of jobs for all, the Minister of National Health and Welfare shook his head in the negative. Well he might shake his head in the negative; well he might.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are afraid to let me put a question to you.


Hazen Robert Argue: When the former minister of finance, Mr. Abbott, and the same Prime Minister said that the government did not agree to implement its policy of full employment even if all of the provinces agreed to sign the dominion-provincial tax agreements, still we believed that the federal government's attitude toward full employment as outlined in its proposals in 1945 still held good until January 17 when the Prime Minister rose in this house and told us in no uncertain terms that the government had completely abandoned those concepts of full employment that would be brought about by the dominion-provincial agreements-


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are wrong again. You are misquoting the Prime Minister apparently deliberately. Apparently you are misquoting him deliberately.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would ask whether such a remark is parliamentary-


Paul Joseph James Martin: You read his remarks and see how far off you are.


Hazen Robert Argue: If it is in the rules of the house, all well and good; but I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the statement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare that I was deliberately misquoting the Prime Minister should be withdrawn.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not impute any motive to my hon. friend, notwithstanding the fact that he would not

Unemployment
let me put a reasonable question. But what I meant by referring to that was that my hon. friend surely must know that he is not quoting the Prime Minister accurately when he makes the statement which he has just made.


Hazen Robert Argue: I will accept the minister's apology and his amended statement. I was not quoting the Prime Minister at all. I was saying that the Prime Minister's statement made in this house on January 17 showed conclusively that the government of which he is the Prime Minister had abandoned its concept of full employment and the concept of the dominion-provincial tax agreements as laid down by the 1945 proposals.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend is full of confusion today.


Hazen Robert Argue: I still challenge the Minister of National Health and Welfare to make his own speech; I do not think he will-


Murdo William Martin: I will surprise you.


Hazen Robert Argue: -because he has no answer; there is no answer.


Murdo William Martin: There is no answer?


Hazen Robert Argue: There has been no answer from the government for one month, just silence. The Prime Minister is out on strike. He is sitting in the bleachers because he does not have a policy to deal with the unemployment problem.
The reason I say the government has abandoned its taxation agreement is because of this unilateral move to reduce the income tax paid by taxpayers in a certain province in this country which does not happen to be under the income tax agreements. I suggest that was a retrograde step, no matter whether a reduction had been made in the province in which it was made or in the province of Ontario or of Saskatchewan. When such a reduction is made it is a temptetion to the government of Ontario, for example, to suggest that on the basis of the same taxes levied in the province of Quebec, it would be as much as $34 million financially better off outside the agreement, and is a temptation to some other provinces to get out of the tax agreements, agreements which the government has always said were necessary to provide it with the fiscal strength with which to deal with unemployment.
Suppose the government, as a method of dealing with unemployment, should decide to reduce income tax in order to stimulate purchasing power. If provinces are outside the tax agreement they then have the right under the constitution to increase their own tax by the amount of the reduction made by the federal government in income tax and thus

thwart the move by the federal government to provide by this means a stimulus to unemployment.


Murdo William Martin: My, my.


Hazen Robert Argue: And if it should be suggested that the people in the province of Quebec are pleased and jubilant over this carrot on the stick offer, I should like to quote from the Montreal Gazette of March 15 which reports statements made at the Quebec federation of industrial trade unions by the director, Mr. Romeo Mathieu. In that statement he said that the proposals were not a solution and he attacked them on the ground that they were, first, unilateral; second, that they were not squaring with the cyclical ideas of fiscal arrangements; third, they were an injustice to the province of Quebec; and fourth, a hindrance to national unity.
The C.C.F. party was quite prepared that provincial income tax be fully deductible up to the amount of the grant offered to the provinces, provided the provinces would agree to return any surplus collected; but the government did not follow that avenue; instead it reduced the income tax of taxpayers in a certain province. That move made by the federal government has created two classes of income taxpayers in Canada, one paying the full rate and one paying the 90 per cent rate. When you divide Canada as this government has done into two classes of taxpaying Canadians you have directed a blow at the very foundation of national unity in this country. If we are to have national unity in this country, let us have equal taxation treatment for all taxpayers by this government and let us not have a reduction in income tax payments made by the taxpayers in one province, no matter which province it may be, and the full rate or some other rate applied to taxpayers in the other provinces.


Mr. Benidickson:: If you are interested in employment, why do you not get back to the subject?


Hazen Robert Argue: That is exactly on the subject. A former minister of finance, Mr. Ilsley; another former minister of finance, Mr. Abbott; a former prime minister, Mr. Mackenzie King and this Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) who was minister of justice in 1944 and who put before the dominion-provincial conference the views of the government of the day, said that for the government to deal with full employment or to maintain full employment, they had to have adequate fiscal powers that could be obtained only by dominion-provincial tax agreements. Now the federal government has turned its back on the tax agreements, it has turned

its back on full employment and it has betrayed the best interests of the people of Canada.
(Translation) :


Mr. Fernand Girard (Lapointe):: I must confess it is easy for opposition members to attack the government on this important unemployment problem, and to saddle it with the responsibility in this regard. Still it must be admitted that criticism has been made all too easy, first by the seriousness of the situation, a situation steadily growing worse to the point where, at this time, there are 600,000 unemployed, an impressive figure, and second, by the failure of the government to take action. It has been content to adopt a defensive attitude, making no attempt at any useful action.
I have listened closely to the speeches made by members on both sides of the house. Moreover, I have been reading the newspapers in order to ascertain the reaction of the people of this country to the course taken by the debate in this house and to the attitude of the government. It is obvious that the general feeling can be expressed as follows: The government seems far more concerned with warding off attacks than with taking any positive action in order to solve this unemployment problem.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rose-mont (Mr. Deschatelets) was saying last week that, with fewer speeches on the subject, the government would now be at the stage where it would be voting money for the solution of the unemployment problem. But the hon. member forgets that, while the government has had a whole year to look for a solution, it has procrastinated, and put us off, by saying that any unemployment was merely seasonal and regional. The Canadian people, in fact, feel that the government have been putting them off with fine words, on this unfortunate matter. For a year now the government has been claiming that unemployment was merely seasonal or regional and was only an adjustment in the economic situation. Nevertheless the number of jobless has gone on increasing. It has now reached 600,000, an impressive figure, in one of the richest countries in the world.
It is an easy thing to fiddle around with words. One could, of course, say with the government that we have seasonal unemployment for we have it in all seasons; one could also admit that we have local unemployment since it is acute in every locality. But that would only add to the torrent of words that we have already heard while 600,000 unemployed are looking for work. Will the needy 50433-158
Unemployment
unemployed find comfort in the thought that their unemployment is seasonal?
What would the government say if unemployment were to bring about its downfall at the next elections and if, by way of comfort, it was told by the electorate not to worry about it because it would be merely a seasonal defeat?
By way of rebuttal, the government insist that members of the opposition are pessimistic. Words again! How indeed can you be optimistic when there are 600,000 unemployed in a country as rich as ours? More eager to free itself than to act, the government thought it would find another way out, in shifting part of its responsibilities onto the provinces.
The solution looks fine, but what real relief does it bring to the unemployed? Whether or not the provinces have any responsibility as far as unemployment is concerned, they will say to the government: "You have taken over our sources of revenue, do not give us the responsibilities."
It seems to me that the Canadian people should not look too much to the federal-provincial conference for the solution to a problem such as unemployment. The provinces will say to the government: you take 77 cents of each tax dollar; give us back our powers and we will look after our responsibilities.
All sorts of things have been mentioned as unemployment causes, but there is one consideration which should prevail. It is that, whether or not the government is more or less responsible for unemployment causes, it has the responsibility of organizing our economy in such a way as to create employment for everybody, the more so in our country, with all its wealth. I think that as soon as it became evident that unemployment was increasing the government should have added to the number of trade commissioners posted in every country in the world. Thus, by adding one small order to the other in each country, an imposing volume of exports could have been reached, as it is a well-known fact that one of the main reasons for unemployment is found in sluggish exports, for in Canada we do not lack producers, but consumers. It could therefore be said that if our consumption were increased our unemployment problem would be settled.
As I say, there should be reductions in taxation, for they would result in a higher purchasing power on the part of Canadian taxpayers who would thus be able to absorb our surplus of consumer goods.

Unemployment
The government is trying to hedge. Yet, during the war, those that were called heroes did not confer for months on end, and look for an excuse, before going over the top. They accomplished brave deeds and gave us our most splendid victories, because they understood the gravity of our position at a glance and felt the necessity to act. That is why they got results. If the government, instead of remaining on the defensive, instead of hedging, had tackled the problem forthwith there would be no unemployment, to my mind, and there would be no need to talk about provincial responsibilities with regard to this issue, or about the gloomy outlook of the opposition, and so on.
I think there has also been a suggestion to carry out public works in order to fight unemployment. This would obviously not lead to any final solution, but might lessen the gravity of the issue at hand. That is why I would like to take this opportunity to point out to the house some public works which, I think, might be undertaken in my county, and would contribute to the settlement of the unemployment problem.
The people of my county, being mainly workers, are much more affected than others by the present serious unemployment situation. I should now like to call the attention of the government to the problem of level crossings in the city of Arvida. This city, which is becoming increasingly populous as a result of intense industrial development, now has to cope with considerable mid-town traffic problems which constitute a public hazard. That is why I urge the government to include in its budget the funds required for the elimination of level crossings in the city of Arvida.
I should also like to recall to the government once more, as has been done on several occasions in the past, that the city of Jon-quiere is in urgent need of a retaining wall on the bank of the river Aux Sables, which is used for logging operations and whose erosion threatens both banks in the centre of the city.
There are also other public works which I should urge the government to carry out in the eastern part of my constituency. I refer to the Saguenay river at Ste. Anne de Chicoutimi where, for a long time, a retaining wall has been requested.
In closing, I should like to remind the government once again of the necessity to build the Chibougamau trunk-line, the construction of which is increasingly urgent. It would have the extraordinary advantage of solving the unemployment problem for good, not

only for a time, as it would give to a district which is entitled to it the railway upon which its future development depends.
(Text) :


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak a second time in this debate for one reason and one reason only, to protest vigorously against the casual and disinterested attitude the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has adopted towards the No. 1 problem facing the country today, namely, unemployment. When things are going well the Prime Minister travels all around the country making speeches and telling the people what a smart government he has and how well they are running the country; but when things are going badly, as they are today, the Prime Minister cannot be coaxed to his feet. He is strangely silent. He has been asked on numerous occasions to express the government's attitude on this problem and to outline the government's plan. He has even been taunted to do so, but he steadfastly refuses.
To me it is unbelievable that the leader of the government refuses at a time like this to take part in the debate on the most important problem faced by the country. Yet that is the case today. A few moments ago the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) assured us-and I jotted down his words-that there is no one more anxious than the Prime Minister to solve the unemployment problem.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: All right. If the Prime Minister is so anxious to solve the problem, then why in the world does he not do something about it? Why did he not a long time ago, as he was urged to do by the opposition- the opposition upon whom the president of the Liberal federation looks with such condescension-call an immediate conference with the provinces to discuss how relief costs can best be shared and how increased public works can be put into operation to provide jobs? But the Prime Minister flatly refuses to take that step. Second, why does he not rise in his place and outline to parliament and to the country the long-range plan which the government has for correcting the conditions that lead to increasing seasonal unemployment every year and to a great deal of permanent unemployment that is also increasing year by year.
If the Prime Minister is so anxious to do something about unemployment, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare has assured us he is, why does he not prove it?

Why does he remain so silent? That is something the people of Canada want to know. I think if he and the president of the Liberal federation would spend a little more time listening to this debate, they would learn something about the problems faced by the unemployed people today. I also suggest to members of the cabinet that if they would spend less time in their oak-panelled offices and would go to the cities and towns where unemployment is a problem today, they would learn firsthand some of the problems being faced by Canadians who are undergoing very serious conditions at this time.
As has been outlined in the house earlier, in cities like Toronto, men are having to leave their families so that their families can get relief. That is a fine state of affairs. Yet the Prime Minister does not deign to stand up and outline a policy to meet the problem. As I said, when things are going well, the Prime Minister is only too glad to make speeches. He made one in Quebec city on September 18 last which I do not need to paraphrase because I have his exact words here. At page 25 of a copy of his speech issued by his office I find the following:
In a country such as ours, there should he work for everybody. If we cannot manage the national economy in such a way that there is work for everybody, then we are incompetent.
Today, Mr. Speaker, there are more than
600,000	unemployed Canadians who are living proof that the Prime Minister and the government are incompetent. When you have, not only a government that is incompetent, but also the admission by its leader in his own words, not mine, that it is incompetent, then there is only one honourable alternative for that government to adopt, and that is to resign.
It is obvious, and has been for a long time, that the only way a solution for the immediate problem of no jobs and no unemployment insurance benefits for thousands of Canadians today can be found is to call an immediate conference with the provinces to work out how relief costs can be shared and public works can be increased to provide jobs.
A later conference, the agenda of which will be settled on April 26, should deal with a long-range plan to create conditions within the country which will attract the establishment of additional secondary industry in Canada, to process far more of our primary products than we do today. This is the best potential means we have available to us of providing jobs on a permanent and productive basis.
In the meantime, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) can do two things which will 50433-1584
Unemployment
materially increase jobs for all Canadians. First of all, when he brings his budget down next Tuesday night, he should reduce the high commodity taxes that are adding so much to the cost of the goods we have to sell today, and are making it increasingly difficult to sell these goods, both here and abroad. This reduction in commodity taxes would not necessarily mean a reduction in total tax revenue, as was made very evident in the case of the cigarette tax a couple of years ago. The greater number of products which will be sold, because their prices will be more acceptable to a great many more people, multiplied by the lower unit tax, will probably equal or even exceed the present total tax revenue.
The second thing which the Minister of Finance can do is to reduce today's high income taxes, which are making it increasingly difficult for Canadians to buy consumer goods. Once again, a reduction in the income tax does not necessarily mean a reduction in the total income tax revenue because, by making it possible for more people to buy more goods, it will make it possible to employ more people manufacturing these goods, and these people will be earning incomes on which they will be paying income tax instead of drawing on the government for unemployment insurance benefits, or for relief. In addition, the increased quantity of goods which we would sell by taking this measure would again increase the commodity tax total.
The Minister of Finance has within his power the possibility of greatly increasing the number of jobs available to Canadians. By taking the two steps which I have recommended, I do not believe he will reduce by one cent his total tax revenue.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in answer to questions which have been put to him in this house concerning unemployment, the Prime Minister has tried to make the people believe that the preliminary conference which this government has called for April 26 will deal with today's critical unemployment problem. The Prime Minister knows that nothing is further from the truth, because that conference to be held on April 26 is nothing more or less than a planning conference which will arrange the agenda for the later conference to deal with dominion-provincial problems. The conference to be held on April 26 will not deal with unemployment. The purpose of it is simply to discuss whether or not unemployment will be on the agenda of the later conference.
Now, the Prime Minister knows that quite well, but still he has pretended that the solution to the present critical unemployment


Mr. Weir:: There are less than 10 Tories.


George Harris Hees: That is the example which the Prime Minister and the rest of the cabinet are setting to the country, 17 Liberals who are interested enough to listen to the problems of the people for whom they are supposed to be legislating.
Now, Mr. Speaker, on the following day, March 11, I asked the Prime Minister the following question as recorded at page 1928 of Hansard:
In view of the fact that the Prime Minister's decision not to call an immediate conference on unemployment is depriving many thousands of Canadians who have no jobs or means of support of any chance of a solution of their problems, would the Prime Minister not reconsider his decision and call an immediate conference?
Then the Prime Minister answered:
I cannot agree with the premises of the hon. member's question as a basis for reconsideration.
There is gobbledygook with a great big "g". What kind of an answer is that to the 600,000 unemployed people in Canada who desperately want an unemployment conference to be called with the provinces at the present time to deal with their problem? What kind of an answer is that? I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare, is that a constructive answer? No, he shakes his head, and he admits it is not.


Murdo William Martin: No.


George Harris Hees: It is simply the kind of gobbledygook in which this government has been dealing for years.


Murdo William Martin: I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is rising on a point of order.


George Harris Hees: This will be interesting.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend said that when I shook my head I was agreeing with what he said. Under the rules of this house my hon. friend has no right to make such an assumption. I was shaking my head because of the wholly irresponsible statements the hon. gentleman was making.


George Harris Hees: I would be very anxious to have the Minister of National Health and Welfare explain why my statement was wholly irresponsible.


Murdo William Martin: Because my hon. friend has implied throughout his speech that the head

of the government of this country was uninterested in this problem. He went on to say that at this very moment, in all probability, the Prime Minister was down at a political meeting when the fact is that the Prime Minister at this time is engaged in his own office in a matter of great importance affecting the welfare of this country.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the 600,000 unemployed people are going to be very interested to know that the Prime Minister's own business or correspondence or whatever he happens to be dealing with is more important than listening to the representatives of the people-


Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: Listening to your speech.


George Harris Hees: -on this important matter.
The government just does not know how important this problem is. They never get out of their offices. They never get closer to the people than being guest speakers at a Canadian Club luncheon; that is their idea of really getting down and mixing with the masses. They have no idea what goes on in the minds and bodies of people who work for a living, and who are today unemployed. They have forgotten about them. They are happy in their oak panelled offices and their private cars. They do not give a hoot, and that is exemplified by the fact that the Prime Minister has refused to call a conference this year, to deal with this problem which involves 600,000 unemployed people. He knows quite well that the April conference cannot deal with anything except the agenda for the conference to be held later in the year.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend has said the
Prime Minister of this country has refused to call a conference to deal with this particular matter.


George Harris Hees: Right.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend knows that is not the case; that is a misstatement, and my hon. friend should not repeat something he knows to be without any foundation.


George Harris Hees: That is absolute nonsense, Mr. Speaker, because the only way this present unemployment problem can be dealt with is by an immediate conference, not by a conference later in the year, the agenda of which will be arranged at the April 26 meeting. The Minister of National Health and Welfare knows quite well that that is so.


Murdo William Martin: What I was objecting to was your statement that the Prime Minister refused to call such a conference.


George Harris Hees: He did.
Unemployment


Murdo William Martin: When did the Prime Minister refuse to call such a conference?


George Harris Hees: I asked the Prime Minister on
several days if he would call an immediate conference, and he said no.


Murdo William Martin: When did the Prime Minister refuse to call a conference as my hon. friend just stated he did, a moment ago?


George Harris Hees: Then I shall ask the Minister
of National Health and Welfare if, after a number of requests put to him to call such a conference, he has agreed to call it.


Murdo William Martin: As my hon. friend knows,
since he asked the question, the Prime Minister had suggested to the provinces that we meet with the provinces on April 22, and because two premiers could not come the conference has been put off until April 26. Why does my hon. friend persist in trying to convey to this country that the Prime Minister has refused to call a conference?


George Harris Hees: Because it happens to be true,
and I will tell you why.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) knows perfectly well that this meeting on April 26 will deal with nothing but the setting of the agenda for a conference to be held later in the year. It will not deal with the present unemployment problem, and the minister knows that perfectly well. The Prime Minister knows it, and the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the rest of the cabinet are simply shilly-shallying this thing through, hoping that by the middle of May the unemployment picture will not be so grave, and that they can escape and not have to deal with the situation today.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare knows that perfectly well, and so does the Prime Minister. They know perfectly well that there will be nothing but an agenda for a later meeting dealt with at the meeting on April 26. And I challenge the minister to say if there will be anything in addition to that.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend challenges me to say-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I should point out to the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) that if he resumes his seat I will have to call the next speaker.


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend challenges me, and I am going to accept the challenge, if he will permit me.


George Harris Hees: So long as I do not have to sit down. I cannot sit down, because Mr. Speaker has told me not to. But I would be

Unemployment
glad to have the minister speak from his seat. We can hear him just as well that Way-and that is the way the Minister of National Health and Welfare speaks most of the time, anyway.
I would say from the attitude of the Prime Minister and the government in ducking away from this problem and in refusing to face it, and from the Prime Minister's refusal to speak on it-although he has been challenged and asked and urged to speak, to outline the government's plan in the matter-I would say that all these things show very clearly that this government and the Prime Minister are not interested in the slightest degree in solving the present critical unemployment problem. And the Minister of National Health and Welfare as well as every other cabinet minister knows that perfectly well.


Murdo William Martin: We do not. And you know that is perfect nonsense.


George Harris Hees: I know it happens to be the fact, because if it were not the Prime Minister would have called weeks ago an immediate conference with the provinces. Therefore all we can conclude, in the Prime Minister's own words-and again it is very pleasant to be able to quote the Prime Minister-
In a country such as ours there should be work for everybody. If we cannot manage to organize the national economy in such a way that there is work for everybody, then we are incompetent.
Today there are 600,000 unemployed. The Prime Minister says that if we cannot organize the economy to make work for everybody we are incompetent. Obviously this government is incompetent. The Prime Minister has admitted it and, Mr. Speaker, there is no honourable alternative for the government and the Prime Minister but to resign.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Unemployment
Utopian, unrealistic visionary that the man who rises and says, in the name of free enterprise, we must continue to have 600,000, 800,000, 1,000,000 people thrown right out of the economic machine, right out of the social garden in which the rest of us live. That is the impractical visionary view that will bring disaster not merely to this government-and no one could wish it to come there more quickly that I-but to the people of Canada. I suggest that those who sit on the Liberal benches in this house had better use all their influence and all their efforts on those few men who at the present time control the political life of Canada and suggest, for instance, to that-I don't know who he is-Liberal lawyer who was quoted earlier, who suggested that the opposition members are deliberately undermining the economy, and his kind, that the 600,000 unemployed, their friends and their families, are not going to have a very kindly view of a political party that permits those responsible officers to make irresponsible, inane ' statements such as that. These people are going to demand from the Liberal party something more reasonable, something more realistic. They are going to demand from them some hope at least that there will be a permanent solution to this problem of producing and distributing goods in the interests of all the people of Canada. No clap-trap about free enterprise, about individual liberty, initiative and all the other nonsense we hear is going to weigh in the balance one iota. They want results.
I would warn this Liberal government and this Liberal party that they have been in office over an unusual period of free, easy and comfortable years, and that in the dangerous and difficult years ahead something more than sitting at a desk and pounding it when a minister speaks is to be required of them. Their constituents are going to ask them very nasty, awkward questions when they go home at Easter and in the summer. They are not going to be satisfied with being told that the Prime Minister is the most marvellous and unique personage in the history of Canada. They are not going to be told that they should leave the decisions to these men who have guided them so well in the past, because people are not interested in how they were guided in the past. They want to know how they are to be guided tomorrow.
So far, not one single member of the cabinet has risen in his place to give us even the slightest inkling in the first place that they recognize the seriousness of this problem, and in the second place that they have even the ghost of an idea of how to deal with it. Such governments do not last very long. In

spite of overwhelming majorities, such governments eventually go into the discard very quickly, very suddenly.
We have heard in this house that the problem of unemployment is giving great concern and great worry to the government. We have seen no sign of it. On the other hand, we have seen a government that has been determined to reject every practical proposal put to it. Proposals have been put to the government for two years to embark on a large-scale international aid program such as the Colombo plan, as a pilot plan. We were told in the first place that we were very generous; we have actually increased our contribution by $1 million this year. Every Liberal member must have cringed in his seat when that was announced. They must have all cringed when they heard on the radio the scathing denunciation of that niggardliness; but of course we are told that we have increased it as far as it is possible to increase it because there is a definite limit to the power of those places to absorb aid. That was the nonsense that came from the government benches last year. I hope it does not come again this year because it will mean that our government does not even pay any attention to the statements of those in control of the administration of the Colombo plan who told us here in Ottawa last summer that there is no limit to the power of those areas to absorb capital aid.
The government will have to produce something better than that as an excuse for not increasing our contribution to such plans as the Colombo plan to the extent of making a worth-while contribution there and to the extent of solving, temporarily at least, the problem that is posed by unemployment in Canada. Therefore, I hope that we shall have from the government, some time before this debate ends, a sensible, reasoned, practical statement of what the government proposes to do, not merely a recital of this government's bleeding heart, not merely to be told that it is shedding bitter tears over the plight of the unemployed, but some permanent program that has been evolved as a result of serious thinking of the kind that this government has ceased to do for many years.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I rise before the vote is taken because of the amendment to the amendment. And I wish to deal with that and refer briefly to the subject matter under discussion. The amendment to the amendment reads as follows:
That the amendment be amended by inserting therein immediately alter the words "this emergency", the following words:	"including the
immediate implementation of the federal government's promise of 1945 to make adequate provision for the employable unemployed"; and also

by inserting therein, immediately after the words "a long-term program", the following words: "of public investment and economic development".
The words which have been included in that subamendment have already been approved by members of this party in their statements during this debate. They are words taken precisely from the documents which were before the dominion-provincial conference of 1945 and were approved in principle by all the governments attending at that time. For that reason, so far as these words are concerned, we naturally support their addition. They have already been used by members of this party during the course of the debate. I wish to leave no doubt, however, in supporting these words in the exact form in which we ourselves have put them forward that we are certainly not putting any interpretation upon them other than the careful interpretation which was put on them at the time they were accepted, approved and put forward.
I say that for this reason. The hon. member who spoke just before me spoke about the 600,000 unemployed in the name of free enterprise. I wish to leave no uncertainty about the fact that we subscribe to no such comment as that in relation to this debate. The 600,000 unemployed are not unemployed in the name of free enterprise. Nor would I wish to leave any suggestion that I approve of such a statement as the one to the effect that we do not want to hear any clap-trap about liberty. We want to hear a great deal about liberty, and a discussion of liberty is not clap-trap at any time.
I wish to make it perfectly clear that in supporting a subamendment which contains words with a specific meaning which we ourselves have approved in exact terms on earlier occasions, we most certainly are not accepting any of the doctrinaire interpretations which may be put upon them by hon. members to the left, nor are we subscribing to any suggestion that a discussion of liberty is clap-trap or that 600,000 people are unemployed in the name of free enterprise.
I had not thought of entering into a discussion of the politics of any other country, but I cannot help recalling that when a good dose of real free enterprise was given to the people of Britain a couple of years ago, immediately there was a response which manifests itself today in the greatest spirit I have seen in Britain for many long years. I make that observation because it would not be well to leave any impression that the doctrinaire policies which have received some support in this chamber on certain occasions find approval here.
Unemployment
In view of the fact that I feel impelled to comment on this statement, may I also comment on something else. I would regret very much if the reports are correct that the Right Hon. Clement Attlee is coming to this country to speak on behalf of or at meetings arranged by a political party in this country.
I recall over the years that when Lloyd George came here he firmly refused to take part in anything that savoured of political discussion in this country, and the same has been true of leading members of other parties.
There are obvious reasons why it is highly desirable that those who occupy positions such as that of Mr. Attlee should not engage directly or indirectly in the political activities of another nation within the commonwealth. I feel at liberty to make this statement, and I make it of a man for whom I have the highest admiration, a man I have had the privilege of counting as a friend for some years. I would hope that no matter what imports we would welcome from Britain, we should at no time attempt to import politics from there any more than we attempt to export politics from Canada to the United Kingdom.
I think it would be a healthy thing to remember that no matter how confident the members of any party may be, there is always the possibility of the judgment of the people reaching a different conclusion. That, after all, is the essence of our system and the principle that gives our system life and vitality. I believe there are obvious reasons why anyone who might be called upon to occupy the position of prime minister at any time would be well advised not to have placed himself directly or indirectly within the political arena of a country with which he might subsequently be dealing as prime minister of another government.
I say this in the hope that the reports are incorrect, and that a long established position, which I thought had been accepted by the leaders of all parties, will not be changed at this time. Obviously, if a leading figure in any party in Britain, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan or any part of the commonwealth sees fit to come here to engage in what might be regarded as political discussion within our country, he then naturally places himself immediately in the position of expecting an answer in appropriate terms in regard to any arguments he makes.
I shall not pursue it further, except to repeat once again that I would hope a tradition which has been well recognized for good reasons is not going to be broken at this time, in spite of certain suggestions to the contrary which have appeared in the press.

Unemployment
In regard to this particular subject the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has not indicated any views other than those which have been expressed on other occasions. I wish to leave no uncertainty about the fact that we believe there are things than can and should be done to meet this situation, within the framework of our economy and under the authority which the government already possesses. A number of those things have been mentioned, some of them today. A number of those things have been discussed during the period this debate has been taking place. But, Mr. Speaker, I have heard from the government no answer which would indicate what their intentions are with regard to these various industrial and other activities where unemployment is a reality.
I regret that anyone would suggest that a discussion on unemployment is an attempt to undermine confidence. If there is any attempt to undermine confidence on that basis, then of course it must come from the agency of the government which gives the figures. The figures that have been used are given by the dominion bureau of statistics. Surely there is no suggestion that the dominion bureau of statistics is deliberately seeking to undermine public confidence. After all, it is a statistical agency which we believe has been giving us reliable information within the pattern it has established with regard to these and other matters. The interpretation to be placed upon those figures is for the members of this house and the public of Canada.
Many of us know where there is unemployment. There is unemployment in the textile industry, in the electrical industry and in other industries that have already been under discussion. There is unemployment in the various servicing agencies which ordinarily would be called upon to deal with the movement of food products which today are not being sold to the same extent they have been sold on other occasions. We know where this unemployment is; we know that from records that are available to us. Far from there being any suggestion that this discussion seeks to undermine confidence, may I say that we would indeed be open to criticism if we failed to bring forward the facts that are produced by agencies of the government set up for that purpose, and to seek action by the government to deal in some way with a situation which is apparent from a study of those very figures.
I want to refer to one other industry with regard to which figures have been given just within these past few days, in order to show the nature of the problem. We have in this

country an extremely efficient rubber footwear industry. Last year in Canada 3,260,952 pairs of rubber footwear were sold. Our industry is capable of taking care of our own requirements with rubber footwear of high quality, and of producing for export large numbers of rubber shoes as well. The export trade in rubber footwear has diminished seriously. In 1947 we exported two million pairs. Last year we exported only 15,000 pairs. Of the 3,260,952 pairs sold in Canada last year, 1,062,362 pairs were imported.
Again, let us not have any suggestion that the moment you mention these figures you are urging that there should not be trade. On the contrary, no argument of that kind is being made. But let us see what happened. Of those 1,062,362 pairs, 717,202 pairs came from Hong Kong. The information is that those shoes-that is the 717,202 pairs that came from Hong Kong-arrived here at a cost of 64 cents a pair as compared with a cost of $1.90 a pair for a comparable Canadian product. You do not have to look far to find out what the problem is there.


Mr. Croll:: But in his finding the judge said, did he not, that there was no competition in the business, and that they maintained prices? That is what he said.


George Alexander Drew: We are not dealing with anything of the kind to which the hon. member has referred, and he is well aware of that fact. He is also well aware of the fact that there was no suggestion of any inaccuracy in the cost figures; and I am referring to cost figures. The hon. member indicates that he agrees with what I have said. Since he agrees with what I have said, then quite obviously the interjection has no bearing on the point I make, namely that the cost in Canada-which is largely made up of labour -is $1.90 as compared with 64 cents in the case of these imported shoes.
There are obvious reasons why we want to trade with Hong Kong and the other trading centres of Asia, Europe and all other parts of the world. But, Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we face the realities of this situation and recognize that figures of this kind explain some of the problems of unemployment. It is also essential that we decide whether there is to be any attempt to make use of the laws which are actually on the statute books to protect Canadian workmen under a free enterprise system which gives to the people of this country a standard of living that we wish to preserve.
Since the hon. member for Spadina interjected his remark with regard to the comment of the judge, may I remind him that the comment to which he has referred was

made in a proceeding which in itself is intended to preserve free enterprise. He therefore can have no objection to the acceptance of these figures when we ask that this matter be carefully examined under the laws as they now stand, and that we decide exactly what should be done with regard to the maintenance of employment for Canadian workmen when we find in existence elsewhere wages that are so far below ours that they are producing the result we see in this case. That can be done under the existing machinery with due regard to our desire to trade with Hong Kong and with every other great trading centre of the world; but let us remember that the first responsibility of the government of Canada is to the working people of Canada, and let us see how we can meet the situation with which we are now confronted.
There is a growing feeling that we are strangely reluctant to make any move ourselves to assure continued work to Canadian workmen, although we see international arrangements being disregarded when other governments think that will be to the advantage of workmen in their countries. We had under discussion earlier this afternoon the nature of the answer that has been given by the government of the United States to the request that there should be no artificial limitation upon the movement of oil from Canada to the United States. The government has the answer. We are awaiting it. Having regard to the fact that the submission of the government was made public in the first instance, I must confess I am curious as to why there is so much delay in making public the answer. After all, this is an ordinary business communication. We were told what the government of Canada was saying to the government of the United States, and we want to know what the government of the United States has said to the government of Canada. There are a number of other cases where we want information of that kind.
The Prime Minister has said that the government must accept responsibility for employment. The Prime Minister has not sought in any way to diminish the effect of the statement he made. Under our system it is the responsibility of government to administer the laws passed by parliament. The opposition cannot do that. There are laws on the statute books which can be invoked to deal with these subjects. There are laws on the statute books which can be invoked to deal with some of this very unemployment that we are discussing. This afternoon I have simply added to the many examples already given the figures only recently made public showing how unemployment is being created in one particular industry.
50433-159J
Private Bills
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, for the reasons I have explained we shall support the subamendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough). We support it not only because the words used are specific words but also because it is a want of confidence motion with respect to the action of the government on this very important subject and we wish to register our vote accordingly.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: May I call
it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the house will proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
st. mary's river bridge company
Mr. G. E. Nixon (Algoma West) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 281, to incorporate St. Mary's River Bridge Company.


Mr. Green:: Could we have a statement from the sponsor of the bill?


George Ewart Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to incorporate a company with powers to construct a bridge over or a tunnel under St. Mary's river at or near Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. The location of the two "Saults", Canadian and American, marks a very important point and is often referred to as the hub of the great lakes. This can be readily understood when one realizes it is at this point that the only international border crossing is provided between the westerly end of lake Superior and some 700 miles east, at the southerly end of lake Huron.
I understand that in 1927 the number of motor vehicles which crossed the river at the Sault by ferry was 76,000, and that the number has increased until last year there were approximately 290,000, which means an average of about 800 vehicles per day. I think it is reasonable to expect that this number would increase greatly if the crossing could be made by bridge or tunnel, especially when we realize that under construction at the present time, just 60 miles south of Sault Ste. Marie, is the Mackinac straits bridge, connecting southern Michigan with the upper peninsula by the longest suspension span in the world.
The four-lane highway on the Mackinac bridge will have an estimated capacity of 3,000 cars each way per hour. I am advised that a four-lane highway from southern Michigan to Sault Ste. Marie via the Mackinac straits bridge is assured and will tap important transcontinental roads in the heavily populated states bordering on the

Private Bills
state of Michigan. This is bound to result in further increasing traffic to the north.
The government of the province of Ontario has indicated that the trans-Canada highway around the north shore of lake Superior will be completed within the next five years. This will give a tremendous impetus to tourist traffic and will add substantially to the inflow at this point of vehicles from the United States.
The Sault area is recognized as vital in international defence matters because of the importance of the locks located there, so much so that important measures have been taken and installations erected to provide adequate protection. This involves prompt movement of defence forces and heavy equipment between the two countries. Therefore you will see that the ever-increasing need of adequate facilities for crossing the river at the Sault by traffic of all kinds presents an urgent problem for solution and, in keeping with many other international boundary points, a bridge or tunnel seems the best and most natural solution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

Mr. G. J. Mcllraiih (Ottawa West) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 283, to incorporate Westspur Pipe Line Company.
He said: By reason of the amendments to the Pipe Lines Act passed at the last session of parliament, it is now necessary for any person constructing or operating a pipe line extending beyond the boundaries of a province to be incorporated by special act of parliament. Recent discoveries in the oil areas of the four western provinces have been very close to the provincial boundaries, and the problem has now arisen of providing a gathering system to collect the crude oil from the wells and carry it to the main pipe line that is available serving the industry either to the east or the west.
An example of the problem is to be found in southeastern Saskatchewan, where to get from some of the recently discovered wells to the main pipe line it is necessary to cross the

Manitoba boundary line. Any company seeking to do this must be incorporated by special act of parliament, and this bill is to provide for that sort of thing.
It will be noted first that the authority is limited to the four western provinces and the Northwest Territories. Second, it will be noted that the persons seeking incorporation, as indicated in clause 1 of the bill, are all personnel of Imperial Oil Limited. In other words, it is a request to parliament to permit the incorporation of this company so it can set up gathering and branch lines to serve the producing wells.


Howard Charles Green: The explanation just given by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith), Mr. Speaker, indicates that it is the intention of the applicant to apply for a charter to construct a gathering system or something of that kind in the western provinces. He went on to say that the bill only referred to the Northwest Territories and the four western provinces, but in addition these applicants are asking for power to construct pipe lines outside of Canada. Of course this brings up the old pipe-line battles that we have had in this house during recent years.
I notice that during the debate which took place in the other chamber, to be found at page 318 of Senate Hansard, the sponsor there indicated that the purpose was to construct a pipe-line gathering system or branch lines crossing provincial boundaries in the four western provinces. A secondary possibility was the construction of a pipe line to cross the British Columbia-Alberta provincial boundary to accommodate deliveries from the Peace river area. Then he also referred to a small pipe-line gathering system with branch lines which cross provincial boundaries. In concluding his remarks he pointed out that this bill was in the form which had been followed throughout since the original Pipe Lines Act was passed in 1949.
Actually the bill is not in the form of the other bills which have been passed within recent years. For example, I refer the hon. member for Ottawa West to the Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited charter, which is contained in chapter 68 of the statutes of 1953. The applicants there applied for incorporation in 1951 under the name of Border Pipeline Corporation, but their bill was talked out that session. They applied again in 1952 for a charter for a company to be known as Boundary Pipeline Corporation, and that bill was also talked out. The reason was that they proposed to build their pipe line through the United States. However, they came back
Westspur Pipe Line Company in 1953 and applied for a charter under a different name, Mid-Continent Pipelines Limited, and on that occasion they had decided to build their pipe line in Canada.
We find that according to section 6, clause
(a)	they only asked for power to construct within Canada, purchase, lease or otherwise acquire, and so on. Then any reference to international pipe lines was deleted, and what was left were the words "interprovincial pipe lines". They also agreed to the insertion of this proviso:
Provided that all pipe lines for the transmission and transportation of gas and oil shall be located entirely within Canada.
The bill went through with these changes having been made. The changes followed the course which had been adopted in the session of 1951. I would refer hon. members to several pipe-line charters granted in that year. The first was Canadian-Montana Pipe Line Company, as set out in chapter 87 of the statutes of 1951. The next was Champion Pipe Line Corporation Limited, set out at chapter 88 of the statutes of 1951, and the third Independent Pipe Line Company, chapter 91 of the statutes of 1951. The fourth was Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, as contained in chapter 92 of those statutes, and the fifth was Trans Mountain Oil Pipe Line Company which, as Your Honour knows, is actually piping oil from Edmonton to the west coast, and whose charter is contained in. chapter 93 of the statutes of 1951.
In each case a provision was written mfo' the charter, that the main pipe lines would; be within the borders of Canada. I would; suggest to the hon. member for Ottawa West that he take up with the Imperial Oil! company, or whoever is behind this present application, the question of whether or not. they are insisting upon having the charter go through in the terms in which it comes; before the house.
As I said a moment ago, the charter contains the power to construct pipe lines outside of Canada, and it does not contain the proviso that the main pipe line must be constructed within Canada. I should think there would be no objection to having these changes made when the bill goes to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, in view of the statement made by the hon. member for Ottawa West in introducing the bill.


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. member permit a question, so that I may understand his point more clearly? Does he suggest, for instance, that in respect of those wells now being drilled in southern Manitoba, the branch lines should be brought backward

Westspur Pipe Line Company against the flow to join the Interprovincial pipe line, and not taken across the border through part of the United States to join the Interprovincial south of Gretna?


Howard Charles Green: That is a detail which can be gone into in committee.


George James McIlraith: That is the whole principle of it.


Howard Charles Green: These other applicants for charters agreed to write in this provision to which I have referred.


William Moore Benidickson: That is the opposite to what the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Nickle) was recommending this afternoon.


Howard Charles Green: That may be. I am not speaking for the hon. member for Calgary South.


William Moore Benidickson: That is a divided party there.


Howard Charles Green: It will be very unfair for the Imperial Oil company or anybody else to come along and get a charter which gives them wider powers than those held by these other companies. Certainly if it is the intention of Imperial Oil to construct the main pipe line outside of Canada then that will have to be given pretty serious consideration. I do suggest to the sponsor that he discuss this with the people who are asking for the charter.


George James McIlraith: May I ask a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member asking a question, or does he wish to close the debate?


George James McIlraith: I wish to ask a question. Does the hon. member suggest that the producing well should construct a pipe line going against the flow in the main pipe line, instead of coming in at the logical point at a pumping station that might be south of the border, thereby increasing the cost of the crude oil and putting the burden on the crude oil producer?


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member will find, I think, that these pipe lines in the United States are constructed by American companies, and not by Canadian companies at all. It might be that Imperial Oil or Interprovincial would have an American subsidiary which could build a branch of that kind; but the provision upon which we have been insisting has been that the main lines of these companies should be built within Canada, and I see no reason why a similar provision should not be written into the present bill.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few observations
(Mr. Mcllraith.l

concerning this rather small but very important bill. I notice from the report of the Senate debates that they spent about five minutes on the bill, on second reading. That does not mean, however, that some time was not spent in committee.
A number of applications for charters for pipe lines have been received in the House of Commons in recent years. This of course indicates a need for pipe lines; but the fact that these applications come from large private companies also indicates that the building of pipe lines and the transportation of oil and gas is a very profitable undertaking in Canada at this time. Members of this group want to be certain that these lines are always in the public interest, and we want to know if they are built in relation to any over-all plan.
The pipe-line developments of today remind me of the railway developments of 50 years ago. At that time there were many railway charters granted by parliament without consideration of any over-all plan for the development of the country and, so far as I can find out, with very little study by the House of Commons or by committees of the house. This procedure of granting charters without some measure of planning and consideration for the future ended in bankruptcy for some well-known railways, with the investors being bailed out by the people of Canada assuming a huge funded debt, which is still a heavy burden on our people.
As we have repeated on a number of occasions we stand for the public ownership of pipe lines. But, failing that, we in this group believe everything possible must be done to protect the public interest now and in the future, so as to prevent a repetition of what occurred in connection with the building of railroads in Canada 50 years ago. I am referring to the unnecessary duplication of services, the unnecessary issuing of charters, and the waste and consequent loss to Canadian taxpayers.
On that account we believe this bill does raise certain questions. We want to know whether this pipe line is necessary and in the public interest. Second, we want to know if it is part of an over-all plan so as to prevent duplication, as well as future waste and unnecessary costs and expenditures. We are very much of the opinion that the building of these pipe lines is almost a duplication of the building of the railroads in this country and, if we are to prevent a repetition of the experience we had with the railroads, there should be some over-all planning with regard to the transportation of gas and oil in Canada. We are not convinced that this is being given effect to at the present time.

I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, that we wanted to know whether the company which may be granted this franchise and charter is going to speculate on that franchise or charter, or go ahead and build the pipe line. I judge from the remarks of the sponsor that there is no question but that the company applying for this charter intends to proceed with the building of the pipe line mentioned.
As I said before, 50 years ago our railroad charters were granted without any plan or much consideration for the future. Surely that experience should teach us as members of this house, and therefore responsible to the Canadian people, that we must do everything possible to prevent a repetition of those mistakes. When this bill is referred, as I expect it will be, to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, the committee should investigate the several points raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, and in addition several points I have raised in these few brief comments. Pending receiving complete information on the questions I have raised, this group does not give final support to this measure.


Carl Olof Nickle: Mr. Speaker, in connection with this bill, may I say first of all that, like others that will be coming before the house this session, it has my support. This particular bill will involve authority to one company, Westspur Pipe Line Company, to build, when and if needed, certain oil-gathering pipe lines across provincial borders and perhaps also across international borders, in order to most economically connect either present oil fields or oil fields to be discovered with main transmission pipe lines or with refineries.
A week ago a statement was made in this house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It was the text of the statement he had delivered to the United States government. I should like to refer to one paragraph of that statement before commenting further on this particular bill. The statement appears on page 2297 of Hansard of March 23:
A great deal would certainly be lost in terms ol continental efficiency if both countries were to develop their respective oil industries along purely national lines.
That statement is obviously correct. I fully agree with the government's conclusion, just as the United States oil industry and the Canadian oil industry fully agree that the soundest economic planning of pipe lines is quite right and in the best interest of the two countries.
To impose any restrictions that would prohibit any pipe line crossing an international border, and specifically the border between the United States and Canada, would be to
Westspur Pipe Line Company impose a burden which could be extremely costly to this country as well as to our neighbour to the south, and could in fact make it impossible to build a direct connection by pipe line, which is the lowest cost method of transport, between certain United States refineries, United States pipe lines or Canadian pipe lines, which must have markets across the border. In other words, to enact any restrictions by legislation in Canada that would prohibit a pipe line from crossing the United States border would make it far easier for the United States to say, quite justifiably, "We have no direct connection with your oil fields; we have no financial investment; we have no lines of communication or transport. with your fields; therefore it is far easier for us to use alternative sources of supply instead of Canadian crude oil".
To that extent I disagree with the comments made by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). I believe, sir, that this bill should be passed in its present form, just as other bills to come before the house should be passed in a form that will not prohibit the building of pipe lines on the most economical basis for the benefit of this country and perhaps also for the benefit of our neighbour to the south.
I believe this is one of those questions that should be raised at this time, namely whether this parliament, as it has in the last two or three years, should take on itself the responsibility of dealing with matters concerning pipe lines for oil and gas, or the marketing of oil and gas-matters about which unfortunately not too many members of parliament know too much-and take that power to decide away from a competent authority such as the board of transport commissioners, or any other board this government may set up. I am thinking of such boards as the Alberta conservation board, which will pass on any matters which will involve pipe lines over Alberta territory, and the Saskatchewan board that has been set up to look after pipe lines going through that province, the Manitoba board, the British Columbia board, and so forth. Let us not bind in advance the hands of such investigating bodies. Let these matters be decided upon the basis of evidence, not upon the basis of prejudice or upon the basis of misguided nationalism or anything else but plain economic common sense.
I would urge, sir, that the government find the means of taking out of the hands of parliament matters upon which parliament, I am afraid, is not competent to judge, and to put the whole question of routing the pipe lines, oil or gas, and the whole question of

Criminal Code
the marketing of our oil or gas, into the hands of a competent board which can call witnesses and deal with all the economic and other phases of the over-all problems of putting Canada's oil and gas to work for Canadians.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Diefen-baker for the second reading of Bill No. 186, to amend the Criminal Code (nuisance).
Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, when it was declared six o'clock on March 18 last I had just begun my remarks upon this bill and had pointed out the reasons why I thought it was not adequate to deal with the problem with which it purports to deal; and had related to the house that a conference had taken place between representatives of the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba in Regina on October 1. At this conference a unanimous decision was reached, subject to the approval and confirmation of the governments concerned.


John George Diefenbaker: Before the minister goes on with that, will he permit a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: It has to do with the suggestion he made the other day that the new section is different in import and purport from the old section. Before he goes on to explain the ramifications arising from the meeting that took place, will he be kind enough to explain wherein the new subsection 2 of section 165 is different from the old section that has been in the law for a number of years? I have not the section number in mind at the moment. The old section read:
A common nuisance is an unlawful act or omission to discharge a legal duty, which act or omission endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public, or by which the public are obstructed in the exercise or enjoyment of any right common to all His Majesty's subjects.
The minister pointed out the other day that the new subsection 2 of section 165 reads:
(2) For the purposes of this section every one commits a common nuisance who does an unlawful act or fails to discharge a legal duty and thereby
(a)	endangers the lives, safety, health, property or comfort of the public, or
(b)	obstructs the public in the exercise or enjoyment of any right that is common to all the subjects of Her Majesty in Canada.

With the exception of the redrafting, what is different in these two sections?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If I understand my hon. friend's question correctly he is asking me whether I contend that the new section differs in any point of substance from the old section. I agree that there is no substantial difference between them. I did not argue that there was. All I was arguing was that the amendment moved by my hon. friend, whether made to the old nuisance section or, as he proposes, to the new one, was not for the reasons I have already developed a proper amendment for the purpose for which he was seeking it.
I was, and am, suggesting that a much more rational method of dealing with the problem of the pollution of rivers is not by any police court prosecution under the code at all, but by concerted action on the part of the governments concerned which will bring to bear upon what is essentially a health problem the work of experts in the field of health rather than the efforts of criminal lawyers.
I pointed out that a unanimous decision had been reached at the conference on October 1 that the three prairie provinces would join together in setting up a proposed joint pollution control board with certain functions. This board would first of all collect information as to the source and type of domestic, industrial and other waste being discharged or flowing into interprovincial rivers. Upon the basis of this information which had been so collected it would assess the physical, bacteriological and chemical effects of such wastes on water to be used for domestic, industrial or other purposes. It would then select priorities of use and establish the objectives for the control of pollution of these rivers. It would make recommendations for the correction of these conditions which might be shown to affect adversely the accepted use of the water in these rivers.
It would recommend, for example, the control of pollution by the granting of permits to those who may put any effluent into these rivers, or by any other means; and would recommend also such further action as might be required to meet those objectives which I have named. It would continue an educational campaign based on the fundamental idea that water is a valuable resource which must be protected and used logically.
And then it was agreed that the recommendations of the proposed joint board should be carried out by the provinces concerned, either through existing legislation or if necessary through new legislation; and that so far as possible the legislation of the three provinces concerned would be uniform.


John George Diefenbaker: Before the minister proceeds, would he allow a question? Does the minister realize that within the last few days Premier Manning of Alberta has announced that he will not make an appointment to such a board because to do so would place authority over the province of Alberta in a board composed not only of members from Alberta but from the other two provinces?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I realize that, and I am coming to that point. First, however, I want to satisfy my hon. friend, if I can, on the point that arising out of these meetings a course of actual conduct is being carried on in relation to the waters of the North Saskatchewan river which in my judgment is infinitely more effective than any results which could be obtained by the passage of my hon. friend's bill and by criminal prosecutions thereunder.
There was agreement at this Regina conference of October 1, 1954, that there would be a technical staff for the proposed joint pollution control board composed of a senior public health engineer, a chemist and a clerk-stenographer, and the duties of these officials were outlined.
Now, it is quite true that subsequently the government of Alberta, as my hon. friend from Prince Albert has just stated, signified its unwillingness to join in the setting up of this joint board. But before I come to the statement of their position I think first I should place on the record an official statement which was supplied to me by Hon. T. J. Bentley, minister of public health for Saskatchewan, as his conception of the function which this joint pollution control board would perform. I am now quoting:
It was conceived that this board would examine interprovincial stream pollution in a comprehensive fashion by selecting priorities of water use, assessing and co-ordinating all data pertaining to wastes and polluting substances, recommending suitable corrective action and conducting an educational campaign on the logical conservation of our invaluable water resources.
This was back some time ago and the statement goes on to deal with this matter concerning which Mr. Bentley was keenly disappointed by actions of the Alberta government, confirmed by Premier Manning in the communication to which my hon. friend from Prince Albert has just referred. I quote further from Hon. Mr. Bentley's statement:
The government of Saskatchewan was keenly disappointed when it learned that Alberta was not prepared to accept this proposal for a co-operative joint control board. A counterproposal for the establishment of an informal committee to meet occasionally as problems arose was considered-
Criminal Code
That is, by the government of Saskatchewan-
-to be utterly inadequate.
Further, the government of Alberta's assurances that it would do everything in its power to prevent the occurrence of any pollution, while welcomed, could not be accepted as a suitable substitute for a joint board designed to launch a comprehensive attack on the problem. A pollution episode as recent as January 3, 1955, at North Battleford and January 7, 1955, at Prince Albert adds additional evidence to the view that a joint control board is necessary.
Consequently on January 18, 1955, Dr. W. W. Cross, minister of health for Alberta, has been requested to ask his government seriously to reconsider this proposal. Willingness of Alberta to discuss the creation of a joint control board would demonstrate its willingness to co-operate in finding permanent solutions for pollution of interprovincial streams.
I think it is only fair to also place upon the record the reply of Hon. Dr. Cross to this suggestion which was made by the government of Saskatchewan. Dr. Cross's reply takes the form of a letter dated January 24, 1955, addressed to Hon. Mr. Bentley, which reads as follows:
I have your letter of January 18, 1955, regarding the pollution of the North Saskatchewan river and I believe it would help if I were to explain the procedures that are in effect in the Edmonton vicinity for the control of pollution.
We are paying attention to a number of sources of possible pollution but as you are aware we are most interested in a particular material or group of materials which caused trouble one year ago. It is believed by the engineering staff here that this problem arises from one chemical plant and the odour is spoken of here as the "typical" odour.
Aimed at the control of pollution, an Alberta team has been watching the North Saskatchewan river since 1950 and has collected a lot of useful information which has been supplied to your division of sanitary engineering and to the federal authorities. This team was enlarged last winter and additional help was obtained from the department of national health. Resulting from the work of these teams, specific orders were issued to a number of industrial plants in the Edmonton region and to the city of Edmonton.
Edmonton, by the way, would not be affected at all by my hon. friend's statement.


John George Diefenbaker: What was that observation?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: My observation was that when Dr. Cross in his letter stated that specific orders were issued to a number of industrial plants in the Edmonton region and to the city of Edmonton, it was the city of Edmonton which would not be affected at all by the amendment of my hon. friend from Prince Albert which we are now considering. Then I continue with Dr. Cross's letter:
To see that these requirements are met a number of checks have been established.
1. The various companies have been asked to report promptly any failure in their control machinery. The particular company which was considered to be the source of last winter's problem

Criminal Code
now takes samples of their effluent every two hours and reports immediately if anything is found amiss.
2. The Alberta department of public health picks up samples daily from this plant's effluent and from the river at Fort Saskatchewan about 14 miles downstream from Edmonton. Recently equipment has been installed so that samples covering the whole 24-hour period can be obtained from these two points.
3 The Sherritt Gordon plant at Fort Saskatchewan uses the water on the North Saskatchewan river for domestic as well as for industrial purposes. They are very interested in the pollution question and have been asked to report immediately if anything unfavourable turns up.
4.	At Duverney another plant has been asked to report. However, they do not use the water for domestic purposes and might easily miss contamination.
5.	At Lindberg (about 25 miles west of the Saskatchewan border), the Canadian Salt Company uses North Saskatchewan water for domestic purposes and they too have been asked to report.
/ From the above you will see that the Alberta provincial board of health has issued orders which actually have controlled the situation. You will remember that last year the pollution was noted at Prince Albert, first in early November, whereas, this year, to date, only a few days of trouble have been noted and the river is again clear. Incidentally it might be worth while pointing out that our regular tests show that there is nothing objectionable in the river between Edmonton and Prince Albert at the moment.
That was on January 24, 1955. To continue:
This means that Prince Albert will have no reason to complain for at least 25 or 30 days and we see no reason to expect a breakdown in the control machinery in the future. In addition, a system of checks has been developed which will give prompt information as to any accident and, therefore, an opportunity for prompt corrections.
In early December our check at Fort Saskatchewan showed the "typical" odour. This lasted less than one day at the point but the period of pollution widened out as it went downstream. When this was checked at the place of origin the effluent was already back to normal and no reason for the pollution could be found. According to the plant staff, to the best of their knowledge, nothing had occurred in the plant which would account for the pollution which had occurred.
However, because of this "accident" the company has tightened up their controls and the odour factor is now well below the requirements of the Alberta provincial board of health.
Our department is well pleased with the effectiveness of the control procedures which have been developed and we feel that the plant from which the "typical" odour comes is doing a very good job in controlling their effluent and we have had every co-operation from them. Certainly a very marked improvement has been obtained over the condition which existed one year ago.
We believe that the above information indicates that an adequate system of controls has been provided and that a system of checks has been developed which does give prompt warning if any of the control mechanism breaks down.
May I give you the assurance of this department that everything will be done which can be done to prevent the pollution of interprovincial waterways. To this end we are quite prepared to have our technical staff meet with yours as suggested in my letter of October 22, 1954, so that by an exchange of information the best control measures may be maintained.

That letter is signed by W. W. Cross, minister of health. In other words while the government of Ontario, after having sent its delegates to this meeting at Regina on October 1 and in spite of the fact that that meeting reached a unanimous decision, did not feel that it was possible to confirm that decision by joining in this joint interprovincial-


John George Diefenbaker: To what government did the minister refer?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: The government of Alberta.


Mr. St. Laurent:: You said "Ontario".


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am sorry. I meant the government of Alberta.


John George Diefenbaker: I thought there was a slip.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: When I said "Ontario", I meant "Alberta".


John George Diefenbaker: I just thought I would have the matter cleared up.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: That is all right. While it had taken part through its delegates in this meeting on October 1 and those delegates had agreed unanimously to the conclusions, and while the Alberta government did not feel free to confirm its adherence to this joint control board, I take Dr. Cross's letter to be a statement that his government was prepared to do, as a single provincial government, that which the joint control board would have done if it had been set up, and that to that end he was prepared to co-operate with the government of Saskatchewan and, if necessary, the government of Manitoba.
In view of everything that has taken place in this matter up to date, it seems to me this co-operative attack upon the problem offers the best hope we have of improving conditions. While I do not profess to be any expert in these pollution control measures-that co-operative attack seems to me to involve the acceptance by all concerned, that is those situated on the upper part of the river as well as those situated on the lower part of it, of the principles with regard to the pollution of boundary waters which were adopted by the international joint commission years ago, and which have been generally accepted by public health authorities since then.
Hon. members will recall that when this matter was up for debate about a year ago I outlined some of the steps that had been taken by the international joint commission with regard to the heavily polluted waters in the Detroit-Windsor area, for example. Those principles indicate that the waters of

normal surface streams-and this would certainly be true of the North Saskatchewan river, as I am sure my friend the hon. member for Prince Albert would agree-are not safe to drink until they are treated in water purification plants. From that it follows that since the waters of normal untreated surface streams are not safe to drink there is no reason, when industrial development begins, to prevent the disposal of wastes into such rivers, always provided that the total load, made up by all contributors of effluents, does not exceed the normal capacity of modern municipal water purification plants. While in this present case my hon. friend's amendment to the Criminal Code does not apply to public corporations at all and therefore has no effect upon municipalities, it is noteworthy that the pollution of the North Saskatchewan river, both before and after this straw that broke the camel's back which has been the cause of all this discussion in the house-


John George Diefenbaker: It was no straw; it lasted three months.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: If my hon. friend wishes me to put it that way I shall describe it as the anvil that broke the camel's back. I was about to say that the pollution of the North Saskatchewan river is a composite matter. For example, below Edmonton 50 per cent of the biological oxygen demand pollution load is contributed by that city. Apart from the fact that criminal prosecutions are a most unsatisfactory method of dealing with problems of this sort, even if we accepted the untenable premise that that was a good method my hon. friend's amendment would leave out of account, in this very situation which he is attempting to cure, that factor which contributes 50 per cent of the pollution load at the present time.


John George Diefenbaker: What factor is that; municipal sewage?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, quite.


John George Diefenbaker: That was not what we were disturbed about.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: No, that is not what my hon. friend is disturbed about; but if he were aware of the fact that the capacity of a river to accept more pollution depends upon the load it is already carrying he would understand that a very substantial contributing factor to the inability of the North Saskatchewan river to carry the additional pollution put into it last year arose from the fact that there was a basic pollution load of 50 per cent already before the latest effluent was put into it at all.
Criminal Code


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister allow a question?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes, certainly.


John George Diefenbaker: If my amendment were altered to include municipalities which put raw sewage into rivers and thereby contribute to the pollution, would the minister then accept it?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I am now expressing my own personal views. I would not accept it because I would think if that were done it would expose a great many municipalities, including perhaps the city of Ottawa, to prosecution in police court, which prosecution would in my judgment contribute very little, if anything at all, to the solution of the problem with which the hon. member is attempting to deal. In other words, I do not think police court prosecutions are a solution for river pollution. In my opinion the only result of my hon. friend's amendment would be that it would have a very mischievous, disruptive and disturbing effect upon municipalities that discharge effluents into rivers all over Canada, not only in the three western provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba but in all or nearly all provinces of Canada. It would cause a great deal of mischief and make no progress whatever toward a solution of the problem.
The solution by co-operative effort lies along the lines I have been indicating. In line with the letter of Dr. Cross which I have quoted I am told that the companies concerned have been co-operating wholeheartedly in the matter, and that during the past year they have spent something of the order of $500,000 in an effort to cure this difficulty. I think it is partly as a result of the conference held in Regina on October 1, 1954, that it has been possible to get that degree of co-operation from industry and that degree of co-operation from the government of Alberta, notwithstanding the fact that it did not agree to the setting up of a joint interprovincial board. As Dr. Cross's letter clearly indicates, and as is also indicated by the heavy expenditure of money that has taken place largely under the auspices of the province of Alberta-it had to be under their auspices since it took place in that province- much greater results leading to a solution of the problem are being achieved already than could conceivably take place as a result of the amendment my hon. friend proposes to make to the Criminal Code.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am
extremely sorry to interrupt the minister but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.

Unemployment


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, your intervention to advise me that my time is up has occurred almost at the precise moment when I have exhausted my material.


John George Diefenbaker: Go on. As a matter of fact I think the minister is long over his allotted time because of the time he spoke the other night, but he should continue anyway.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I can do no more than to recapitulate that the reason I am strongly opposed to the hon. member's amendment and intend to vote against it is that even if it were conceded that we could cure a problem of this sort by police court action, I think his amendment is still defective. I think it is defective as an amendment and I also think it is fundamentally misconceived and defective because this is not the proper method to deal with a problem of this kind. There is also the additional reason why we should not deal with it in this way at the present time, namely that it is being dealt with quite effectively in the proper manner and by proper authorities, the provincial governments concerned.


John George Diefenbaker: On an interprovincial river?
On motion of Mr. Campbell the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I remind hon. members that at eight o'clock the house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.
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, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Regier.

Alistair McLeod Stewart: There are now, Mr. Speaker, between 600,000 and 700,000 unemployed in this country. There is no more serious domestic problem than this; yet the degree of importance which the government attaches to it can be seen in the way they have treated this debate since its inception almost four weeks ago. It

has been kicked about from pillar to post. It has had to make way for the most inconsequential legislation, and that I think is evidence of the degree of the government's real interest in the matter. In the conduct of the house business there has been nothing more incompetent than the way this debate has been run. That being so, we need not be surprised at the incompetent way in which the suffering of so many hundreds of thousands of Canadians is being treated today.
It has been said before in this debate, and I repeat it, that it is high time the Prime Minister spoke. After all, he is the leader of the government. He has to take his measure of responsibility. It is not good enough for the Prime Minister of Canada to just sit tight and say nothing, to present no program at all for his government. We expect something more than that. His predecessor would have given us much more. At least we would have been inundated with a barrage of words, words indeed so confused and confusing that the very faculties of eyes and ears would have been confounded. But not this Prime Minister; he plays it rather differently. If I may here paraphrase a dramatic criticism I read once, he plays King as though somebody else had the ace. It is not good enough. The fact that he desired to remain silent is no excuse at all for him or for the government. At least the late prime minister had some ideas as to what should have been done about 15 years ago in connection with the plight of the employable unemployed. Mr. King said then that to transfer to this government the whole cost of the employable unemployed would prevent a repetition of the confusion, inefficiency, waste, delay and inequalities which admittedly have prevailed in relief since 1930. The Liberal party believed that 15 years ago, yet nothing has been done about it.
Mr. King said that to transfer the whole cost of the employable unemployed would prevent a repetition of confusion, yet this government revels in confusion. He said that it would prevent a repetition of inefficiency, but the government wallows in its own inefficiency. Mr. King said it would prevent a repetition of waste, but the government glories in waste. He said it would prevent a repetition of delay, and the government delights in delay for obviously it is hoping that by delay the problem of unemployment somehow or other will be solved. Mr. King said that to transfer the whole cost of employable unemployed would prevent a repetition of the inequalities which we have seen, yet this government seems to exalt those very inequalities.

The debate has, unhappily, savoured too much of a repetition of what we heard last year when the opposition, and indeed the people of Canada, frustrated and angry at not knowing the solution and not knowing the government policy, saw a smug and lethargic government mouthing platitudes. Some of these are worth considering. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), for instance, said that the federal government has a duty to sponsor national policies that will encourage a high level of employment. What he said was true, but we have tried in vain to find out what those policies are. Two ministers have spoken, and neither has enlightened us. They both praised the past and carefully forgot the present and the future.
As I said, the minister believed the government should sponsor national policies which would encourage a high level of employment. The government may argue that today there is a high level of employment, but the fact remains there are between 600,000 and 700,000 unemployed and we still do not know what is the answer of this government to the allabsorbing domestic problem which confronts us. The minister said that we should look at these facts quietly and sanely. But what sort of sanity is this on the part of a government which permits, and apparently willingly permits, homes in this country to be broken up, for that is the net effect of unemployment as anyone who has been through it must know. Part of the Liberal clap-trap which we have been fed repeatedly, especially around election time, is this stuff about the sanctity of the family.
What can we say about a government which professes to believe in the sanctity of the family and yet, as a deliberate act of policy, permits those families to be destroyed and broken up as we know they have been, from evidence which has been adduced. In an attempt to secure municipal relief for their families men are leaving them and going heaven knows where. Young men who have to make a way for themselves in life are leaving their homes and going from one town to another. They are unwelcome visitors, and all too frequently are given a railway ticket to some other town so the municipality can avoid paying for their cost of living while they are unemployed.
Today we heard some objection taken by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) to a remark of my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron), who said that the miseries of the unemployed were being obscured in other clap-trap about liberty. There have been a tremendous number of crimes committed in the name of liberty, and
Unemployment
a tremendous number of cliches hurled at us in the name of liberty. But there are various concepts of liberty, Mr. Speaker, for I maintain that it is possible to be bodily free yet still enslaved. The great mass of Canadian workers who are today compelled to live in the thraldom of fear of what may happen to them tomorrow are not free men. But liberty certainly may have some meaning. There is the liberty to go to the soup kitchen, the liberty to be unemployed, the liberty to travel from town to town looking for work. Liberty, as I construe it, means something vastly more than that. Liberty in a modern democratic state must take into consideration the liberty of a man's spirit and soul, as well as the liberty of his body.
As I have said in the past in this house, poverty has caused more hurt and more harm in this world than all the wars which have yet been fought. But the government apparently does not realize that the poverty which arises from unemployment is more than detrimental to the family. It can destroy the individual in a more fearsome way than any nuclear weapons, in that weapons can destroy the body while what arises from unemployment will destroy a man's mind, a man's soul. We have seen that happen too often in the past.
Then another extraordinary aspect of the government's attitude toward this problem was in this statement that many unemployed workers have already been assisted by family allowance payments and old age pensions. In other words the government is depending upon robbing children to see that the unemployment problem is alleviated. I thought the purpose of these family allowances was to help children, not give some sort of subsistence to the unemployed. The statement says that the unemployed are being assisted by the old age pension. That is a wonderful source of solace to those over 70 who still are compelled to work because the pittance given them by this government as a pension is so utterly and completely inadequate. The fact remains that the government has no policy.
At page 1630 of Hansard the Minister of Trade and Commerce said in this debate that productive activity has not been sufficient to absorb the net increase in persons coming into the labour force. If that is so, what is the minister's policy? What is the government's policy to make the productive activity sufficient to absorb the tens and hundreds of thousands of Canadians in this country who want work and who cannot get it because the government has no policy?

Unemployment
Then the minister went on to say that our difficulty in Canada is seasonal unemployment. But that is not the whole difficulty, by a long sight. I would like to know if the government has any policy to solve the problem of seasonal unemployment. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) is going to be given the opportunity next week in his budget speech. Perhaps then he will make some declaration about policy. If we cannot smoke out the Prime Minister and get him to make a declaration this week, perhaps we will get it from the Minister of Finance next week.
Two or three weeks ago a resolution was sent to the Department of Labour from the Winnipeg labour council. My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, made reference to it today, and as it was not among the papers submitted to him perhaps I might deal now with some of the points mentioned in it. It says that the labour council calls upon the federal government to take measures to meet the unemployment situation immediately by-
(1) Starting a public investment program federally, municipally and provincially, to build houses, schools, hospitals, roads and so on.
The Winnipeg labour council, along with other labour councils across Canada, are asking for a three-way partnership in this, but it should not be an even three-way split so far as responsibility goes, because obviously the municipalities of Canada are not in a position to pay as much as the federal government, which is the principal taxing power in Canada.
The labour council asks that more homes be built. There is a drastic need for them, despite the evidence which was given by officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation last year in the House of Commons committee on housing. I maintain that there is a need for over 500,000 houses in this country. This year we may have built 105,000 or 110,000, and I ask you to note that these houses were not built for those who needed them most. No, they were built for those who could afford them most, those whose incomes are, let us say, above $4,000 a year. The majority of Canadians do not earn that much money a year. It is for them we have to build houses, and we have to build them on a subsidized basis.
While I am all in favour of a man having a sufficient stake in his country so that he may own his own home, nevertheless it is a demonstrable fact that there are a great many who would prefer to rent their homes. For these people, if the proper accommodation is to be provided, rentals have to be sufficiently low that they can afford to pay them which,

in turn, will mean subsidized housing. But the government has turned a blind eye to this whole procedure. It is against the concept of subsidized rental housing. That is one reason there is so much immobility in labour today. It is all very well to say that labour ought to become more mobile, that labour ought to go about from town to town looking for work. But if a man has a stake in his own home, and has a family, he will think several times before he will leave that home and go to another city without any certainty at all that work is going to be available for him. Government policy has helped to make labour immobile.
There are other homes needed. There are homes needed for the aged people in this country, for our old age pensioners, to permit them to spend the evening of their lives in some decency. There is no reason why this government could not co-operate with the provinces and the municipalities in the building of homes for old age pensioners, on a subsidized basis, whereby these old people could know some happiness in the last years of their lives.
Then we need schools in this country; we need them desperately in almost every city. It may be said that this would be federal aid to education. But in the past this government has not been averse to giving federal aid to education, and it has introduced supplementary estimates to help rebuild schools gutted by fire. One of the problems of the municipalities is that they are faced with the necessity of providing either schools or roads. I have in my constituency the two municipalities of East Kildonan and West Kildonan, and in these areas are many married couples with young children. The taxing powers and revenues of those municipalities are quite inadequate to build both schools and roads. They have to make up their minds which are going to be built. Quite rightly the money goes toward the building of schools; but this still leaves people living on streets which at this time of the year are almost impassable.
There is scarcely a province in this country that does not need more hospital beds and more hospital accommodation. Here is an area in which the federal government could help the people of Canada all across the country by providing the financial assistance necessary to build hospitals where required.
Another way in which the minister might be of some assistance next week would be in relieving the municipalities of the sales tax they have to pay on so many things they buy for the uses and purposes of the municipalities. One of the worst examples, of course, is the sales tax which the municipalities

must pay on educational equipment. I suggest that this government, when the main burden of roads and schools is on the municipalities, ought to give them this minor relief.
The Winnipeg labour council goes on in item No. 2 to say that the federal government should take measures by providing out of the consolidated revenues extended benefits for those who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits, but are still unemployed. The council states that the government should give them some form of assistance. One of the unhappiest groups in this country today must be those whose benefits have run out and who know that there is no work available for them in the communities in which they live. They have to exist on something. What happens is that they become a charge upon the municipality and, too frequently, upon those who are least capable of withstanding the financial burden.
The labour council then asks that there should be a nation-wide public assistance program to provide for workers not covered by unemployment insurance. There are hundreds of thousands of these workers. At least 20 per cent of our labour force are not covered by unemployment insurance. What happens to them when they find their jobs gone, when they find themselves dismissed, or when a plant is closed down? What hope is there for them except to go on under a form of relief known as municipal assistance? And, once again, the government leaves it entirely to the municipality to bear the financial burden of that assistance.
Then the labour council asks that there should be increased unemployment insurance benefits. After all, if this is a democracy in the modern sense of the word then surely there are certain things which go along with it, and it seems to me that in a democracy a man has the right to work. There has to be a bill of social rights as well as a bill of human rights. Surely a man has a right to work in a modern democracy. If through no fault of his own he becomes penalized by unemployment, then I do not think it is right that the family should have to bear the brunt of that penalty. In other words there is a case which can be made out in economics and a case which most certainly can be made out in morality for very much larger payments to the unemployed from the unemployment insurance fund than they now receive.
One of the results of increasing unemployment insurance payments would be to create more demand in the country, to stimulate demand, and therefore to that extent to stimulate employment in other areas.
Another point raised by the labour council is that the government should, by increased
Unemployment
efforts, promote exports through special trade missions and trade agreements with specific countries, and should lower the barriers of international trade generally. I hear in this house frequently, even during this session, this synthetic and phony fight between Liberals and Tories as to which is the low tariff party in Canada. They are both high tariff parties; that is all there is to it. The Liberals will keep the tariffs up and even increase them as long as it suits their particular purpose. But by increasing tariffs we are strangling trade, and by strangling trade we increase unemployment, and the effect is bound to be seen throughout the whole body of our society.
Then we have this labour council asking for adequate measures to maintain and increase farm purchasing power, because the workers of Canada know that when the purchasing power of the farmer goes down there will be unemployment. The urban workers and the rural workers are completely interdependent. When things are going well on the farm, when there is a high farm income, the farmer spends that income in the city, and when he does that in the cities there is high employment and in turn the city worker buys back those things which the farmer himself produces. One group cannot be well off and the other hope to exist not even reasonably well-off; the two are too completely interconnected. Therefore one of the basic attacks which should be made on this problem of unemployment is first of all to increase farm income so that farmers can buy the products of their brothers in the cities.
Another matter which the labour council brings up is this. They ask the federal government to take measures to combat unemployment by substantially increasing Canada's contribution to the Colombo plan and to the United Nations' technical assistance program. Obviously the labour unions of this country are very much further ahead than the government in connection with this matter of assistance to the underprivileged countries. It is an easy matter to get a vote through this house to give arms and equipment to other countries. It is confoundedly difficult to get through a vote that will give economic assistance to the underprivileged countries of the world, and those are primarily the countries of Asia. What they need above all today is capital assistance so they can start to bring themselves up from the poverty in which they now exist. Asia is going to become industrialized, and if we are wise we shall be playing our part now amongst our friends in Asia in helping that industrialization.
This policy would have several effects. One, it would create friends for us in Asia; two, it

Unemployment
would help to combat communism by raising their standards of living; and three, and no less important, it would give very important and valuable work to Canadians.
The eighth point of the labour council is this:
By special measures to help depressed industries and depressed areas by bringing industries to such areas or by helping workers to move to places where work is available.
There are hundreds of thousands of unemployed in this country today who want work. They are not work-shy, but they do not have the financial resources to permit them to transfer to another city, and of course they have no knowledge that when they get to another city they are going to find work. The government has to take some initiative in this matter of helping those who want to go to other places to find work by subsidizing them financially.
The government has to do more than that. It is more than a matter of factories here and factories there. What this country wants to know is what is the policy of the government. We do not know, because we have not been told; and surely the very least the Prime Minister owes to this house, and to Canada, is, before this debate is over, to rise in his place and make that statement of policy for which all Canadians are waiting.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to speak in support of the subamendment to the amendment respecting unemployment which is now before us. It is quite obvious that I am surprised at having to immediately follow a speaker from this group. It would appear, sir, that on this most important issue of unemployment the Conservatives and the Social Crediters have folded up. I cannot say the same thing for the Liberals. They have not folded up, because they could not; they have never opened up.
Even though there is now, according to their own last figures, a total of something in the neighbourhood of 614,000 Canadian citizens in search of employment-a figure, may I say, only just 225,000 below the peak of unemployment in the hungry 1930's-I have been surprised that, although this subamendment has been moved, not a minister on the government side of the house has seen fit to speak.
I want to say at the outset that I very definitely have been amazed at the fact that although this debate has been going on now for approximately four weeks, and although the numbers on the unemployment roll have been increasing, according to government figures, the Prime Minister, as the head of

the government of Canada, has not seen fit to speak. We know the Prime Minister is very busy, but he has been here quite often. He has never moved from his seat to take part in this debate on the biggest problem that is facing the people of the Dominion of Canada. I can only say, sir, that he has the same aptitude as those who are taking part in the rocking-chair marathons which are now the rage in some parts of Canada. He sits glued to his seat.
This is a mighty important issue. It is not one that can be answered by complacency on the part of the government, or complacency on the part of those who support the government. I can come to only one conclusion-I do not like to come to it-and that is that those who support and inform the government either have never been unemployed and hungry or they have forgotten what it is to be unemployed and hungry. I am rather afraid that perhaps the complacency of being a $10,000 or $27,000 a year man has so settled their stomachs that their brains are atrophied. They are refusing completely to face up to the facts and the situation that is facing hundreds of thousands of our people here in our Dominion of Canada.
I know it has been said and even boasted by government supporters that there is going to be a dominion-provincial conference held around April 26. According to the Prime Minister he would be surprised if the question of unemployment was not raised. Well, Mr. Speaker, a preliminary discussion on April 26 to lay plans for a dominion-provincial conference some time in the fall cannot be a great deal of satisfaction to those who are in need of food, of shelter, of clothing and of jobs at the present time.
With all due deference to the first citizen of Canada, who is our Prime Minister, it is not a sign of good government, it is not a sign of leadership in our dominion for him, while he can be in the house, to remain in his seat stroking his moustache and saying nothing about the problem or what the government is going to do about it.
Mr. Speaker, I have been unemployed, and I have gone hungry. I notice that of the
614,000	unemployed in Canada, according to the government's figures, 62,000 live in the province of British Columbia and 31,000 of those live in my own city of Vancouver where I, too, in 1931 and 1932, was unemployed, where I had to go on relief and walk over two miles each two weeks to get supplies and then take them home in a gunnysack.
And then, sir, I knew heads of families by the dozen who went hungry day after day

in order that their children could have more at that time, under Liberal and Conservative governments and under your system of free enterprise. What happened? Tear gas by police battalions; concentration camps for single men at 15 cents per day, until the war came along.
This pertains to our present situation. It has been said by the Prime Minister, and I was surprised to hear him say it, that he does not think the situation is sufficiently serious that it cannot be handled by the provinces. We shall continue to point to that statement until something is done to fill the promise and commitment made by the federal government in 1945, when it promised to assume responsibility for the employable unemployed in Canada.
The provinces are not financially capable of taking care of their employable unemployed. I wish to say most emphatically that no province in the Dominion of Canada would dare to take care of the unemployed even on a humanitarian and Christian basis if they were not domiciled in that province, because immediately they did so that province would attract an influx of all the unemployed in the dominion. I care not what province it might be, very soon the province would be bankrupt if it ever outlined such a policy, much as the provinces might like to do on a humanitarian basis. From my many years of experience in the province of British Columbia I know that province received an influx of transient unemployed; they are there today. The province does not dare take care of them for the reason I have just outlined.
And what does this government do? The members sit back smug in the knowledge that they will continue to receive their $10,000 and $27,000 a year and let the unemployed go to blazes-


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Harold Edward Winch: It certainly is true. I defy the Minister of Labour, the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who interrupted so much this afternoon, to get up and outline any policy whereby this government will accept the responsibility for the permanent and transient employable unemployed. You know they won't. You have only to look back in Hansard and read the speech of your own Prime Minister, who said the problem is not so serious that the provinces cannot take care of it. That statement has been made I think not less than three times during the present session, and not less than twice since the commencement of this debate on unemployment.
Unemployment
Mr. Speaker, there is no use of our Liberal friends trying to bluff their way out of this situation. They are not facing up to the problem. They are hoping that something will happen, that these people will remain quiet, quiescent and acquiescent, and that in the summer jobs will open up or perhaps a war will occur.
I wonder how many of those in this house who support free enterprise have ever troubled to trace back in their own minds their experiences during their lifetime in this dominion, to observe the recurring cycles of depression and war and prosperity through war? On the basis of the present unemployment figures it is difficult to understand the reasoning of the government and its lack of action in relation to the unemployment problem. As I pointed out on a previous occasion, the Dominion of Canada from 1914 until the end of December of last year spent the sum of $44,047,947,807 for war. Surely something is wrong with the Minister of Labour, the Prime Minister and every member who supports this government if they can sit here complacently, with full knowledge that when we require $44 billion for war and defence we can readily find it, and not outline any policy in this house during the past four weeks for action to take care of, first, the immediate unemployment situation and second-and perhaps I should have put it first-the granting of a degree of security to the unemployed in this dominion who are definitely in need.
I wish to point out that if Canada were to go to war tomorrow this government would move and within 24 hours take care of all the financial requirements of war. They could take care of those more than 614,000 unemployed and do as they did in the last war, put 1,100,000 Canadian men and women into uniform and feed and clothe them and take care of them in every way. My hon. friends know they could. Why will the government not take action to correct the unemployment situation? Is it not an indictment of the Prime Minister, his cabinet and every Liberal on the floor of this house that we have proven that we can-and I say we will-have full employment in Canada if men and women want to die for Canada? However, the government will not budge now to take care of the 614,000 unemployed who want to live for Canada.
If we required small arms tomorrow in Canada this government would lay down policies so that we could have the small arms. Is it not logical to ask that they lay down some policy to take care of the 885,690 homes in Canada that have neither hot nor cold water piped in? If we required war planes tomorrow in the event of war, we would get them. The

Unemployment
orders would be issued, the plants would be built, and the men and women would be employed. Why does the government not take care of the 998,660 homes in Canada that do not have inside toilets?
If we needed warships, we would have them. Why cannot the government assist in providing electricity to the 443,000 homes in Canada which have no electricity? If we needed medical care, clothing, ammunition and transportation for a million men and women in the armed forces tomorrow, this government would supply them and would do so mighty fast. If necessary they would exert extraordinary powers to accomplish this. In a time of peace, when the men and women and the factories are available, and when the House of Commons is in session and can pass any immediate legislation that is required, why can we not take care of the
1,200,000	homes in Canada that have no refrigerators of any kind; the 938,000 homes that have no vacuum cleaners of any kind; the 1,400,000 homes that have no telephones, and the 2,000,000 people who have no cars?
That is not rhetoric, Mr. Speaker; it is fact. We have the resources. We have the men and women with the brains and brawn. We have the machinery of production and distribution. We have the democratic parliament. Why is it that the government is not prepared to move in a war against poverty, depression and unemployment when it is prepared to move in a fighting war? I ask that every hon. member who supports this government in its inaction ask himself this question.
I believe one of the reasons is that this present government has never had a plan. Its policies are confusion confounded or confounding confusion, whichever way you want to put it. For some reason best known to themselves they have advanced confusing policies, with the result that private industry itself, which wants to get to work, has not been able to get to work because it did not understand government policy and also because this government has not exercised sufficient initiative to give a lead to Canadian industry and Canadian investment. We should have more in the way of secondary industry, and do more in the way of utilizing our own natural resources, instead of exporting our natural resources as raw material and then importing the finished product.
Mr. Speaker, I said there are policies of confusion confounded, and there are. A few weeks ago in this house I mentioned the fact that there were companies in the shipbuilding industry where we have thousands of unemployed, thousands of skilled men and women out of work, but that this country

was not permitted to build ships for certain other countries. The Minister of Trade and Commerce and in particular the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) endeavoured to give an answer. What was the answer given in this house by the senior member for Halifax? I presume that what he pointed out was government policy. In a quotation from some communication he stated that the department had advised some firm as follows, and I quote from the second column of page 1386 of Hansard, part of the speech of the senior hon. member for Halifax:
Perhaps you would be good enough to inform us if your clients are prepared to place firm orders with you on the basis of detailed specifications.
Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member for Halifax placed this statement on the record I take it that was the government viewpoint and government policy; would this firm advise the Department of Trade and Commerce as to whether their clients were prepared to place firm orders on the basis of detailed specifications. If that is the policy it certainly is confusing, because that is exactly opposite to the policy enunciated only a few weeks previously by the same department in connection with the same firm. I have here copies of two letters. Here is one dated January 3 from the Department of Trade and Commerce, foreign trade service. I want to quote this one section. It is to the same firm and it says:
We would, therefore, suggest that in the case of any items on the export control list which you wish to ship to destinations other than the United States or in the case of any shipments whatsoever to area control destinations, you consult us for a ruling before you go after firm business. A telegram, a letter or 'phone call in this regard would enable us to give you a speedy ruling.
That is not the only one. I quote from a letter dated December 27, also from the Department of Trade and Commerce to the same firm. What does it say?
It would be wise to make sure that an export permit would be granted before you go after the business and obtain firm orders. It is possible to obtain export permits before business is obtained.
I am quoting from copies of letters sent out by the Department of Trade and Commerce to people interested in bringing new business to the Dominion of Canada, to the shipyards of eastern and western Canada. They are told by the Department of Trade and Commerce, "See us first about export permits; see us before you ever go after any firm business". Then on the floor of the House of Commons we are told by the senior member for Halifax, quoting from something else, "Get firm business first".
That is enough, Mr. Speaker, to show the confusion that must exist in this department. If that is an example of the way in which

the department operates, no wonder that even private enterprise in Canada, most certainly desirous of keeping their plants operating and most certainly desirous of building up export trade, do not know where they stand, do not know what to do. So they throw up their hands and let it go, a situation which naturally leads not only to the part-time operation of plants but, of necessity, to unemployment.
On the shipbuilding end we were told by the Minister of Trade and Commerce that we are in line with Great Britain. I cannot see it. Just the other day in our Canadian newspapers I read that Sir Wingfield Digby, civil lord of the admiralty, said that British shipyards are free to accept orders from the U.S.S.R. and other eastern European countries. My main point is the confusion.
I have quoted only from statements of the minister and the senior member for Halifax and from actual copies which I had made from the originals, which were sent out within a matter of only a few short weeks, as to what had to be done by a company that wanted to try to get into the export field.
I also made mention of the fact that there is a great deal of unnecessary unemployment in Canada because the government has not shown initiative in having manufacturing done with our own raw materials. I was most interested in the statement made the other day with regard to the threat by the United States to curtail the import of crude oil from Canada. If it were not tragic, Mr. Speaker, it would be humorous. Here we have members of this group rising day after day, week after week and month after month, when it is a matter of dealing with a problem of the agricultural producers of this country, when the United States are taking action in the field of agricultural products by stopping imports of our products into the United States, and all we get are a great many platitudes and sanctimonious statements from the Minister of Trade and Commerce. But lo and behold, when there is talk in the United States of some action being taken to curtail the importation of our crude oil, the government and the Conservatives are up on their feet screaming their heads off to high heaven about it. We wonder why. Of course we want to export but, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Trade and Commerce made the statement from his place in the house last year that Canada had exported $7 million worth of oil and refined oil products to the United States, and we had imported $130 million worth from the United States.
We now have a 30-inch oil pipe line, the Trans Mountain, going into the municipality
Unemployment
of Burnaby right next to Vancouver. Because of that pipe line oil companies-yes, private enterprise companies-poured millions of dollars into new refineries and additions to existing refineries. What happened? From that 30-inch pipe line a 20-inch pipe line was run to Ferndale, Washington. We want to export all we can export, but is there not something wrong when the Liberals and Conservatives scream to high heaven about any talk of a stoppage of the flow of our crude oil to the United States, and at the same time say that we are importing $130 million of refined oil products into Canada and only exporting $7 million worth? We have the ability to do the refining in our own country, employing our own industry and our own men and women. We should give more thought to getting more advantage out of our own black gold instead of spending our money on United States oil.
What is true of that raw material is also true of many others. With my knowledge of the resources of Canada and the abilities, capabilities and potentialities of the people of the dominion, I am convinced that if we had a government with any initiative, any vision-yes, any principle of Canada and Canadians first, Canadian employment first and the utilization of Canada's resources in this country-we would not have the number of unemployed we have at the present time. I say that the records of Liberal and Conservative governments have proven the absolute inability of their system to function except in time of war. They have proven their incapacity to govern. They have no vision and no plans.
We cannot expect that the government, even if they are awakened, are going to be very speedy in making long-term plans. Certainly they should have an answer to the request that they proceed now to lay down immediate plans to make certain that no person goes hungry or in want in our country until such time as they can put plans into operation to enable free enterprise to give employment to everyone desiring, able and willing to work.
I think it is an absolute disgrace that we have a Prime Minister, a cabinet and followers of the government who are prepared to move on an hour's notice if men are prepared to die for Canada but are not prepared to take action when there is unemployment in our land. I say they will prove themselves to be a government when they lay down policies and take action to take care of the men and women of this dominion who want to be self-respecting residents of their communities, who want to be true citizens of this country and live for the Dominion of Canada.

Unemployment


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: If hon. members will be patient for a moment or two they will see that I shall not take much of the time of the house. Because of having to attend several committee meetings, I have not had the opportunity to participate in this most important debate. However, with full knowledge of the serious nature of the unemployment situation in Canada and a great personal concern about that situation as it affects many Canadians, I rise at this time simply to express my support for the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier). I also wish to express my support of the vigorous pleas made by members of this group to the government to do something to remedy this most unfortunate situation.
May I also say I was particularly taken with the excellent speech made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in which he visualized a long-term plan that would reach its consummation in the year of the 100th anniversary of this country. I thought he outlined a number of practical proposals that should appeal to the imagination of the government and the people of Canada. I trust that as the result of this debate the government will take some immediate action to remedy the present situation and develop long-term plans so that this unnecessary evil, unemployment, will be banished from Canada for all time.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I could not let this opportunity pass-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edward George McCullough: -without having something to say about the serious problem facing Canada today.


Mr. Dickey:: Have you got anything to say?


Edward George McCullough: I am
quite certain that the 600,000 unemployed indicated by the statistical figures-


An hon. Member:: Repetition.


Edward George McCullough: -will not be smiling tonight but will be taking their situation quite seriously. I feel that the speeches that have been made in the house asking the government to be serious about this problem will, if nothing else, surely bring about some action rather than the sit-down strike which seems to be in force on that side of the house. It is not sufficient for

Liberal members to say they are concerned. What the people want is action.
It seems to me that once again history has repeated itself. We have gone the full cycle of the threat of war, then war, then a period of prosperity, and now once again the beginning of a period of depression. Certainly there is no member on either side of the house who can get up tonight and say there is any program under the capitalist system by which our people can be given useful employment. They simply have not brought forth such a plan.
When we on this side of the house make certain representations to the government they and their supporters more or less laugh at them. We are faced today with perhaps the last chance to bring democracy to the world. I say to those on the other side of the house who espouse democracy that unless we can bring about that democracy in the social and economic spheres of the world we are not going to win against communism, and they can chuckle in their collars about that if they like. That is the problem facing the world at this time.
Here in Canada we have our own serious problem. I do not think it behooves us to look far afield and find trouble with other types of economies unless we can do better at home than we have done. The latest figures published by government departments indicate that there is a continued increase in unemployment, and it is surely up to the government to get busy and do something about it.
I have already stated that it seems the cycle of history is repeating itself. I say that with good reason, because today the farmers in this country are suffering from a loss of markets as a result of the capitalist philosophy of so-called overproduction. The farmer has been too progressive, too good in his husbandry, and has produced more than people can eat. Yet we find that the nations of the world have not been able to use these foodstuffs to feed the hungry.
One could readily understand what a real problem it would be if it were one of trying to produce enough food for the people. But when it is possible for Canada and the United States, which are both capitalist countries, to produce an abundance of foodstuffs and other things to enable their people to have a high standard of living, yet no way is found to give these people an opportunity of enjoying those things, then surely any person with any sanity at all will agree that something is decidedly wrong. All we in this group are asking is that those who sit on the government benches do something about it. If you have an answer, then we

want it. We are quite prepared to support any of your policies if you will announce them, but do not sit back in smug complacency and try to disregard this serious situation.
Apparently it is not only in Canada that we are running into this cycle. I have here a clipping which indicates something which is happening in another part of the world. From this article it would appear that next year when an atomic explosion takes place there may be a smell of coffee in the air. It may well be that it will be a true smell, indicating that there is a surplus of coffee in Brazil which they are burning. We can all remember the recent increase in coffee prices. It appears that, so far as the capitalist countries are concerned, those who put their complete and unfailing trust in the capitalist system apparently have no answer to the problem of distribution, the problem of giving the people the purchasing power with which to buy back some of the foodstuffs they have produced.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I know full well that the members of all groups in this house are good members. They are concerned about their constituents. They are concerned about the unemployed. I want to pose this question to those who are always defending this competitive system, the so-called free enterprise system. What satisfaction is it to the
600,000	unemployed to know that each and every one of them is competing against the other for a job to earn the bread and butter for their families? That is what takes place unless there are jobs for these people to enable them to do decent and honest work to earn a living for their families. I do not care in what part of the house any hon. member sits, he must be concerned about this situation.
There are people who are well paid and who, perhaps, through conviction adhere to one philosophy or another. They, perhaps, are quite honest in their convictions and I grant them the right to their own convictions. But we have certain people like Max Eastman who, in the last issue of U.S. News and World Report, apparently made an attack upon the socialists throughout the world. He said they are the biggest flop in history. All we need do is look over the countries in which God has been provident, and where we have been able to produce an abundance under the capitalist system, yet we find that those countries are unable to prevent these recurring depressions. There are these recurrent unemployment situations such as the one in which we find ourselves today.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of reasons why no government under a capitalist
Unemployment
system can find an answer to this problem.
I recall that in 1945, prior to coming here, we heard it said that after the war the government would have a shelf of public projects and if unemployment started to show its ugly head the people would be put to work. What has happened to that? A year ago I required of the Minister of Public Works what had happened to that program, and he indicated that there was no program. Back in February, 1951, the manpower council was set up. What has become of this manpower council? We have been told in this house this year that they have not met; they have not been doing anything. Why have they not been doing something? I should like to ask those responsible cabinet ministers what they have been doing about this problem. It seems they have been doing very little, so we find ourselves in a worse situation all the time.
Tonight's Ottawa Journal indicates that there is going to be a revision of the Unemployment Insurance Act. So far as we in this group are concerned we do not believe that unemployment insurance in itself is the answer to this problem. It may be a good thing, and it certainly is a good thing for people who cannot find jobs or who are temporarily unemployed. But we believe that in this country, with all our resources, we can put our people into useful employment. These people could help themselves provided we had a government which would get out and do some planning that would provide employment. The government has put all its faith in the free enterprise system.
The war ended in 1945, and by 1947 the government had started to remove price controls. One after another they were thrown out the window, until we had a condition of unbridled free competition in this country, the kind hon. members opposite seem to like. This has meant that the people who are in a position to charge more and more for the commodities which they produce, and get more and more profits, have practically priced Canadian products out of the world market. Today we are in a very competitive world situation, and we cannot sell many of our goods. It is for this reason we find many factories shut down. They simply cannot meet foreign competition because of the high cost of production in this country.
Let it not be said that it is labour in this country that has been responsible for the increased cost. It is true that today our labour force is enjoying better conditions than ever before, but it is equally true that the profits made since 1945 in some industries have increased year by year. That in itself is the most important reason.

Unemployment
Then we have another situation which has a direct relationship to the position in which we find ourselves. I have a clipping here from a newspaper which indicates that when the United States attempted to get a waiver under the Geneva agreement the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State for External Affairs went to Washington as fast as they could to see what could be done about the situation. They knew full well that such action would have an effect on the Canadian economy as well as on Canadian agricultural products going to the United States or into world markets. But apparently, according to the article and according to the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in this House of Commons, they were defeated over there if they put up any tremendous fight to have Canada's position verified and supported in respect of those agreements. Consequently we find today that the United States has now been allowed legally to do under GATT things which formerly they were doing perhaps quite illegally and in breach of the Geneva agreement.
The whole situation is one of indifference on the part of the government. Not only did it not see fit to protect our people in the post-war period so they could buy back the goods they were producing under adequate price controls, but it has left the farmers in a position in which their incomes have drastically deteriorated. This fact has been effective in decreasing employment in those industries which depend upon farm purchasing power.
I would like to put on record figures to show the fall in farm income, a condition which is largely due to the prices the farmers receive for their products, rather than to any lack of production. According to the figures issued by the dominion bureau of statistics it is estimated that the drop in net farm income last year was $400 million. In the three-year period from 1951 to 1954 there was a drop from $2,150 million to $1,200 million, or 44 per cent.
This can have only one effect upon the Canadian economy. When we western members came to the House of Commons and tried to advance the idea that we should have adequate floor prices for farm products, that a national livestock marketing board should be set up, with guaranteed parity prices for farm commodities, in effect we were promoting an idea which would be beneficial to the whole economy and would give us a type of stabilization for all our economy at the same time.
What has happened is this. Last year we saw 6,000 workers in the farm implement

industry without work. They sent a delegation to Ottawa. I sat in on the conference when they met the Minister of Trade and Commerce. At that conference the minister told the workers, when they asked where they were going to get jobs, that they would have to go to other places and find them. The result is that these people have been looking for jobs; they have been going from pillar to post in search of them.
In all major industries there has been a decline in employment. According to the figures of the government's own bureau, the dominion bureau of statistics, there has been a drop of 11 per cent in employment in the clothing industry, 11 per cent in the railway equipment industry, 11 per cent in the automobile parts industry, 17 per cent in textiles, 17 per cent in primary iron and steel, and 20 per cent in farm machinery.
I feel that if this government were to undertake a program-not just an emergency program, but a long-term plan-to put our people to work, it could be done. That should be a program of full employment, but with this dominion government taking the responsibility it agreed to take in 1940 when the British North America Act was changed, when it undertook to bring in unemployment insurance. As a result of that change I maintain the federal government took the responsibility for unemployment in this country. I say the responsibility rests with the federal government.
There are a number of plans by which the government could make a real beginning. So far as I am concerned I welcome any increase in unemployment insurance, or any enlargement of its scope at this time. The government has been remiss in its duty in failing to undertake a program as the necessity has arisen, by which our people could be properly employed.
This, however, has not been done. We know what is the immediate problem, and I do not think it is sufficient to wait until we have a dominion-provincial conference, worthy as that may be, because when that conference is called there will be dickering back and forth between the provinces and the dominion not only in connection with jurisdictional rights but also in connection with grants. Then the provinces will have to go back to their level of government and begin to carry out some plans. What I want is something begun by the federal government right away. I want them to take the responsibility at this moment, and to begin herewith.
One of the things they should do-it might mean a change in the budget proposals, or the bringing in of supplementary estimates; I do.

not care how it is done-is the implementation of a national health program. I am sure it would receive the support of this party and also the party sitting to my right because they, too, have spoken in favour of it. The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), who sits in support of the government, I am sure would stand behind a program of this kind, because I understand he supported it in the campaign as a result of which he was elected to this parliament.
If instead of waiting, as it did in 1945 when the green books were brought out, it were to assemble data for a national health program, it could begin now with health grants to the provinces, and the provinces could make their plans for a national health program. We need hospitals in every province of Canada. Under the hospitalization plan in Saskatchewan we have advanced to the stage where perhaps we need very few new hospitals. However, I was reading an article-I do not have it with me-in which the minister of health in the Ontario government indicated that they are short of hospitals, and that they do not have the facilities for the treatment of many of the diseases we treat in Saskatchewan on a free basis. I am thinking of polio, cancer, and some other diseases. That is something tangible upon which a start could be made at the present time. If this government had the will to do so, I am sure there is a way.
We remember back in the war years when the government said that anything physically possible would be made financially possible, and that is the principle we should adopt in this instance. Anything physically possible should be made financially possible. I am saying that a national health plan should have a real beginning this year, particularly when we have so many unemployed. The construction of hospitals would employ large numbers in the building and service trades. It would mean that we would also set up- and in my estimation quite properly-grants so that we would have technicians, doctors, nurses and those other persons who are necessary so that when a national health plan came into operation they would be available to look after it.
Any member who has studied the need for a national health plan, and the problems involved in it, will recognize that first of all a great deal of groundwork must be done before such a plan can become operative. The government should not sit idly by at this time and do nothing about it, particularly when they had it in their program in 1919 and again in 1945. Let them get busy and do something about it. This is the time to make
Unemployment
the beginning. Start now by giving grants to the various provinces. Get in touch with the ministers of health, and do not dicker along for six or eight months or a year trying to find out who is responsible, or who will do something about it. Do it yourselves, and insist that the provinces come in with you. I am sure they will do so quite readily. You will not have to force it upon any of the provinces if you are really sincere about bringing in the initial stages of a national health plan.
There is one thing we should do, Mr. Speaker, when we realize that there are so many breadwinners unemployed, some of them even eating in the soup kitchens. Because of that fact many children will not be getting proper health care; they will not be getting their teeth attended to; they will not have the operations and the other medical care they should get. A national health plan would be of tremendous benefit to this country if the government would be serious about it and immediately undertake such a program.
There is another thing we can do. I wish to refer to public works projects which have been advocated by different members in this house. I hold in my hand a newspaper report of a speech delivered by the Minister of Public Works, in which he said that a public works program was no panacea for an economy. That may well be, Mr. Speaker, but those of us on this side of the house, and particularly in this group, have never believed and I do not think will ever believe that a public works program would not be beneficial at this time. We have felt that a public works program would in fact be very beneficial at this time. We could build roads and spend a large amount of federal money to put our people to work. I do not think we need to have the sort of theory the other parties had in the 1930's. At that time it was the intention at first to put people to work so they could have some wages. I am talking now about useful employment, construction of highways, public buildings, beautification of our parks, things which will be beneficial to the country.
It is well known that the central government of the United States puts money into every single road in every state in the union. That is a principle which should be accepted in this country. The central government of this country receives the greatest percentage of the revenue of this country, and is therefore in a position to help our provinces and municipalities in the construction of both provincial and municipal roads. Therefore it should take into consideration the practicability of helping those various levels of government so they can undertake their own responsibilities.

Unemployment
Because of the rising cost of production and the rising cost of operation of hospitals, together with the general rise in prices everywhere, our provinces, and particularly our municipalities throughout Canada, are finding it more difficult to carry out their responsibilities at the local level. Rather than remit taxes to private enterprise, such as the government did in 1947 to the tune of $460 million in revenue, when they cut off the excess profits tax, the government should reimpose those taxes. It has been said that private enterprise needs more incentive to make more profits to be in a position to put our people to work. I am one who is convinced that you will never have full employment in this country without public enterprise and public money going into those projects which will make this a better country in which to live.
In the farming industry we have experienced a severe set-back during the past year. I say to the Minister of Labour and to the government that while unemployment insurance will perhaps help those people who have had jobs and who qualify for unemployment insurance, it will not help many of our agricultural workers and other common labourers who do not come under the unemployment insurance scheme. If those people have to depend upon the kind of relief we had in the 1930's, then of course you can understand, Mr. Speaker, the hardship that will be involved in that type of situation.
I am hoping that what I have said will have some effect on this government. We have sat in this house listening and waiting for some proposals to come from the other side which would confirm the fact that they were prepared to meet this situation head on with a program which would give us some answer to the serious unemployment problem. We are disturbed, and I am disturbed over the fact that in addition to the people who are unemployed, many of our people who have little or no incomes, such as the old age pensioners, are, owing to the higher cost of production and the higher cost of living, worse off today than they were in 1939. I do not think this is satisfactory. I believe the government should increase old age pensions so that our older citizens may be able to live decently. It would help to satisfy many of these people.
As farmers in this country, we want our food eaten; we want it to be made useful to the hungry people of the world. I have often heard the Minister of Agriculture say that the farmers' best customer is the Canadian people. Let us make them our best customer for our farm products. Let us have a program under which our older people will have adequate incomes and jobs so they can sit
[Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain).!
down to their tables well laden with the products of our farms, butter, pork, cheese, beef, eggs and everything else. If we achieve that goal we shall have a better situation than we have today. We know that many of these 600,000 people cannot get the kind of living they are entitled to in this country. What I am saying in effect is that this government is washed up. I was going to use a stronger expression, Mr. Speaker. We are not satisfied that this is petty criticism of the government.
I came here after the last election quite prepared to listen to anything the government had to say after being returned by the electors of this country. If they had a program that could guarantee us full employment, that could guarantee the farmers farm security and could guarantee the workers job security, I was quite prepared to listen to what they had to say and to support their program. Since that time the situation has been getting worse and worse, and they do nothing except sit in their places and belittle what we say from this side of the house. If they have better programs, I shall be quite happy to listen, but we just do not want to make this whole matter frivolous. It is quite serious.
Some hon. members are saying that I have taken 40 minutes. It may seem like 40 minutes to them, I do not know. I do not mind one bit whether they like it or not. I am trying to put forth what I think can be a program for the Canadian people. Our people in this country, rich in resources and rich in men and women ready to work, are not prepared once again to go back into the hungry 1930's or anything like that. We believe the challenge is great today. If we are fighting anything we are fighting an idealistic war, a cold war or a hot war.
I have often heard members across the way talk about communism. If we are to fight communism we have to fight it with an idealism that is going to be better than theirs, with an economic philosophy, with a social philosophy and, if you like, with a spiritual philosophy that is better than theirs.
It is not sufficient, Mr. Speaker, just to cat-call. It is not going to be sufficient simply to try to belittle the ideas of others. We will first have to have a positive program in this country. We will have to put our own house in order before we go across the seas and try to cram down the throats of other people the idea that we have the best system in the world.
I believe the democracy we have in this country, fortunately, is not necessarily tied to capitalism or free enterprise. There are social and economic orders in other countries, such

as New Zealand, where they do not have a capitalist philosophy operating in their economy at the present time. Therefore 1 for one believe that to the political democracy we have to add the economic democracy; and by economic democracy I mean full employment, self-determination and the means by which we can have fullness of life in an economy rich with resources.
We can have that, Mr. Speaker, when the government opposite is prepared to sit down and do some thinking and some planning, and put into operation some of the things we on this side of the house have asked it to do.


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a letter from Miss Nora Lea, president of the Toronto branch of the Canadian association of social workers. This letter is of interest to every member from metropolitan Toronto, and I presume each member of the house who comes from metropolitan Toronto has received a similar letter. It is an invitation to us to attend a meeting of this association to be held in Toronto on Saturday morning next. The purpose of the meeting, as stated in the letter, is this:
-we would like to consider with you what is the present situation with respect to employable people for whom jobs are not available, who are ineligible for unemployment insurance, or whose benefits have run out.
The concluding paragraph of the letter states:
We will look forward to considering some of these aspects with you and your colleagues in the house as well as the members of the other level of government in the Toronto area. This is a matter of serious import to great numbers of men, women and children In this community.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the problem which confronts me and the other members from the Toronto area-and it must also confront the Liberal members as well as the opposition members-is that although this debate has been going on since the 1st of March we have as yet received little information from the government which we could take back to these people on Saturday morning in order to tell them what is the answer to their problem.
I presume the minister will be closing this debate, so I would ask him if he would be good enough to give a direct answer to two or three questions. First of all, can he give us some assurance that at the forthcoming meeting with the provinces this question of responsibility for the employable unemployed will be discussed, and that a serious effort will be made to reach an agreement regarding the responsibility for those people?
Unemployment
My second question is, will the minister consider extending the deadline for the supplementary unemployment insurance benefits beyond April 15, in view of the fact that late spring is approaching with its effect upon unemployment?
My third question is this. Has the government given consideration to or is the government prepared to take steps such as those suggested by the hon. member for Spadina? As far as I am aware, the hon. member for Spadina is the only member speaking from the government side who has put forth any concrete proposals as to what should be done, and who has done anything except make an effort to apologize for the government's present position. Has the government given consideration to undertaking a housing scheme, for instance, or any other public works program involving as it will deficit financing in order to meet the unemployment situation?
If the minister will give us an answer to these three simple questions we shall have something concrete to take back to these people with whom we will meet in Toronto on Saturday morning.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment to the main motion lost. Is the house ready for the question?


Mr. Fulion:: Just before you put the question, Mr. Speaker, I think it might be appropriate to observe under the circumstances of this evening that the residual effects of some of those hard facts about which we have read lately appear to have affected the judgment of some of my hon. friends opposite.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has, I think, spoken in this debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He spoke to the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Then the question arises, on a motion to go into supply, even if an amendment and subamendment have been moved; is it not true that a member can speak only once?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: It is now ten minutes past ten o'clock, and I shall put my finger on the authorities and be in a better position to 50433-160J
Unemployment
assert my point when this motion comes before us again. I want to tell hon. members that on a motion to go into supply one may speak only once. He may speak on any subject whatever, but only once. He cannot raise two or three grievances. Hon. members have chosen to speak on unemployment, and those who have spoken on that particular subject have disposed of their right to speak about other grievances on this motion; see Beauchesne's third edition, citation 468.


Mr. Quelch:: Some members have already spoken twice, on the amendment and the subamendment.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may be quite right in that some hon. members have taken advantage of the situation to speak on the amendment and the subamendment in the same debate, because once an amendment has been moved that, in itself, creates a debate and the subamendment is a consequence of the first one. I agree with the hon. member that there is that complexity about it.
As I say, there is the opportunity of moving one amendment and one subamendment with respect to one grievance. The minute you want to go from one grievance to another subject, as some hon. members do who have spoken on the first grievance, they ought, especially if they have spoken twice on the amendment and the subamendment, to be reasonable and wait until another motion is moved in order to discuss another grievance. If hon. members are satisfied with my views at this moment, we might perhaps ask if the house is ready to accept the main motion.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: Although the debate has been long, Mr. Speaker, I think my memory is still longer and I do not remember having spoken to the main motion or either of the amendments. I have a particular grievance which I should like to place before the house, so we might perhaps leave the matter until tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has not spoken, and if he wishes to do so, it is his right. I shall, therefore, have to put the motion for the adjournment of the house at this moment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before you rule on the point raised when the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) attempted to speak, will you permit us to make representations on the point tomorrow?


Mr. Speaker:: As I said, I am not deciding the point at the moment. If hon. members had been ready to accept my views I would

Unemployment
have considered it decided. If they are not, I shall put my finger on the authorities and give them later. I know that the authorities do exist, and I shall quote them to the hon. member. If at that time hon. members have views on the subject, I shall be very pleased to hear them.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Victor Quelch: I would like to point out that the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) has not spoken on the main motion. He spoke only on the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: That does not alter the point. Let us say that at this moment, until the point is decided-it is time to adjourn-we will postpone any settlement of this question to whatever time the motion is presented again.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: Tomorrow, relying on the unanimous consent given on Friday, I shall move to go into supply to take the remainder of the supplementary estimates. Then, if this matter has been cleared up and if it is not likely that there will be much in the way of grievances, we possibly could consider calling those after the supplementary estimates, but not necessarily so. In any event we shall also call the War Veterans Allowance Act and, if there is any time, any legislation standing in the name of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.


[Stage Direction]
It being fourteen minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 30, 1955