1955-03-03

[Stage Direction]
TO speaker's RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I rise at this time, as I feel I must, to have clarified, if possible, the report of a statement by an hon. member of this house which' appears in the Ottawa Citizen of yesterday. As hon. members know, as Speaker I have duties. In presiding over the deliberations of this house, from time to time I am called upon to make rulings. According to standing order No. 12, in explaining points of order or practice I must cite a standing order or authority applicable to the case. I believe all hon. members will agree that ever since I have occupied this chair whenever I have made any ruling I have cited either previous Speakers' rulings or other authorities to back them up. My rulings are subject to appeal to the house without debate.
Those are my duties but I also have certain rights. One of those rights is that if this recourse of appeal of my rulings is not taken advantage of, then the other procedure is to move a substantive motion and have a debate upon either my conduct or my fitness to occupy the chair. In the Ottawa Citizen of March 2, 1955, page 4, there is an article entitled "Black-Letter Day in History of Parliament". This article begins as follows:
February 23 was a "black-letter day" in the history of Canada's parliament, John Diefenbaker, Progressive Conservative member for Prince Albert, told a luncheon meeting of the Enterprise club yesterday.
He referred to the Speaker's ruling that his questions regarding lay-offs in the C.N.R. be dropped when the government declined to answer.
"Not only can we not get information-we can't even ask for it now," he said. His criticisms were directed specifically against crown corporations (C.B.C., C.N.R., T.C.A., the wheat board, N.F.B., C.M.H.C., Eldorado, and others), which "have grown into a sprawling system of bureaucracy whose authority is above parliament."
There are two or three paragraphs following which I shall pass over, and then there is another heading "Speaker's Ruling". These words are not in quotation marks and may be attributed to the reporter:
Until Monday the opposition could move for records of communications of the corporations, and if they were not produced a vote of the house
was permitted. Now the Speaker had ruled that motions requesting information regarding crown corporations could not be brought before the house or put on the order paper.
The article continues by stating that Mr. Diefenbaker made certain suggestions for the streamlining of parliamentary efficiency.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I may rise at this moment, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I never expected, even by suggestion, that anyone would say I had said anything derogatory of Your Honour. That was not intended. It has to be read into it. There is no reference, indirectly or at all, to the impropriety of your ruling. You did not let me know this was going to be brought up, but if Your Honour has any idea that, even in the slightest, there is any derogatory reference to you I certainly have no hesitation in saying without qualification there was not and is not now, and that thought has never even entered my mind. I cannot go further than that.
I deeply regret that Your Honour should have thought it was a personal reference. What I did say was that the rules would have to be changed, otherwise crown corporations would be immune from examination in view of Your Honour's ruling based, as I said at the time, upon previous authority. I unhesitatingly say that anyone reading into my remarks even the slightest criticism of Your Honour does not understand my attitude to Your Honour. It is one of deep respect, deep regard and deep appreciation. Until this moment I did not know the matter was to be brought up. I am speaking spontaneously and from the heart.


Mr. Speaker:: I consider the incident closed, and I thank my hon. friend for having straightened out the point.



REPRESENTATION ACT


Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Northumberland, N.B.) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 194, to amend the Representation Act.


Mr. Knowles:: Explain.


George Roy McWilliam: Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple bill, its purpose being to add a word to the name of the constituency I represent, and thus avoid confusion.

Questions
As hon. members are aware, there are two constituencies called Northumberland, namely Northumberland in Ontario and Northumberland in New Brunswick. I wish to add the great and historic name of Miramichi to that of Northumberland to designate the constituency in the province of New Brunswick.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Goode:: 1.	At what price, delivered Vancouver, all charges paid, may frozen whole chicken, imported from the United States of America be said to be underquoted "on fair market value"?
2.	If ,89r per pound was the Canadian price list on frozen chicken in January, 1955, imported from
the United States of America, would these shipments be subject to anti-dumping regulations?
3.	If so. for what reason?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	No information.
2.	The Canadian list price of imported frozen chicken, delivered Vancouver, all charges paid, is not the criterion which determines the application of dumping duty. Such duty applies when the selling price to the Canadian importer is less than the fair market value or the value for duty of the goods as determined under the provisions of the Customs Act.
3.	See answer to question No. 2 above.



FREIGHT RATE, FEED GRAINS

John George Diefenbaker: What was the freight rate per ton on feed grains shipped to: (a) Vancouver. British Columbia: (b) Abbotsford, British Columbia, in each of the years 1952 to 1954, from Calgary, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Regina and Winnipeg, respectively?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: CARLOAD RATES ON GRAIN AND GRAIN PRODUCTS (In cents per 2,000 lbs.)
To Vancouver, B.C. (Domestic)
Effective
From	In effect	Effective	Effective	March 16, 1953
January 1, 1952 November 25, 1952 January 1, 1953 and in effect
during 1954
Calgary, Alta	
730	920	1,000	1,080Edmonton, Alta	
790	1,020	1,120	1,200Saskatoon, Sask	
920	1,160	1,260	1,340Regina, Sask	
920	1,160	1,260	1,340Winnipeg, Man	
1,120	1,320	1,440	1,540
To Abbotsford. B.C.
Effective
From	In effect	Effective	Effective	March 16, 1953
January 1, 1952 November 25, 1952 January 1, 1953 and in effect
during 1954
Calgary, Alta	
730	900	980	1,040Edmonton, Alta	
790	1,020	1,120	1,200Saskatoon, Sask	
920	1,160	1,260	1,340Regina. Sask	
920	1,160	1,260	1,340Winnipeg, Man	
1,100	1,300	1,420	1,520
OLD AGE SECURITY BENEFITS TO NON-RESIDENTS Security Act so that Canadian citizens coming
under the act may continue to receive benefits Mr. Hansell:	while resident in other countries?
Has the government given consideration to Mr. Robertson: No. The provision for the amending the regulations under the Old Age suspension of old age security payments when [Mr. McWilliam.l

a pensioner absents himself from Canada occurs in section 5(1) of the Old Age Security Act, not in the regulations.
It is provided in section 5(1) that payment may be resumed when the pensioner returns to Canada and, if he returns within six months from the time he left Canada, the pension upon being resumed may also be paid for a period of such absence not exceeding three months in any calendar year.



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	On what date was the Food and Drugs Act, chapter 38, statutes of 1952-53, proclaimed?
2.	How many persons are now employed by the food and drugs division of the Department of National Health and Welfare to carry out the inspectionai work required by the said act?
3.	How many of these persons are engaged in the inspection of cheese factories?


Mr. Robertson:: 1.	July 1, 1954.
2.	41 field inspectors.
3.	During the cheese making season there will be 18 inspectors employed in the inspection of the 544 cheese factories across Canada. In some regions the inspectors engaged in this work will be on a full-time basis during the season, and in other regions on a parttime basis only.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Balcom:: When tenders are invited by inserted advertisements in newspapers and other publications are they opened publicly at a stated hour on date specified (a) by the public works department; (b) by the Department of Transport; (c) by the Department of Defence Production?


Mr. Pinard:: Return tabled.


GOVERNMENT LIBRARIES, OTTAWA
Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: 1.	How many libraries are operated in Ottawa by federal government departments, divisions and affiliated organizations under direction of the government?
2.	What provisions exist to co-ordinate activities of these libraries and eliminate unnecessary duplication of material and function?


NATIONAL PARKS ACT
Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the National Parks Act respecting the use of water in the parks; also to authorize the levying
Proposed, Legislation
of certain taxes for hospital services; further to provide for the withdrawal of certain lands from Waterton Lakes national park; and finally to establish a national park in the province of Newfoundland.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.
Motion agreed toi



RAILWAYS


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to approve and confirm an agreement between the Toronto harbour commissioners, the Toronto Terminals Railway Company, Canadian National Railway Company and Canadian Pacific Railway Company respecting certain railway tracks in the harbour area of the city of Toronto.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. Will the minister advise the house how many times the national advisory council on manpower has met in the last year, or if it is still meeting?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: It has not met this calendar year at all. It met last year. But certain subcommittees of that council have met from time to time.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I ask if the council itself met in the calendar year 1954?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, in 1954.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: On what dates, approximately?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Well, the hon. member has not given me notice of the question, and I would prefer to give her the answer later.



FRED ROSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has he read

Inquiries of the Ministry the news item in this morning's Gazette stating that Mr. and Mrs. Fred Rose are coming back to Canada from behind the iron curtain; and is it the intention of his department to refuse their re-entry to our country?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I read the item to which the hon. member has referred. It is the intention of the department to carry out the law; and, under the law, so far as I can find out-and I regret that this is true in this particular case- Mr. and Mrs. Rose are still Canadian citizens, and there is under the law nothing that the department can yet do about revoking their citizenship.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
(Translation):
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Claude Richardson (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put two questions to the Minister of Public Works.
(Text):	_
Is the Minister of Public Works aware of the report that the executive committee of the city of Montreal is studying today the report of the Montreal committee on slum clearance for the renovation of a defective residential zone in Montreal? Second, is the minister encouraging other municipalities to consider such slum clearance projects?
(Translation):


Léon Balcer: Answer in French, please.


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Henry Winters: -I wish to thank the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George.
(Text):
I received this notice just as I came into the house, Mr. Speaker, but the answer to the first part of the question is that I have received a letter from the chairman of the advisory committee on slum clearance and low-rental housing in Montreal to the effect that this proposal, which was referred to here a few days ago, is under consideration by the executive committee of the city of Montreal.
The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg Norih
Centre): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he is now in a position to answer my question of yesterday in regard to the supply of a certain hormone used in research into the cure of leukemia?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: My hon. friend did ask me a question yesterday about a report on the important research that is going on at St. Michael's hospital in Toronto regarding leukemia. This research is under the direction of Dr. C. J. Bardawill, who is operating under grants received from both the federal and provincial governments, the Ontario cancer research foundation and the national cancer institute.
Dr. Bardawill is reported in the press as finding that some temporary improvement may occur in the blood picture of chronic leukemia in adult patients during a limited period of treatment with a pituitary growth hormone. It is not reported that Dr. Bardawill claims to have discovered a cure for this disease.
Research will continue in this field with both provincial and federal support, and I share with everyone the hope that ultimately an effective treatment may be found which can offer hope of permanent cure of this serious disease.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: May
I ask the Minister of Finance whether the report in the press that the budget would come down on April 5 is correct?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, no date has been set for the budget.



BEECHWOOD DEVELOPMENT, SAINT JOHN RIVER -FEDERAL AID

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour, based on a headline in the Fredericton Gleaner, of February 28. I did not have time to send him notice of the question. The headline reads:
Gregg says Ottawa cannot aid Beechwood.

I should like to ask the minister whether this statement is correct. Does it represent the final attitude of the federal government on this very important matter?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The headline is not exactly correct. The statement I made in that particular broadcast "Parliament Hill Reports" was that, for reasons which I then gave, the federal government could not at this time make a grant for the development of power at Beechwood. I did not say the federal government was not prepared to do anything because, as my hon. friend very well knows, the federal government has provided engineering and technical assistance, suggestions and advice, and so forth. My statement was that a federal money grant was not possible at this time for the development of power at Beechwood.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Do I take it that the matter is not finally closed?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I think the hon. member will find in the same broadcast that the whole matter of co-operation in the development of Beechwood was receiving consideration by the federal authority.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Johnson (Kindersley):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister assure the house that leniency will be shown in collecting accounts of western farmers arising out of assessments by the income tax department, in view of their very critical financial position?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Every case will be considered individually and on its merits. I can assure the hon. gentleman that leniency will be shown in the collection of accounts where it is indicated that there is a critical financial position.


Willis Merwyn (Merv) Johnson: Can the minister assure the house that the practice of gar-nisheeing entire bank accounts which are required for spring work operations will be discontinued?


James Joseph McCann: I can give no such assurance.



INQUIRY RESPECTING INTERNATIONAL FAIR IN 1956

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: I should like to direct a question to
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the holding of the Canadian international trade fair in 1956 not under consideration? If so, has any decision been reached in that regard?


Mr. Speaker:: A question should be in a positive form. Questions should be asked about what is being done, not about what is not contemplated to be done.


William McLean Hamilton: should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether the continuance of the Canadian international trade fair after 1955 is being considered? If so, has a definite decision been reached?


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask what is the urgency of the question?


William McLean Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, it may not be common knowledge in this house that many exhibitors at great events like this, in connection with which major expenditures are made, budget those expenditures well over a year in advance. They are already committed to the trade fair which takes place in a few months, and they have under active consideration at the present time their commitments in respect of 1956. There is a sense of urgency in this matter which is not apparent when you look at it purely as a trade fair.


Mr. Speaker:: I have allowed the hon. member to give his explanation, which is unusual, as to why it was urgent, because I wanted to make a special case of these questions which are being asked where there is, in my view, sometimes no urgency. I wanted the hon. member to make his case. He has made it. Now I must make a ruling, and I do rule that the hon. member's question is not of the urgent type which is permitted to be asked on the orders of the day.
The estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce will be before the house very shortly, within a few weeks or at least not more than a few months, and at that time the hon. member will be away ahead of the time required so that notice can be served on those people who want to participate in the international trade fair in 1956.



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. A. Enfield (York-Scarborough):: should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister say whether metropolitan

Inquiries of the Ministry Toronto has as yet initiated any definite procedure to take advantage of the agreement announced by the minister in the house on Tuesday, February 8 last, regarding the sharing of civil defence costs by this government and the province of Ontario for approved municipal civil defence undertakings?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Fleming:: Order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Order paper.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I take it, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that this is a question-


Mr. Lennard:: On the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Green:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: In the first place, I have not heard the first part of the question of the hon. member for York-Scarborough.


Frank Exton Lennard: Let him put it on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I cannot hear now what the minister is intending to say. If hon. members would keep as silent as possible, perhaps I could hear what the situation is.


Paul Joseph James Martin: As the house knows, and you, sir, particularly, it is sometimes difficult to know precisely when a question should be put on the order paper; but I would submit-


Frank Exton Lennard: Let him put it on the order paper.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -that everyone in this house would recognize the importance of civil defence. This particular question, as I will show in my reply, is one of great importance at this time. In answer to what my hon. friend has said, Mr. Gardiner, the chairman of the metropolitan council of the city of Toronto, pursuant to an agreement between the government of Ontario and the federal government, has taken action which I am sure will result in a very improved situation in the matter of civil defence in the metropolitan area of the city of Toronto.
I may say that the provincial secretary in charge of civil defence for the province of Ontario, following the two-day conference we had with him on Monday and Tuesday of this week at the civil defence college in Arnprior, has been good enough to advise

me this morning that he is going to make a statement in the legislature reporting that following those meetings a full degree of understanding has been reached between the federal and provincial governments.



REPORTED AVAILABILITY OF STORAGE SPACE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Trade and Commerce comment on reports originating in Winnipeg to the effect that there is available space for some 98 million bushels of grain in prairie elevators, and indicate whether or not part of this space could be made available for farm-stored grain in order to relieve the cash shortage problem among prairie farmers?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, deliveries of grain are governed by a quota system, with which my hon. friend is familiar. I think the wheat board are just as anxious to obtain maximum deliveries as the farmers are to make those deliveries. Certainly visible stocks do not indicate that there is storage for that bushelage available. If visible stocks are compared with those in the previous year when there was no space available, the results do not show any marked difference. If we deduct the shipments already made from the eastern elevators, the western position shows no such availability. Once before the wheat board did away with the permit system in order that the then surplus space could be filled. I recall that there was a protest from the hon. member's side of the house which rang through the rest of the year. I am sure protest would follow again if we accepted his advice now. I think the farmers prefer that the quota system be observed so that each producer may get his fair share of the space available, and that is the policy that is being followed.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: May I ask a supplementary question or perhaps offer an explanation? I referred to part of the space that is available. My question did not imply the removal of the quota system. It seemed to me that space for 98 million bushels would provide for some adjustment in the quota system.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Adjustment of space is made every week, and I get a weekly report showing the points at which the quota has been raised. I think the difficulty arises from the fact that the premise on which my hon. friend bases his question is not correct. I am told that that statement has since been denied by the person who was reported to have made it.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: May I ask a
supplementary question? Is it not correct that available elevator space, whatever it may be, usually arises because of the reluctance of farmers to deliver grain to elevators other than those of their own choice? Would not a better system of box car distribution make space available?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In reply to the hon. member I would say that he had better discuss his bill when it is reached on the order paper.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, on March 1, 1955, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Pallett) asked the following question:
Is it correct that the plans for the expansion of Malton airport now include situating the new runways, including the instrument landing runways, to the south of the present existing runways, so as to minimize the hazard to Brampton?
Long-term plans were made some time ago for the development of Malton airport which will involve extension of present runways, construction of new runways, development of a new terminal area, and installation of additional aids to navigation. These plans took account of all problems relating to the territory surrounding the airport, and were made available to the public and interested parties last year. No major changes in these plans have since been made.

The house resumed, from Wednesday, March 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mrs. Fairclough.



UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, from this very important debate on unemployment two important facts have come to light. The first is that the government is perfectly satisfied with the present employment situation and intends to do nothing to stimulate it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: The second is that the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have tried at this juncture of our proceedings every day for the last few days to appeal to hon. members
Unemployment
to observe silence in order to allow the member who has the floor a chance to be heard. I must say that I have not had very much success, but I am making this appeal again. When we make a break after the orders of the day and start on the subject which is to be debated and the first member rises to speak, I would ask hon. members who want to chat with one another to go to the lobbies which have been provided for that purpose on each side of the chamber, and give a chance to the member who has the floor to make a speech as well as allow those who want to remain in the chamber to listen a chance to hear him.


George Harris Hees: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In order that hon. members may not be deprived of a single word I shall start again.
Mr. Speaker, from this important unemployment debate we have learned two important facts. The first is that the government is perfectly satisfied with the present state of employment and has made it clear that it intends to do absolutely nothing to try to stimulate it. The second thing we have learned is that obviously the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) never had any intention of summoning a dominion-provincial conference to deal adequately with the present alarming unemployment situation, and that he and his government intend to try to slide through this winter on the old Liberal policy of hope and grope. They intend to continue to ignore the many thousands of Canadians throughout this country who have no jobs and no entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits, and who are in a most desperate predicament.
It is the job of the opposition to try to penetrate the ivory tower atmosphere which, it seems, keeps the government out of contact with reality and makes them unaware of what is really going on in this country. I feel that in this debate we must convince them that this is a serious situation which must be faced squarely. We must persuade the government to take action not only to halt the course of unemployment, but to institute policies which will increase employment and give Canadians who desperately need work a chance at jobs.
The government is trying to pass off this question of unemployment by uttering a lot of pious platitudes. I was given a very excellent example of this last Friday when I attended a meeting between the Toronto board of control and four cabinet ministers, namely the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). Mr. Speaker, I witnessed one

Unemployment
of the really great exhibitions of shadow boxing of all time. I would bet my shirt, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: I had to eat it once. I am just betting it this time.


An hon. Member:: Take your coat off and let us have a look at it.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I will still bet my shirt-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Harris Hees: -that any one of these men could box Rocky Marciano to a draw because, although they would never hit him, I will again bet my shirt that he would never lay a glove on them. I have never seen such an exhibition of ducking, sidestepping, weaving and rolling with the punches in all my life. It was simply fantastic. You have never seen anything like it. I saw an exhibition such as I have never seen at a boxing match.
The purpose of this meeting, Mr. Speaker, was twofold. The Toronto board of control came down here to see the government. They were interested first of all in seeing what help they could get from the government in meeting the cost of the relief which they must provide, in all humanity, to the unemployed employables in Toronto who are not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. This application was based on the acceptance by this government of the principle of federal responsibility for unemployed employables, as stated by its late leader, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, when he spoke on behalf of this government at a dominion-provincial conference held in 1941.
I would like to read the statement he made at that time: *
The transfer to the federal government of the whole cost of relief for the employable unemployed and their dependents is the logical outcome of the experience of the past. It would prevent a repetition of the confusion, the inefficiency, the waste, the delay and the inequalities that have admittedly prevailed in relief since 1930.
The second purpose of the visit of the Toronto board of control was to endeavour to persuade this government to increase federal public works, as it had promised to do in the speech from the throne.
Mr. Speaker, I saw this government play a game of verbal sleight of hand such as I never would have believed possible. It is a new game which has just been developed by the government, and I learned at that meeting it is called "100 Questions". It is rather similar to the game called "20 Questions" and the way it is played is this. Any delegation

is allowed to ask the government 100 questions, and if any minister on the government side makes one direct answer, the government loses, the delegation wins, and they get what they are after. However, Mr. Speaker, on this occasion the government once again remained undefeated. The board of control from Toronto went home empty-handed. They listened for two hours, and the disappointment written on their faces was both real and extreme.
The government listened to the Toronto board of control present the case of some
4.000	or 5,000 unemployed people in Toronto who have no jobs and no entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits. If we include the dependents of these people it means that the delegation represented about
15.000	people in the city of Toronto who are at the present time in a very desperate position. The delegation presented its case very well and took about three-quarters of an hour to do so. Just about the time when it looked as if they were getting somewhere, one member of the government suddenly suggested to them, "Now look, what you really want in this situation is jobs for your people, and not relief." The delegation brightened up and said, "Of course that is what we want; we want jobs for our people."
For the next half hour Mr. Gardiner, the metropolitan mayor, outlined a program which he and his department had planned providing for the construction of roads in Toronto which are vitally needed for civil defence, which is, of course, a federal responsibility. At the end of that half hour devoted to this presentation the government again switched the conversation. The Minister of Trade and Commerce said, "But look, do you not really want to have some form of relief for these people who are in this predicament at the present time? After all, it will take a little while to get these relief programs moving. Do you not want relief for the people who are in a desperate condition at the present time?" And, of course, the Toronto delegation, because it needed this, said, "Yes, we want that."
So, they started to discuss that for a little while. Then the government said of course they could not do anything unless the provincial government agreed. "Well", the delegation said, "if the provincial government will agree, will you agree to sharing the cost on the same 40-40-20 basis that was in operation between 1939 and 1941?" The government then said, "Well, of course, we could not say whether we would or not", and the discussion was switched back to public works again. We discussed public

works for a little while, and then the government said they could not do anything in the way of providing public works projects because all the estimates for the year were closed.
I suggested, "What about supplementary estimates?" They said "Well, that just could not be done." They did not explain why it could not be done, and of course I believe it could be done. About that time they all looked at their watches and said, "This has all been very nice and constructive," and the Minister of National Health and Welfare summed the whole discussion up by saying, "I think we have covered the whole subject adequately." That was the only correct statement that was made all morning. The subject certainly had been covered adequately-covered by that old commodity. In fact, it was about a foot thick all over the place. That old commodity had been spread around for two hours, and that was all that was accomplished.
I was simply amazed, Mr. Speaker, watching the faces of the delegation while this play unfolded, while this game was played. The delegation became incredulous. They could not believe that such gobbledygook could be doled out by men in responsible positions. In case anyone does not know what gobbledygook is, it is the ivory tower brand of double talk. It is the government's particular brand, and they doled it out in large doses that Friday morning.
Perhaps they deserve to be congratulated because their lead man, whom they usually bill as "Jumping Jack from Twillingate", was not there. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, he was at home nursing a wounded ego which he suffered during the course of the debate on immigration. Although he could not be present, his teammates did an excellent job and I wish to congratulate them. The brand of gobbledygook was simply terrific.
We had been in the meeting for about two hours and were accustomed to the great fog which billowed out when the doors were opened. At the end of the discussion, when the reporters finally came in, they waited about two minutes until their eyes adjusted to it, and then had a conference with the ministers. The ministers said, "Well, of course, we really cannot do anything in this matter until we have a dominion-provincial conference." That was the solution, a dominion-provincial conference. I said to myself, if a dominion-provincial conference is what is needed, then a dominion-provincial conference is what we should have and let us have one right away. Then I asked the Prime Minister if we could have a dominion-provincial conference assembled immediately
Unemployment
to deal with this matter which so obviously should be dealt with right away.
I would like to read the question I asked the Prime Minister and the answer given by the Prime Minister last Friday. This appears on page 1501 of Hansard for February 25, 1955:
In view of the delegations that are appearing every day in parliament on this important matter I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister. Will the government give consideration to calling immediately a dominion-provincial conference to work out the division of costs between the federal, provincial and municipal governments for providing for unemployed employables who have no entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits?
The answer which the Prime Minister gave and which appears in Hansard of that date is as follows:
Mr. Speaker, this matter of unemployment-
And then there is a dash which represents quite a long pause-
-which is one that is, I am sure, seriously regretted by all hon. members,-
And then there is another dash, another pause, recorded in Hansard-
-is receiving constant consideration.
Now, Mr. Speaker, did you ever hear more pious evasion in all your life than is contained in that statement? That statement told the Toronto delegation and the Canadian people absolutely nothing. I asked the Prime Minister if he would do what the ministers said must be done if any action is to be taken; I asked if he would immediately assemble a dominion-provincial conference to deal with this matter. The Prime Minister simply stated that we all regret unemployment; that we are thinking about it constantly. That was all he said.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister, who is here in the house at this moment, if he will consider immediately summoning a dominion-provincial conference, not next month or the month after that, or at the end of the year, but right away. If he gets his wires off today, or if his people can get in contact with them over the telephone he can get the provincial representatives here over the week end in order to discuss this matter so that people across Canada can have a decision by this government as to how they are willing to participate in the cost of providing relief for the unemployed employables at the present time, and providing the needed public works. I will sit down for just a minute if the Prime Minister will give me an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must remind the hon. member that we are not in committee and that he cannot expect to be putting questions and obtaining answers. If hon. members

Unemployment
speak, even in reply to a question he asks, they exhaust their right to speak. We are not now in committee. The rule says that if a member wishes to put a question to the member who has the floor, and if the latter shows acquiescence by resuming his seat, the member wishing to ask the question may interrupt, but in this case the situation is the other way around. It is the member who has the floor who is putting questions to others and asking them to enter the debate.
That is a different proposition. If it were the Prime Minister who wanted to ask a question of the hon. member for Broadview, and the hon. member were to acquiesce by resuming his seat, that would be perfectly all right. That is the type of interruption that is provided for by standing order 12. In making a speech hon. members cannot expect to ask questions and receive answers, because we are not now in committee. Each member is entitled to speak only once upon this motion. If he speaks, he exhausts his right.


George Harris Hees: Thank you for your advice, Mr. Speaker. It is kind, as always. I would ask the Prime Minister if, when I have finished- if he is in the house-he will be kind enough to advise the house on this extremely important matter.
Mr. Speaker, I think that in dealing with this matter, we have received nothing except evasion on the part of the government. They have refused to face the issue. From members of the government we have heard speeches that have told us nothing. We have received no indication with regard to the one thing which they say is necessary to deal with this matter, namely that a dominion-provincial conference be summoned. I think this treatment of this serious matter is outright dishonesty by a government which has accepted the principle of responsibility for unemployed employables. I believe the government's handling of this whole unemployment situation is nothing less than a national disgrace.
This matter simply cannot wait for days, weeks and months as the government seems to intend that it shall. It must be dealt with now. Many people across this country are in dire need at this very moment. They have no jobs. They want to work. They have no entitlement to unemployment insurance. Something must be done to enable those people to continue to live in decency. They are human beings. They are Canadian citizens. It is not through any desire of theirs that they are out of a job. They want to work. On several occasions this government has accepted the principle of responsibility for unemployed employables.
[Mr. Speaker.!
I think it is up to this government to act now. They can do it. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) said yesterday, they can immediately summon a dominion-provincial conference. Only yesterday Mr. Frost said how anxious he was to confer on this matter. I feel sure that all the other provincial premiers are just as anxious as he is. It is up to the Prime Minister and this government to give a lead in this matter. If they do not do so, they must take full responsibility for the serious consequences that are arising from their lack of action.
Next, Mr. Speaker, I should like to consider what we can do to overcome the basic causes of unemployment. I should like to deal with each one in turn. First of all, I think one of the principal reasons we are having unemployment in the country today is the severe competition that our products are meeting from products which are beating us on price or design, or both, coming in from other countries. I think it is interesting and rather alarming to note that on the same day we announced our highest rate of unemployment since the war, Great Britain simultaneously announced her second lowest. Why is that? I believe it is simply because the Conservative government in Great Britain is facing economic problems in a positive, realistic way, while this government is acting as though we were still in a seller's market and is sitting back waiting for something to turn up. We are not aggressively going after markets, new products, better products, or newer ways of producing things. We are sitting back and waiting for something to come to us.
If we are going to hold our present markets, or have any chance of expanding them, Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious that there are certain things we must do, namely, lower our costs and improve our designs. In so doing we shall simply be following the example of Great Britain and the United States in initiating greatly expanded programs of industrial research. These have been aimed at developing new products, better designs and more efficient methods of production. This intensive research has enabled those countries to move into markets which were formerly ours. If we do not match their efforts, at least in proportion to our population, we are going to see our markets continue to slip away.
What should we do? I think it is obvious that we must do exactly what the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Murphy) suggested a year ago, what Great Britain and the United States did, namely, establish immediately a committee of parliament to which would be invited representatives of

management, labour and the educational institutions in order to work out the best method of getting a greatly expanded industrial research program under way.
I should like to give an example of just what this kind of program could accomplish for our industry and our employment. Out in Alberta, and to a lesser extent in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, we have enormous reserves of gas and oil. In recent years more than $5 billion worth of these reserves have been proved up, and we know we have discovered only a small fraction of what is confidently believed to be underground. If we continue to provide incentive for exploration and open up additional markets, and if this expansion is accompanied by a comprehensive and continuing program of industrial research aimed at developing better techniques for processing oil and gas by-products, I believe we can develop in western Canada a by-product industry which will be of tremendous importance to the economy of the Canadian west. This will lead to the building of literally dozens of sulphur, chemical, and petrochemical plants throughout western Canada, which will require hundreds of millions of dollars in capital investment and will create employment for many thousands of Canadians. In addition, this by-product industry would make possible the development in western Canada of a steel industry which would use Canadian iron ore as well as Canadian coal and gas. This industry could produce steel pipe and steel casings to be used in thousands of Canadian oil wells, as well as in thousands of miles of Canadian pipe lines.
Mr. Speaker, another example of what research could do in leading to the utilization of more of our raw materials would be that aimed at developing a more efficient method of producing electric power and by-products from coal. This would be of tremendous importance to Nova Scotia and western Canada, where our deposits of coal are very important indeed. The production of cheap electrical power from coal would attract new industries to those areas, and cheap byproducts would lead to the establishment of important by-products industries in the west and in the maritimes.
Still another example of what research could do, Mr. Speaker, would be the development of new textile fabrics as well as more efficient methods of producing textiles. This would be of great benefit to the textile industry, which is going through a difficult period now.
The second thing I believe we must do is get our costs down. In that connection I believe an important step would be to reduce
Unemployment
our high commodity taxes, which are adding so much to the cost of the products we have to sell in order to keep our factories going and our people employed. The government always claims that if you reduce taxes you lose tax revenue. That is not by any means necessarily correct. If we reduced commodity taxes more products would be sold, and the greater number of products sold, multiplied by a lower unit tax, might easily equal or exceed the present total tax revenue. An example of this would be the cigarette tax imposed a few years ago. The government raised the tax on cigarettes; people stopped buying them, and the revenue dropped. The government reduced the tax on cigarettes; people started buying them again, and the revenue to the government returned to what it formerly was.
The third thing we could do would be to reduce our high income taxes. These high income taxes are making it increasingly difficult for Canadians to buy consumer goods. There is less of the pay cheque left every year with which to buy the things a family needs. By making it possible for more people to buy more goods you would, of course, increase the total commodity tax revenue, and this would also make it possible for more people to be employed producing those goods. They would be earning income on which they would be paying tax, instead of drawing on the government for unemployment insurance benefits or direct relief.
Now, Mr. Speaker, those are the things which I believe must be done immediately in the face of the present situation. However, for a permanent solution of the kind of situation in which we find ourselves, I believe we must build up our secondary industries in this country to enable us to process far more of the primary products we produce. I believe that is a permanent solution to the economic ills we are suffering today. Let us realize what we have in this country with which to work. We have almost limitless sources of hydroelectric power, oil, coal and natural gas, and we are one of the only two sources in the free world of uranium, from which atomic power is produced. In addition we have an almost limitless supply of timber, iron ore, copper, zinc, lead and nickel, or practically every mineral used in industry. For some reason or other, however, we seem to be quite satisfied to ship most of these minerals out of the country and buy them back later in their finished form. I feel it is about time we asked ourselves why we should not process far more of our primary products in Canada.
In addition to the raw materials we can produce in this country, we can produce enough food to supply several times our

Unemployment
present population. As well as the raw materials and sources of power I have mentioned, we have the capital. We have also proved that we have the ability to attract it from outside, and we have the brains necessary for the very important industrial expansion of this country.
In order to make an expansion of this kind a reality, I think we must do three things to induce those who must do the expanding to undertake the job. Let us not forget that. If we want to have expansion in a free country such as this we have to make it attractive to the people who are going to do the expanding. We cannot do it by dictate; we cannot order people to do things of that kind. We must make them want to do it.
What must we do? The first thing we must do in order to interest new industries in getting started is to reduce these high corporation taxes and the high commodity taxes I mentioned because, as the Minister of Finance said in Montreal last fall, they are discouraging initiative and enterprise, and obstructing our development. Unless capital can be attracted to these new enterprises they simply are not going to get started. Let us not fool ourselves about that.
I believe we have to develop all possible sources of cheap hydroelectric power so that industries may be attracted by lower power costs, which are a very important part of any manufacturing cost. In Canada we have a great number of potential sources of power that are just waiting to be developed. I should like to mention four examples of this, and I have just picked them at random; there are many, many more. First I should like to mention the South Saskatchewan dam project. This project would provide much needed irrigation for half a million acres of farmland, and would provide as well hydroelectric power to make important industrial developments in that province possible.
Moving eastward into Manitoba, we have Whitemund falls and Kettle rapids on the Nelson river. The power that could be produced from these sources would be sufficient to make a very important industrial expansion possible in Manitoba. Moving farther east to the Saint John river in New Brunswick, we have the Beech wood project, which Mr. Flemming is trying to persuade this government to assist him in financing. If this project were completed it would provide enough power for the development of the important mineral discoveries recently made in New Brunswick. The fourth source of potential power, again in New Brunswick, is the fascinating Passamaquoddy project to harness the tides of the bay of Fundy, and turn them into hydroelectric power. We do 
not know as yet whether that is a practical project. It would cost $3 million to find out, and the United States is sufficiently interested in the project to put up its share of the $3 million. I feel that it is up to Canada to supply its $1-5 million to find out whether or not that is a practical project. If it is, the hydroelectric power from that development would be sufficient to make it possible to bring many industries to the maritime provinces.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that what the provinces need in order to develop these sources of hydroelectric power is for this governmenl to indicate to the provincial governments some willingness to assist. I believe a practical form of that assistance would be tha1 requested by Premier Flemming of New Brunswick, who has asked this governmenl simply to give backing to his power development bonds. That will enable him to obtain the money needed for development at a much lower rate of interest, and will impose a far lighter burden upon the taxpayers of New Brunswick. Thus he will be enabled much more readily to get ahead with his project.
That, I suggest, is a very fair and sensible request. I think this government should be willing to give federal backing to any provincial project which can be demonstrated to be practical and capable of developing the economy of that province. It is only in that way, by helping the provinces to develop themselves, that we are going to get any kind of national development, particularly the development of power, such as is needed for the greater industrial development of this country.
I urge the government to give this matter very serious consideration. If we go ahead and develop power and reduce taxation so that new industries will be attracted to Canada to process our primary products, then I think we will be in a position to process far more of those primary products in Canadian plants. In this way we could support a far greater population with an ever-increasing standard of living.
I think this government should call together representatives of the federal and provincial governments, as well as representatives of labour and management. These should be called to a conference and asked to discuss what can be done to get this kind of development working. We all agree in principle that it is necessary. I think every hon. member agrees that it does not make sense to send all our primary products out of the country. Naturally we will send out a considerable volume, but we should process a far greater volume right here in Canada.

We should develop plants here, instead of letting our raw materials supply plants and provide employment for workers in other countries.
Mr. Speaker, in this regard we have a great opportunity and an equally great responsibility, especially to those generations who will come after us. Unless we begin to make this plan work now, then I suggest we are dodging our responsibility. We must look back to realize what it was that motivated Canadians a generation or two ago. Anyone who will do that will realize that this country was built by boldness, not by caution. If one reads the story of Sir John A. Macdonald he will see that it was the Conservative party especially that went ahead with the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway, an organization that has made this country what it is today. Anyone who reads that story must realize that we need a return to that kind of boldness if we are going to continue the kind of growth they planned for us, and which they started.
I urge the government to call the kind of conference I have suggested, to find out what is necessary from provincial representatives as well as from representatives of management and labour so that we may have under way an expansion program of the kind I have outlined. There should be a reduction in taxation to make new industries feel that it would be attractive to open new plants in Canada. And there should be a development of power so we can have the lowest possible power costs, so we can develop in the west and the maritimes the same degree of industrial activity we find in the central provinces.
Mr. Speaker, if we do that I think we can have in this country a greatly expanded population and a greatly improved standard of living. We are not going to be bothered by seasonal or regional unemployment, as the government describes it. We will not have unemployment. We will be able to employ far more people all the time, every year, than we did the year before.
I call upon the government to consider these suggestions and to think of what our leaders did in the past; of the plans they developed and the courage they had; and to remember that we need a return to the courage of the past to build the Canada of the future.


Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, the constituency I represent probably has some cause for concern, and I make no apologies for putting its position before the house.
In addition to the general recession which seemed to develop in the United States and
Unemployment
Canada, we have had to meet in my constituency the rigours of industrial strife, which set a record for length so far as the history of labour relations in Canada is concerned. This was a strike that lasted 110 days. It created a certain amount of unemployment which of course aggravated the situation then existing.
I must say, however, that the union did a great deal to relieve the dire suffering of the people. While the industrial strike itself caused unemployment in respect of 7,000 or
8,000	persons, it also caused unemployment in a great many other feeder plants which provide materials incorporated into the manufacturing processes in which we engage in my constituency. There again the unemployment insurance commission and the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act were of great value to those who were unemployed and drawing benefits.
However, in spite of all the hardships we have undergone, we still have faith in our institutions and in our form of government. Down deep in our hearts we still believe that if this condition is to be overcome, as it surely will be, the best agency or party to be in power in Canada to bring it about is the Liberal party. We have unbounded faith in the honesty, the integrity and the fidelity of our Prime Minister, and in that I believe we reflect the thinking not only of the people in that area but of people throughout the whole of Canada.
When we look around and see the various political parties we must conclude that this matter can best be solved by having a Liberal administration in power. All we ask in our area is that there be created an atmosphere of confidence in which labour and management may get together and, around the bargaining table, solve their problems without fear of intimidation. We believe that for all those who are honestly desirous of attaining a place in our economy, there is a place if they are prepared to serve, no matter how humbly. In Windsor, Ontario, we have probably 65,000 employees and we have 3,791 employers employing those persons. The nature of our employment in that area is mostly automotive and pharmaceutical, and I presume classed with the pharmaceutical would be the salt industry.
The Ford industry, which has a large plant there, recently spent about $8 million in the expansion of a power plant because they have in mind that there will be future expansion in that area. They have also spent $22 million on expanding plant and equipment and changing the method of manufacturing from final assembly to that of a more technical stage in manufacturing.

Unemployment
The Chrysler corporation has been established in that area and has expended some $50 million. This expenditure is being incurred in the expansion that is now taking place. That amount of money is being spent to expand all the undertaking in the Windsor area. We also have the General Motors corporation. The latter has a large plant in Windsor which engages a great many technically skilled persons in the manufacture and assembly of engines for motorcars. The Kaiser-Frazer corporation is one of our newest additions. It has a plant which does not employ a great many people, but it has faith in the future of Canada and it has hopes that expansion in that plant will continue.
The Canadian salt mine is a new undertaking in that area as well. Instead of forcing hot steam into the salt beds and pumping the brine out, they have now reformed an old company and are mining the salt by sinking a shaft into the salt beds. They will mine the salt and bring it to the surface where it will be refined.
The Windsor area has a considerable attraction for labour. To a large extent that attraction is due to the fact that we have a higher labour rating; that is, a higher wage scale for labour. That has been brought about, of course, by the representatives of labour and of management getting around the bargaining table and through hard bargaining arriving at a decision as to a rate of pay which is satisfactory to both sides. In addition there are favourable labour contracts which have provided not only an insurance plan upon the decease of an employee but many other fringe benefits such as hospitalization for the employee and for members of his family. That may not be a part of the contracts of all corporations, but in the major contracts it is now a feature.
Then, too, labour is attracted to that part of the country by climatic conditions. The climate of that part of the country is such that we do not have the rigorous winters that are enjoyed in Ottawa. We have a milder and to some a more favourable climate. In any event, it does attract a great many people who do not like those rigorous winters that are enjoyed by so many of us in this part of the country. Incidentally, the constituency which I have the honour to represent is the only constituency in Canada which is entirely south of the United States.
I, not only as a politician but as an observer, think that a great deal of the attraction for labour in that part of the country is due to the friendliness of the people who live there. Some seem to think they are more Americanized; we are probably freer and

easier, more approachable and less, shall I say, stiff-necked. The Ford motor company, too, has created some attraction for labour, in that recently they put in a call for some 870 new employees to carry on their activities.
When we deal with the situation as it is today we find that on January 5 of this year there was a total of 12,057 registered unemployed persons. That is to say there were 9,587 males and 2,470 females, making a total of 12,057. That has varied from time to time. It dropped for part of the month, and then toward the beginning of February it went up to 10,133 males and 2,441 females, or a total of 12,574. As of last Thursday, February 24, there were 7,151 males and 2,255 females unemployed or a total of 9,406. If I may have the permission of the house, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put on Hansard a table showing the number of unemployed by weeks since January 5, 1955.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Ferguson Brown: Thank you. The table follows:
Male Female Total
Jan. 5/55	
9.587	2,470	12,057Jan. 13/55	
9,311	2,588	11,899Jan. 20/55	
8,637	2,593	11,230Jan. 27/55	
8.753	2,516	11,269Feb. 3/55	
10,133	2,441	12,574Feb. 10/55	
8,018	2,328	10,346Feb. 17/55	
7.556	2,340	9,896Feb. 24/55	
7,151	2,255	9,406
On February 25, which was the day following the last date given on this table, jobs were found for 361 persons, so those 361 persons were taken off the list. That has been going on day by day in an ever-increasing number. Of the 9,406 persons unemployed, only 8,083 were eligible for benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. The others, of course, were to a large extent added to the relief burdens of the taxpayers.
I should point out that a great many of the 7,151 males who were unemployed on February 24 were from the construction occupations. As I read the list of unemployed in the construction occupations, put out by the unemployment insurance commission of that city, I find that bricklayers and tile-setters numbered 120; carpenters, 341. I shall not read all the classifications, but the total number of skilled workers in the construction industry was 737. Added to that there were 930 unskilled workers. That is something like 1,600 to 1,700 out of the total of 7,151. Conversely, we find that many engineers are

required in that area. There were 28 positions open, with only 10 applicants. We have in this area probably a higher number of skilled workers per capita than in any other area in Canada.
As to women who are unemployed, I find that as of February 10 there was a total of 2,328. That total was made up of 694 clerical, 290 sales, 414 services and 930 factory workers. The ages of these female workers are interesting to note. There were 286 persons up to 20 years of age; 1,680 from 20 to 44 years; 307 from 45 to 64 years, and 55 over 65 years of age. It will be noted that the largest group is the 20 to 44 years, which totals 1,680. It is rather difficult to determine, but I would rather think that a great many of those were married women who were drawing unemployment insurance benefits. I will not say they are not entitled to employment, but perhaps they would not be in as great need of employment for which they have made application.
I would hope these figures will lessen any incentive there may be for unemployed persons to migrate to the Windsor area to seek employment. It will be seen that we have a large surplus of labour as of now. I think such persons would be well advised to wait until we have our house running a little more smoothly. We will then be more than pleased to have our fellow Canadians come to our area and we shall do our very best to give them employment and make them welcome. If each one would go to his own unemployment insurance office he would be advised as to the conditions which exist not only in Windsor but in various parts of Canada. As a matter of fact a notice published by the unemployment insurance commission is posted in all unemployment insurance offices, post offices, public buildings, most Legion halls and many of the labour temples and union halls. With the permission of the house I should like to read this into the record so the labouring public seeking employment will make some inquiry before coming to Windsor. This reads:
The national employment service of the unemployment Insurance commission, through its offices from coast to coast, is in a position to keep the job seekers of Canada informed of the possibilities for work anywhere in Canada and urges them to check with their nearest local employment office before leaving their home area to seek work elsewhere.
From time to time, publicity is given the construction of certain large projects which, quite often, are merely in the planning stages. Job seekers going directly to these projects without first being certain that work is available, often create hardship for themselves and for the municipal authorities in the area concerned.
It is to your advantage to check with your Local employment office before going to a project.
50433-107J
Unemployment
That office will be kept informed of the labour requirements through the medium of our employment service facilities.
With this situation facing us it was felt advisable that we should do something. After having visited the Minister of Labour and other governmental officials here in Ottawa the mayor of our city called a meeting of representatives of different levels of government in Windsor. I attended that meeting. The mayor was there, and he had invited officials of the unemployment insurance commission at Toronto and Windsor, both federal officials, also the deputy minister of labour from Toronto, and the public works head of the city of Windsor and other municipal officials. Representatives of unions and labour organizations and the head of the chamber of commerce were also present. There was a full discussion as to how we could go about helping ourselves. The decisions which we came to are being followed by the various officials at various levels of government to the best of their ability. I think such a conference would be most desirable for any community.
I want to repeat that if labour is desirous of entering the market in the Windsor area they should first make a full investigation before they decide to move. It does create a problem for the municipal authorities, for our social agencies and all concerned.
I believe we should be most careful, not only in the Windsor area but throughout Canada, not to go around creating an atmosphere of suspicion and fear. Depression is more than a fear, it is a disease. If we were in our right senses we would not think of going into a crowded theatre and yelling "fire'L Neither would we think of going into an area where there was disease or an epidemic of any kind and try to create more disease. We-are trying to create a healthy condition and we are trying to correct the present condition. Let us not succumb to the disease of depression or mass fear. Let us face our problem courageously and industrially in developing Canada for the good of all.


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, on page 33 of Hansard for January 10, 1955, there appears a statement by the Prime Minister which in my opinion will go down in Canadian political literature as a classic understatement of fact. The statement I have reference to is this:
There is some unemployment in Canada. There has been some unemployment in Canada every year. At the opening of every session of the-Canadian parliament for the last three or four-years there has been considerable anxiety over the:-kind and extent of unemployment in Canada. However, because of the resources, material and human, to which the hon. gentleman paid tribute, that situation has eased as the season advanced,-

Unemployment
And the Prime Minister went on to say:
-and there is reason to expect that it will do so again.
How true are those words of the Prime Minister, "There has been some unemployment in Canada every year." According to the periodical Canadian Business, the official organ of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, it is estimated that there are now approximately 600,000 unemployed. That figure will correspond very closely with the figures released by the unemployment insurance offices. According to the unemployment insurance figures there were 570,000 unemployed in March of 1954. In March 1953, there were 408,000 unemployed. In 1952 there were 382,000 unemployed, and in 1951 there were 296,000 unemployed. Four years ago there were less than 300,000 unemployed; today there are probably more than 600,000 unemployed. Four years ago one worker out of every 13 was unemployed; today one worker out of every seven is unemployed. Yes, there has been some unemployment in Canada every year.
The Prime Minister went on to say that the unemployment situation has eased as the season advanced. It has. In 1951 our unemployment figures dropped from 296,000 in March to 127,000 in September. In 1952 the unemployment figure dropped from
382.000	in March to 141,000 in September. In 1953 the figure dropped, or was eased in the Prime Minister's own words, from 408,000 in March to 162,000 in September. In 1954 the figure dropped from 570,000 in March to
244.000	in September. This year it will possibly drop from 600,000 to 300,000.
The point is that year by year for the last four years unemployment has increased both in the peak period of unemployment and in the mid-summer or best months for employment. Last year our unemployment was officially seasonal and local. This year the government has made some progress in understanding the unemployment situation, and our unemployment situation is now officially seasonal and regional. We may even hope that by the time this debate is over the government may reach the conclusion that the unemployment situation is seasonal and national. Whether it is seasonal, local or regional the fact is that this year's high point of unemployment is twice what it was four years ago. It is also true that this year's low point of unemployment will in all probability be twice what the similar point was four years ago.
Regardless of whether we take the figures issued by the unemployment insurance offices, whether we take the figures issued by the dominion bureau of statistics, or whether we

take the figures issued by the Financial Post, which states that we should include with those people without jobs and those seeking work those who are on temporary lay-offs, the fact still remains that while the situation may have eased as the season rolled around it has left us even in the best months with a large residual unemployment problem which has grown worse year by year during each of the past four years.
I have before me some statistics which I received this morning from the department of public welfare of the city of Toronto, and I would like to place them on the record: Number of unemployed persons registered with national employment service (Toronto district), based on total applications during month, plus total unplaced at end of previous month, minus number placed in month:
Inc. or Dec.
1953	1954	1954 over 1953	%April	
13,086	29,099	Inc.	16,013	122-4May	
11,981	28,062	Inc.	16,081	134-2June	
12,635	25,070	Inc.	12,435	98-4July	
11,024	23,115	Inc.	12,091	109-7August ... 11,277	22,558	Inc.	11,281	100-04
Therefore, despite the easing that has taken place with the seasons we are still left in the position of having had considerable numbers of unemployed in mid-summer during each of the past four years. More people have been unemployed, not only in midwinter but also in mid-summer, year by year for each of the past four years. But that is not the only feature. According to the dominion bureau of statistics monthly report called "The Labour Force" we find that this also is true. We find that in 1954 and up to January 22, 1955, more people were out of work for longer periods of time.
For instance, in 1954 a higher percentage of those unemployed were unemployed for less than one month than was the case in January, 1955. A smaller percentage were out of work for one to three months in January, 1955, than in January, 1954; but 11-8 per cent of those who were unemployed were out of work for from four to six months in January, 1954, while 13-8 per cent of those unemployed were out for from four to six months in January, 1955. In January, 1954, only 4-6 per cent of those unemployed were out for seven months or more. In January, 1955, more than 10 per cent of those unemployed were out for seven months or more.
Thus it will be seen that not only have we had an increasing number of unemployed in mid-winter and an increasing number in mid-summer, but we have also been getting, year by year, more unemployed for longer periods of time. That is the situation which the Prime Minister passes off with the statement, "Yes, there is some unemployment in Canada."

The Minister of Trade and Commerce attempted to assure us that the worst is over, and that 1955 will be as good a year as 1954 or possibly a better one. As reasons for believing this he gave us the following: That our gross national product is being maintained at a high level; that personal disposable income remains high, that personal expenditure on consumer goods will remain high, and that exports may be slightly higher and industrial production slightly higher.
The forecast by Canadian Business, a Canadian Manufacturers' publication, is more optimistic than is the Minister of Trade and Commerce. They tell us that in 1955 our gross national product may be up $300 million; that the personal disposable income may be up $172 million; that personal expenditure on consumer goods may be $200 million higher. But what is true is that our gross national product, the personal disposable income, personal expenditure on consumer goods, capital investment and so forth have all been improving year by year for the past four years. We have had four of the best years in Canada's history. Yet with business, investment and our national product improving, our unemployment situation has been growing worse and worse year by year.
What is the explanation? It can only be this. Notwithstanding the increase in our gross national product, in investment private and public, and in consumer expenditure, these increases have not kept pace with our increase in available manpower and our increase in productivity owing to mechanical improvement. Our working population has been increasing about 2 per cent each year, and our productivity per non-agricultural worker has been increasing about 2J per cent each year. The result is that our increases in investment, gross national product and all these other increases that the Minister of Trade and Commerce discussed with us just have not kept pace with our increase in working population and the improved productivity per man-hour in our manufacturing industries.
What is true is that unless we can find some way of increasing those sectors of our economy to which the Minister of Trade and Commerce referred much more in the coming year than we have in each of the past four years, we shall be faced with unemployment. If we have more workers made available each year, and if we have each worker turning out more goods per manhour, then we must of necessity step up production sufficiently to take care of that increased manpower and increased productivity if we are to keep all our people employed. Quite evidently we have not been
Unemployment
doing that in the past four years, notwithstanding all the prosperity that we have enjoyed.
Another statement was made by the Prime Minister in that famous Quebec speech. I have not a copy of the speech, but I have an editorial from the Toronto daily Star of September 24, 1954. I may say that the Star generally gives a fairly accurate report of the Prime Minister's speeches. In that paper the Prime Minister is reported to have said:
We have a country where there should be work for everybody and if we are not smart enough to organize the economy of the nation to provide work for everybody we are incompetent.
Now, is there any member on this side of the house or on the Liberal side of the house who can say we have been smart enough to organize the economy of our country in such a way as to provide work for everybody when we have approximately 600,000 unemployed, when even in the best months of the year our unemployment figure may run around 300,000? Who can possibly say we have been smart enough to organize the economy of our country in such a way as to provide work for everyone? We are forced to one conclusion only, that, in the Prime Minister's own words, we are incompetent. I assume when he was making that speech he was speaking for the government of which he is the Prime Minister. When he used the first person plural pronoun "we" he meant, "we, the government."
I realize that we can scarcely expect the government alone to provide full employment. The government needs the co-operation of governments at lower levels, the co-operation of industry, commerce and labour. But none of those, the governments at lower levels, industry, commerce or labour can, in and of themselves or all together, provide full employment. There must be leadership. There must be initiative from the federal government if these other sectors are to co-operate in the maintenance of full employment. In so far as the federal government is responsible for providing full employment, over the past four years this government has proved that it is incompetent.
Now, what can we do about it? Unfortunately, the Canadian people could not get rid of this government for a couple of years if they wanted to do so. The Canadian people are stuck with this Liberal government for at least another two years. What can thfe government do to give leadership and initiative to industry, commerce, labour and provincial and municipal governments in order to solve the unemployment problem? First of all, we need something by way of immediate relief for those who are affected:

Unemployment
Hon. members have received, as I have received, a pamphlet from the Canadian Welfare Council called "A Public Assistance Program for the Employable Unemployed." Let me read the first paragraph of that pamphlet written by a reliable organization, the Canadian Welfare Council. This is in the year 1955, in Canada with all its resources and presumably governed by the best of all possible governments, a Liberal government. This is what the Canadian Welfare Council writes:
Appeals by Salvation Army in North Bay "for donations of soup bones, vegetables and bread to feed transient men and their families"-
Are we in this country, under this government, reduced to .the point where in 1955 we have to publicly advertise for soup bones to feed our hungry men, women and children?
[DOT]-the reintrcduction of used clothing drives in Windsor-
I did not hear the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Brown) refer to that.
-the opening of soup kitchens in Vancouver, and similar reports reaching the Canadian Welfare Council in recent weeks from many parts of the country are evidence of the fact that there are still a great many unemployed workers in Canada whose essential needs are not being met.
Who are these groups? First of all, there is about 20 per cent of the labour force not covered by unemployment insurance. There are those whose benefits have expired. Supplementary benefits only partially meet their needs. In the third place, there are those young workers and newcomers to Canada who have not built up sufficient credits to claim unemployment insurance. There are those who, while they receive unemployment insurance benefits, do not receive sufficient to support their families. There are the single men seeking help in hostels and missions, who are pushed from one municipality and one province to another.
One Toronto hostel reports serving 3,200 of these single transients this winter. The Ontario welfare council reports that four such transients were arrested for theft within a few hours of being pushed off. That is what is happening to our transients today as they are being pushed from one municipality to another. It is a repetition of what happened in the thirties. The result of an estimated 30 per cent of the working force affected by these unemployment conditions is family desertions, reduced morale, ill health and crime.
Then, of course, there is that large number of unemployable persons. As a matter of fact they are probably the most fortunate of the group, if any unemployed group can be fortunate. The municipalities and the

provinces go fifty-fifty in providing at least something for these people. The city of Toronto and province of Ontario in 1954 spent $2,772,408 in helping to take care of these unemployable persons. The people who are in greatest difficulty are those who are employable, and for whom no one will accept responsibility. In his address the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) told us that primarily they are the responsibility of the provinces. Who said that? By what right do they become the responsibility of any province? Is it just because the federal government provides something by way of unemployment insurance and various other welfare measures that these persons, unemployed largely because of the government's failure to take measures to provide employment, should be declared the responsibility of the provinces?
For nearly ten years now the federal government has been saying that they are the responsibility of the provinces. But they did not say so early in 1945. At that time the government announced it was prepared to assume responsibility, and to set up, not as part of the unemployment insurance scheme, but rather out of the consolidated revenue fund, a public assistance fund for those people. Since that time the federal government has refused any responsibility for the employable unemployed, and has also refused to call the provinces together or to take the initiative in calling them together to reach an agreement concerning responsibility for those people.
Apparently the government has been afraid that if it took the initiative in calling such a conference it would be expected to bear some of the responsibility or some of the burden. The Minister of Labour has said that primarily it is the responsibility of the provinces: and then he adds, "But if the provinces invite us, we will sit in with them and try to reach an agreement." Why should the federal government have to wait to be invited by the provinces to sit in with them to seek an agreement in the matter of responsibility for the employable unemployed?
Various members of the House of Commons, as well as delegations including the welfare council of Ontario, the Canadian Welfare Council, the trades and labour groups and trade unions have all been appealing to the government over a period of at least two years to get together with the provinces with a view to arriving at some agreement on this matter. All we have now is the promise that somewhere and at some time we are going to have such a conference, and that

if the provinces invite the federal government to discuss the subject with them, then the federal government will be willing to do so.
We are now in the month of March; and by the time this conference is convened, and agreement is reached and is made effective, we will be into the next year. If we are going to do anything about next winter's unemployed that conference should be called immediately. It would be of no use to those who are unemployed this winter, but if it is to help those unemployed next winter it should be called immediately.
Something is needed by way of a public assistance fund. Someone must accept responsibility for the tens of thousands of employables, some of whom are unemployed for perhaps eight or ten months, and others who probably will not be able to secure employment again because of their age. The first essential move is the provision of immediate relief to the municipalities that are now bearing the brunt of this burden.
The bill for relief of employable unemployed in the city of Toronto in 1954 was $25,588. The commissioner of public welfare adds this note:
From 1950 forward, assistance with food, fuel and shelter for families was greatly curtailed because the civic administration felt that the responsibility for unemployment rested with the federal government and, therefore, any relief necessary should come from that source. Assistance was granted only in very extenuating circumstances. If real needs had been met in recent months the expenditure would have been far beyond the capacity of the municipality and could have been undertaken only with financial assistance from the federal and provincial governments.
And so I suggest that the first and most immediate need is some agreement with the provinces as to just who is responsible for taking care of these people. However, other long-term policies will be needed if we are to provide employment instead of relief for Canadian workers.
Had I time I would suggest some of those policies. The first great change needed is a change of attitude on the part of the government toward this whole question of unemployment. So long as the government is afraid to interfere with private enterprise, for the good and welfare of the Canadian people, this condition will continue. I say to the government they were elected to serve the interests and the welfare of the people of Canada, and not the interests of corporations either financial or industrial-and not the interests of those who can contribute most to Liberal election funds.
I suggest that there must be a complete change in attitude on the part of the government and its leaders to this whole question
Unemployment
of providing employment for Canadian workers. There should be a change in attitude in the matter of public works. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) indicated yesterday that the government does not believe a public works program is the answer to our unemployment problem. He has said that the problem is seasonal, and that our great problem is to find employment in the winter months. According to the dominion bureau of statistics, there were
244,000	persons unemployed in this country last September. Last September was not winter time in Canada! Last September was our best month as far as employment is concerned.
I suggest the government change its attitude with regard to the provision of low-rental housing and slum clearance, as was advocated by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) yesterday. It is time that Central Mortgage and Housing began to place first the interests of the Canadian purchasers of those houses instead of the interests of financial houses.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I regret that I have to advise the hon. member his time has expired.


Mr. B. R. Leboe (Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the unemployment situation is a serious matter and demands that every hon. member should shoulder his or her responsibility. Many hon. members have emphasized the importance of this debate on unemployment, but I would say that this debate is important only if it brings about some solution and some relief in the way of immediate action as far as unemployment is concerned.
Perhaps the anticipation of what might be said in this debate has caused the government to do some research work to find out whether they can defend their position rather than to find a solution to the problem before us. I do not think that the government is too proud of its record, and I need not dwell on that part of the problem. I do not think they are too proud of their stewardship. In spite of all that has been said by the ministers, it does not obscure the fact that they did allow the situation to develop, and therefore to that extent at least the government is responsible.
We recognize that we have a problem. Therefore, what matters most is, what are we going to do about it rather than who is to blame? We must deal with the unemployment problem first, and let the people decide on the other question when the time comes.

Unemployment
As a member from British Columbia, naturally I am more concerned about the conditions there than elsewhere in Canada. Naturally, too, I am more familiar with what is being done to meet the unemployment problem in that province.
As far back as July of last year the premier of British Columbia approached the Prime Minister with respect to holding a dominion-provincial conference to discuss unemployment. This approach was acknowledged, and there the matter rested. We were pleased to hear that there is a possibility of such a conference taking place later this year, but that does not help the unemployment situation at this time.
The minister of labour of the province of British Columbia came to grips with the problem of unemployment and instituted the holding of a series of conferences with representatives of organized labour, employers' organizations, boards of trade, and so on, for the purpose of getting suggestions as to what might be done, and to what extent unemployment could be curbed. The Vancouver board of trade went into the problem and came up with some suggestions which I believe were both constructive and helpful, as did other organizations. Perhaps I can put on the record a summary of their recommendations, which appeared under two headings:
1.	Destitution:	The relief of destitution when
such exists is a proper function of government. We note that the special arrangements made last year between the provincial government and the municipal governments are being continued. This committee recommends even closer liaison between the federal, provincial and municipal authorities for the relief of destitution.
2.	Employment: Primary constructive action relating to fluctuations in employment must originate with the main spending groups in the province which are federal government, including crown companies, commissions and boards:	provincial
government, including commissions and boards; municipal and local governments, including commissions and boards; industry and commerce, and the individual citizen.
The British Columbia government have increased their expenditures on public works, such as school construction, the building and extension of hospitals and new hospitals, the building of bridges, the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, and many other projects, to meet the problem of unemployment, and also to carry on the development of the province. Assistance to municipalities on an 80-20 basis is given toward the cost of relief and welfare.
Much emphasis was placed on the importance of instituting as much construction and repairs as possible during the winter months. The industries throughout the province were circularized and urged to discontinue as much as possible the payment for and the use of

overtime. This of course would not be possible in all cases, particularly in the lumber camps where the operators have to provide board and lodging for their employees. It can be well understood that if additional men were to be hired, additional bunk houses and services would have to be provided and therefore some operators might find it impossible to provide that type of service. Those industries which have no responsibility for housing or feeding their employees can participate in the regulation of overtime.
We also find that the government extended their technical training program under which return transportation was provided and a subsistence allowance of $14 a week was paid while the students were attending school. In this connection, training has already commenced for welders who will be required in the construction of the new gas pipe line from the Peace river country.
While British Columbia contributes more than 9 per cent of the total income tax paid to Ottawa, the co-operation of the dominion government in the matter of unemployment is sadly lacking. We know that the responsibility for unemployment rests with the federal government, since the federal government controls and has authority over the issuance of credit and currency within Canada. Unemployment can only be solved completely by a sound and sane federal financial policy. Therefore, it is unfair for this government to suggest that no financial help need be given to provinces until they can prove that they are not financially able to look after those unemployed who happen to be within their borders.
I should like to state that the British Columbia division of the Canadian Manufacturers Association highly commended the British Columbia government for what they had done to avoid an unemployment situation. This same body also emphasized the need for the federal government to allocate a fair proportion of the defence orders to the firms in the province of British Columbia,
Coming down to the individual we find a rather complex situation. It would mean much in the way of assistance to the unemployed if many repair and maintenance jobs were carried out during the winter months; but the fact is that when individuals are laid off at various times throughout the winter months they are put in a position where they can do many of the things which they would ordinarily ask someone else to come in to do for them, such as painting, carpentry work, automobile repairs and so on. Ordinarily they would go down to the local garage to get this work done, but when they are out of work themselves they do it at home

to save that'expense. This has a direct effect upon the situation as it pertains to carpenters, painters, automobile repair men, mechanics and so on.
This brings us to the point where we must look at the problem in a broad way. There is no immediate solution to this problem outside of getting down to a sane and sound financial policy. When he replies I should like the minister to pay special attention to the program outlined by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) and to the way in which that program can be brought into being as mentioned in the speech of the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch). If the minister will analyse that program and how it can be fulfilled I think he will find it difficult to show the house that it cannot be carried out. I want to stress that point because I think that the solution to the unemployment situation is a sound federal financial policy.


Mr. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this unemployment debate I do so with a feeling, which is shared by the majority of the people of Canada, that a crisis has arisen in our unemployment situation which has not been equalled at any time prior to the second world war. To bear that out I should like to refer to an article which appeared this week in the Montreal Gazette. This concerned a study of the unemployment situation made by the Montreal presbytery of the United Church of Canada and covering the unemployment situation in that city. Among other things they say that many families are in dire need and their number is increasing.
They go on to say that the situation is actually so serious that every effort must be made to inform the Canadian people who are living in relative prosperity that a considerable group of their fellow citizens is out of work and that many more will be facing a similar tragedy if immediate action is not taken to increase employment.
The unemployment situation in Canada is now a serious reality. We cannot be lulled into a false sense of security by being told that it is of a temporary or seasonal nature. This situation which has existed since the early part of 1952 has gradually increased despite all efforts by numerous spokesmen on the government side to minimize the situation and explain it away by saying that in the very near future it will right itself.
During this debate we have listened to the minister quote figures in connection with this problem in an effort to alleviate the feelings of the people of Canada and to convince them that things probably are not as bad as they seem. I think we are wasting time 50433-108
Unemployment
by quoting figures. What is needed is some drastic action on the part of the government rather than the quoting of any figures.
During the period of time that this unemployment situation has gradually increased, no visible effort has been made by the government to alleviate the condition or to provide safeguards against its increase. Consequently we find ourselves with unemployment on a scale of national emergency and with no solution proposed by the government to take care of the hundreds of thousands who are presently unemployed.
This matter of unemployment has been brought to the attention of the government by many organizations who have shown an interest in the welfare of the people of Canada, only to be turned away with some excuse and without any assurance that the government was prepared to meet this problem. The government says that it is concerned with the problem but in no way does it offer any solution nor does it commit itself to do anything at the present time regarding this problem.
Responsible labour organizations and others have stated that unemployment is the problem of the federal government, and with this everyone will agree even though the government in its statements to these delegations had said clearly that the responsibility lies with the provincial governments, that the provincial governments should take the initial step in advising the federal government that a state of unemployment exists in Canada.
I do not agree with that at all because I have found that when the government has been faced with many problems which have come before it and which concern the people of Canada they seem to use that same excuse time and time again. The federal government should take the lead in a problem as large as this one, because it is the senior government and the responsibility for that problem lies directly on the federal government.
On reviewing the economic situation in Canada we find that in most cases the reason for unemployment is that industries are unable to compete with imported goods. The farmer's income has been lowered greatly because of import competition and the spending capacity of the farmer has been limited to bare necessities.
Unemployment has always presented a problem in relief. The government which bears the brunt of this expenditure is of course the municipal government, the government which in comparison with the senior provincial and federal governments is the least able to take care of this problem.

Unemployment
I feel that it is time for both the municipal and provincial governments to take necessary steps to lay the responsibility for relief where in no small degree it properly belongs, on the federal government. Neither the municipal nor provincial governments can exert a great deal of control over the causes of unemployment, which are basically economic. The federal government is the only government which under the powers it possesses can exert control over those causes of unemployment.
It was the municipality and the municipal taxpayer which bore the heavy brunt during the days when depression was rampant in Canada. It was many years before some of them were able to emerge from the state of bankruptcy in which they found themselves because of this responsibility. With the situation as it is at the present time I feel that it will be only a matter of time before they will again find themselves in the same position.
I feel it is at this time that the municipal and provincial governments should adopt a policy of doing nothing about the present situation in order to force the federal government to take the responsibility which is rightly theirs. Provincial and municipal governments do not shape national policies. It is the federal government which holds that responsibility and it is national policy which determines employment or unemployment. It is the federal government which takes from the Canadian taxpayer's pocket the largest share of the Canadian tax dollar, leaving only a small percentage to the overburdened municipality. The federal government takes well over 77 per cent of the tax dollar, leaving something like 12 per cent for the provincial government and only 11 per cent for the municipalities.
We find that real estate taxes in various municipalities have had to be increased time and time again in order to meet the necessary rise in the costs of municipal administration for the provision of services which are extremely necessary such as health, hospitals, education, etc. In most cases they have reached the point where municipal taxes are almost unbearable and this leaves the worried and harassed municipalities at road's end.
The municipal authorities are closest to the people and necessarily feel the plight of the people to a greater extent than those who are in the federal field and who seem to be divorced from the requirements of the ordinary citizen.
Recently when an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act was introduced in this house to raise the supplementary benefits

to the scale of regular benefits the hon. members on this side of the house urged that the time in which these supplementary benefits would be available should be extended to another 30 days at least. It would certainly have helped the municipalities in the matter of supplying relief and would have lessened the time during which these people would have been a burden on the municipality by at least a meagre 30 days but the government did not feel that it was in a position to implement this suggestion.
Not too long ago in this house it was announced that a federal-provincial conference will be held some time in June, at which time one of the matters brought before this conference might possibly be the question of financial responsibility during a period of unemployment. However, June is a long way off and unemployment is with us today in full force. It is obvious therefore that a conference on this particular subject should be called now in order to arrive at some conclusive plan to deal with this serious problem. Because of the lack of action on the part of the federal government at this time concerning the unemployment situation, the onus for taking care of those people whose benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act have run out falls upon the municipalities. With the increasing debenture debts which the municipalities have had to undertake in the post-war years they are not in a position to budget large amounts of money to supplement a situation which the federal government has created through its policies. It is up to the federal government to do everything in its power to provide for the immediate needs of the unemployed of this country and to provide safeguards for the time when any future unemployment may occur. This situation demands drastic and immediate action. Those Canadians who are faced with unemployment and the lack of necessities to provide for themselves and their families will not accept the excuse that this is a seasonal occurrence.
I am amazed at the stand taken by this government which appears to be a policy of "wait and see". It seems to me that the government should give some hope to the people of Canada by assuring them that it is planning and preparing to take care of their immediate needs and is implementing safeguards for the prevention of future situations of this kind.
Unemployment has reached a figure of close to 600,000 and this is indeed an alarming figure. It is not a situation which can be brushed aside nor can the problem be shifted to another level of government. It is a problem which only the senior government

of this country can tackle effectively providing they feel, as they should, that the responsibility is theirs.
It is to be hoped that this debate does not fall on deaf ears. I am sure that the government itself realizes the seriousness of the problem and the hardships which are being experienced by the people of Canada who are at present affected by unemployment. For this reason I urge the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) to formulate some comprehensive plan which will cope with the situation and eliminate unemployment in this country. If this is done it will alleviate the fears of the municipal councils throughout Canada that they may be called upon to bear the brunt of this financial burden. It will reassure those who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed that they will be looked after by this responsible government and that the government is sincerely endeavouring to work out a solution to the problem of their unemployment.
Unemployment insurance cannot meet the needs of all the unemployed because many wage earners are not in insured occupations. Many have been unemployed for so long that they have exhausted all their benefits including the supplementary benefits. There are others among the unemployed who have not had an opportunity to fulfil the requirements under the act in order to receive unemployment insurance benefits. There are others to whom help from public funds is not available at present. We find the heads of many families who are unemployed are denied help by municipal authorities on the ground that they are employable. In most cases these people are referred from one charitable organization to another and they are forced to beg for clothes and groceries for their families. These charitable organizations cannot be expected to provide continued security for these people but in most cases they are ready and willing to help those in desperate circumstances on a temporary basis.
The important thing at the present time is to place the blame and the responsibility for unemployment on the proper government. Delegation after delegation is becoming fed up with the shirking of responsibility on the part of this government. We must place the responsibility with the federal government where it belongs. It is the senior government which must take the lead in respect to any national problem. Unemployment definitely comes within that category.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that this debate will not be wasted time and that the Minister of 50433-108J
Unemployment
Labour and his colleagues will announce at once a plan to end unemployment in Canada and assure the people that action will be forthcoming immediately.
(Translation):


Mr. Gerard Legare (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment now before the house is, to my mind, about the most fantastic than can be imagined. On looking at it, I find one sentence in particular reading as follows:
In the opinion of this house . . . the government should immediately give consideration to the formulation of plans to deal with this emergency-
Any member who has been sitting here since the opening of this parliament could hardly be unaware of the many measures introduced by the government to deal with the present situation. It will nevertheless be recognized-and I may discuss this point later on-that responsibility for employment does not rest on the federal government alone. Still, in view of the many steps taken by this government in the past few years to improve the past or present situation, I feel it can be stated that no business, no organization, no government has done as much as the federal government for the betterment of the employment situation in this country.
In the splendid statements made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) we have had a review of federal action in this field. As a matter of fact we were even given a picture of the conditions which prevail at present in this country. I was happy to learn, from the leader of the official opposition himself (Mr. Drew), that Canada's position was healthy and that we should be happy to live here, especially since the administration is at present in Liberal hands.
No one is attempting to gloss over the unemployment situation. All members in this house recognize, I am sure, that it is indeed a problem requiring the co-operation of everyone and I believe it is the duty, not only of the federal government, but of every level of government, provincial and municipal as well and even of civil organizations, to help solve the problem.
A few days ago, the premier of Ontario himself admitted that the provinces share the responsibility as regards employment in Canada. On the other hand, the premier of Quebec stated on the last day of the session which ended last week that unemployment was a federal responsibility. Fortunately, he is the only one to voice that opinion. All others seem to recognize that not only the federal government but all provincial governments, and I base this statement upon the

Unemployment
British North America Act, share a measure OB responsibility in the adjustment of such a situation. My opinion is that the co-operation which the various groups and the various governments have shown in the past should be intensified. I do not believe that because the -federal government took the initiative, some fifteen years ago, of creating the unemployment insurance commission and of voting millions of dollars for relief to the unemployed, it should now be held solely responsible for the present situation.. On the contrary, all Canadians of good will, all organizations in the country should continue to co-operate in seeking a solution to the problem.
I shall not go over the many measures taken by this government to relieve the present situation. The Minister of Labour said, as did several other members, that unemployment in this country is largely due to our climate. Unemployment in Canada is mainly regional and seasonal, and I do not think we will ever find a solution which would enable us to say that we have done away with unemployment in our country. It is unfortunate but I do not believe that it can be done, in view of conditions and the climate, but I believe that if the efforts to which I Referred a while ago were intensified, we could perhaps achieve, at certain periods, a further reduction in the number of unemployed.
Besides action taken by this government, we have also had action by private organizations and provincial governments. I do not feel I have to analyse what the provincial governments may have done in this field. I do think, however, that I should put a few Suggestions before the house, not speaking directly to the federal government but to other groups in this country, so that all possible solutions to unemployment, especially winter unemployment, may be looked for.
I would first like to make a request of the newspapermen of this country, among whom may be found men quite as capable as any, wherever they may be. If they followed suit and promoted ideas, through the medium pf public forums, for instance, on every kind of subject, with a view to the solution of local and regional problems, this would improve the employment situation and, by the same token, bring about a reduction in the number of unemployed.
I also believe that one way of solving this problem-and here the federal government's responsibility is quite large-would be to
IMr. Legare.]
ensure a sufficiently high farm income so that those who are now engaged in agriculture will not be tempted to abandon that work and increase the number of those who are working in industry or business.
I think it is appropriate to mention the effects that , a reduction in the support price of butter might have in Canada. In my opinion, if this parliament were to reduce, even by a small fraction, the present support price on butter, the moral effects of such a move would be very serious. Indeed it might even drive a great number of farmers to give up their activities and to swell the ranks of the unemployed.
Our lumbering industry, and the way it operates, is another problem which demands special attention. As a matter of fact, many groups, among them our labour organizations, have made a special study of this problem. If the industry cannot operate twelve months a year, we should try to get it to operate when there is a slack in the building industry. Now in many districts, and particularly in my own, lumbering operations are often started in summer or too early in the fall, which makes it difficult to get the necessary labour. On the other hand, when felling operations are ended by Christmas or in January, or February, like this year for instance, the building industry is not ready to absorb the unemployed.
I understand that the problem has already been considered from this angle, but I believe that this study should be pursued in order to satisfy the lumber firms that our claim is justified. Those firms should be asked to operate in winter or in the fall so that the felling would only start after building operations have come to an end.
I might even make another suggestion. It might be possible to lower the wages of labour employed in construction work during the winter months, so as to balance costs for those who want to build in winter, or just make alterations or improvements to their homes.
A brief survey on the question made by labour organizations might show that a great many people would be ready to embark upon construction work even in wintertime. It must be recognized however that building is more expensive in winter than in summer. To compensate for that, it would only be necessary to lower the hourly rate of pay of workers during the cold season so that winter building would not lay too heavy a burden on those who are prepared to undertake it.

I do not wish in the least to minimize the responsibility of the government with respect to the present situation. If the federal government can do more, they must do more, and I shall be the first to ask them to make a serious attempt to solve the problem or, at least, to relieve the situation.
But I am satisfied that through joint studies and action by all well-meaning people, we could raise the population's morale, overcome the difficulties and remedy the situation so as to alleviate unemployment and give more sustained help to the unemployed.
(Text):


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: I have no intention, Mr. Speaker, of entering into the contest as to which particular set of figures regarding the unemployed is correct. I have a suspicion that none of them is very accurate. More important still, I imagine the people who are unemployed are not very much concerned as to whether they have the company of 600,000, 500,000 or one million more when they are living in precarious misery. I believe that for a country such as Canada it is equally disgraceful whether that number be 1,000 or 600,000.
I was interested the other day when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was speaking in this debate and had this to say, as reported in Hansard for March 1, 1955, page 1629:
What I propose to do is to look at unemployment in relation to other important forces at work in the economy. Such an assessment is, I think, essential to arrive at a sound approach to this problem.
I could not agree more that that is what is required. Mind you, I feel it is perhaps a good idea, when one is looking at these other factors in the economy, not to look at them through rose-coloured glasses.
Just before this debate started we were all given a report from the Department of Trade and Commerce on capital investment in Canada, and it covered the years from 1947 to 1954, including an estimate for 1955. It is those figures with which I want to deal for a few moments, because they are the result of the minister's look at the other factors in our economy. I want to point out that he gives three sets of figures for current and capital investment. In 1953 there was a total capital investment of $5,841 million. Then, in 1954 there was a total capital investment of $5,498 million. The minister and his officials made an estimate of the probable investment for 1955, and that figure is set at
Unemployment
$5,808 million. We might, of course, say "WTell, things are going very well so we do not need to bother very much; our level of investment is keeping up."
Unfortunately, the year 1955 is not the only year for which the minister has produced this particular document. He produced one last year, and on that occasion he told us that the probable investment for 1954 would be $5,838 million. As a matter of fact it dropped down, as I say, to $5,498 million. There was, in fact, a decline in capital investment between the years 1953 and 1954 of 5-8 per cent, whereas the minister had estimated that there was going to be an increase of 2-5 per cent. It is quite possible, of course, for people to be mistaken in these estimates, but I do suggest that when one has been mistaken repeatedly it is time to look more cautiously at all future prognostications made by that person. I look with a very dubious eye at this estimate of possible investment in 1955 made by the minister's department. For one thing, it is not borne out by the prophecies of other people who have been making these estimates. For instance, Business Week conducted a survey of business leaders, academic economists and government economists in December 1954. Their forecast for 1955 was that investment would not exceed between $5-6 billion and $5-7 billion, not the $5-808 billion that the minister so cheerily told us would be our investment for 1955.
In addition to the decline in investment, there has been also a decline in gross national product between 1953 and 1954. It is true, as the minister pointed out, that most of it could probably be accounted for by the decline in farm production in that period. There was a decline, nevertheless, of 2-5 per cent in our gross national product. It is not merely that we have been faced with a decline in our investment and a decline in our gross national product, but we have been faced also with another problem connected with it which makes the situation very much worse than it would appear from looking at the statistical tables. During this period of declining investment and declining production, we have had an increase of 2-8 per cent in population and, more important still, a most astonishing increase in productivity.
Today 1 was able to get some figures relating to one of the industries that has been suffering from a severe decline, the agricultural implement industry. The figures proffered by this industry indicate, I think, the real nature of the problem we are facing.

Unemployment
In 1951, there were 17,236 persons employed in the agricultural implement industry, and the gross selling value of their products that year was $171,172,496. In 1953 the number employed had dropped to 14,161, a drop of nearly 6 per cent. The gross selling value of that product in that year was $171,269,525, a slight increase which is not to be accounted for incidentally by an increase in price and not to be accounted for by an increase in the other cost figures. In fact, some of the other cost factors declined.
We see, therefore, we can apparently produce the same amount of wealth with a considerably reduced working force. The same situation holds true practically over the whole picture of our industrial economy. We have an increase in productivity per man hour, and it has been fairly constant for many years, of about 2.5 per cent. This means that that, in itself, is a factor which must be compensated for by the expansion of our economy to take up the surplus labour force. It means, of course, that we are producing approximately the same amount of product with 97 per cent of the labouring force we have.
I believe these are the really serious aspects of the problem that faces us. It is true, as the minister stated, that the decline in gross national product can be accounted for by the -decline in farm production. It is true in fact that that decline in farm production accentuated the general economic difficulties, Increased the strain on our economy and no doubt sparked off this final rise of unemployment. But I believe we cannot comfort ourselves with the thought that all we have to do is wait for better crops in agriculture, and that in this way we are going to solve our economic problems; because I doubt very much whether the decline in farm income was the major factor in the decline we have been experiencing, because that decline had set in some time before the farmers on the western prairies were running into their difficulties.
I recall that last year I placed on the record the number of business failures for the two years preceding last year, and for last year, and I suggested that these were a warning signal to our government to which it should pay serious heed. Those signals are even more obvious this year than they were last, and more obvious in the last quarter of 1954 than at any time since 1939.
The business failures for 1952 were, in number, 1,512, and the total liabilities for that year were $29,652,000. In the following year, 1953, the total number of business failures had

risen to 1,657 and the total volume of liabilities had increased to $32,800,000. Then, in 1954, we had an increase up to 2,256 business failures with total liabilities of $53,047,000. Of that number of failures no less than 572 took place in the last three months of 1954. These, I suggest, are very grave warning signs for any government that purports to have the interests of the Canadian economy at heart. And you cannot dismiss them merely by taking a look through the rose-coloured spectacles of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), at his rose-coloured crystal ball, because I am afraid his reputation as a prophet is getting rather badly shattered; and if he is going to go on producing these documents there will be nothing left next year. Because prophets can make only a certain number of mistakes before people begin to wonder whether they are at the top of their profession as prophets.
I have mentioned the fact that I did not think the decline in farm income was a major factor in our present economic decline-and it is a definite economic decline. It is not one of the major factors accompanying the contraction in our economy. I do not think it was a major factor, because to some extent it has been compensated for by an increase in personal income in other sectors of the economy. In fact the net decrease in personal income from 1953 to 1954 was only some $36 million. But that underlines even more effectively the real problem facing us, and that is the problem of a contracting economy with an expanding population-an economy that not only is not standing still, but is definitely going backwards. And an economy such as that means that we are two steps away from prosperity. Because even if our production level and our capital investment level do remain constant, we would still be going behind because of the increase in our labour force, and the general increase in our population. And the process has been going on for some considerable time, despite the very rosy pictures painted to the house year after year from the government benches.
We have had a number of suggestions in the house as to how this problem should be dealt with. Certainly I would be very heartily in support of every suggestion that has been made. I think to deal with this urgent present problem-and it is an urgent present problem that has reached a volume which 20 years ago in the minds of the population of that time would have been considered a major disaster for the country-we should take steps immediately to increase the farm

income. We should take steps to relieve distress by a further expansion of unemployment insurance provisions and, of course, we should embark upon a number of badly needed public works in this country to take up the immediate slack in employment.
But I suggest that those in themselves are not really grappling with the problem we face, and that eventually, after we have completed them, we shall come out by the same door we went in. We shall still be facing the fact that the way we organize for production and distribution of wealth in this country does not enable us to go on expanding our economy and providing for a rising population.
When I was in Great Britain and Europe last year I heard a number of people expressing this point of view: They were rather disturbed by the fact that we in the western countries tend to concentrate our fears of the Soviet union and its satellites on the possibility of military aggression, whereas among the people in Great Britain and on the continent, who are by no means communists or socialists, there are many who express the fear that we may very well be facing a trade or commercial or industrial attack upon the economies of those countries. And they pointed out that the enormous expansion of the Soviet economy indicates that within a few years it will become a major factor in the world economy.
Of course people will say that the reason they are in that position can be traced to the quite horrible and deplorable conditions existing in that country. And that is perfectly true.
I do not think anyone would attempt to deny that that economic expansion has had really appalling social and political accompaniments. There are slave labour camps, undoubtedly, and there is tremendous oppression of the general public. But I think that is too easy an explanation of the manner in which the Soviet economy has been able to expand without the setbacks that continually have plagued the western economy. Whether we like it or not, I think we have to face the fact that, in spite of all these appalling accompaniments, they have got past the major obstacle confronting the expansion of private capitalist economies. As the minister pointed out the other day, they have got past the obstacle of declining markets, and of the fact that you have increased productivity and declining distribution of income on account of that increased productivity; and that when markets abroad begin to shrink, then the economy at home begins to contract.
I think we have to face the fact that they have got past that; and no matter how much we deplore and abhor the social and political
Unemployment
accompaniments of that economy, the very fact that they have got past this major obstacle does place them before us as a very major threat to our continued prosperity.
One of the quite striking features of this economy which, as I say, the people of Great Britain and of Europe fear may launch a still more disastrous attack on our way of life than can be launched in a military fashion, is that they do not have to rely upon external markets for a certain proportion of their production. Undoubtedly they do engage in export trade, and they have a purpose for it. But the purpose is diametrically opposed to the purpose we have in our export trade. Their export trade is designed merely tc provide them with the commodities they require for further extensions in their internal economy. And it is of course as a result of the fact that their economy is totally controlled and totally planned that there is no drain of profits which can be and are invested at the will of private individuals outside any concerted plan. They can be invested inside or outside a country such as Canada, where that is not the case in such an economy as the Soviet union.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is the serious question we have to face; that public works, unemployment insurance and aid to farmers are not solving this major problem; that the tremendous rise in productivity, the catastrophic effect on the living standards of a great many people of the automation, now called, that is proceeding so rapidly in North America, are going to present us with fundamental economic problems that we have to solve. It is quite useless to pretend in the first place that there are not nearly so many unemployed as we are led to believe, and to pretend in the second place that it is a temporary, accidental happening, because it is not. It is a perfectly inevitable, inexorable development from the way in which we produce goods.
I suggest that we are going to have to take a leaf out of the book of our potential enemy and do some planning in our economy; that we are going to have to have public activities, not merely in public works, but in productive enterprise. And that when we do that-and I do not think we are going to be able to avoid it; we already see the beginning right in this chamber of requests for massive public investments in such things as transcontinental pipe lines-we are going to have to continue in these sorts of activities. We are going to have to resort to investment in purely productive enterprise, and that is going to raise very serious problems for us, because either under private capitalism or under state capitalism, such as they have in the Soviet union, this development of mass

Unemployment
investment is going to be completely destructive of all democratic values in our society.
I suggest that, along with the solution to the economic problem which is present right now, we must start to see ways and means of controlling this modern development of collective public investment. We are not going to find it, Mr. Speaker, by following either the Russian pattern or the vast cartel organizations that are developing in the United States. We shall have to seek it, I think, on the co-operative road to salvation. These are the things that this house and this government should be seriously considering while they are at the same time taking the immediate steps that have been advocated here for the immediate alleviation of unemployment.
The other night I heard the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) accusing us in this group of having no program. I suggest there is no slick and easy program. What is required is a complete reassessment of our whole economic and political structure. That is required. We are not going to find a solution here by funny money, nor by lower taxation so that the owners of corporations would have more money to spend on trips to Bermuda. Nor are we going to find it by comforting ourselves by taking a little peek through the rose-coloured glasses or the crystal ball of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. We shall have to do some serious thinking and some serious discarding of prejudices and preconceived ideas, because we are up against the results, and they are quite shattering and appalling results, of human ingenuity in the production of goods and services.


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


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, will you call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I hope that some hon. members have been attempting to digest the analysis of the situation in which we find ourselves, which has just been given to the house by the hon. member for Nanaimo. I hope that his references to the progress which has been made in another part of the world will bring home to us, perhaps as effectively as the military threat which so many of us seem to consider all-important, the need to face up to the economic realities of life.
The debate in which we are engaged at the present time is one which we all recognize as an important one, although, to many of the people who have participated in it, it would appear that it consists largely of an argument on an analysis of certain statistics. To 
me that is the most ineffectual approach that we. can possibly take to the problem at the present time. As far as I am concerned, that is a kindergarten approach to the situation. It is perfectly true that we must have some knowledge of statistics, but even more important is what use we make of statistics when we have them.
Personally, I have no quarrel with the work which the Department of Labour has been doing in gathering the statistics. I do regret that the Minister of Labour appears to regard his function as being almost completed when his department has produced those statistics and when it has administered such things as the unemployment insurance fund. I would have hoped that from that department of our federal government there might come, in the light of what those figures reveal, a much more vigorous prodding in the direction of achieving some solutions than appears to have been the case up to the present time.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I was on the point of expressing my regret that the contribution which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) had made to this debate contained no evidence of any attempt to impress upon his colleagues in the government the seriousness of the situation which his own statistics revealed. I think if one were to consider the speeches made by the two ministers who have participated in this debate he could very well imagine himself in a university listening to a lecture on economics rather than in the Canadian parliament where at least some of us feel we should be making a serious attempt to bring about a more desirable state of affairs as far as employment activity in this country is concerned.
In view of the approach which some hon. members seem to have taken to this matter, perhaps it may not be out of place that we should consider ourselves as taking lessons in economics. I suppose if one grants to the members of the cabinet by virtue of their position the privilege of being the professors they will not resent too bitterly if some of the rest of us, whom they may regard as students, are not in complete agreement with everything they suggest.
I was interested in listening to some of the statements made by the Minister of Trade

and Commerce (Mr. Howe). For example, I find this on page 1629 of Hansard of March 1, 1955:
It is the concern of the government, as it is of all hon. members, to have unemployment at the absolute minimum consistent with the achievements of the essential goals of our economic life. In considering how these goals are to be achieved, it is, I think, essential that we examine carefully the current economic situation and our future prospects.
The minister spent some time examining the economic situation, but after listening to his speech and making a careful analysis of it later I must say that I am unable to find any mention of the goals to which he referred. Therefore I am somewhat at a loss as to just what goals he had in mind. Inadvertently or otherwise, the minister avoided mentioning any of those goals.
The fact that he omitted to suggest what these goals in our economic life should be ought to be recognized, I think, as lending considerable weight to the sort of comment which one hears all too frequently in lunch bucket conversations in many of our industrial plants, that in the view of this government the goal of our economy is to ensure that the pockets of the shareholders of our large corporations shall continue to be very well lined. The sort of approach which the Minister of Trade and Commerce took, I suggest, will simply lend weight to that suggestion which I am sure we could hear being uttered quite frequently if he went to the right places in this country. A little later on in his address the minister came as close as I could find to a suggestion of a goal. He said, as reported on page 1635 of Hansard:
A high level of employment in the Canadian economy can only be achieved by a program that will lift the Canadian economy as a whole to an extent that suitable employment for all types of workers can be made available.
I have read that statement two or three times and to me it adds up to saying that if everybody is employed there is no unemployment. That is as close to an expression of an economic goal as the minister came during the course of his remarks. As one who is only in his second session in this house that gave me a strange feeling that "that was where I came in."
I recall a somewhat similar debate which we had last year. As I recall, the remarks made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce during the course of that debate bore a remarkable similarity to some of the remarks which he made during this debate. The assurances that he gives us here he was giving us last year, this business of lifting the Canadian economy as a whole to an
Unemployment
extent that suitable employment for all types of workers can be made available. Then4hfe minister went on:	hci
That is the program on which the government is engaged. The fact that the program is producing results will, I think, be made apparent to all during the next three or four months.
As I was saying, that seems to be similar to the things the Minister of Trade and Commerce was telling us a year ago, yet the statistics which were produced by the Minister of Labour indicate to what extent the program the Minister of Trade and Commerce had in mind a year ago has produced the results which he suggests will be produced within the next three or four months*
I was interested in discovering that the analysis made by the minister seemed to bear out a suggestion I had made during an earlier debate in which I suggested that the rate Of new jobs in this country was not keeping pace with the growth in the working force, that in fact somewhat less than 20 per cent of the increase in the working force during the past year had been absorbed into a proper place in our economic life. The minister said, as reported on page 1630 of Hansard:
In other words, during the past year or so employment has been maintained, but productive activity has not been sufficient to absorb the net increase in persons coming into the labour force.
And again, and I quote from page 1635 of Hansard:
The present level of unemployment is the result of known factors, which I have briefly attempted to outline. Knowledge of the causes has permitted us to act effectively within the proper sphere of governmental activities to meet the situation as it has developed.
It seems to me that as far as this government and its policy is concerned we are coming quite close to the crux of our problem. It is on the matter of what is the definition and the proper sphere of governmental activity that we come to the crux of the problem and find ourselves arriving at a situation such as we have at the present time. I feel that it is basically because of the fact that this government is extremely proud of being a "liberal" government. They are a liberal government in the sense of being the laissez-faire type of government that is actually living in the last century. That is the foundation of liberalism and that is the attitude which apparently this government cannot or will not outgrow. This question of what constitutes a proper sphere of governmental activity is, I think, at the very root of this problem in its relation to the activity of the government of this country. The government forgets that we are now in the middle of the twentieth century and that we are not living in the heyday of liberalism as

Unemployment
it existed in the time of my grandfather who was a good Manchester Liberal and who believed that the laissez-faire attitude which was current in the 1850's and the years following was the proper measure by which governmental activity should be set.
I feel this ties in with some of the remarks that were made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) when he referred during the course of his speech to the measure to increase supplementary benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act, as reported on page 1607 of Hansard for March 1, 1955. In this connection he said:
This in no sense meets the entire problem of unemployment which exists this winter. That problem will not be solved by waving a magic fairy wand over the country.
I certainly agree with that statement of the minister. He then went on to say:
It is not going to be improved by the introduction of controls in our economy at this stage, as was suggested by my hon. friend from Hamilton West.
And then occurred what was to me an interesting exchange, because the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) rose immediately and said:
I shall have to rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not mention controls at all. I referred to the levelling of orders.
Mr. Gregg then said he was sorry and the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) said:
She said no such thing.
The hon. member for Hamilton West confirmed this by saying:
Not at all.
Then the hon. member for Eglinton, to make certain there was no question about it, said:
She said no such thing.
It would appear that so far as the Minister of Labour is concerned, and as far as those members who are sitting opposite him are concerned, this question of the introduction of controls or any form of regulation of the economy amounts to something which is considered to be a very naughty word. The moment one begins to talk about regulations somebody whispers, "Oh, that means regimentation," and that is an even naughtier word so far as they are concerned. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, when one talks about regulation or even regimentation, that it has a very different meaning to the people who are punching the time clocks in this country, and to the people who are engaged in the production lines of this monumental productivity about which we are so fond of talking.
The question of regimentation and regulation seems to have, I would suggest, a much

less serious note than some people in this house are inclined to describe it as having. The very essence of the productive process in which they are engaged is a form of regimentation and regulation. In the area in which I live there are four large industrial plants engaged in processing the products of the forests of British Columbia, and back of these industrial plants are a number of large logging camps which are engaged in the harvesting of the forest crops.
I wonder what would happen to the high productivity which those plants are able to create if all regulation and regimentation, if you care to use the latter word, were suddenly to come to an end. For example, if every man in that valley were given the right to decide when he wanted to go to work and when he wanted to stop work and whether or not he would go to work at all, you would have some of the workers, although probably not very many, coming in to work at 6.30 in the morning and some at 7.30 and others at 9.30 or 10.30. You would have some leaving for home at three o'clock in the afternoon and others at 2.30. I suggest that if regulation and an orderly management and control of that productive process were to be brought to an end, then the level of productivity in that area would sink to the point of the cottage industry era of earlier centuries.
I for one can see no reason why there should be considered to be a divine right not to be regulated for some people in this country, and why the mass of the people should be required to accept the form of regulation and regimentation which I have described.
This question of the regulation of the economy is an academic one to 95 per cent of the people in this country. The people who are unregulated are the small minority who have obtained for themselves more favoured positions in our economic situation. As far as I can see, there is no more logic in our having a planless economy in this country than there would be in having a planless productive process in the industrial plants to which I have referred.
I would suggest that, if we believe in democracy and in the democratic institutions which have been evolved throughout the centuries in the British tradition, there is no other alternative, if we are going to solve this economic problem, than that we try to use this democratically elected parliament and the government which is responsible to it as a means of bringing some form of over-all planning and control into our society.
It seems to me that, unless someone can produce a better suggestion as to how it can

be done, the time has come for our government to forget that it is composed of nineteenth century Liberals and to move into the twentieth century and accept the responsibilities of government which must come in the type of highly complex society in which we live today. I suggest the time has come when the government must revise its concept as to what constitutes a proper sphere of governmental activity.
I was interested in discovering that while the Minister of Trade and Commerce very carefully avoided any attempt to define what should be the economic goals of our economy there are some people in this country who have been giving some thought to this matter and indeed have been making some interesting statements in this connection.
One of these people is the president of the Royal Bank of Canada, Mr. James Muir. He terms 1955 as a year of decision in regard to the economic future of Canada. He makes this, to me, interesting statement. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is the kind of statement that even as short a time ago as ten years could not have been made by anyone except someone who was prepared to call himself a democratic socialist. These are Mr. Muir's words:
Within an over-all climate of political and economic freedom, our policy decisions in government and business during 1955 should take due account of four interdependent goals of an economic welfare of the community. The first of these is to ensure that our human resources are not wasted in involuntary idleness; that is, we should try to maintain a high and stable level of business activity and employment. The second goal is to ensure that our resources, when fully employed, are allocated in such a way as to produce the maximum volume of goods and services and to bring these goods and services to market in the proportions in which consumers want them. The third goal is to ensure that the distribution of the national product and income combines equity with the highest possible incentive to increase the total amount of product to be shared. The fourth and final goal is to ensure that all our policy decisions are consistent with an appropriate rate of economic progress and growth in the economy as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, on that statement of Mr. Muir's in an offhand way I would say there is some hope for him and that if he keeps on thinking in the terms in which he is at present thinking, perhaps in five years we may be able to welcome him into the ranks of the C.C.F. One of my colleagues suggests that if he wil1 bring all the money in the bank with him, we shall be quite happy to have him.
I would suggest that if these economic goals which have been outlined in this statement were to be taken seriously and if we in this parliament were prepared to get
Unemployment
down to the business of implementing measures to achieve the kind of goals that Mr. Muir has suggested, we should very shortly find ourselves discussing not the matter of unemployment but rather the question of a manpower shortage in this country. It seems to me that would be a much more appropriate subject for debate in this parliament of ours. It seems to me that it would be much more appropriate that we should be considering ways and means of finding the human resources to do the jobs we wanted to have done in order to provide the things we need.
It is not so difficult, if we take the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) at their face value. He said that the present level of unemployment is the result of known factors. If it is the result of known factors, then apparently the only reason that it is not disappearing is that we are not properly applying our intelligence and our will to the solution of those factors that are known.
Just to give one example which necessarily perhaps is an oversimplification, let me say this. If our labour force in this country is 5 million people, and if through an increase in the productivity of those 5 million we find it is going to take 500,000 fewer people to do the same amount of work, and if the work week on the average, we will say, stands at 45 hours per week, it seems to me that it is a matter of a simple percentage calculation to determine how much the working week should be shortened; that is assuming, of course, that we are producing all of the things that we consider we need. We know those things but we do not use them.
It seems to me that it would be a proper sphere of governmental activity in this country to set the rules under which people work in the same way as the management in a plant sets the rules under which the people within that plant are going to work. But no; we do not do that. Instead of doing that, when we try to make the reduction in working hours that is possible because of increased productivity, we have to enter into a pitched battle between labour and management. Instead of doing the thing in an intelligent and orderly manner we find that the workers of the country are obliged to go out onto the picket lines and do battle.
In the lumber industry in British Columbia, how did the working week get shortened from 44 hours to 40? By a strike. How did the workers in that industry come to be able to enjoy some of their holidays with pay? Through a strike. People hold up their hands and say that working people should not

Unemployment
strike; , but they have no other alternative. Yet probably no one in this house would say that it is not. an absurd .and ridiculous situation when those things have to happen. In fact, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) says that the greatest ally in the maintenance of employment, and to bring about the fullest possible employment, is in the realm of good labour-management relations. Yet we sit back and leave that basic conflict between labour and management over how the benefits of increased productivity and improved technology are going to be passed on to the workers untouched. That would not be regimentation. That would be simply using good common sense.
There is another thing I wish to mention. Somebody this afternoon-I think it was the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron) - spoke of the question of what has come to be called automation. We perhaps do not realize how close some of the revolutionary effects of that process are upon us. We do not realize how quickly the aggravation of the result of that type of technological improvement is going to be with us. But even apart from that, even within the sphere of what is going on, it is evident to all of us at the present time that if these goals that the president of the Royal Bank of Canada has mentioned were being taken seriously and were being made the end of the policy of our government we would not have, for example, a situation that was drawn to my attention as the result of an arrangement that has recently been made to complete some houses on Vancouver island. The carpenters on Vancouver island, instead of dreading the fact that houses were going to be produced on an assembly line basis, could be welcoming that fact and that would be the sensible and proper thing for them to do. To me that is an illustration that comes close to home of the senselessness of the approach that our government continues to insist upon taking simply because, for one reason or another best known to themselves, they insist on living in a past era in regard to what they consider to be the proper sphere of governmental activity.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am quite happy to support this amendment that-
__the government should immediately give
consideration to the formulation of plans to deal with this emergency, and to the necessary steps to establish a long-term program for expanding employment to be presented to parliament during the present session.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: On
January 19 of this year, Mr. Speaker, as reported at page 346 of Hansard, I used these

words during the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne:
What are the problems that face us today? Certainly by far the most important is unemployment. I agree with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) that there is no magic formula which can put an end to unemployment. But if unemployment were as regional and seasonal as the speech from the throne suggests, then I believe the magic formula of government handouts would do the trick. I am sure the Minister of Labour knows as well as we do that the situation now confronting us is much more serious than that. I know that in West York unemployment is greater today than it has been since the depression and I do not need the benefit of information from the dominion bureau of statistics to convince me of that fact.
Three weeks later, under dateline of February 8, the Canadian Press reported as follows:
Unemployment in the Toronto area has reached its highest point since the depression, G. S. Collins, manager of the local branch of the national employment service, said Monday. About 45,000 persons in the area, 8 per cent of the total working force, are registered for unemployment benefits, he said. This was about 10,000 more than last year's peak.
I am not going to enter into any controversy over the validity of figures; no matter from what source they come, they add up to a problem of extreme urgency. Let us be quite clear. Certainly, this is a problem that could be used by some for political advantage but I am sure that hon. members in this house sincerely believe that problems which affect the welfare of human beings, in a time of crisis, must be settled by co-operative action between all branches of government. Lest there be any doubt about the unanimity of opinion concerning this crisis, except of course amongst hon. members to your right, Mr. Speaker-if I take the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) as representative of that group, I would not know what they thought, because in the course of his short talk he indicated, first, that he agreed entirely with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg); second, that he agreed entirely with my leader; third, that he subscribed entirely to the views of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). In fact, the only party he did not join in his 50-minute speech, although he did put some money in their pockets, was the group to your extreme left, for which I am sure they were truly thankful.
As an indication of the concern of all, I might quote from an editorial appearing in the Toronto daily Star on January 8 of this year. I need not mention that this paper is not usually out of step with the government. It reads in part as follows:
The speech from the throne offers welcome assurance that the federal government intends to take positive steps to deal with the growing

unemployment problem. There is to be a "substantial increase" in public works expenditures with a view of providing more jobs, and important changes are planned in the Unemployment Insurance Act to make it a "more effective instrument in providing financial support to unemployed workers". A stepped up public works program, properly planned and executed, can do much to relieve regional unemployment. But since unemployment today is fairly widespread, public construction should not be regarded as a solution of the problem.
Later, on February 9, in another editorial referring to the speech from the throne in the provincial legislature, the Toronto daily Star had this to say:
Ontario, along with the rest of Canada, has a serious unemployment problem. Welcome recognition of that fact is disclosed in the speech from the throne.
Then there is this:
At present, with both Ottawa and Queen's Park disclaiming responsibility, many jobless persons who are able and willing to work are left without public aid of any kind, causing great hardship to themselves and their families. The municipalities cannot afford to care for them.
In order to get everyone involved, the Liberal leader in Ontario is quoted as saying on March 1, 1955:
Primarily, unemployment is a municipal responsibility, but when that load becomes too great to bear then I say it is the responsibility of the province.
If the province were unable to cope with unemployment and then asked Ottawa for assistance, I would miss my guess if the federal government didn't give help then.
When I read all of these statements I certainly can see how the Financial Post can head its editorial "Seven Weeks Gone, Still They Talk". The editorial states in part:
If a trade association or a trade union or a church group of 260 people attempted to conduct its affairs as the House of Commons is doing, it wouldn't last a year. Its members would recognize its futility and quit.
I differ entirely with that paper's reason for its editorial, but in connection with the absolutely astounding line of thinking on the crystal ball basis that has emanated from the government benches in this debate, I believe we can only conclude that we could talk for seven weeks more with irresistible force and fail to budge the immovable object which is represented by the front benches to your right. But two things are plain. First, if the Minister of Labour still clings to the theory that unemployment is only regional and seasonal, then he has been and still is living in the ivory tower that he claims to disdain. Secondly, if the government cannot set aside for once its dogged determination to refuse to listen and call immediately for the conference my leader has proposed between federal, provincial and municipal
Unemployment
authorities, then I say the Winnipeg Free Press has exactly described this government when it said on June 6, 1954:
The present cabinet has by no means all the strength it used, to enjoy-there is in Ottawa a certain boredom, an overconfidence that leads to fumbling, a certain cynicism that bodes ill for resolute action, in a crisis.
There is no doubt that we are in a period of crisis. We in this party know the problem must be attacked on a twofold basis. To begin with, payments to people who are destitute can be only a poor substitute for a job, but the temporary solution must be found because I am absolutely convinced that the municipality, representing the home owners, cannot stand the burden of unemployment relief added to its expenditures on the restricted tax base it possesses. Educational and other costs since the war have necessitated increases in real estate taxes of 300 to 400 per cent in some cases. If you add unemployment relief on an ever-increasing scale to the top-heavy burden, lost homes can be the only result. People are out of work, not houses, and I fail, as I am sure every other member of this house does, to see how the home owner can carry any heavier burden.
A temporary solution is required to combat a most serious threat to our whole institution of government. We might as well face it: the communist party in this and every country throughout the world is preaching the philosophy of war boom and peace bust; it is a vulture waiting for the chance to strike. The ranks of the unemployed can become the battleground not only for men's stomachs, but also for their minds. Here it is-you all got your copy of their brief of February 28. See what they would hold out for you if you were unemployed. Listen to this:
Build 750,000 low-rental, low-cost homes, reduce down payments and mortgage interest.
And this:
Raise purchasing power and expand the home market-by higher wages and farm income; people before profits; a 7-hour day, 5-day week; repeal the sales tax; lower taxation on the people's homes, food and incomes, and higher taxes on corporation profits; a national health plan; payment of unemployment insurance benefits at 75 per cent of earnings for the full period of unemployment; old age pensions of $75 for men at 65, women at 60.
And this:
Improve the social and cultural life of Canada by building new schools, day nurseries, hospitals, theatres, recreational centres, sports stadiums, libraries, roads and highways.
And this:
Cut spending on armaments to the 1947 level, spend the money on people's needs. Ban the A and H bombs. Call for a conference of the great powers to preserve world peace and expand world trade.

Unemployment
Consider seriously if we can afford to wait one day longer, not seven weeks, to find a proper and equitable procedure to settle this problem. I might say to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) that the same communist party must have received considerable comfort from his particular brand of boom and bust philosophy. I would like to read the condensation of an article which appeared in the Wall Street Journal of March 21. It says:
It is an absurd philosophy to believe that prosperity is made by government spending, and that if war spending stops prosperity will collapse. It is quite likely of course that if and when international tensions are eased there will be some decline in spending for war; but to conclude that this will be bad for a nation's economy is idiotic. Less government spending makes possible a lesser tax burden.
I say to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) that our government has not done its part in reducing taxes to enable industry to convert to a strong peacetime economy. But what of the permanent solution to the problem? In this debate I have listened again to the complaints from our left that we in this party have not said what alternatives we propose, or what solution we have. You know, coming from that direction the complaint is a pretty hollow one.
It is much more difficult for us to suggest adequate alternatives than for the group to our left, because we do believe in the same basic system, Mr. Speaker, as hon. members to your right. And we must fit in any criticism we suggest into that same structure. But our hon. friends to our left are not so restricted. They have easy alternatives to every problem; total socialism in theory could move Gibraltar. In practice a pebble could present a major obstacle.
Then hon. members far to my left-they have no insurmountable problem, either. If we are short of money, we can supply a little "additive" income; or if we have unemployment we can take care of it with "unempay-ments".
Now, these words are not in the dictionary. But there is no problem in making up a few words, either. Frankly, the newspapers have been complaining about the lack of colour in our English in parliament, and the fact that it is no longer picturesque. Since the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) could use the expression, I think I can say, too, that all of these ideas from my left are cockeyed.


An hon. Member:: Just like you.


John Borden Hamilton: Unemployment
the crisis, the calling of a dominion, provincial and municipal conference of all tax authorities to explore ways and means of (.a)'' providing immediate additional cash ffelief for the unemployed without overburdening the home owner in his real estate taxes; (b) providing a program of public works construction to commence immediately to provide new jobs. Second, a long-range program to be tackled in partnership by management, labour and government to produce new jobs by (a) good hard work; (b) good now and unique sales techniques, basic designs and production methods; (c) improvements in the administration of government tp bring a reduction in taxes to be passed pp to. the producer and to put more purchasing power into the pockets of every citizen; (:d) realistic and aggressive approach to the specific problems raised by our participation in the GATT agreements; and (e) an end to the artificial exchange rate applicable to the Canadian dollar.
[. Only when we have attempted all of these things should we raise our heads and say we have done our best to whip the greatest problem which faces Canada today.


Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to some of the government members talk in their mumbling way, calling "time", I thought how true it was that there were probably 600,000 electors in Canada who agree that it is time we had a, change in government. If there is to be a: change, I feel I might as well suggest that we should have a type of government that would be realistic in its approach. I suggest the one to which the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) referred yesterday when he said that British Columbia is contributing 80 per cent to the relief of unemployment and the municipalities 20 per cent and the federal government nothing.
I listened with considerable interest to the Hamilton plan, and I wondered why his party has not a party plan. One part of the Hamilton plan was enunciated the other day by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) when he referred to the need for a dominion-provincial conference. Today the municipalities are being asked to take part in that conference also under the new Hamilton plan. I wonder just exactly how rapid a cure that would be for the immediate problem that is facing us at this time. I do not wish to devote any more time to the plan outlined by the hon. member for York West. I do wish to deal with what I have heard during the past two days, and more particularly I want to refer to what speakers for the government have said.

*As I look at them, I am reminded of what Walpole said on one occasion in a debate. He said that his policy was to let sleeping dogs lie. Ever since that time the British have been bungling through. Well, this government apparently has taken a lead from fhe British and they are still trying to bungle through and let sleeping dogs lie. The British have done so very effectively, but in this respect I would say they have become realistic a little more quickly about problems as they arise than we are willing to recognize.


Mr. Byrne:: Funny money.


Frederick George Hahn: The hon. member for Kootenay East speaks about funny money. I know of no man who is more capable of talking on that particular subject than the hon. member is. I am satisfied that one of these days he is going to get up in this house and make a speech and tell us all about funny money, what he knows about funny money. I am satisfied that when he is through he will probably go to the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) or he may even go to Mr. James Muir, the president of the Royal Bank of Canada, and ask how half a billion dollars in money was created for the building of the new homes that were put into existence in Canada this year. I would suggest that he take a lesson in funny money from some of the men who know something about the beginnings of money and how it is made. I would be quite ready to try to entertain him some day when I have more time, but I cannot do it at this particular time. I would suggest that the hon. gentlemen get next to someone who knows something about the making of money and he might learn a great deal about it.
As to unemployment itself, I would say that there is not a member of this house or any party represented in this house that does not feel there is a grave unemployment problem facing the people of Canada today. However, I have been rather taken aback by hearing some of Canada's foremost citizens devote so much of their valuable time, when they are speaking to this subject, quote figures to prove a statement which we know is a fact and have known for some months.
I do not care whether there are 500,000 unemployed, whether there are 200,000 unemployed or whether there are 100,000 unemployed. As long as there are men and women who are facing the trials and tribulations that we have to face in Canada today, who are desirous of obtaining a job and who need a job in order to exist, then it is time that we looked into our economic system to see whether we might not create some of the funny money that was proposed yesterday by the hon. member for Spadina.

A good number of Canadian citizens are hungry today; a good number of them wish to sell the labour of their hands or the product of their minds, but they cannot do so because they cannot find a buyer. The quack remedies that we have been subjected to during the past few years are beginning to fail. The regular Liberal spring tonic is failing this spring as a tonic for seasonal unemployment. Time has caught up with this disease of unemployment, the disease that has been prevalent since 1929 and which we have said so frequently was taken out of our hands by Adolf Hitler.
I followed the debate quite closely and I have read much about it. In order that I may not be biased, I am going to turn to the newspapers for support of what I am going to say. Among other things I discovered that my socialist friends to my immediate right propose a twelve year plan. That is not uncommon among socialists because in Russia they have a five year plan.


An hon. Member:: You have no plan.


Frederick George Hahn: The hon. member says that we have no plan. We have a plan which was proposed in this house on two separate occasions. We have an immediate stop-gap for the present condition and we have an over-all plan in finance that will take care of unemployment for all time, not just for the present.
The problem with which we are faced is an immediate problem and the dominion-provincial conference proposed by the Conservatives will be of no value to the men and women who need help at this time. In her gracious way the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) explained to us how grave the situation was and proposed the amendment which made it possible for us to carry on this particular debate.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) is always concerned with problems of this type. Apparently he had some debate with his conscience. As he went along with his speech he claimed that this was a provincial responsibility. I disagree completely with him. This government, this parliament, this federal authority deprives the provincial and municipal authorities of the simplest means of producing revenue. We have under our control the means of sustaining production; we have control of the financial institutions within our country; we formulate trade policies which so clearly reflect the employment picture. Then the Minister of Labour tells us that it is the responsibility of the provincial governments.
I am satisfied that he does not believe that in his own mind, but possibly this is the "out" that the government has been looking for.
Unemployment
The leader of the C.C.F. attempted to prove that unemployment is directly related to farm income.


An hon. Member:: He proved it.


Frederick George Hahn: The hon. member says, "He proved it". If you talk to labouring men and industrialists you will find that they believe, and possibly rightly so, directly the opposite. But I would agree with one point which he raised, that the best answer to communism is to have full stomachs across Canada every night. If we have that we shall not have to worry about the threat of communism.


Mr. Ellis:: We have been saying that for years.


Frederick George Hahn: There is no hon. member in this house who does not believe the same thing, yet we are told it is C.C.F. policy. I am merely stating a matter of fact. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) agreed with that wholeheartedly. He was possibly the most enthusiastic supporter of the leader of the C.C.F. when he said that we have to bring up farm prices. I know the Minister of Agriculture well enough to say that.


Alfred Claude Ellis: They say it but they do not do anything about it.


Frederick George Hahn: That is true. Possibly their policy may not permit that, but at the same time the fact remains that you cannot claim it as your policy. All these wonderful things that we hope for the men and women of this country do not form part of your policy only.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce indicated a desire on the part of the government to forestall criticism. I would say that that was the reason for his taking part in this debate. It is one of the first occasions on which we have had the privilege of hearing two ministers early in a debate. It indicates one of two things. Either the government feels in its own mind that this problem is of such vital importance to the nation that we should have a policy outlined and a statement made by the man who controls trade, or they wanted to forestall criticism. It was a carefully prepared statement which lacked the zip which the minister is ready to put into ordinary things. It was carefully thought out and I compliment him upon it.
However, he did prove to me quite conclusively that there is no interdependence between Canada and the United States. Without interdependence of trade between Canada and the United States we are on a one-way street. We are completely dependent upon it. If we do not have that market then apparently we are going to suffer the pangs of hunger and unemployment. Of course, the

Unemployment
Right Hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has a cure for these things. He has a cure for everything. His cure is an optimistic smile with a simple cure-all of "a highly productive low cost efficiency." I would agree with him that if we can get what he wants, a highly productive low cost efficiency, it would help under the present circumstances. We had that efficiency and that low cost productivity before 1930 and yet we do not have it at the present moment. We possibly can get it, however, and we will get it in the not too distant future.
There are other minor and major causes of unemployment. Before we can find a cure we should know what these particular causes are. While some of them appear quite minor and somewhat localized their effect is felt over the whole nation and they should be taken into consideration in order that we might find some means of offsetting them.
One of these causes is the effect of strikes. I do not wish to give the impression that I am opposed to strikes. The right to strike is perhaps the only means by which the working man can get the result he feels entitled to. I dare say, however, that the strike in Windsor with a relative loss of payroll affected the purchasing power of possibly over 70,000 persons within this country for a period of three months. That is a considerable number of people to add to our staggering list of unemployed. It represented a loss of purchasing power which is so vital to the nation as a whole.
Another cause which I found so prevalent on the Pacific coast just prior to Christmas is the plea which merchants used in then-advertising, "No down payment". Possibly if there had been no down payment but payments were required to commence the following month conditions would not be so alarming as they are at present on the Pacific coast so far as the merchants and their staff are concerned. However, certain unscrupulous merchants, and I use the word advisedly, deliberately made statements over the radio to the effect that no down payment was required on particular articles in the month of December or the latter part of November. The advertisement said in effect, "You do not have to pay on January 1; you do not have to pay on February 1; but pay on March 1." Well, Mr. Speaker, this is March 1-


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is March 3.


An hon. Member:: Free enterprise.


Frederick George Hahn: That is exactly what was done by free enterprise, as my friend suggests.

We can make regulations in respect to payments that will take care of that very easily and it is free enterprise. I think you should study your books.
Now, that is a very important point and it certainly had its relative effect upon the markets of the Pacific coast and other places where the same policy was followed.
There is a third cause which is minor and in which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) may be interested. As a businessman I have found it affects wholesalers, retailers and consumers. It particularly affects them at this time. I found in my travels, and I think if you were to discuss it with the retailers, wholesalers and consumers you would find it is true. Perhaps some of the hon. members find themselves doing it also. It is at this time when the budget is released in Canada people generally automatically wonder, "Can we expect a cut in taxes on a particular item so that we will save that amount?" Let us examine the picture as it stands today. The government has announced no increased expenditures. We can naturally assume therefore that the amount of revenue required is not going to increase. This also means that we are not going to increase taxes. If we do not increase taxes we can hope they will decrease. This will affect the sales within the nation. That will have a material effect upon a certain number of unemployed people not in an individual community but across the nation as a whole. While the number of people who are affected may not be too many, at the same time their earning power is reflected upon every individual in the nation.
There is a fourth cause which affects unemployment and that is automation. I do not intend to deal with that at this time, however, because it is self-evident. If time permits I shall have something to say about it later.
I looked in vain for cures suggested by some of our good friends. I feel the proposals contained in six different points outlined by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) should receive the attention of this government in so far as he proposed an immediate cure for the unemployment condition which exists today.
I believe that we have to find an immediate cure. The government has indicated its inability to cope with the problem. The government is not alone in this regard. Our socialist and Conservative friends have called for a dominion-provincial conference and public works program. While that may be something which will have value in the future it is not something which offers an immediate

solution to the problem. This government has ridden the crest of prosperity to a nonexistent oasis and is left stranded in the desert groping like a man who has gone sand blind, bewildered and befuddled and unable to find the obvious route to freedom. The government is behind the proverbial eight ball and is trying to find a way out. I do not blame it if it does not have the answer. We in this group think we do have the answer. We are satisfied that it deserves considerable attention, more than the government has been prone to give it in the past. As I said earlier, it is only because this thing was a dead issue that no one was prepared to listen to us. Today, however, we find that a good number of men in the financial field are willing and ready to give our solution considerable thought and study.
I wish to return to the statement made by the hon. leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) that unemployment bears a direct ratio to farm prices. Might it not also be said that the price of farm produce is directly affected by full employment. If the people in this country have money with which to buy consumer goods the prices will go up. Is it not true that Adam Smith's principle of supply and demand still holds true and that if people have money with which to buy food and if they want food the price of that food will increase. That is the point of view of the labourer. You C.C.F. people say you are for labour and the farmers, yet you are not ready to recognize labour's needs. The question is, which came first the chicken or the egg?


Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: They are interdependent.


Frederick George Hahn: I am glad you recognize that now.


Edward George McCullough: We
have been saying that for years.


Frederick George Hahn: I am glad to hear that.
Well, during the war we had full-time employment and that of course was reflected in a stabilized farm price. The basic weakness today is the shortage of consumer dollars. This of course is reflected in conditions as they exist today.
We presently have social welfare legislation, which, thanks to the present government, is helping considerably to offset a drastic situation such as we went through in the thirties. I do not believe there is an hon. member in this house who would say that, if it were not for unemployment insurance, war veterans' allowances, family allowances, old age pensions and old age security, instead of having 600,000 unemployed we would have well over 800,000 unemployed. These things
Unemployment
have done one thing if nothing else. They have deterred our plunge into economic chaos more than has any other factor this government has instituted. I say that it is important to inject purchasing power into the hands of the consumer who lacks that purchasing power.
This matter of automation that I spoke of earlier is a problem that is with us now but to a lesser degree. It is being accepted and it is going to be accelerated. This field of electronics that we have today is going to play a vital part in cutting down the labour force required in the near future. Possibly it is a matter that would fit in well with what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggested in his 12-year plan. But certainly it is something that must be considered. We find factories that are operated today with practically one-quarter of the staff they needed ten years ago. Through the field of electronics we find such things as the ability, by electronics, to take out of the sea fish of a particular length and of a particular species, by using different propulsions.
This matter of stiff competition is going to bring in more efficiency. That was the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) when he suggested that may be the answer to the problem. Automation will bring in that efficiency but it will throw more men out of work. We must not become the slaves of machines. Machines must be made to work for us. We must find the answer to the problem. If the only way in which we can create money to pay these people so that they can buy goods is by having them work, then we are going to be in a sorry plight in the not too distant future. Labour must be made to learn, as must the rest of society, that this thing is here and that it is here to stay. It is going to be improved upon. Possibly in the not too distant future we are going to have a 36-hour week, then a 30-hour week and possibly even a 20-hour week. But we are going to have to get out of those machines enough wealth, paid in the form of tickets, money or dividends or whatever you want to call it, so as to make it possible for the people to purchase the commodities that are made.
There are certain immediate curatives that I want to refer to again as outlined by the members of the group that I represent. I am not going to deal with each one of them because I have not the time in which to do so. Two or three of them were dealt with by other members quite efficiently and possibly much better than I might be able to deal with them. However, there are one or two that I want to speak about. The

Unemployment
first is the elimination of the sales tax and wider use of price discount.


An hon. Member:: Time.


Frederick George Hahn: Is somebody suggesting time for a change again?


An hon. Member:: Time.


Mr. Low:: He is just talking through his hat.


Frederick George Hahn: As to the wider use of the price discount, that, of course, was instituted in the case of butter and milk. This is an immediate cure. I do not want this as a long-range cure, but it is an immediate cure for the unemployment situation. The saving in sales tax alone would amount to approximately $417 million. That is a form of dividend which might be brought back into the hands of the people and which would immediately give them purchasing power. Thus the unemployed would find that they are able to purchase the goods that they so badly require.


An hon. Member:: Time.


Frederick George Hahn: The second factor is that the federal authority should assume full responsibility for financial assistance to the unemployed who are not now covered by unemployment insurance. On that matter, I would propose that we expand the war veterans allowance, the family allowance, the old age pension, and old age assistance. In this particular case I would say this. There is no value in our putting any more money in the hands of those who have more money than they can spend at this time. There is no value in giving an old age pension to a man who today has an income which is large enough to keep him and his family well. The person who requires it is the man who is unemployed. He is the individual who should reap the benefit of this increase that we might propose. That is why, when I spoke on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I proposed that we should have a complete review of this social welfare field in order to see where it is possible to make a form of redistribution so that none of us are starving while others are living in affluence.
We should have a vigorous employment policy with government assistance to private enterprise. The purpose of this suggestion is to absorb seasonal employment. Last year I had the pleasure of introducing a housing scheme which I thought would be of considerable value. I referred to it as the Brazilian housing scheme. I refer to it again. I am not going to take the time of the house to review the matter again. At the time I spoke on it the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) said that he had not heard of

it. I do not know whether or not he has bothered to examine into it any further. However, I would recommend it to the financial experts on the other side of the house who are looking for money in order to put these unemployed to work. It was done in Brazil; and I am satisfied that we should be able to do equally well anything the coffee raisers in Brazil could do.
I now come to the remarks made by our friend the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) who once again proved himself to be the humanitarian that he is by drawing to our attention the plight of the unemployed. I was glad to hear him say that this is the place which has responsibility for the unemployed. I agree with him-these were not his words; I use my own-that the payment of insurance is a subsistence allowance and not a matter of creative dollars. I am satisfied that he is quite right in that respect. The need is urgent for the creation of dollars to be used in the creation of enterprise which creates more work. We should not be trying to get work for work's sake. If that was the desire, we could give everybody a teaspoon, send them out on the trans-Canada highway and say, "We will give you a dollar for a day's work" or $5 or $10. That should not be the question.


An hon. Member:: Time.


Frederick George Hahn: The question is this, Mr. Speaker. People want work and they want it badly. If the hon. gentleman opposite has something to say, I will give him 40 minutes after I have finished. He is entitled to it. In the meantime, let him please listen. If he does not want to listen, there is a lobby in which he can sit.


An hon. Member:: You have nothing to say.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Frederick George Hahn: I would make a further suggestion in connection with this question and that is in the case of housing. I am satisfied that the housing program as outlined today, has just about reached, or probably will within a three-year period reach, the point of satiation. The families that were raised in the thirties were small. New home owners are decreasing in number, or the number who are becoming eligible for new homes is decreasing. But there is a huge field that remains untouched. That field is with respect to the man or home owner of today who has built a two-room, t'nree-room or four-room home. It is his home but it is small. It is too small for his family. He built it just shortly after the war when there was no place he could go. He had $1,000 or $2,000. He has spent

his money in building a very small home, and today he needs help to enlarge it.
Now, there we have one of the biggest potential sources of employment for the seasonal unemployed. Some of these men are possibly unemployed at this time. They may be in the lower wage groups, but they are heavy users of durable goods. In this instance I should like to pass on a compliment to industry in my own area. It has seen fit to make it possible for this small home owner to borrow up to $2,000 repayable within a two-year period. It is unfortunate that the industrialist cannot extend credit for 20 or 30 years, as our government is in a position to do through the banks. These men are good risks. Industry recognizes that they are good risks. Although they are good risks, the loan must be repaid within two years because industry must renew its capital. They have to get back some of that money to put it to work over again. The important fact is that the interest rate is too high, the carrying charges are too high and the repayment period is too short. I sincerely ask the government to consider the possibility of making loans of up to $2,000 available to these home owners who wish to improve their homes. I would say that in probably every metropolitan area within this dominion there are such needy people. Such a step would help to look after the home owner and the unemployed in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver or wherever they may be.
When the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) suggested the creation of new money, we applauded. He said that he was getting his applause from the wrong side of the house. Why should we not applaud? After all these years we have finally got someone on the other side of the house to recognize the fact that the creation of money is not going to ruin our credit, ruin the value of our dollar. After all these years, we have finally got someone over there who has started talking a little sense instead of referring to funny money and calling "time". I am rather hopeful that he will explain this to his colleagues, and that the government will give it careful consideration. Then, we will have some of these members who are always calling "time", and are so anxious to run off to their homes in Quebec, ready to listen to ordinary sense and reason in the matter of finance. This would enable us to put this house of ours in good order.
The president of the Royal Bank of Canada does not take that view of funny money. I should like to propose once again that these hon. gentlemen go to him and ask him how the money was created with which we built
Unemployment
homes during these past years. One of these days we will explain the story again. Probably it has been explained once each year for the past 20 years. Now, an increase in capital investment for the creation of enterprise could be used to help our Canadian economy and thereby help the people who are today unemployed. I would suggest low cost loans on a long-term basis for such things as the establishment of homes or industries. In so far as cyclic production is concerned, the loans could be made on a shortterm basis.
The construction of national projects, such as our Minister of Public Works (Mr. Winters) has seen fit to plan throughout the country, should be carried on in the winter months when unemployment is at its worst. Governmental money could be spent at the time when it would do the most good. Under those circumstances, I would not say we should necessarily stop production during the summer because we would probably find ourselves with unemployment in the summer months, but we should save governmental projects for the winter months because that is the traditional period of seasonal unemployment.
I would suggest that if it is at all possible, in those areas such as Toronto, Vancouver and the Pacific coast we should build the shell of the building during the summer months and leave the finishing until later in the winter. I know that would not be possible in all circumstances, but certainly it holds true in a great many. I would further suggest that we continue these public works projects on a provincial-federal co-operative basis.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am afraid I must advise him, and this is with authority and accuracy, that his time has expired.


Mr. R. E. Reinke (Hamilton South):: great deal has already been said in this house since this debate on unemployment started. Many views have been expressed, some rather absurd and some rather inconsistent. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fair-clough) led off the debate by quoting columns of figures and percentages with which most of us were familiar. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has given us a comprehensive list of reasons for the business slump resulting in unemployment for the 'atter part of 1953 and 1954. He has pointed jut also to the house his reasons for believing that there has been an upturn in business. Those factors relating to the upturn are ones that simply cannot be disregarded. I am not

Unemployment
going to recount them, but nevertheless the undisputed facts are still there.
During the past few weeks the employment situation in Hamilton has shown some improvement as indicated by a decline in registrations at the national employment office. On January 28, 1954, the number of applicants registered at the national employment office in Hamilton totalled 12,731. On February 8 of last year they were 12,911, an increase. This year, on January 27, there were 15,485 registered at the national employment office. On February 17, 1955 the total was 14,717. From January 27 to February 17, there was a decline of about 770 in the number of job applicants. This was a result of gradual recalls in a number of industries in that area, the largest being the Steel Company of Canada. The Firestone Tire and Rubber Company are back on full-time operations or expect to be in the very near future. The outlook for employment in Canadian Westinghouse has also improved during February with the securing of two large orders for heavy electrical equipment.
Now, let us face other facts that we should face fairly and squarely. Either we are going to maintain a system of free enterprise, one in which the government should do everything within its power to encourage the development of initiative and investment in industry, or we should follow the policy of government control, centralizing and nationalizing all our private industries. This is the policy of my socialist friends which undoubtedly would lead to the taking away of our individual freedoms.


An hon. Member:: You would like to have unemployment.


Russell Earl Reinke: My hon. friend from Broadview (Mr. Hees), the rich poor man's friend, has stated that we must open steel mills in the west, that we must develop hydroelectric power and provincial services, that we must build up secondary industries in Canada. I wonder who should do this, in the opinion of my hon. friend. Certainly it is a fine principle; but surely these things must come about by free enterprise.
After listening to the opinions of those opposite, if we are to believe them, then the whole country is evidently headed for ruin. If private industry faced the future today with the same attitude as my hon. friends across the way, it is a wonder that they would consider the investment of one five-cent piece, or have any confidence whatever in the future of Canada.
Just because the government of the day is confident of an upturn in business, which is substantiated by the Minister of Trade and

Commerce (Mr. Howe), there is no reason why the same government cannot recognize the seriousness of the present unemployment situation; and they are recognizing it. The very fact that we are debating unemployment at this time substantiates what I have said.
The hon. member for Broadview told us today-and while I do not have his exact words, this is very close to what he said- that "the government is perfectly satisfied and intends to do nothing about it". How a supposedly competent member of parliament could honestly make a statement of that kind is more than I can understand. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has given us the government's formula for a better 1955, beginning with tax reductions, cheaper money, and the other means that he enumerated.
I have not heard one member in the opposition come out and say flat-footedly that all tariffs should be raised. But I want to tell you that most of the measures adopted by this government are along the lines of those suggestions made to the government by labour and management alike. I am not suggesting that the policy was adopted because of these suggestions, but I am saying that labour and management concur in this prescription.
Let me say this: We sit here and listen to contradiction after contradiction from the opposition. Some suggest that a reduction in cprporation taxes should be made. Others suggest a lowering of income tax, while others suggest the abolition of the sales tax. Where is all the money to come from to build the trans-Canada highway that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would like to build? Where is the money to come from to raise family allowances, old age pensions and veterans allowances? Where is the money to come from to build power developments, to clear slums and to build low rental housing developments?
I was very interested in the arguments advanced yesterday by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) when he urged the government to take positive action in the clearance of slum areas, and to build low rental housing. In my opinion each and every member in the house has been very shoddy in his own responsibility, where a situation such as that described by the hon. member exists. Surely no one is so naive as to suggest that the federal government should proceed to buy or to expropriate slum areas and to build houses without consulting the provinces or the municipalities.
Why, we are already accused of running a bureaucracy. Who is in a better position to judge what is needed in this regard than

the member in the House of Commons representing his constituency? Who is in a better position than a member of parliament to go to the municipal government and say, "Here is a small area that should be cleared out. Let us go to the federal government and arrange for low cost rental housing." Who is in a better position than the member of parliament who sits in the House of Commons to do that very thing? You will not find our government turning down a proposal of this kind, if the request is made by the municipality, and if that request is a sound one.
But it will do no good to shout across this chamber, "Let us do this" or "Let us do that". I say: Let us go out and take some initiative ourselves. Let us show some leadership for a change, instead of being arm-chair generals, and just sitting in the House of Commons and discussing it.
Let me give an example of what I mean. In the city of Hamilton we have approximately 470 wartime houses that were to have been demolished or removed as of July 1 of this year. This was brought about by an agreement between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the city council of Hamilton, when the city insisted upon their removal. I met the mayor of Hamilton and one of the controllers, and we agreed to make an effort to help these 470 families who were faced with eviction.
What did we do? We got together with the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the provincial authorities in Toronto and came up with a plan. If I may be permitted, I should like to read from the Globe and Mail of March 1, where I find this:
A plan to solve one of the city council's biggest headaches-removal of 470 wartime houses on the mountain-and to provide low rental housing was outlined here late this afternoon. Details of the plan were revealed by Mayor Lloyd Jackson and A. E. K. Bunnell, provincial housing administrator, at a press conference. The plan calls for the moving of the 470 wartime houses from their present location on the mountain to 70 acres of land north of Mohawk road and east of Wentworth street.
The project, to cost an estimated $2,500,000 will be financed under the National Housing Act with the federal government paying 75 per cent, provincial government 171 per cent and municipal government 71 per cent.
Each house will be placed on a permanent foundation, with a new gas or oil furnace, will be renovated inside and out to meet present building standards and the property will be landscaped.
Mayor Jackson said the project will give Hamilton 470 low rental homes. Under the present plans the houses are to rent for $45 a month.
People with families and with incomes of $40 to $65 a week will have preference. Families now living in the wartime houses who can qualify will be given first chance to occupy the houses.
Mayor Jackson said the plans were originated and worked out by Controller Jack MacDonald
Unemployment
and Russell Reinke, M.P. for Hamilton South. The two have been working on the project with the assistance of the mayor for several months.
Tenants of the wartime houses have been given notice to vacate the homes by July 1. This date was set last fall when council decided to live up to its agreement to remove the wartime houses.
This was no easy task; but I found our government most co-operative. I do not know how far-reaching the effects will be in so far as employment is concerned; but I am sure of one thing: we will not spend $2,500,000 on a housing- development in the city of Hamilton without giving work to a great number of people. We did not sit back and wait for parliament to open so that we could come here and express our views in idle chatter, such as we have heard in the house in the last three days. I am not suggesting that I deserve the credit; but I do say that all persons co-operated.
If each of the 265 members in the house put forth more constructive efforts, and were a little less destructive, we would have less unemployment today.
Now, Mr. Speaker, a word about one phase of unemployment that must be faced and faced now, namely, the problem of the unemployed employables. I hold in my hand a telegram from the chairman of the public assistance committee of the council of community services. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) read the same telegram to the house the other day; therefore I shall read only a part of it, to this effect:
Seventeen thousand dollars spent by city in January and nearly that much in February for unemployed employables without benefits and needing emergency relief.
What is happening? The city of Hamilton cannot stand by and watch these people starve, and so they must provide the necessary assistance. Fathers are leaving their families so that the families may qualify for assistance. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has urged the government to call an immediate tax conference with the provinces. How absurd that is. Even if the conference could be called tomorrow, he knows that all ten provinces could not meet immediately without any preparation; and even if they did meet right away a formula could not be adopted overnight that would be acceptable to all.
Let me read from an editorial in the Globe and Mail of Wednesday, March 2, 1955:
Ontario is ready and willing to accept the 1954 proposals of the federal government for dealing with unemployment, Premier Frost yesterday told a delegation of the Ontario provincial federation of labour.
The province has told Ottawa this, the premier said, and the Ontario government also has repeatedly expressed the view that any solution

Unemployment
to the unemployment problem must be a cooperative one. All levels of government must share the responsibility, he declared.
The premier of Ontario tells us that any solution to unemployment must be a co-operative one, which is quite true. But what has happened? As I stated before, in January, 1955, the city of Hamilton paid out $17,000 for the unemployed employables. In that same month the total amount paid out in the form of unemployment insurance was $811,516. You say that unemployment insurance is contributory. That is perfectly true. It is contributed to by the employer and the employee. While that is true, do not forget that the government contributes one-fifth to this fund. In the case of Hamilton, the contribution of the federal government to this fund of $800,000 would amount to approximately $140,000 in the month of January. In addition, our estimates this year to maintain employment offices across Canada amount to $27 million. And yet someone has the audacity to say that we are not spending money. Our contribution to the unemployment insurance fund will amount to $32,500,000 in the next year. What is the province contributing? Where is this sharing of responsibilities that Mr. Frost speaks about?
Here is another point. The larger group of the unemployed are those who have no trade or profession. Consequently, this government has provided legislation to give vocational
training to the unemployed and to equip them for better positions. The federal government will pay 50 per cent of the cost of this vocational training of the unemployed and the province 50 per cent. Has the province of Ontario come forward to help train our unemployed under this plan? Not on your life. Here again, where is the co-operation? It seems to me that most of the provinces in Canada today have a budget surplus, and yet they leave the responsibility for the unemployed employables to the municipalities. It seems to me that all the initiative in the past has been left to the federal government. Well, let us show them that we do not mind taking the initiative once again, as we have done in the past.
On motion of Mr. Ellis the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall take first second reading of Bill No. 181, to amend the National Harbours Board Act; then we shall take second reading of Bill No. 164, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952; then the motion to set up the veterans affairs committee; then Bill No. 182, to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act; and then bills numbered 187, 188 and 189.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 4, 1955