1955-03-02

Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table a copy in English and in French of order in council P.C. 1955-308 of March 1, 1955, appointing a royal commission on the coasting trade of Canada. The terms of reference will be found in the order in council, but in broad language they direct inquiry into all questions within the jurisdiction of parliament arising out of the water transport of goods and passengers from one place in Canada to another place in Canada, including the great lakes.
Attention is specifically directed to such matters as the relationship between Canada's coasting trade and the shipping and ship building industries, the relation to domestic and international trade generally, the probable effects of the St. Lawrence seaway on the coasting trade, the effects of participation in the coasting trade of vessels or other marine craft not built or registered in Canada, and the desirability, if any, of establishing different policies with respect to the coasting trade for particular parts of Canada.
LLater:l


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Has the Minister of Transport any statement to make in connection with the setting up of the coastal trade commission?


George Carlyle Marler: I made a statement before the hon. member came into the house.


Mr. E. D. Fullon (Kamloops):: May I ask the
Minister of Transport whether, in the document he tabled today, there is information regarding the personnel of the royal commission to which he referred. If there is not such information, would he give us the names of the personnel now so that hon. members may have the opportunity of knowing who they are?


George Carlyle Marler: In answer to the question, Mr. Speaker, I may say the order in council does contain the names of the members of the commission. I shall immediately send my hon. friend a copy.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. Milion F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, to provide a more complete reply to the questions asked by the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) on February 10 and by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) on February 24, I should like to table a copy of a consolidation of the regulations of the unemployment insurance commission as sent to all its regional and local offices on the subject of labour supply-St. Lawrence river seaway and power projects.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Mr. F. S. Follwell (Hastings South) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 191, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1952, with respect to the tenure of place in the Senate.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Argue:: 1.	Does Canada possess any (a) atomic bombs: (b) atomic weapons of any kind?
2.	Does Canada permit the transport of atomic bombs from any foreign country (a) into Canada; (b) through Canada? If so, from what foreign countries?
3.	Did any official of the Department of Defence
Production or any other department make any statement regarding the passage of atomic bombs into or through Canada (a) in the week ending January 29. 1955;	(b) at any other time since
December 1, 1954?
4.	If so, (a) what is the name of the official; (b) to whom did he make the statement; (c) who authorized such a statement to be made?


Mr. Campney:: Mr. Speaker, the first and second parts of this question, dealing respectively with the possession by Canada and the transportation in Canada of atomic bombs and atomic weapons, obviously cannot be answered for security reasons. Furthermore, it would not be in the national interest to give, for the benefit of foreign powers, the information which answers to the questions raised in these two parts would give to such foreign powers, whether those answers were by way of confirmation or denial.

Questions
As regards the third part of the question, I am informed by my colleague the Minister of Defence Production that no authorized statement regarding the passage of atomic bombs into or through Canada has been made by officials of his department since December 1, 1954. Nor has any such statement, to my knowledge, been made by officials of my department. The same applies, as far as I can find out, to other departments of government. The answer which I have just made to part three also takes care of the fourth part of the question.


Mr. Argue:: I wonder whether I might be permitted to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. When we come to orders of the day the hon. member may put his question then.
[Later:!


Hazen Robert Argue: The question I wish to ask the Minister of National Defence is based on his statement that no authorized statement has been made regarding the passage of atomic bombs through Canada. My question is this: Was any unauthorized statement made by any official which led to the January 29 report in the Toronto Daily Star and the Telegram?


Ralph Osborne Campney: So far as I know, no unauthorized statement was issued. The reason I used the word "authorized" in my reply was that in part 4 of the hon. member's question he asks who authorized such a statement. I, therefore, took the word from the question and used it in my reply.



POWDERED MILK IMPORTS

Mr. Tusiin:: What were the total imports into Canada during the year 1954, of (a) powdered whole milk; (b) powdered skim milk, indicating volume, value and country of origin?


Mr. Dickey:: (a)	13,798 pounds, $7,353, from United States.
(b)	7,226 pounds, $1,809, from United States.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Trainor:: 1.	What offers, if any, have been received by the Canadian National Railways for their various hotels listed for sale?
2.	What terms of payment are suggested in respect of these offers?
3.	What is the appraised value of each of these properties, if such appraisals are available?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	As a result of a public advertisement, Canadian National Railways received two

offers to purchase the Prince Arthur hotel, Port Arthur, two offers for the Prince Edward hotel, Brandon, one offer for the Prince Arthur and Prince Edward hotels and one offer for all four hotels.
2.	It is not the policy of the Canadian National Railways to make public the particulars of business contracts entered into with other parties.
3.	Not available.



CHEESE IMPORTS

George James Tustin: How much cheese was imported into Canada during the year 1954, and during January and February, 1955, indicating volume, value and country of origin?


John Horace Dickey: Imports of cheese, by countries, during the year	1954, were	as follows:Country	Pounds	ValueUnited Kingdom ..	17,550	$ 11,688New Zealand ....	540	184Argentina 	137,745	50,537Austria 	13,289	5,311Denmark 	1,188,266	474,456Finland 	4,340	1,586France 	331,924	170,688Germany, West ..	9,995	5,344Greece 	2,266	838Italy 	1,095,614	564,069Netherlands 	843,185	326,043Norway 	68,181	25,595Sweden 	487	144Switzerland 	1,580,440	942,906United States ....	648,833	329,991Totals 	5,942,655	$2,909,380
Figures for the months of January and February 1955, are not yet available.
SHIPPIGAN ISLAND, N.B., BRIDGE Mr. Robichaud:
1.	Has a request been received from the department of public works of the province of New Brunswick or from any other department of the said province, asking for permission of right of way over navigable waters between Shippigan island and the mainland, with a view towards making a survey to determine the possibility of erecting a bridge to link the island with the mainland?
2.	Is such a permission required for the government of the province of New Brunswick to proceed with a survey to determine the feasibility of erecting a bridge over navigable waters?
3.	If such an application has been received, is the minister prepared to consider the granting of authority to the government of the province of New Brunswick to proceed with the contemplated survey?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	No.
2.	Permission is not required for the survey.
3.	Answered by No. 2.



DEFENCE RESEARCH BOARD FLAG

Mr. Hamillon (Notre Dame de Grace):: 1.	Has the defence research board of the national defence department designed a flag for its own use?
2.	If so. for what purpose was this done?


Mr. Blanchette:: 1.	The defence research board flag was designed by the Chester herald of the Royal College of Heralds. The late Kang George VI authorized a defence research board badge in 1950; in January 1953 Her Majesty the
Countries to which exported
United Kingdom	
Bermuda	
Trinidad	
Bahamas	
Leeward and Windward Is	
Belgium	
Netherlands Antilles	
Alaska	
United States	
Totals	
Figures for the month of February
Questions
Queen authorized a distinctive defence research board flag which consists of a scarlet field carrying the badge in the fly.
2.	To be flown at defence research board establishments.



CHEESE EXPORTS

Mr. Weselak:: How much cheese was exported from Canada during January and February, 1955, indicating volume, value and to what countries?


John Horace Dickey: Exports of cheese during the month of January, 1955 were as follows:
Cheddar cheese	Other cheese
Cwt.	Value	Cwt.	Value4,976	$139,453	225	$ 6,42155	2,175	13	507-	-	3	7422	913	6	260-	-	4	1609	275	-	--	-	1	28-	-	1	21260	9,656	63	3,3885,322	$152,472	316	$10,859
1955 are not yet available.
^FOREIGN DECORATIONS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What are the regulations now in effect respecting the acceptance by Canadians of decorations from foreign governments?
2.	Have any awards been made to Canadians by foreign governments in the last year, in which there has been no compliance with Canadian regulations? If so, by which foreign governments?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: This question, as indicated on the order paper, is to be answered orally. The first part of the question is as follows:
What are the regulations now in effect respecting the acceptance by Canadians of decorations from foreign governments?
The policy of the Canadian government, which has been for some years made known to foreign governments through their diplomatic representatives in Ottawa, is opposed to their awarding decorations to Canadians except for (a) gallantry in the rescue or attempt to rescue human lives in danger or (b) services rendered in connection with military operations, the latest instances of this category of service being those with respect to the United Nations operations in Korea. Any foreign government wishing to award a decoration to a Canadian is expected, under this policy, to seek beforehand the agreement of the Canadian government through the Department of External Affairs.
With reference to the second part of the question, the answer is that the Canadian government has no official information regarding foreign decorations, if any, awarded to Canadians in the last year by foreign governments contrary to the policy outlined in the answer I have just given. The Canadian government's attention has been called to reports in the press regarding two cases, and inquiries have been made about them. Pending the results of these inquiries, it is felt that it would not be appropriate for the Canadian government to give any details.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Arising out of the Prime Minister's oral answer to this question I should like to ask, has there been any communication by the government of Canada with any foreign government with reference to the award of any decoration, as reported in the press, that was awarded without the consent of the Canadian government?


Mr. St. Laurent:: My information, Mr. Speaker, is that the ambassador of the country concerned called at the Department of External Affairs after the award of one of these decorations and expressed regrets that he had not been aware of this policy. Subsequently, another award was made, and it has not been possible to communicate with him since

Questions
because ho has been away on a return visit to his own country and is expected back shortly.


John George Diefenbaker: One other question; is it the same government in both cases?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: In those two cases, and they are the only ones to which attention has been called, it is the same government.



EXPORTS OF MILK PRODUCTS

Anton Bernard Weselak: What were the total. exports from Canada during the year 1954, of (a) whole powdered milk; (b) powdered skim milk; (c) powdered buttermilk; (d) condensed milk; (e) evaporated milk; (f) chocolate milk preparations; (g) other milk preparations, indicating volume and value in each case?


John Horace Dickey: Cwt.	Value
(a) Whole powdered milk	142,571	$5,322,350(b) Powdered skim milk	104,315	1,097,787(c) Powdered buttermilk	3,343	23,866(d) Condensed milk ....	17,676	303,190(e)	Evaporated milk ... (f)	Chocolate milk	62,837	873,693preparations 	1,128	48,264(g) Other milk	preparations 	8,074	411,200



C.N.R. SPECIAL CAR-LAKEFIELD, ONT.

Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	Did a Canadian National Railways special car make any trips to Lakefield, Ontario, in 1954? If *o, how many?
2.	Who occupied the car on these trips?
3.	What was the mission of such trips?
4.	Was any payment made to the Canadian National Railways and, if so, by whom and how much?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: The management of the Canadian National Railways advise they are unable to trace the movement of any special or business car to Lakefield in 1954, and a check of the operating records indicates that all equipment moved into Lakefield during 1954 was operated in the regular and normal course of the company's transportation business.



RADIO SETS

Mr. Beaudry:: How many households owned one or more radio receiving sets in Canada (a) at the end of March, 1953; (b) on December 31, 1954?


John Horace Dickey: Information not available for the dates specified.
In conjunction with the monthly labour force survey, the dominion bureau of statistics carries out a special survey of household

equipment in private homes in September of each year. Estimates based on these surveys are as follows:
Households with radios by number of radios, week ending September 19, 1953
(estimates in thousands)
Total with	One	More Two than two	radios	radio	radios	radiosCanada ...	(1) 	3,511	2,633	687	191Nfld	
69	62	6	*P.E.I	
22	19	*	*N.S	
152	123	23	6N.B	
118	88	25	5Que	
901	719	145	37Ont	1,229	832	302	95Man	
203	150	41	12Sask	
217	185	26	6Alta	
255	194	49	12B.C	
345	261	67	17
(1) Does not include automobile radios.
* Less than 4,000.
Households with radios by number of radios, week ending September 18, 1954
(estimates in thousands)
Total with radios	One	Two	Three	More than three(1)	radio	radios	radios radios	Canada .	. 3,598	2,602	758	173	65Nfld. . ..	. 73	65	7	*	*P.E.I. . ..	. 22	20N.S	. 147	107	30	7	*N.B	. Ill	89	17	4	*Que. ...	. 928	737	155	27	9Ont	. 1,267	828	318	86	35Man. . . .	. 212	144	52	12	4Sask. ...	. 218	175	36	6	*Alta. ...	. 274	200	58	11	5B.C	. 346	237	83	19	7
(1) Does not include automobile radios. * Less than 4,000.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


George James Tustin: What were the total Imports into Canada for the year 1953, and the year 1954, giving country of origin, volume and value of (a) canned tomatoes; (b) tomato puree; (c) other tomato products; (d) canned corn; (e) canned peas; (f) other canned vegetables?


John Horace Dickey: Return tabled.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: May I
address a question to the Prime Minister relating to the calamitous flood in Australia? Has the government offered or does it intend to offer any message of sympathy on behalf of Canada or any material assistance to those who have suffered as a result of this calamitous misfortune?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The government at once sent a message to the government of Australia, and as yet there have been no official communications to this government about the disaster. I am sure the people of Australia have the sympathy of all the Canadian people. We expect the Prime Minister of Australia to visit us next week, and no doubt we will then hear something more definite about what the situation there really is.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. R. Balcom (Halifax):: May I inquire of the Prime Minister if the premier of Nova Scotia has informed the federal government what he was referring to when, as reported in the Ottawa Journal of the evening of March 1, he accused Ottawa of leaving Nova Scotia in the lurch in at least one joint project?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The hon. member was kind enough to send to my office notice of his intention to ask this question, to which the answer is, of course, in the negative.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Is there anything the minister can do to help make available sufficient quantities of the hormone that Dr. Charles Bardawill is using in his excellent and hopeful research into the cure of leukemia, as reported in this morning's Globe and Mail?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Paul Marlin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: When my hon. friend asked me his question, he will remember, he said, is there anything the Minister of National Health and Welfare can do, and then there was a long pause. I thought that was the full question and I was about to reply of course, there are definite limits to what the minister can do. As the house has since learned, however, that is not the tenor of my hon. friend's question. The question is an important one and I shall be glad to give him an answer later.



GATT CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, has the minister's attention been drawn to a report in Canadian papers of proceedings at the GATT conference where it is suggested that the United States is to receive permission to have a waiver of prohibition against quantitative curtailment of imports, and was Canada in agreement with this? If so, has the Canadian government any corresponding concession?


John Horace Dickey: I shall be glad to call this question to the attention of the minister.

The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mrs. Fairclough.



UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, last evening when the house closed at ten o'clock we were discussing a subject that every member in the house considers of extreme importance, namely the unemployment situation now existing in this country.
During my remarks I was asked on several occasions by those who had preceded me in the debate what the program of the social credit party is. I promised at that time I would give a program that we would consider sufficient to meet the existing emergency. But the amazing thing was that those who were asking me to produce a program, although they had spoken before me for their allotted time, failed completely to give a program of their own.
The only program that has been given in the house up to this time is the one presented

Unemployment
by the Liberal party, and that program was certainly not satisfactory. They said in effect that they were going to continue the same type of program they were then pursuing, and if the matter got worse-because they did not consider it overly bad at the moment -they then might take other measures.
Of course we all know that the program the Liberal party has been pursuing is the same program they followed before, during the first great depression in the thirties; and the only way we got out of that depression was through preparations for war. Today they are pursuing the same policy and the same program they have pursued since the last war, a policy which has led us to the point where we now have over 600,000 unemployed.
The Progressive Conservatives would follow the same type of policy as the Liberals, only they say they would do it better than the Liberals. But when they were in power they failed under their program to get us out of the depression. So we have not much hope there. They seem to be wandering in a whirlpool of confusion, knowing neither where they are going nor what they would do when they get there.
Then we have the socialists, representatives of whom have spoken in this debate. They, too, have failed to point out any program they would follow, other than saying that they would give us a socialist platform. And the socialist platform they would follow would be the socialist platform that was followed in New Zealand, Australia and Great Britain, and in Saskatchewan. That program proved to be a failure in every instance and, in the countries I have mentioned, it was kicked out and supplanted by that of another party.
I am informed by the whip of this party that I have not very much time left at my disposal. I do not wish to be accused of making a speech and not giving our program.


An hon. Member:: Five minutes.


Charles Edward Johnston: Oh, you are not
going to be through with it in five minutes, I can assure you of that. The program we are going to enunciate at this moment is one which would take care of present circumstances. That is, it would give assistance in connection with this terrible problem of unemployment we are now facing.
I shall present to the house a five-point program to meet existing circumstances. It is as follows:
1.	Elimination of the sales tax and wider use of the price discount;
2.	The assumption by the federal government of financial assistance to those unemployed not covered by unemployment

insurance or extended benefits; expansion of payment for social services such as family allowance, old age pension, war veterans allowance, and so on;
3.	A vigorous employment policy with government assistance to private industry to absorb seasonal unemployment;
4.	A program of construction of national projects with emphasis on those works that can be carried on during the winter months;
5.	A support price program for agriculture;
6.	A more realistic trading policy which would involve the acceptance of some foreign currency in exchange for Canadian goods and which would involve amongst other things the revaluation of the Canadian dollar.


Hazen Robert Argue: We must have written that.


Charles Edward Johnston: I hear some of my socialist friends saying, "That is what we would do." Well, they are the biggest copycats we ever saw. Whenever there is anything good given out they say, "Oh, that's what we would do." But, in actual fact, what they would do is exactly the same as any other socialist-minded party would do: They would socialize everything, even the means of life.


An hon. Member:: And the farms, too.


Charles Edward Johnston: Now, I shall not have time to deal with all the points I have mentioned, but I can assure the house that members of the social credit party will discuss them in detail as this debate goes on.
In the time left to me I would refer to point number 4, which refers to a vigorous construction program. I have indicated on other occasions, as other hon. members have, that there should be a vigorous construction program in the home building industry, and for a moment I would refer to that. I think there is no other program that could be instituted which would give more employment to a greater number of people at a satisfactory wage than the construction of homes. I believe this is generally agreed by all those who have anything to do with this kind of work.
We must understand that one of the things most needed in this country at the present time is better homes for those who wish to have them but are unable to finance them. The present plan of the government for national housing is one which will cover only a very small proportion of the people in this country. Certainly the down payment in itself excludes at least 75 per cent of the people in Canada who really need homes.
On other occasions we have suggested a full plan for housing. Let me review in just a few words what we have said. I have pointed

out that the federal government should set up a fund which it could get from the Bank of Canada at an interest rate of not more than 2 per cent.


Mr. Herridge:: That is more of the C.C.F. program.


Charles Edward Johnston: You stole that from us, too.


An hon. Member:: That is why you have nothing left.


Charles Edward Johnston: Perhaps the socialists could start those big sawmills operating and give the home builders a decent price on lumber.


Hazen Robert Argue: They are operating.


Charles Edward Johnston: And don't make any mistake about it, they are making a profit from it, too.
But let me say that if the federal government would set up this fund and lend the money to the municipalities at not more than 2 per cent, such loans being guaranteed by the provinces, the municipalities could then go ahead and construct the kind of homes that would be suitable in a particular locality. I am sure that under those circumstances a great number of people would begin building homes immediately, and there would be many jobs available for people who are not now working. If that were done it would create jobs for those who are in need of them. And, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say this, that anyone wishing to have more detailed information in regard to housing need only read from Hansard what I have said on other occasions.
We believe sincerely that the program we have indicated to the house at this time will take care of the immediate problem of unemployment now facing us. If the hon. members, particularly those in the Conservative ranks, and more particularly those in the socialist ranks-and I emphasize that-would rise in their places and lay down a policy that could be followed, then I am sure that this country would be appreciative of it. So far we are still waiting for them. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that when we are finished this debate the country will not be lacking information on how to solve this economic problem of unemployment.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposiiion):: Mr. Speaker, I read with interest in the press today some of the reports of the debate that took place yesterday, and I was interested to find that this was interpreted as a resolution calling for the overthrow of the federal government because of rising unemployment. I assure you that even with the kindness that has been extended to me
Unemployment
on this and on other occasions, I would regard that as a very happy outcome. Nevertheless, I have not thought, nor has any other hon. member, that suddenly such a wave of changing opinion is going to sweep across the ranks of the large majority opposite that this outcome, desirable though it may be, is likely to be achieved at this time.
It is of course quite proper to describe a motion of this kind as a want of confidence motion; but I should like to emphasize the fact that while technically this may be described as a want of confidence motion, the real purpose of presenting it to the house is to seek to emphasize in every way possible the belief of hon. members supporting it that there is urgent need for action to deal with a situation which can no longer be glossed over.
I have no thought of following in the same vein the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat. We are not going to gain anything by seeking to surround this extremely important subject with political slogans or remarks of that kind. The attention of the government has been drawn to the fact that there is rising unemployment in Canada. There is some argument as to which set of figures should be taken. There are those who argue that the figures given by the dominion bureau of statistics of 362,000 are the correct ones. There are those who state that the figures should be those given of live applications for work. One brings us a figure of something approaching 400,000; the other brings us a figure approaching 600,000. I point out, Mr. Speaker, that in this particular case we find the heads of the large labour organizations, the chamber of commerce and other organizations in this country, appear to have reached a near approach to unanimity as to the seriousness of the situation and as to what they think the figures are. For instance, I find in Canadian Business, the official organ of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the statement that on the estimates which could then be made, following the trend which had been established, there are likely to be 600,000 applicants for employment in March. Those correspond with the figures which have been used elsewhere. They correspond with the figures that were given this week by the president of the Trades and Labour Congress, Mr. Jodoin. Here we find unanimity on that point. Whichever set of figures may be accepted, the fact remains that there is unemployment so extensive that it should no longer be disregarded by the government or by any other hon. member.
Last night and yesterday afternoon this house heard speeches by ministers of the

Unemployment
government. Yesterday afternoon the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), who followed the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough), after she had presented her extremely well documented and capable argument in support of the suggestion that immediate action should be taken to deal with this situation, said that we should not conclude the picture is all black. Certainly it is not all black. Nevertheless it is very black for a large number of Canadians, whichever set of figures you use. It is very black for those who are trying to find employment and have been trying for some considerable time.
Just as an example of what is coming to the attention of hon. members every day, I read in this morning's Montreal Gazette, as I am sure many hon. members did, a report of the Montreal presbytery of the United Church of Canada, made public yesterday. In that report we find these words:
Many families are in dire need now, and their number is increasing.
Farther on we find these words in the report:
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.
That is exactly what we are seeking to impress upon the government; that is exactly what we are seeking to place before the government, hon. members and the people of Canada by presenting this resolution at this time.
Last night the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) did not deal with the problem of unemployment. He gave an economic survey, painting a bright picture of the situation in Canada generally. Most of us will agree that the economic prospects in Canada are in most respects very encouraging. I doubt whether there is a single member of parliament who does not believe that this country offers to its people opportunities that are not exceeded in any other country in the world. Yes, there is prosperity. There is continuing prosperity. It is because of that prosperity that we are in a position to deal with this problem of unemployment. We are not in the middle of a world-wide situation such as that with which this country was confronted some years ago and which is within the memory of so many here. At that time there was a world-wide economic storm; conditions were very different, but today Canada with all its resources, with all its opportunities, finds

many of its people unemployed, not only at a time when many other people throughout the world need the things that can be made with our resources but at a time when other countries are enjoying a period of very high employment and very high prosperity.
Surely it is a startling fact that we in Canada should be worried about unemployment when other countries which only a few years ago were rebuilding their economies following the devastation of war are now finding it necessary actually to assist immigration into their countries to meet their employment demands. As an example it is not so long ago that many of us looking at the devastation in Germany immediately after the end of the second world war wondered how they would ever be able to rebuild their economy. In addition to the problem of restoring their producing capacity in Western Germany they were also confronted with the extremely difficult problem of handling some ten million refugees from East Germany who sought escape from the vile slavery of communism.
For a long time that seemed to present an insuperable problem for the people of West Germany. Today they have not only restored their producing capacity in West Germany to the point where the people who were living in West Germany at the end of the war are occupied; they have given work to thousands of refugees and they are now assisting immigration from Italy so that they may have enough workers to keep pace with the tremendous tempo of production in that area.
It is not so long ago since we heard people making rather gloomy predictions about what might happen in Great Britain. There were many discouraging reports about what was taking place there. Today the tempo of work and production in Great Britain is higher than it has ever been. There are less unemployed in Great Britain than there are in Canada, and that is not on a percentage basis but in actual numbers. According to the most recently available statistics there are more unemployed people in Canada although we have just over a quarter of their population than there are in Great Britain. Other countries are seeing great industrial prosperity and great demands for workers.
It is in the face of that situation that we call attention to the need for some action to deal with this problem. If there were 100,000 Canadians unemployed and who were actually seeking work and were able to work, we should be trying to find out how they can be employed. The lowest figure we have

is 362,000, and the generally accepted figure, except on the part of the government, is in the neighbourhood of 600,000. Let us not waste time about these statistics. The human problem is there of physically capable men and women wanting to work and not being able to find work in a country which has the power, which has the resources and which should have the initiative and the ability to create work by the combined efforts of our people.
Yesterday the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) made one or two comments with which I should like to deal. He did not seek to convey the impression that he was in any way dismissing this problem, but in his remarks he certainly conveyed the impression that he did not regard it as being unduly serious. Most certainly in the review that he gave he did nothing to remove the suggestion that has been left that this government simply regards unemployment as seasonal and regional.
He did say that neither Ontario nor any other province had indicated that unemployment had got beyond their ability to deal with it. Almost at the moment that he was speaking here, the premier of Ontario was meeting a delegation in Toronto. In this morning's edition of the Globe and Mail we find a report of a meeting between the Ontario government and representatives of the Ontario provincial federation of labour. I should like to quote from that report as follows:
The province has told Ottawa this, the premier said, and the Ontario government also has repeatedly expressed the view that any solution to the unemployment problem must be a co-operative one. All levels of government must share the responsibility, he declared.
The premier of Ontario left no doubt that he was anxious to deal with this subject. Further on the report states this:
Declaring that no level of government can take care of the unemployment problem alone. Premier Frost said the Ontario government is most anxious to sit in with representatives of all Canadian governments to discuss the problem.
Surely that is definite enough. I am under the impression that other governments have said the same thing. The premier of Ontario was dealing with those problems where there is overlapping responsibility. We know that there are cases where this government can deal with questions of unemployment when they are exclusively under federal control, but there are many cases where the federal, provincial and municipal governments all have their share of responsibility.
The Minister of Labour said that this problem is not one that has reached such proportions as to call for such vigorous action as
Unemployment
was demanded by the resolution or by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fair-clough) who spoke before him. Surely there is not an hon. member of this house who has not received letters and personal representations from his constituents and others indicating the real urgency with which this problem is regarded by so many thousands of Canadians at this time.
I doubt if there is an hon. member in this house who has not received pitiful letters from men and women who have worked for years and who now find it impossible to obtain work. They ask for any help that can be given to them in finding work with which they can support their families today. It is no answer to them to say that the country is prosperous. On the contrary, when they are told that the country is prosperous their natural reply is, "Well, if it is prosperous then let us see that prosperity extended so that everyone can feel the benefits of it".
I do seek to impress upon the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), upon the members of the government and upon the members of this house that the greater the appearance of prosperity with which our people generally may be surrounded, the greater the feeling of despair will be if there are ablebodied people who are earnestly trying to get work and cannot find it. What do they think when they see the very real prosperity which is evident? That can only lead to a sense of bitterness in their hearts that prosperity should be available to some and not to all.
The Minister of Labour was quite correct when he said there is no magic wand which can be waved to deal with this situation. I am not for one moment suggesting that any such magic can be applied. I am not going to follow any suggestion which may have been made here earlier that any hon. member of this house can offer a magic formula to solve this problem.
In this country we have three forms of government. We have the national government, which deals with national affairs and national problems. Under our federal constitution we have provincial governments, which deal with provincial affairs. Under the municipal acts passed by the various provinces we have municipal governments dealing with local affairs. Each one of these forms of government has its responsibilities at this time. As we have seen, it is not only the provincial governments which are confronted with difficulties. Only a few days ago I read a most significant report from the city of Toronto which was published in

Unemployment
the Globe and Mail of February 25. The heading is "Jobless Paid to Quit City and Go Home." The report reads:
Toronto welfare commissioner Rupert admitted to the civil welfare committee yesterday that his department had given funds to unemployed to leave the city.
Other Canadian cities were doing the same thing, he added.
In one instance, he said, the city of Regina, Sask., gave money to a Toronto unemployed family to return to Toronto.
I do not want to appear to be placing any unnecessary barbs in my remarks when I ask the Minister of Labour if that is what he is describing as "mobility". The minister referred yesterday to the fact that we have a rather satisfactory measure of mobility. Well, we do not want the kind of mobility which moves unemployed families from Toronto to Regina so that Toronto will get rid of the responsibility, and which moves unemployed families from Regina to Toronto so that Regina will get rid of the responsibility simply because neither municipality knows who naturally is supposed to deal with the situation. This is the situation with which we are confronted. Examples of this kind could be multiplied indefinitely. Surely, however, this does underline the difficulty which today faces municipal councils, provincial governments and the federal government here in Ottawa.
That leads us to the question as to whether something can be done to deal with this problem. Certainly something can be done. No matter what constitutional defects there may be in determining how taxes will be allocated and whether it will be one government or another which will handle a certain responsibility, we do know that either under the federal government or the provincial government anything that can be done by any government in any other land can also be done here in Canada as long as there is agreement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And if there is the will to do it.


George Alexander Drew: As the hon. member has added, there also has to be the will to do it.
There has already been discussion concerning various projects which would create employment and which at the same time would be useful to the Canadian economy. Undoubtedly some of these involve questions of jurisdiction as between one government and another. We have seen instances of that in proceeding with the tremendous developments on the St. Lawrence river. There were great problems to work out concerning that project not only between the governments of Canada and the United States but also between the provincial and state governments

as well. Those problems have been worked out although it took some considerable time. We know that if there is the will to do it and if there is a recognition of its necessity a solution can be found. This being the case, Mr. Speaker, this motion is placed before the house with the idea of emphasizing the very real urgency of the present situation. We ask the government of Canada to take steps which will meet this situation.
I notice that reference was made to the fact that this government would be prepared to consider ways in which the efforts of the different governments could be joined at a proposed conference between the federal and provincial governments to be held at some future date which has not as yet been stated. Mr. Speaker, that will be too late for many of the people in this country who are wondering today how they can live for the balance of the winter months. That will be too late for a number of the municipalities to know how to meet the problem which confronts them today. That will be too late for some of the provincial governments to know how to deal with the requests of the municipalities for a solution to the problem.
I believe we had an example last week of what is occurring in that respect. A delegation from the city of Toronto came to Ottawa to seek assistance with certain public projects there. They were told that this was not the immediate responsibility of the government at Ottawa and that they should first present their claims to the government at Toronto. The same sort of thing is happening all over Canada. Frustration confronts provincial governments, municipal councils and, above all, the individuals who are affected. It does not help very much the families of unemployed workers, who are waiting to know where their next meals are coming from, to be told that at some undisclosed date there is at last going to be a conference on taxation. That conference on taxation is long overdue. That conference on taxation will have many important problems to deal with. That conference on taxation will take some time to reach conclusions.
What is needed now is an immediate and vigorous approach to these problems on the part of those authorities who must deal with them. In all earnestness I urge the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) not to wait to write to the premiers with respect to the taxation conference before dealing with this immediate subject. This is something that should be dealt with right away. I am confident that if the Prime Minister sent a telegram to the premiers of every province in Canada and asked them to come to a conference immediately to deal with the problem

of unemployment and ways and means of meeting the situation, he would receive an affirmative response from every one of them without delay. That conference could take place within a week. It should take place within a week.
I think also that representatives of the municipalities should attend that conference. No one has placed more emphasis than I have on the fact that we must always respect our constitution and must remember that the municipalities are legal entities created under the municipal laws of the provinces themselves. Nevertheless some of these legal entities are very real entities. Their problems are very real and very immediate, as evidenced by the fact that municipalities are now providing transportation tickets to some families so that they will avoid the responsibility of caring for them while they are unemployed. I should think it would be highly desirable that representatives of the municipalities be invited as chosen by their representative association of mayors and municipalities, which embraces all urban municipalities across Canada.
Such a conference could then face the issue, find subjects that are common to them so far as this problem is concerned, and decide how this job can be done. Surely amongst men of good will, desirous of meeting the very real needs of the people of Canada at this time, a practical solution could be worked out in that way. I am not suggesting this as a substitute for the other conference which is long overdue and which will have the problem of dealing with the long-term aspect of many of the circumstances which themselves contribute to some of these difficulties. I do hope that conference will be proceeded with as quickly as possible.
I also wish to deal with this matter from the broader point of view. We are seeing increasing unemployment in Canada at a time when other industrial countries are actually finding it difficult to meet their employment needs. We are now in a highly competitive period which is going to continue. I am sure that everyone who has seen what has been taking place in Europe in the past few years has become impressed with the fact that we are going to meet the kind of competition that we have not faced for many years. It may be doubtful if we have ever faced as keen competition as we are going to see in the years ahead. I believe that Canadians can meet that competition. They can only meet it effectively, however, if they recognize the reality and if they join hands in every 50433-105
Unemployment
way they can to make our production efficient and to be able to meet this competition not only in the domestic field but in the export field as well.
The tempo of production in Britain, in Germany, yes, in many parts of France and in Italy, as well as in other European countries, indicates clearly that we will be well advised to make sure that we keep pace in efficiency and design with the best in every other land. One of the things that must impress every visitor to Europe at this time is the quality of the new designs in every type of industrial production. We would be well advised to encourage research in every field. In that respect I would urge the government of Canada to try to bring about co-ordination between the national research council, the various provincial research bodies supported and maintained by the provincial governments, and other research organizations so that we do not unnecessarily duplicate research tasks and so that we do explore every new field of opportunity to make use of the resources, the power and the skill that we possess in Canada. These are some of the long-term considerations that we must bear in mind. These are things which seek attention by joint action of the government of Canada and the provincial governments.
Let me once again come back to the question immediately before us. Able-bodied men and women are seeking work. Every one of us is receiving requests for advice and encouragement from many of these people. We are told that this country is prosperous. Let us hope it continues prosperous. The best way to assure that prosperity is to make sure that we avoid the unnecessary burden as well as the human anguish of unemployment in a country where the opportunities to create employment are so great.
I repeat my request that, in the face of the suggestions which have been made by provincial governments, by representatives of municipal councils, as well as by the many public bodies referred to by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) in her carefully prepared and comprehensive speech yesterday, the Prime Minister immediately- I mean immediately-extend an invitation to the governments of the provinces of Canada to meet here in Ottawa. I suggest as well that there be representatives of the municipalities in attendance, so that they may all tackle this problem and find some immediate solution, while at the same time seeking a long-term solution of which this country is undoubtedly capable.
It may not be possible, Mr. Speaker, to wave any magic wand. It most certainly is
1654	HOUSE OF
Unemployment
not. It may not be possible to create employment overnight. Nevertheless, hope is always a wonderfully comforting thing to those who are confronted with despair. At the moment those who are seeking employment cannot find it or any evidence of anything that is to be done which will give them the employment they want. What we are urging in presenting this resolution is that the government take action which will produce results and which will also raise the spirit of our people, whatever the number who may be seeking employment now, by giving them reason to believe that here in Canada those charged with public responsibility recognize the seriousness of the situation and will do everything they can to meet it in the way this country undoubtedly can.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I did not want to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), Mr. Speaker, but he did ask me a direct question to which I thought he wanted a reply. He asked me whether the workers who, according to the press, were being sent from one city to another because the city could not give them assistance, were the people to whom I referred yesterday in commending the mobility of labour. In answer, may I say I did not refer to them. I was referring to those Canadian workers, mainly without deep roots in any community, who were willing to go into our hinterland and work for the development of our country. I deplore, as much as he does, the plight of those to whom he referred.


Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: I have oeen here throughout the debate, and I listened with particular attention to the spokesman for the official opposition, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough). I must confess that she lost me in statistics and after a while she got lost too.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Oh, I don't think so.


David Arnold Croll: Her reference to the labour publication, "Why Wait for Spring?", as drivel was not lost on the house or on the country. The pamphlet has for its purpose the furthering of government efforts to attack seasonal unemployment. The principle underlying the pamphlet can be stated as follows: renovate and repair during the winter, which is the slack season for the building trade. This principle has been endorsed by the three labour congresses, the Canadian Construction Association, the Canadian Manufacturers Association and the Canadian Retail Federation. They have all joined to further the attack on seasonal unemployment, and they have partaken in eight broadcasts on 77 stations, time free.


These broadcasts were undertaken by the leaders of those organizations, along with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) and others, who prepared and gave the broadcasts. There have been requests for more than 5,000 scripts and requests are still coming in. Anne Francis, the well-known commentator, did a broadcast entitled "Why Wait for Spring?", the name of the booklet. Immediately there were requests for 665 copies of the script. This was considered to be unusual and was no doubt due to the charm which was added to the content. In addition there were 25 women's organizations that participated by publicizing the principle of the pamphlet to their members. To this list can be added the Hamilton-Brantford branch of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, the Hamilton chamber of commerce and the Hamilton construction association. I believe the professional and business women's club in Hamilton will be doing something about it in a week or so.
What was the result of all this? Here is a report that appeared in the press, dated Port Arthur, February 15:
The national employment service here has figured out a way to help the unemployment problem.
Service officials asked residents last week to have small jobs done during the seasonal lull of unemployment rather than wait for spring or summer. The result of the do-it-now drive: more than 500 tradesmen and labourers who normally would have been out of work have something to do.
The spokesman for the Tory party calls that drivel.


Mr. Montgomery:: A dribble is right.


David Arnold Croll: They repeat that "drivel" is right, although 500 people are employed in one city. Let me get back to the problem of the unemployed. I do not think the discrepancy in the unemployment figures is important. There is not much comfort in either set of statistics. In any event, the unemployed are not statistics. I feel, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) pointed out yesterday, the important thing is that we are again confronted with a figure for unemployment which has now reached the postwar peak. Just when we thought we had achieved our goal of full employment, it appears to shimmer away. I do not think we need to quarrel about terminology. It does not matter whether you call it regional, seasonal or cyclical, it is still unemployment. These people suffer in unwanted idleness and in need.
There are some things that need to be said on the plus side, and they must not be lost sight of by this house. There are 140,000 more persons gainfully employed in 1954 than

there were in 1953. One of the chief difficulties is that our economy is not keeping pace with our growth in population. If another job was not lost, not another person was laid off, unemployment would still rise in this country in the absence of the growth of our economy. It is obvious that either our economy must expand or the unemployment rolls will. On the basis of everything that had gone before, we expected the growth in our economy would parallel the growth in our population; but that has not been so. Despite the number of those who have no employment in Canada today, there are employed in this country at the present time more people than at any other time in our history.
That, too, must be on the plus side.
It is beyond argument that Canada today enjoys the confidence and goodwill of foreign investors to a degree never before experienced. This is attributable to the climate created by government policy. We have witnessed and we are still witnessing a tremendous influx of foreign capital into this country, which is proof of the high regard in which we in Canada are being held, as a long-term risk. There is no reason why we should be selling this country short.
No criticism of this government is valid if it seeks to blame its trade policies for the rise in unemployment. We have endeavoured consistently to free trade from the entanglements of barriers; and at GATT we have raised our voices in disagreement with those who would perpetuate a system which can only hamper reciprocal trade. Canada has enhanced its reputation in the eyes of the world by its consistent advocacy of the demolition of barriers and other impedimenta to reciprocal trade. We have pioneered in that field. We must continue to cry out against any trend that would erect barriers around nations to the detriment of their own economy, and the economy of those who wish to buy and sell.
We think there is benefit for all in world trade. We have given GATT more than lip service. This house, too, must remember that since 1945 the government has embarked upon a program of social expenditures that might be likened to economic shock absorbers. They have removed many of the bumps from the economic highway along which we have to travel. We have tripled our expenditures in the field of what is termed social welfare, from $425 million in 1945 to $1,200 million in 1953. This huge outpouring of money from the national treasury, which would have been undreamed of a few decades ago, has acted as a true stabilizer in the post-war years. It has flattened out the unemployment dips. It has

Unemployment
stimulated buying power, and it has served to restore public confidence.
The outlook is not a grim one. Public and private investment in 1955 is expected to show an increase over 1954. The figures tabled by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is seldom wrong, indicate an increase of 3-84 per cent over the 1954 expenditures estimated at $7,841 million. His down to earth speech in the house yesterday did much to restore an atmosphere of confidence in the country. People in this country will remember well these words, when he said, "We can expect 1955 to be a very good year."
In addition to that, the allocations the house will be asked to approve for public works will be greater than ever-an increase of more than 10 per cent. The construction industry, always a sensitive barometer of unemployment, had a record year in 1954 and confidently expects that 1955 will be still better. The government is entitled to a lot of credit for its progressive and far-reaching policies in this respect.
When the building industry was being throttled for lack of funds the government pioneered in a new field, and enlisted the aid of the chartered banks as lending agencies for the building of homes. Now the home improvement section makes it possible for home owners to obtain loans at reasonable-rates.
All this has been done by a government which has been alert to the needs of the day. But we find ourselves at this time with very-large numbers of unemployed. And so novr a tresh counter-attack on unemployment is necessary, and much more requires to be done. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce indicated yesterday, some supplementary measures will have to be taken. To accuse this government of being indifferent or blind to the needs of the people is political expediency. This government has a long and distinguished record written in the acts of parliament and in the hearts and minds of the people. It has shown great and vital concern for human needs, and does not intend to live on laurel leaves. There are many of us whose minds go back to the bitter thirties and we know what the people suffered then!
We are determined not to permit it to happen again.


An hon. Member:: When are you going to start?


David Arnold Croll: We have started. As a matter of fact employment is on the upturn this month as compared with last month.


Mr. Hodgson:: You said that in 1929.

Unemployment


Mr. Rowe:: What figures do you get that from?


David Arnold Croll: From the people; they know when they are employed.


William Earl Rowe: From Liberal meetings?


David Arnold Croll: I cannot hear everybody when I am interrupted, but I am willing to listen if you will speak one at a time.
Sometimes forgetful but never unmindful; sometimes diverted, but never indifferent to the plight of human beings who are being punished for no other reason than that they want to work, and have no work for their hands.
But this must be said, if one is to take an honest appraisal of the situation. Too long have governments at all levels regarded unemployment as some sort of mirage that would vanish with the spring and with the summer sun before anything positive had to be done. Today unemployment of course is not a mirage; it is bigger and more ominous than ever. It will not disappear because we will it to vanish. To us it is a problem, but for the man who loses his job, it is a calamity.
While for most people there is employment and a very high level of income, side by side with that prosperity there is want. Consumer goods are being sold in record quantities; houses are being erected by thousands, and there is no lack of buyers. Everything points to good times, and yet in the midst of this abundance we have want; and this want is not static. It is a spreading disease for which a remedy must be found; and if anyone can find it, this government can.
Foremost and most immediate is the man who is willing and able to work and for whom no work is available, whose benefits are exhausted. For him the situation has reached a critical stage. His purchasing power is virtually nil. For this man yesterday's wants are today's needs. I cannot overemphasize the gravity of the situation as it affects the employables who are jobless. It took us many years to recover from the fibre-rotting experience of the great depression. I know, as do many other hon. members, what prolonged periods of unemployment can do to the human soul. We have indeed progressed little if we permit to happen to the man of 1955 what happened to his father in 1930. This man has been buffeted and pushed around in a jurisdictional dispute, not as a matter of deliberate policy, of course, but that has been the end result.
There is one body in this country that sees the dangerous trend and its implications, namely the Canadian Welfare Council, which recently issued an invitation to all senior levels of government to meet in April to
[Mr. Hodgson.l
informally discuss assistance to the unemployed. The council is acting as an honest broker in this respect, and its effort to obtain action from the senior levels of government is commendable. But one would have thought that federal-provincial relations were on a sufficiently sound basis for action to be initiated within the governments and not be left to an outside body, even one as competent as the Canadian Welfare Council.
As the matter now stands, the provinces are free to approach the federal government on the problem of assistance for the unemployed, but the basis of the approach has never been clarified. Will the government assist when the burden has become too heavy for the provinces to carry, or when it is merely heavy? At what stage do we come in? Yesterday the Minister of Labour did clarify the government's position. He said, "When it reaches the proportions beyond the capacity of the provinces to deal with." I was very downhearted when I heard him say that, but he corrected it in a later part of his speech. He clarified the statement by saying that it is a matter for discussion at the dominion-provincial conference, if the provinces want to discuss it. Well, it is no secret that the provinces now will want to discuss it, and so progress has been made in that it certainly will be on the agenda and will be discussed.
Is that enough? That is what we must ask ourselves at the present time. Recently the province of British Columbia did make an offer to the dominion government to divide the cost on the basis of 40-40-20, the 20 to be paid by the municipalities. That was neither accepted nor rejected. I think British Columbia was asked to assess its problem in detail and advise the government, which it has not done to this date.
It is my own feeling, from whatever experience I have had on this subject, that we should have accepted that offer or perhaps made a counter-proposal by saying that we would be prepared to pay on the basis of one-third each. The acceptance of the offer or a counter-proposal which might have been accepted would have ended the vagueness which surrounds the question, and it would have served to establish a precedent and a pattern. I think the time has come now to spell out the basis of federal participation, at least an interim basis for participation. We have to do something; otherwise we simply pile up misery for the unemployed and grief for ourselves.
We read alarming stories which tend to confirm doubts about the prosperity of our times. We hear-and this story is quite common and true-of fathers deserting their families in

order that the families might be eligible for public assistance. Then there is the heartbreaking evidence of parents putting their children out for adoption because they have no food for them. Press reports indicate that fathers have committed deliberate acts of violence to have themselves arrested and sent to jail so the family may be provided for.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) made reference to another matter that I am going to deal with. Public bodies are beginning to buy one-way tickets for the unemployed. Toronto admits that it is shipping unemployed to their former homes where there are no jobs available for them, and Regina and other cities are sending unemployed back to Toronto where there are no jobs available for them. Other cities are doing the same thing. It costs much less to buy a one-way ticket than to give someone assistance, so the merry-go-round has begun.
These people are citizens of a province; they are Canadians who have been pushed and shoved around as though they were something less than human. This is a base, cruel and unjust interference with personal freedom. Because they are destitute there is no reason why they should be deprived of their fundamental rights as Canadian citizens. There is one thing that should come out of this debate, and that is word to these various provincial and municipal authorities that this has to stop.
The voluntary agencies have just about reached the end of their tether. They have been doing a magnificent job, but this is a task for senior levels of government; the voluntary agencies have not the resources. There is need now; there is an immediate need, and it cannot wait until spring or summer. They cannot wait until such time as the dominion-provincial conference is called. They need help now.
It is my own view that we, who claim the prior right to tax, have the prior obligation to provide employment opportunities, or in the alternative to contribute in case of need. Let me pinpoint what is happening. In Toronto employment insurance benefits paid in November, 1954, to those entitled to receive them amounted to $1,200,000; in December to $1,600,000; in January $2,000,000; and in February to $2,600,000, or a total of $7,400,000. That is a lot of money; yet it is only a fraction of what those people would have received if they had been gainfully employed. All this money created no jobs, turned no wheels; it was money for subsistence on a primary level. It bought food and paid for some other necessities, but it created nothing in itself.
In the 1930's we spent millions on unemployment relief, and when the emergency
Unemployment
ended there was nothing to show for all our expenditures. I remember one year when Ontario spent $48,000,000, and in the end we had people who were bitter and broken. I suggest that today we have the opportunity to strike a positive blow at unemployment by embarking upon a most imaginative and far-reaching public housing program the like of which Canada has never seen before. We need low-cost houses and rental houses. We have the labour force ready and willing to work. We have an abundance of materials and all the necessary know-how, and there is no lack of money.
In Toronto and other large cities in Canada there is a need for slum clearance and redevelopment. Why not give additional assistance by way of financial aid to such projects and when normalcy returns, as we hope it will soon, we will be able to point to concrete accomplishments brought about by the expenditure of these vast sums of money. If the provinces are reluctant, or cannot or do not want to undertake any of these projects, the finances of this government are such that we can do it on our own account.
Housing brings with it a demand for materials, equipment and household furnishings. The construction industry has not yet solved the problem of winter building, claiming climate is the reason. I feel that is just an excuse. It is about time the construction industry, which has been a beneficiary of this government, should be told, "Climate be hanged; get out and build". They can do it. I admit that there are places in Canada where winter building is impossible due to extreme weather, but that has not been the case this year in Toronto and the larger cities in the southern part of Ontario. Forty per cent of the Toronto unemployed are construction workers.
The truth of the matter is that the climate is not so bad in Ontario and Canada but that the climate is better in Florida and the Bahamas where most of these builders are at the present time. That is why building in Ontario has slackened up particularly at this time. The builders are so busy trying out their new Cadillac cars to find out if they will do everything the salesman said they would. The salesmen said that they would do everything except fly and talk back. The result is that they have not had time to carry on continuous building activities.
The major causes of our unemployment are lack of consumer purchasing power, the drop in farm income and the loss of foreign markets, principally the latter. The drop in farm income has backed up to manufacturing

Unemployment
Ontario. We too feel its effect. I think it is a thunderous indication of our interdependence and the important part that primary producers play in our economy.
Due to our phenomenal growth and the stability of our economy the Canadian dollar now enjoys a premium on the world market. I use the word "enjoys" advisedly. This premium has been fairly constant up until recently at 3 per cent. While the premium has been good for our ego, it has been far from good for our export trade. For some time we have realized that it is a luxury which we cannot afford, because it adds to the cost of doing business. Doing business in the world market today is difficult if you have to get a premium on your money. Recently the government through the Bank of Canada reduced the interest rate on loans to chartered banks, which in due course will mean cheaper money to the public. In addition we have been buying United States dollars on the open market and redeeming some securities in the United States before their due date. All this has had a tendency to lower the premium, and I notice that today press reports indicate that the premium is less than 1 per cent.
But our dollar is still subject to strong external pressures. Not only must we bring it down, but our dollar must be kept at parity with the United States dollar. Otherwise the same article will cost more than its United States counterpart. So far so good, but there is one sure way to do away with the differential between our dollar and the United States dollar, and maintain the Canadian dollar at par. This can be accomplished by doing some deficit financing in our budget this year. I would have hesitated to use that word in this house a couple of years ago, but not now.
I raise the matter of deficit financing, and by that I mean substantial deficit financing which by some of course may be considered inflationary. We may be accused of passing on a greater debt to our children to pay some time in the future.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Are you flying a kite now?


David Arnold Croll: I am always accused of flying kites. I am just saying what is in my mind. The prospect of deficit financing does not frighten me and I do not think it should frighten others, because we have people in our government who used to be called bureaucrats and who know something about handling inflation. They are still available if we should need them.
We must not lose sight of the fact that in countries where there are less bountiful IMr. Croll.]
natural resources, increased debt may be a burden, but to us it can be only an incident on the road to expansion and achievement. There is no reason for us to be panicky, but this is not a time for half measures either. The fiscal policy to be announced in the budget must embody bold, courageous and decisive measures. I know there is always a tendency and temptation at budget time to give everybody a little, but with the large body of unemployed in this country we must channel our tax benefits where they will give stimulus to employment.
I suggest that there are two approaches to this problem. The first is to give the public a sizeable reduction in personal taxes and thus increase consumer demand and consumer purchasing power. I am aware that consumer spending has been high, but I am one of those persons who believe that it is a good thing to put money into the people's pockets even if it does not buy quite as much as they think it ought to buy. It has the added advantage of letting people spend their own money in their own way, and that is good for their morale.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


David Arnold Croll: The wrong people in the house are agreeing with me. The second approach is to give manufacturing business in the export field which is capable of job expansion and growth some special concession. I have in mind accelerated depreciation.
Business needs two things. I do not hesitate to be earthy when I say that it needs a shot in the arm and also a kick in the pants. It needs a shot in the arm by way of stimulus and incentive, and it needs a kick in the pants in order that it may be reminded that it should stop being smug and self-satisfied and should get busy. They are no longer order takers for goods in short supply; they must get out and hustle as others are doing in this very competitive world and who, in the export field, are running rings around our own people. I am not advocating that we grant business generally a larger share of tax relief, because it would not be beneficial to employment since commercial and financial corporations deal in services and do not add greatly to job opportunities.
The manufacturers who export say that the loss of markets is due to the fact that they cannot be competitive. They say the Canadian standard of living, excelled by no other country save possibly the United States, has placed them at a disadvantage in the foreign export market. To lower that standard is unthinkable, so we have no other alternative except to widen the basis of our economy by creating more jobs. Granting an incentive of

accelerated depreciation to manufacturers who produce for the export market, in the same way we now grant accelerated depreciation to those plants engaged in defence work, would make it possible for them to cut their production costs as a result of this tax saving.
At present the Minister of Defence Production provides a certificate indicating whether the whole or a portion of a plant is used for defence production. An accelerated depreciation, which is a considerable benefit, is granted to that portion of the plant which is engaged in defence production. The problem of unemployment is surely as important and far-reaching as defence. In solving that problem we build up our home defences. Thus if we do away with the differential between our dollar and the United States dollar, and give the export business an accelerated depreciation, there will be a reduction in the over-all cost. This will make it possible for our exporters to compete in world markets. It will also assist them to stay in the export business, so that at least we will not lose more markets in the future. It is quite possible that in time the tax department will recover the accelerated depreciation from these plants, because they can obtain the write-off only once and their profits are subject to taxation at a later date. A further advantage is that, unlike road building and other public works, the employment in these manufacturing plants is continuous. At this point I would like to say that such financial aid to job-creating business would be extended for the single purpose of creating employment, and must not be regarded as a source of profit for shareholders.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is of the utmost importance that we as a government give the lie to the accusation that free enterprise works only in times of war; that it knows how to produce for destruction but not for consumption, and that it cannot cope with the problems of equitable distribution. The past has given some support to that criticism. It is a challenge to us to show that we are capable of coming to grips with the nightmare of a swelling army of jobless men.
We have made hard decisions on the international front in recent months. These were decisions that were arrived at with difficulty and not without misgivings. In making these decisions we acted on the basis that realism demands realism. On our domestic scene, too, we must face realistically the hard realism of spreading unemployment. We cannot accept unemployment as a way of life inherent in the free enterprise system. I have oversimplified the problem in saying we need to create 100,000 new jobs a year for many years
Unemployment
to come in order to provide for the new people who join the labour market. I believe the present government can perform that task better than any group or any combination of groups in the opposition. The present government has the experience, the know-how, the courage and the will to take such steps as are required in order to bring this scourge of unemployment to an end.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when one follows a speech such as that which has just been made by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), one wonders which part to follow. During the early part of his remarks he seemed to be doing his best to persuade us that there is no real problem so far as unemployment is concerned. He admitted that some of the speakers we heard yesterday had left him in a state of confusion concerning figures, but he contributed to that confusion in attempting to prove that the problem is not as real as the unemployed know it to be.
The hon. member followed the practice which is frequently pursued on the other side of the house of trying to lull the unemployed to sleep with a dream of the glories of the Liberal party and all the wonderful things its apologists claim it has accomplished for the people of Canada.
But even so ardent an apologist for the Liberal government of the day as we have in the hon. member for Spadina found that in the course of his address he had to put down the sheaf of notes on the basis of which he indulged in glowing adjectives concerning his party and pick up another sheaf of notes which seemed to deal with the undeniable fact that there is the hard realism of spreading unemployment about which something must be done.
I congratulate my hon. friend on recognizing that the problem is still there, even after he tried to wave his magic wand and get rid of it. I noticed that even in the mor,e realistic part of his speech, in which he admitted that there is an unemployment problem, he felt the blame must not be put upon the government which he supports but must be put upon private enterprise. He suggested the blame should be put upon the builders and contractors who drive about in their big Cadillacs and who are wintering in Florida or in the Bahamas. Surely he has been in this house long enough and has been an observer of and participant in the Canadian political scene long enough to know that in Canada the final responsibility for the economic climate rests upon the governments of this country, and particularly upon the federal government. No one on the Liberal

Unemployment
side has any right to stand up and claim credit for the Liberal party for any of the things which seem all right if he is not prepared at the same time to take the responsibility for that party and that government when things go wrong.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend who has just taken his seat was completely correct in that part of his speech where he admitted that we have an unemployment problem, where he asserted that something should be done about it and that this should be done right away.
It is certainly not my intention to add to the figures which have been placed on the record yesterday and today in considerable quantity and in a manner which, I think it is fair to say, has created some confusion. In the main I think that confusion has been created by persons like the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the hon. member for Spadina, who have tried to analyse the figures in such a way as to suggest that there really is no problem of unemployment. There is one fact which these figures do underscore, and it is that we have in Canada today the greatest amount of unemployment that we have had since the end of world war II; and no amount of analysing these figures by the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the hon. member for Spadina or any of the other 169 Liberals with whom we are blessed in this house-


An hon. Member:: Would you change that word, please?


An hon. Member:: What was that word again?


Stanley Howard Knowles: You can look it up in the dictionary and see that it has various meanings-will bring any comfort to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are at the present time unemployed and suffering the consequences of that unemployment.
The amendment now before us has two points of emphasis, and I think all of us who recognize that there is an unemployment problem realize that those two points of emphasis are equally important. On the one hand, it is extremely important that something be done immediately to deal with the situation as it affects hundreds of thousands of Canadians right now. It is no help to the unemployed, particularly those for whom there is no financial assistance or utterly inadequate financial assistance, to tell them that correspondence is being exchanged between the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the provincial premiers

with a view to holding a federal-provincial conference some time in 1955. So far as these people are concerned action is needed, as others have said in this debate, right away.
I must say to the Minister of Labour that I was disappointed last week when he seemed to feel that the fact that he had not heard directly from Mr. Jodoin was sufficient excuse for not having done something about the proposal of the president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada for a threeway conference of government, management and labour to deal with this important matter. Likewise I was disappointed last week when it seemed so difficult for those on this side of the house to persuade the Prime Minister that something should be done right away about the invitation issued by the Canadian Welfare Council for a conference of the senior levels of government with that council to discuss the problem of assistance to unemployed persons. Surely the government does not need to wait for proper invitations written on the right kind of letterheads, sent by registered mail, or what have you. Surely the problem is there in sufficiently staggering proportions that the government, having failed to take the initiative along these lines itself, should at least lose no time in responding to the kind of suggestions these bodies have made.
I support as strongly as I can those who have urged in this debate that conferences of the kind that have been suggested be held immediately to try to meet this problem in terms of aid or work right now for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are suffering unemployment. At the same time I want to urge that emphasis be placed on the long-range aspect of the amendment that is before the house. Even though it is a long-range aspect, and even though I shall say something that is long-range in character, it is my conviction that the long-range effort should get under way immediately.
The plain fact of the matter is that there is a great abundance of things to be done in this country. We have the raw materials, we have the resources, we have the labour. Indeed, the hon. member for Spadina was spelling these facts out in the better part of his speech, and I suggest it is utterly unthinkable that in a country with the resources and labour power we have on the one hand and the needs we have on the other there should be any unemployment whatsoever.
So, Mr. Speaker, I rise to suggest to the government as strongly as I can that consideration be given right away to a 12-year program. Someone may ask why I suggest

a 12-year program. Well, add 12 years to 1955 and that brings us to 1967. I am suggesting that we seize this crisis not only as something that should be dealt with because of the urgency of the immediate problem, but as an opportunity to launch a crusade to change the face of this Canada of ours so that by the time we celebrate our 100th anniversary it will be the kind of country we know it can be and believe it ought to be.
I call upon the government to give leadership in a crusade between now and July 1, 1967, to make of this country a much better place than it is at the present time, not only for the more than half a million who are unemployed but for Canadians from coast to coast in many ways that I could detail. I urge this on the government despite the fact that some members of the government may say they know they are not going to be over there for another 12 years. That is one good thing which I know they will admit. Some members of the cabinet may feel that father time is against them, and that they may not be around for 12 years in active political life; but surely the mark of statesmen is to think of the future, and even though the government or individual members of the government may not feel that they are going to be active leaders in this country for any great length of time, surely it is their responsibility to think in these terms.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the proposal I make this afternoon, and I am going to spell out ten or a dozen fields in which things can be done that are sorely needed in this country which would change the face of Canada and put us in a position so that, on July 1, 1967, we can really celebrate our 100th anniversary as a nation. I think hon. members will also realize that the things I am going to suggest would provide so many jobs in the meantime that instead of having unemployment rolls we would be looking for people to do the work.
The hon. member for Spadina said, in one of the better sentences of his speech when he was talking in realities rather than in adjectives, that our economy must expand or the unemployment rolls will. That is my text, if you will, right from the speech of the hon. member. My proposal is that our economy must expand, and that what is needed is leadership on behalf of the people of the country by the government of the day. I am satisfied that if any crusade such as I am suggesting is launched by the government now occupying the treasury benches there is no question but that it will catch the imagination of the Canadian people, and that any 50433-106
Unemployment
government that is over there after the next election or the election after that will carry it on.
The first effort which I suggest in this 12-year program is in fact in a field that was referred to by the hon. member for Spadina, namely the field of housing. Some day soon we must get over the notion that because we have national housing legislation, because houses are being built for those who can afford them, we have met the housing problem in Canada. As long as there are slums in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg or Vancouver we are not ready to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Canada on July 1, 1967. Why not do something about it? Why not resolve that by that time there will be no slums in any of these cities or in any other cities of this country? It can be done if I may quote what has been said earlier, if there is the will to do it. I call upon the government to set a slum clearance program at the top of the list, not just on a hit and miss basis, not just here and there when the municipalities can afford to come into it, but as a positive crusade to make this Canada the kind of country it ought to be.
During the 12-year period to which I have referred we should have as our goal to see to it that every Canadian is decently housed. Let us accept it as axiomatic that just as we already agree that every child born in Canada is entitled to the best education we can provide, so every child born in this country is entitled to a good home and good housing. For a goal I suggest that, in addition to the 100,000 houses per year being built at the present time, we might aim at another 100,000. I would suggest that we might break that total goal of 200,000 housing units per year into two parts, 100,000 for home ownership and 100,000 subsidized low-rental homes. This program would call for some new thinking about the legislation that is now on the statute books. The 75-25 formula will not provide for the building of 100,000 low-rental units per year.
No one denies that we need homes in these numbers. It is a fact that we need a building program of this magnitude. The governments of this country, federal and provincial, have it in their power, as the Leader of the Opposition said earlier today, to do anything that can be done provided there is the will to do it. I suggest that the proper housing of our Canadian people should be at the top of the list in this 12-year crusade which I call upon this government to launch.
I suggest that particular attention should be paid to the housing of our senior citizens. I have had occasion to refer once in a while to some of the projects that have been established in some parts of this country. I think

Unemployment
of the projects established in my own city under the leadership of the Reverend Fred Douglas of old St. Andrew's United Church. I think of a project of which I know at the coast, of one in Windsor and in other places. I suggest that real consideration should be given to the provision of housing for our senior citizens. Let us not have it in July, 1967, that any senior citizen could be living in the kind of housing we read about in some of these very well written feature articles that have appeared in western newspapers lately describing the plight of our old age pensioners. I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Spadina put so much emphasis on this matter of housing which in itself, as he pointed out, provides tremendous opportunity for creating employment, not just so as to put people to work but so as to meet the needs of our people and make Canada a better country in which to live.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I move on to the second group of things to which I feel real attention should be given. We should include in our crusade the manufacture and production of the things that are needed in the homes we have today as well as in the homes I hope will be built in the next few years. My leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), pointed out last night that according to the 1951 census we need right now 2 million furnaces; 2 million refrigerators; 1-5 million toilets and bathrooms; 1 million washing machines, not to mention all kinds of appliances and equipment of that sort or the things that go into the adequate furnishing of homes for decent living in this country. There is a tremendous field for production and for employment in that area.
The hon. member for Spadina can complain about private enterprise not doing it. The fact of the matter is that they have not done these things. These things are needed. We want a better Canada, and we want to get rid of unemployment. I suggest that in so far as this matter is concerned, the federal government should take the lead. It could announce such a crusade at a meeting of the various governments, the welfare council, labour and management, such as has been proposed during the last week or two by some of these interested bodies.
I move on to the third item in this 12-year program which I call upon the government to launch, and it is in the field of highways. I am not going to waste any time on the argument that roads are a provincial responsibility. We know there are these dividing lines. We know also that we can get together and work out an arrangement based on the underlying principle that in Canada parliament, either dominion or provincial, is
SMr. Knowles.]
supreme. Anything that needs to be done can be done, under the direction of one or the other of these senior governments, so long as there is the will to do it. I call for a real speed-up in the completion of the first trans-Canada highway. I threw in that word "first" advisedly, because I suggest there is room for a second trans-Canada highway, certainly in western Canada as well as in parts of eastern Canada.
In addition to the work that could be done and the advantages that could come from the completion of the first trans-Canada highway and the building of a second one, there is a tremendous need for connecting roads. I think of the kind of roads that could connect our trans-Canada highway and our main centres with the United States. I think also of the market roads and other kinds of roads we need in our provinces as a whole. My seatmate, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue), has on occasions told this house something about the highway program in the United States. He has spoken of the federal administration and the part it plays in that country's highway program, even though highways are under the states more or less as they are under the provinces in Canada.
Here, too, is a great field for employment and for improvement of this country. When we spend energy and raw materials on things of that nature we are not making ourselves poor; we are making ourselves richer. The production of goods that we use or that enhance our life or that make our country more beautiful is all to the good. We are adding to the wealth of the country, and there is no reason why things like these should not be done.
I move on, Mr. Speaker, to the fourth category of things that are sorely needed in this country, and I admit that they are to a considerable extent at the municipal level. Let us not hold up progress in this country; let us not delay building the kind of Canada I think we all want, by the time we celebrate our 100th birthday, by quarrels over jurisdiction. Surely we can get together with the municipalities, either directly or through the various provincial governments, to discuss with them ways in which the federal government could help the municipalities meet some of their needs today. A few days ago I referred to the need in the city from which I come for a number of bridges, and I mentioned particularly the Disraeli bridge over the Red river in downtown Winnipeg. We also need another bridge over the Assiniboia river. These are needed because of traffic congestion in our city.

These things are beyond the financial capacity of a city, but something could be done at this level with federal aid. I mentioned the Disraeli bridge for Winnipeg, but I am sure that in the minds of others there might be the Marpole bridge in Vancouver, the bridges and tunnels requested for Montreal, as well as bridges and other works that are needed in other cities in Canada.
Further, it is not out of place for us to think of the parking problem that has become acute in every city in this country. I recall the day, Mr. Speaker, when even the mention of the trans-Canada highway in this house was regarded as out of order. I recall Mr. Speaker Glen stopping members from discussing that in this house because it was a provincial responsibility. We have moved on, and we realize that even though matters are of provincial or municipal responsibility the federal government can come into the picture, at least in terms of financial assistance. There is something that can be done if we can just get together on it, to find ways and means of relieving the heavy parking problem we have in many cities. There are these and other things at the municipal level that I urge should be included in the program of a 12-year crusade.
I suggest a fifth proposal that would be all to the good for this country. One of the things in which we are rich in Canada is scenery. We have lakes, rivers and woods, and out west we have the clear blue sky. Hon. members who live in this part of the country probably miss it, because they do not have here the blue sky we have on the prairies.
But while we have tremendous resources in terms of beauty for the people to enjoy during holidays, and though we have increasing numbers of people who have a bit of time off from their work during holiday periods, the fact of the matter is that resorts and camps are still reserved largely for the well to do.
I call upon the government to give leadership in a program involving the building of camps and tourist facilities, to make it possible for all Canadians when on holidays to get away from the cities or the farms to some of the many beauty spots found in Canada from coast to coast. Let us accept something like this as one of the things that should be part of life in this twentieth century, and let us try to have something like this done in time for that significant event, the celebration of our 100th anniversary as a nation on July 1, 1967.
My sixth proposal is that, without any further delay, without any further jockeying, and without any more trips back and forth to 50433-106i
Unemployment
Regina by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), the federal government should join with the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba in setting up a Saskatchewan river authority similar to the Tennessee valley authority, so that it might enter upon a program of conservation of soil, water and forests in the whole Saskatchewan river area.
I call upon the government to give that authority power to build the South Saskatchewan river dam, with all the advantages it holds in terms of power and irrigation. This year the problem in the west has been too much water rather than too little, but we all know that unless something is done there is danger of drought in the future. Let us avoid that by a vast project such as would be envisaged in the South Saskatchewan river dam. There, too, we have an opportunity to provide employment and an opportunity to change the face of agriculture for the better for a great section of the western prairies.
My seventh proposal is that there should be a similar authority for the Assiniboine and Red river areas. From time to time we have had problems there, notably the serious flooding in 1950. But on other occasions we have had too little water in the Assiniboine and Red rivers valleys. Here, too, there is room for conservation and room for improving generally the economy and the wealth-producing capacities of that area. There could be co-operation between such an authority and the international joint commission so that we might put the economy of that area on the best possible basis.
I include with this proposal one similar to it. I suggest that for the British Columbia area, for the slopes of the Rockies, there should be authorities with real power to enter upon necessary programs of conservation and reforestation. Again a tremendous field for employment would be opened, and a tremendous step taken to improve the wealth-producing capacities of this country and make our country one that will prosper for a long time as a result of having looked to the future and practised proper conservation procedures. It has been highly significant that there has been great interest in a resolution dealing with this matter which has been presented to the house from time to time by my colleague the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). I suggest the interest shown in that matter indicates that the house generally would be behind the government in all these proposals for the conservation, care, and proper development of our great natural resources.
Likewise, as an eighth proposal, I think we should have an authority to deal with the

Unemployment
conservation problems of the Ontario area, problems which have already been discussed in the house. An authority similar to the ones I have just mentioned would be required to deal with the South Nation river, the Grand river, the Thames, the Etobicoke and others. Here again there is a tremendous field for improvement.
The hon. member for Spadina said, "Let us capture the imagination of our people in the field of housing." He knows how thoroughly I agree with him in that. I say, let us capture the imagination of our people with a 12-year program and really set out, not just to solve the immediate problem, important as it is, but to place our economy on a vibrant and growing basis so we will not be back next year or the year after dealing with unemployment. How much better it would be if we were coming to the house year after year and saying to the government, "You must go out and get more workers." There is no reason why that should not be possible; and it would be a lot happier problem with which to deal than the problem of unemployment confronting us today.
Let me suggest still another project, a ninth proposal; and in doing so I cannot help taking a glance at my friends to my left because, when I mention it, I know I will have their support. I think it is time the railway connecting the Peace river district to the Pacific coast was constructed. It is nine years now since the house passed a resolution along those lines, but still nothing has been done. And I think, too, of the dream the Minister of Agriculture had one time about a railway running across northern Canada from the Peace river area to Hudson bay. I do not think it was a nightmare, either. That is another project that could be on the books in the 12-year program I am suggesting.
My tenth suggestion is that particular attention should be given to the economy of the maritime provinces. We all know that for many years the chief exports of the mari-times have been youth and brains. We know that across the years there has been a tendency for maritimers to go over to Boston or up to other parts of Canada. For many years that has been accepted as standard practice for maritimers, but it seems to me it is not a condition that should be accepted at all. When one thinks of the timber resources, of the coal deposits, of the iron ore in the Ungava district, of the possibilities in farming and fishing, he must conclude there is no reason whatever why the economy of the maritime provinces should not be put on a basis where life would flourish down there and be just as vibrant and progressive as it

was in the days of the wooden ships which, of course, were the glorious days of the maritime provinces.
As some hon. members know, I speak with interest about that part of the country because my parents happened to be among those who in their youth left the maritimes to go elsewhere. They were only doing what many maritimers have done across the years. I suggest there is tremendous room for economic programs in that part of Canada that would put people to work and at the same time change the face of the country so that, as I suggested earlier, when July 1, 1967, rolls around, we will have something to celebrate.
If we do not launch upon a program like this and, as the hon. member for Spadina has said

and he was perfectly right-if we do not expand our economy, the rolls of the unemployed will expand. And what a celebration it will be in 1967 if we find ourselves with a million unemployed. All the speeches and the flag waving the leaders of that day might indulge in would not fill the bill.
You will note that though I have listed 10 different categories of projects that could well be launched, I have not exhausted the field, and I have not referred to some matters that might be regarded as highly provincial in character. Surely we can find some way, though, to provide money for the building of schools that are sorely needed in some areas in particular in this country. I mention last, perhaps for the top of the list, so far as I am concerned, the question of health. The room there is for the building of hospitals, clinics, medical colleges, dental schools and nursing schools is beyond the imagination. We need them sorely; we cannot afford not to have them. I think the people of Canada want a health program that really takes care of our health needs. I suggest that this be included as the crowning plank in a 12-year program such as I have proposed.
I am just about through, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to take any further time to deal with the question that somebody is bound to ask, as to how the cost of this is to be met. I have answered that question as I have gone along. When you apply labour to raw material and create new wealth, you do not run the country into any real debt. You increase the country's wealth, and that is what these projects would do. It would make us a stronger and wealthier Canada 12 years from now than we are today.
If a war broke out tomorrow, which is unthinkable, even if it were a 12-year war we would meet the cost. We would meet it by the production of extra wealth, by producing things we are not now producing. That is what I am asking for in a war on unemployment, in a crusade for a better Canada. We

do not need to take away from any wealth we now have in Canada. We can create new wealth along the lines that I have suggested.
Mr. Speaker, I call upon this government not just to ask the unemployed to settle for tributes to the fine way in which they have taken the unemployment they have had to endure. I call upon this government not to ask the unemployed to find comfort in the statistics and assurances given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. We can do better than that. Let us give them the tools. Let us give them the goal of a better Canada. Let us get on with the job.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the last speaker, and I can agree with him wholeheartedly when he claims that there is no justification for an unemployment problem in this country; because if we ever put into circulation the various products that are so urgently needed in Canada today and at the same time maintained the purchasing power of the people to buy the goods they wanted there would be no question of unemployment. Probably in a short time there would actually be a shortage of labour.
At the food and agriculture conference at Rome in the fall of 1953 it was pointed out that the paradoxical situation of the 1930's was again becoming prevalent in the world, evidenced on the one hand by the degree of poverty and starvation that existed in many parts of the world, and on the other hand by the large surpluses occurring. For instance, I noticed in the Journal yesterday a reference to the fact that the surplus of food in the United States has now reached the staggering proportions of $7 billion. I noticed that a letter from the welfare council of January 28, addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), pointed out that there was also a paradoxical situation in Canada where we had a large number of people suffering from want as a result of unemployment.
They put the figure of the number of people affected by unemployment as approaching 30 per cent of the total labour force. I am not going to argue about statistics. It is not very important whether it is 30 per cent, 20 per cent or whatever the figure may be. The point is there are a very large number of people in Canada today suffering, and suffering severely, as a result of unemployment; and that is happening at the very time when the national income of Canada is at a near all-time high.
There is no question but that the difficult agricultural situation in western Canada has had an adverse effect upon employment, especially upon the implement industry. I am
Unemployment
hoping that at this session the government will take action to amend the Agricultural Prices Support Act to establish a sound formula for setting support prices. Recommendations have been put forward by the various farm organizations. I am satisfied that if the government will act upon those recommendations it will help to maintain agriculture on a sounder basis, and thereby help to provide a better market for eastern produce shipped to western Canada.
I think all hon. members will agree that the present situation is undesirable. I hope all hon. members will agree that it is a situation that need not exist. Furthermore, I hope all hon. members would agree that no time should be lost in taking action to relieve that situation in the quickest way possible. I would say that it is a somewhat sad reflection upon the intelligence of the government that after science has been able to bring about a superabundance of goods in this country, the government has failed up to date to provide the means by which that superabundance can be made available to the people. Therefore as unsold goods accumulate production is curtailed and unemployment expands. Twice already this session we have had ministers rise in their places and say that while it would perhaps be very desirable to take action along the lines suggested by the opposition to deal withi such problems as increased payments under-the Unemployment Insurance Act or increased' payments of family allowances, the government should not take that action because it would cost too much money; they could not afford it. I never expected to hear that state

ment again in this house, because for four or five years we never heard that expression once.
There was a period in this house when at the time we were dealing with serious problems we considered just one thing. We considered whether we had the men and the materials available in this country to deal with the matter; and if we had the men and materials available and it was considered that they could give better service in dealing with that problem than with any other, whatever money was needed was always made available. At no time during the war did any minister rise in his place and say we could not do this or we could not do that because we had not the money. As I say, there was just one thing under consideration, namely whether or not we had the men and the materials to execute it.


Mr. Gillis:: What is physically possible is financially possible.	j..~

Unemployment


Victor Quelch: Exactly, provided that it is desirable.


Mr. Blackmore:: And intelligent, too.


Victor Quelch: I say, no minister ever rose in his place and said that. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that the Leader of the Opposition did take a different stand. At that time the leader of the official opposition objected to the high level of taxation and suggested that it might be wise to decide how much we could afford to spend and then limit the war effort to that number of dollars. I am glad to say it was only the official opposition and not the government who took that stand; because had this government and all the allied nations adopted that policy, then I do not think there is any doubt that we would have lost the war.
We fought a war to attain an objective. The objective we had in mind was to establish peace in the world and make a high standard of living available to the people. In order to reach that objective, we did have fo adopt a realistic financial policy. Well surely, having reached that objective, we are not going to fail or refuse to adopt the necessary financial measures to make that objective work.
That is what we should be doing at the present time.
What is the situation in Canada today? We have the situation that goods are being produced faster than they can be sold; not because they are not wanted by the people but rather because many people who want those goods are unable to buy them. In other words there is a lack of effective demand in Canada today. So industry tries to persuade the people to buy more goods. We have full page advertisements in the press; we have sales put on throughout the stores; we have announcements that $1 will permit you to take home this refrigerator or $5 will permit you to take home that electric stove, the remaining payments to be made on easy terms.
Largely as a result of this type of advertising, and largely as a result of the expansion of credit, buying on credit in Canada has reached the very high level of $1-8 billion. What would have been the situation if that credit had not been made available? That merely illustrates that for the people to buy the goods they have bought they had to go into debt to the tune of $1-8 billion, and that does not take into consideration the longterm loans made under the National Housing Act and other such schemes. Yet in spite of that heavy credit buying we are still unable to sell our total production. Consequently in many lines production is being reduced today and unemployment is increasing.
[Mr. Gillis.f
In the past after a prolonged period of peace the unemployment problem has invariably been solved by war. It might be argued, perhaps, that large-scale unemployment is a softening up process to get people willing to support war. I noticed last year an editorial in the Calgary Herald headed "An Astonishing Reason for War". It quoted President Eisenhower as saying:
The President pledged that the United States would never go to war to solve the unemployment problem. Prosperity under the Democrats, he said, was based on war. The Republican government, he said, would do everything possible to find jobs for those out of work.
We find this horrifying, and we think perhaps millions of decent Americans will find it horrifying too.
The editor says, "We find this horrifying." He was horrified at the suggestion that unemployment might influence nations in going to war. President Eisenhower is not the first president of the United States to make that statement. Hon. members will recall that after world war I Woodrow Wilson stated that the deep-rooted cause of war was hot industrial rivalry for foreign markets, which are the other side of unemployment. There you have two presidents frankly admitting that unemployment or the fight for foreign markets has been a cause in bringing about wars.
I recall how during the Korean war the U.S. News and World Report, when giving its forecasts, repeatedly stated that the amount of money that would be expended in the United States to carry on the war in Korea would be just sufficient to maintain a high level of employment. In other words the Korean war was being used as a stop-gap method to maintain a high level of employment. That is no doubt the reason the war in Korea had to be a limited war for an unlimited period of time, because it was being used merely for the purpose of taking up the slack. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) has put these quotations on Hansard on a number of occasions, so it is not necessary for me to deal with them now.
I think it is quite obvious that unemployment in Canada today is largely due to a lack of effective demand, a lack of domestic markets. In the final analysis the domestic market is the only market we have, because our imports are brought in in exchange for our exports and the local market has to absorb the imports brought into this country in exchange for our exports. So you have to have an effective demand against your total production available for distribution within the country, and exports do not in any way change that situation; they merely make it possible to exchange one product of which we

have a surplus for another product that we need. They do not reduce the amount of goods that have to be sold within the country. If you want to maintain full employment you must do something to provide markets.


Clarence Gillis: Lack of purchasing power.


Victor Quelch: The hon. member for Cape Breton South says it is a lack of purchasing power. That is something we have been voicing in this house for a number of years. Many people ask why there is a lack of effective demand, why industry is not self-liquidating. Surely when industry operates at a high level and pays out salaries, wages and dividends, that purchasing power should be sufficient to buy the total output of industry. We have always argued that the reason there is a lack of effective demand is that owing to certain practices inherent within the present system, industry is not able to maintain an effective demand against its own production except in times of abnormal capital goods construction, such as we have in wartime, in the development of a new country or during a period after war when we are rehabilitating the damage done by war.
Let me give a brief explanation. Under private enterprise most of the new production is financed by savings. It is quite obvious that when money is paid out by industry a certain proportion of that money is going to be saved. To that extent there will be a lack of purchasing power available to buy the total output of that industry. People will generally admit that is true; but they will say, "Just a minute, that money will be invested in new production which will be paid out in salaries and wages, and therefore will become available to buy the goods which were left unsold." That is true, but on the other hand, having produced new goods there will have to be money available to buy the goods in that new cycle of production, and if you use that money to buy the goods left unsold in the last cycle it will not be available to buy those in the current one and goods will be left unsold to that extent.
I could give a simple explanation, but I think the matter is quite obvious. It is not necessary for me to say anything more on that point, except that it has been recognized by many leading economists that investment savings and investment are bound to cause a deficiency of purchasing power. That is recognized by Maynard Keynes and Professor Soddy, and was recognized in the national survey of potential productive capacity in the United States which was carried on under the Hoover administration. More recently it was recognized by the president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce in his 1952 annual
Unemployment
statement. I notice that members of parliament seem to pay far more attention to what a bank manager says than what is said by another member, so I shall just quote what the president said in that report:
If it is agreed that gross national production should as a minimum be sustained at present levels, then deterrents both to personal and corporate saving (investment) require immediate and careful examination. Income cannot be redistributed for consumption and at the same time invested to expand productivity without some serious strains developing.
And further on:
Increasing consumption, both domestic and foreign, is necessary if the heavier volume of goods and services arising out of our enlarged capacity to produce is to be absorbed.
It is quite evident that people cannot spend their money on consumer goods and at the same time invest it. It is not merely a question of sustaining the present level of production; we must extend our production in order that additional income will be available to the expanding population. But what is the use of encouraging people to save and invest if as a result of their saving there is a lack of effective demand for the expanding supply of consumer goods?
It is interesting to note that in a more recent edition of the report by the same bank they stress the fact that from now on we should put the greatest emphasis upon the need for expanding consumption in this country. I would also point out that it is important that we maintain a proper balance between investments in productive and nonproductive industries. If we reached a situation where we had expanded our plant and equipment to such a point that it was capable of providing all the goods the people required, the right thing to do would be to divert our investments to non-productive enterprises in the form of national projects, bridges and railways or anything that does not expand the supply of consumer goods.
It may be argued that if the analysis I have made is correct then the system would have crashed long ago; if industry is not self-liquidating how is it that industry has continued to function for all these years? I would say it is not necessary for the industrial system to crash so long as there is a steady expansion of debt. As long as we are willing to expand debt in order to finance that deficit, then of course the system can continue to operate indefinitely until we reach the point where we have to borrow the money to pay the interest.
It is interesting to note the rapid increase in debt. It is also interesting to note that when we attempt to curtail credit or reduce debt we find ourselves entering into recession. It is interesting to note that the debt

Unemployment
in Canada, for instance, increased from $3-7 billion in 1939 to $17-25 billion in 1952. Foreign investment in Canada increased from $6 billion in 1926 to $10 billion in 1952. Of course that investment creates a drain upon our production. Federal debt in the United States increased by $11-4 billion in the last five years.
If we are prepared to allow the debts of the country to climb indefinitely we can, of course, make the system work; but there always comes a time when the people become fearful of an increase in debt. At those times we have people saying "It's dangerous; the government should do something about it. We have to have a balanced budget and increased taxation." The people do not seem to realize that if you increase taxation you reduce purchasing power and the amount of purchasing power available will be still further decreased.
It is only necessary to refer to the history of the past to prove the truth of what I have said. Let us consider what happened in 1914. There was a recession at that time, and then we had war and an expansion of debt which was followed by a few years of prosperity. In 1930 there was a curtailment of credit which was followed by a depression. In 1939 we had war, credit expansion, and then a few years of prosperity. In 1949 we were reaching a slow-down. In 1950 we had war in Korea, prosperity, and an expansion of debt.
Once again we have a slow-down. One might well ask, "Where do we go from here?". Of course if we have another war the situation will clear itself, because there will be no difficulty in obtaining whatever money is necessary to maintain a high level of employment. However, I think most of us realize that another war is out of the question. Another war would solve the problem by eliminating mankind; therefore there would be no question of unemployment. It is quite obvious that today we cannot depend upon another war to maintain the economy in a state of equilibrium.
Therefore the sooner we take action to deal with this situation the better it will be for all concerned. We in this party insist that to the extent the money paid out by industry fails to maintain an effective demand for its own production or imports, additional money should be paid by the federal government to the consumers to maintain the balance. So long as the amount of new money is sufficient only to bring about the balance there is no real danger of inflation. In other words, if our objective is to develop the resources of the country, including manpower, to make available to the people as high a standard of 
living as this country is capable of supplying, we must see to it that sufficient money is paid to the consumer in order to maintain an effective demand.
It is interesting to note that the rather orthodox newspaper, the London Economist, placed that statement clearly before its readers. I quote from page 182 of the August 11, 1945 issue of the Economist:
The condition of full employment as is now universally recognized is that the economy should generate a sufficiently large flow of effective demand to purchase the whole of the gross national product. In simpler language, somebody has to buy the volume of goods that full employment will produce, or they will not be produced.
The quotation ends at this point, but I of course would add the statement that unemployment will then increase. The April 14, 1954, issue of the Saturday Evening Post carried an interesting article by Mr. Ben Pearse entitled "Ike's Depression Doctor", a statement made by Mr. Frank Burns, chairman of the council of economic advisers to President Eisenhower. He says;
As our economy expands to supply the growing needs and wants of our growing population, we want to keep our capacity to produce things, and people's financial ability to buy them in as close balance as we can.
He disagrees with those who claim that we have too much plant and equipment now.
To support this generally prosperous situation there has already been a 10 per cent tax cut, the first of the year, and others will come as government spending is reduced. The administration program also urges that social security benefits be broadened and increased, and that unemployment insurance in many states far below its originally intended purchasing power be modernized.
I think today there is a greater understanding of the fact that if we wish to maintain our economy in a high state of flux it is absolutely essential to maintain the purchasing power of the people at a level which will make it possible for them to buy the total production of the country.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) placed before the house this afternoon a number of recommendations. I would like to refer to those recommendations and comment briefly upon them. The first recommendation dealt with the elimination of the sales tax and wider use of the price discount. I think we all realize that in a situation such as we have today we want action and we want it fast. It does no good to talk about a dominion-provincial conference to be held in June. It is not enough to say that we will wait until spring, so employment can increase. In order to expand the purchasing power of the people we want some action that can be taken almost overnight. We suggest that the first step would be the elimination of the sales tax, which would increase not only the purchasing power of the individual but also the

purchasing power of the dollar in the hands of the individual. There is no doubt that would help to increase demand.
The second recommendation concerned the assumption by the federal government of financial assistance to those unemployed not covered by unemployment insurance or extended benefits, and the expansion of payments for social services such as family allowance, old age pensions and war veterans allowances. This is similar to the recommendations that were made by the Canadian Welfare Council in 1953. The council set up a committee to make recommendations dealing with unemployment, which were considered by the organization across Canada. At a meeting in Ottawa the recommendations were finally approved by the board of governors on December 13, 1952 and were published in 1953.
The first recommendation pointed out the need to increase employment. The second and third recommendations dealt with changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act. I shall not deal with those recommendations now, because that act will be revised during the session. The fourth recommendation concerned rehabilitation programs for ablebodied and disabled persons, and pointed out the need for the development of rehabilitation programs. I shall now read the fifth, which we agree with:
(a)	The federal government should assume most of the financial responsibility for the residual assistance required by all employable unemployed persons not provided for adequately by unemployment insurance or extended benefits.
(b)	The federal government should fulfil this responsibility by the purchase of service from other authorities-that is, by payments to each province for the assistance and services given by it, or by its municipalities, to these people.
(c)	The federal payments should consist of a basic payment and a variable payment: (i) the basic payment should be a percentage of the cost of administration of the entire general assistance program at the provincial and local levels; (ii) the variable payment would be the federal government's share in providing for the employable unemployed, the amount being determined at any time by a formula through which the amount of general assistance given to this group is ascertained.
Then there is this comment:
The federal government should, without delay, enter into negotiations with the provinces to carry out this recommendation, in order te provide for the residue of the employable unemployed which exists in "normal" times and to establish the machinery by means of which adequate provision would be made in "abnormal" times.
As I say, we agree with that proposal.
Then I come to our third proposal, a vigorous employment policy with government assistance to private industry to absorb seasonal unemployment.
That might take effect in many different ways. I think we would all agree that it is
Unemployment
important to do everything we can to increase employment at a time of seasonal unemployment. In my opinion a great deal could be done to encourage construction in winter. The main trouble is that it is more expensive to carry on construction in winter than in spring, and therefore many firms and people defer their building until the springtime. We are of the opinion that the government would be justified in actually subsidizing a part of that increased cost in order to encourage business to build in winter instead of waiting until summer.
Many of us have seen what is happening in Ottawa today down on O'Connor street. You see a steel frame erected. Then you see them spread tarpaulins around the frame, put heat and light inside and continue with their building. Having reached the first floor, they then move the tarpaulins up to the second floor, put in heat and light and continue their construction. No doubt that type of construction is far more expensive than construction in the summer or spring, and therefore I think the government would be fully justified in helping to subsidize construction of that kind rather than allow the people who are doing that type of work to remain idle. It would be far cheaper for the country, because by subsidizing we would have an increase in wealth, and it would be actually cheaper than paying out unemployment insurance.
This is our fourth point: A program of construction of national projects with emphasis on those works that can be carried on during the winter months.
Of course there are many national projects that can be put under way not merely for the purpose of providing employment but in order to provide the services that are so urgently needed in Canada today. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to a variety of projects that are needed in Canada. I could mention two or three in which I am quite interested. For instance, in Saskatchewan there is the South Saskatchewan river dam project. We have not heard very much about it lately, but I have the idea that as the next election approaches we will hear more and more about it both from the government side of the house and from our side.
In my own constituency we are very interested in what is known as the Red Deer river diversion project. That project would make it possible to irrigate half a million acres, and the estimated cost of the project is only $15 million. The main purpose of that irrigation project would be to provide feed lots. It is largely a livestock country, and the trouble is that while there is enough feed for stock in

Unemployment
the summer there is often no feed in the winter, because they cannot grow enough feed on account of it being too dry. If we had irrigation we could have feed lots. Feed could be raised and there would be feed to carry over the stock in the winter. It is a really worth-while project which might well be called self-liquidating.
Then there is the elimination of level crossings. I think every hon. member could give the government a list of projects that he considers should be executed at the earliest possible date. I was a member of the reconstruction committee which sat after the last war. We built up a shelf of projects. I do not know what has happened to them. I think most of them have fallen off the shelf or have been forgotten.
Then I come to the next point in our program:	5. A support price program for
agriculture. I have already mentioned that. Recommendations are being made by agricultural organizations to the government for [DOT]changes in the formula under which agricultural prices are set. I think the government would be well advised to give careful consideration to these recommendations.
6. A more realistic trading policy which would involve the acceptance of some foreign currency in exchange for Canadian goods, and which would involve amongst other things the revaluation of the Canadian dollar. I have for a number of years criticized in the house the maintaining of the Canadian dollar at the present high level, but naturally not very much notice was taken of what I said. However, I am glad to see that today, now that the president of the Royal Bank is advocating the same thing, more attention is being paid to the matter. He warns of the danger of the present high level of the Canadian dollar, and points out that it puts us under adverse competitive conditions with countries whose currencies are depreciated below the level of ours.
I shall not say any more about the recommendations, except to mention that on a number of occasions we have advocated the acceptance of another nation's currency in payment for a certain proportion of our exports. We have to compete with the United States. Today the United States, as the result of a bill passed last year, can sell up to $1 billion of agricultural produce in exchange for the currencies of other nations. We have to compete with that nation, yet we are in a very adverse position to do so when they are able to accept foreign currencies and we insist upon payment in dollars.

I suppose the question that comes immediately to the minds of hon. members with respect to a program such as I have suggested is how it could be financed if it were to be put into operation without expanding the debt or without extending taxation. We have not suggested at any time that taxation should be abolished so far as the income tax is concerned. We have advocated that the sales tax should be abolished, but the income tax should be maintained because it is needed to provide an equitable distribution of income and services within the country. We say, therefore, that to the extent that limited borrowings of the savings of the people and an equitable system of taxation fail to provide the government with necessary funds, the government should finance through the Bank of Canada. It is interesting to remember that at the last session of parliament we amended the Bank Act to provide for a variable cash reserve. Now the government can finance through the Bank of Canada, and if it is feared that the chartered banks will use this new money for further credit expansion the cash reserve requirements of the chartered banks can be expanded to whatever point is necessary in order to prevent that happening.
Let us ask ourselves this simple question. If war broke out tomorrow would there be any hesitation on the part of the government in providing whatever money was needed to bring about immediately the full development of our resources in order to fight an all-out war? I think most members would agree that there would not be any hesitation at all. We have only to go back to what happened in 1939. From 1935 to 1939 we had been urging upon the government in the house the necessity for putting more money in circulation to provide for a greater degree of employment and social services. The cry had always been that the government could not do so because it did not have the money. Yet within a few months of the declaration of war the government got the chartered banks to create for their use $200 million in new money. It is interesting to note the reason the then minister of finance gave at that time for this expansion. I quote from page 140 of Hansard of September 12, 1939:
All this is not to say that a small and carefully regulated amount of credit expansion may not be desirable in the early stages of the war in order to assist the increase of production and employment. It must be small and carefully controlled because its effects which may not appear immediately are cumulative and otherwise might get out of hand. If at the beginning of the war there are unemployed resources, some credit expansion may give an impetus to their prompt utilization.

That was to justify the creation of $200 million of new money to provide for full employment. What happened in the next four years? Over $4 billion of new money was created in order to make it possible for the government to pay the increased costs arising out of the all-out war effort. The only voice raised in opposition to an all-out war at that time was that of the leader of the official opposition.
Now, it is often argued that an expansion of money is bound to be inflationary. It is true that in wartime you have an inflationary complex; that is to say, as soon as war is declared people are afraid there will be a shortage of goods and therefore they start to lay in a supply. They start to buy heavily. Although not even one new dollar has been issued, from the day war is declared people start laying in supplies because they are afraid that later on they will not be able to buy all the goods they want. This has nothing to do with financial policy. On the other hand, expansion in wartime is inflationary for the simple reason that money is used for the production of war materials. When salaries and wages are paid out for the production of war materials, those salaries and wages cannot be used to buy what has been produced for war, so those salaries and wages become a demand against the restricted supply of consumer goods.
In peacetime that will not be the case. In peacetime, especially when you have unemployment, you could use the expansion of money to bring about the expansion of consumer goods. Those salaries and wages paid out by industry for the production of consumer goods would become demands against those goods. The expansion of money, therefore, for the purpose of maintaining full employment in peacetime is not anything like as inflationary as it would be in wartime. So today, Mr. Speaker, we advocate that just enough new money should be issued and paid out in order to equate demand and supply. There would be no danger of inflation, and in that way the program we have suggested could be financed with little difficulty.


Mr. Hees:: As it is now nearly ten minutes to six, Mr. Speaker, and I have something to say that will take more than 15 minutes, may I move the adjournment of the debate?
On motion of Mr. Hees the debate was adjourned.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Harris:: Tomorrow the Secretary of State for External Affairs will move that the external affairs items be referred to the standing committee on external affairs.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I suggest to the minister that this debate should be proceeded with tomorrow. I feel that there is not nearly as much urgency in external affairs; and as this debate was initiated as a matter of urgency, would the government not reconsider and allow this debate, with unanimous consent of the house, to proceed tomorrow? I am very anxious to see the external affairs debate take place, but I think this debate should have priority over any other business until it is concluded. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) has just indicated his speech will take more than 15 minutes, and I believe there are other members in the house who would be interested in speaking.


William Earl Rowe: I am rather inclined to agree with the hon. member. I believe we might dispose of the matter more readily if we continued with it than if it were allowed to stand over. So far as the official opposition is concerned, we would go along with the suggestion.


Mr. Low:: I feel exactly the same way. If the government could see fit to carry on this debate tomorrow, we might finish it. I would prefer it that way.


Walter Edward Harris: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am always glad to accommodate the opposition if they have a common mind. We did fix Thursday for the external affairs debate at their request, and now they want to change. I find it difficult to keep up with these changes of mind. For that matter, it should not be assumed that there is not some reason for having the external affairs items sent to the standing committee at a fairly early date. This debate is not going to be wound up tomorrow; I am sure no one would say that. I am quite sure hon. members opposite are not likely to agree to wind it up on Friday. I have been told this debate will run into several days, and I expect it will. Let no one believe that we could have a vote tomorrow night if we went on with this tomorrow.
Now, in view of that, if my hon. friends feel that they do want to go on tomorrow and will do what they can to shorten the speeches and get on with a decision about these things, we would be glad to accommodate them. But I do not think the government should be asked to set aside the time of the house for an unbroken period when,

Business of the House
in fact, there are still a good many things that should be started so they could be cleared off at a later date. I am not trying to minimize the importance of the debate on unemployment at all when I say that.


Major James William Coldwell: I may say that the external affairs committee is very busy with Bill No. 3, so it will not make any difference to that committee. I am very happy to know that the minister agrees with suggestions that have been made from this side.


Walter Edward Harris: I presume that unanimous consent will be required for the following motion:
That in relation to the adjourned debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself again into committee of supply, and on the amendment thereto, moved March 1, the provisions of standing order 28 be suspended for Thursday, March 3, 1955.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Harris the house adjourned at 5.50 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 3, 1955