1955-04-01

[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on standing orders.-Mr. Harrison.
Second report of sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.-Mr. Cavers.
Third report of special committee on estimates.-Mr. Tucker.

['Mr. Speaker, since this is a general statement, perhaps I might ask the courtesy to make some comment, in view of the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has, very properly, drawn a great distinction between the position of the Leader of the Opposition in this house and that in the Kremlin.\nHe has also drawn attention to the fact that there has been a substantial change in Russia in these past few years because, for the first time since Lenin came to power, we have seen an opposition take form and be successful. Their methods, of course, of disposing of those who have been in power earlier are not in accordance with our system-and I hope they never will be.\nBut may I strongly support the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the more opportunity there is of movement back and forth across the curtain-under appropriate assurance of return -the better it will be for everyone. Undoubtedly nothing could better contribute to an understanding of the weakness of the communist system than for a great many people from Russia to see that freedom with which we exchange ideas here in the House of Commons. And, by the same token, I should think nothing would more firmly establish the convictions of our own people in regard to our own methods than that they should see what takes place in Russia.\nWithout in any way taking exception to the terms which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has used as to the question of the appropriateness of the term "parliament" in relation to the particular place in which they gather in Russia to hear the dictates of the Supreme Soviet, we must remember that the word "parliament", after all, comes from the world parler; and the one thing they cannot do is speak-except to make appropriate sounds at times prescribed by the ruling authority.\nWhatever objections we may have to what is done here, there is plenty of evidence of the fact that we still can speak, and there is a distinction in regard to the two methods. But most certainly, everyone who has an opportunity to go there under an appropriate arrangement will gain some advantage by seeing what communism is actually like in Russia itself. I would hope that under appropriate arrangements it might be possible for some of the members of this parliament to go to Russia and to have some of them come here. Under our rules they cannot\nInquiries of the Ministry speak here, and I do not know anyone in our house who could speak over there so that they could understand it; but the fact remains that it would be an opportunity to gain information, to extend the contacts; and at this time what we need more than anything else is some meeting between the people who themselves in the end will decide whether there is to be peace or war.']
Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: should like to move:
That items numbered 293 to 333 inclusive, 541, 542 and items numbered 469, 473, 478 and 479 of the main estimates, 1955-56, approved and reported upon this day by the special committee on estimates and by the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, be referred back to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: the first reading of Bill No. 306 (from the Senate), to amend the Precious Metals Marking Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has he had an invitation from the U.S.S.R. for an exchange of parliamentarians? What is the reaction of the government, and what are the circumstances under which the offer was made?
Hon L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I am grateful to the hon. gentleman for giving me notice of this question. It deals with a matter which I had
hoped to include in my remarks winding up the debate on external affairs. But in view of the fact that I might not have that opportunity today, and in view of the interest in this matter, possibly I could answer by reading a short statement concerning it.
Hon members have shown, of course, an understandable interest in the declaration of the Supreme Soviet of February 9. After making strong and grossly misleading attacks on the policies of this and allied governments, that declaration does include three paragraphs at the end on the desirability of direct contacts between parliaments throughout the world. Presumably, Mr. Speaker, that is the invitation to our parliament.
When news was first received from Moscow of this declaration by our ambassador in Moscow, it will be recalled that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), in answer to a question, replied as follows:
The suggestion that has been reported will no doubt come to us in some more official manner than merely this report in the newspapers, and it will certainly be given careful consideration.
The Prime Minister went on to say:
I think the situation is such that we should all do our best to take advantage of any suggestion that might bring about an easing of the tension in the world.
The official text of the Soviet note to our embassy in Moscow on this subject and the declaration have both now been received and have been transmitted to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Speaker in another place for the information of members of parliament. And consideration is being given, I understand, as to how this matter can best be brought to the attention of those directly concerned.
So far as this government is concerned, it has been our constant view that there is a continuing need for contacts between the Soviet union and the non-communist world. It is not we who have lowered the iron curtain; and we would welcome opportunity, I am sure, for genuine, as distinguished from propaganda, contacts, between peoples and between their parliamentary representatives.
We could have wished, I think, Mr. Speaker, that the declaration in question might have been couched in language less reminiscent of the too-familiar propaganda line uttered by Soviet representatives at official conferences, and disseminated through their less official channels outside, and that it had not been approved by the Supreme Soviet so quickly,

Inquiries of the Ministry with customary unanimity, and in the shadow of Mr. Molotov's speech on foreign affairs of the same date which dwelt on the need for Soviet policy to take into account what he called significant contradictions both between individual capitalist countries and within these countries. So, having regard to the background of this declaration, of which this invitation is a part, there is need for us, I think, to be cautious, but not necessarily to turn a deaf ear to the suggestion which has been advanced.
I am not convinced, myself, by the argument that the propaganda intentions of the Soviet government, their unending lack of cordiality with the West in so many spheres of our relations and the lack of deeds to support their protestations of friendship, means that Western countries should not respond at all to gestures of this kind. The implications of such an argument as that might be that we should take no initiative to improve relations, because the Soviets would interpret it as a sign of weakness and would speak of a further communist victory.
There is, therefore, as I see it, much to be said for giving serious consideration to invitations of this kind, whatever their background may be, and there is certainly a good deal to be said for visits by Canadian parliamentarians to the Soviet union either individually or as a group in response to invitations which would be of a kind to make the visit worth while.
It might also I think be valuable to receive Soviet parliamentarians in this country-* which is, of course, not the same thing as inviting members of a visiting delegation to participate in the deliberations of the House of Commons. Nor-and I think it is only fair to add this-has the word "parliamentarian" the same meaning in Moscow as it has in Ottawa, especially in relation to the opposition.
If and when such visits took place, I think we should never neglect, nor would we wish to neglect, any opportunity to create the conditions which might lead to a better understanding between peoples. In a world living under the shadow of the hydrogen bomb, it is of course essential that such an understanding be reached. And that is only possible if one side succeeds in convincing the other that they are not bent on mutual destruction.
And so, if no obstacles were put in the way of holding free and frank discussions during any such visit to Moscow-there would certainly be no such obstacles in Ottawa-I think it should not be difficult for members of parliament to convince representatives of 

the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., or the people of that country, that we in Canada have no such design of mutual destruction.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we are going to have the opportunity to know what an opposition is. However, I would like to ask the minister to elucidate one thing, and that is this: Who transmitted the invitation? Was it official in any way, and from whom was it received?


Mr. Pearson:: The invitation consisted of a three-paragraph declaration made before the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. That declaration, including those paragraphs, was transmitted officially by the foreign office of the Soviet union to our embassy in Moscow.
The translation from the Russian reads:
The ministry-
That is, the foreign ministry of the Soviet union.
-would be grateful to the embassy for transferring such declaration to those for whom it is intended.
When that came to the department at Ottawa we assumed it was intended for the two houses of parliament, and therefore was forwarded by us to the Speakers of the two houses.


Mr. Knowles:: May I ask a supplementary question? Does the invitation suggest that any visiting parliamentarians might speak before the Supreme Soviet? Also, may I ask if any corresponding invitation has been extended from Canada to the Soviet union?


Mr. Dickey:: You may get a chance to speak there.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The invitation is not quite as -if this is the right word-is not quite as specific as that. Probably I should read the paragraph from the declaration which would be considered as containing the invitation. It reads:
The Supreme Soviet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics considers that the establishment of direct links between parliaments, the exchange of parliamentary delegations, and speeches by parliamentary delegations of one country in the parliament of another, will correspond to the desire of the people for the development of friendly relations and for co-operation.
Technically, I am sure we would find that a little difficult to implement in this particular parliament. And I have no doubt, as the Speaker of the House of Commons at Westminster indicated in their case, it would be a breach of our customary privileges and traditions to include delegations of that kind from any country on the floor of the house for parliamentary discussion. But it may be that it is not intended the invitation be taken quite

so literally, and that all it involves is an exchange of views between parliamentarians of each country.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, since this is a general statement, perhaps I might ask the courtesy to make some comment, in view of the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has, very properly, drawn a great distinction between the position of the Leader of the Opposition in this house and that in the Kremlin.
He has also drawn attention to the fact that there has been a substantial change in Russia in these past few years because, for the first time since Lenin came to power, we have seen an opposition take form and be successful. Their methods, of course, of disposing of those who have been in power earlier are not in accordance with our system-and I hope they never will be.
But may I strongly support the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the more opportunity there is of movement back and forth across the curtain-under appropriate assurance of return -the better it will be for everyone. Undoubtedly nothing could better contribute to an understanding of the weakness of the communist system than for a great many people from Russia to see that freedom with which we exchange ideas here in the House of Commons. And, by the same token, I should think nothing would more firmly establish the convictions of our own people in regard to our own methods than that they should see what takes place in Russia.
Without in any way taking exception to the terms which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has used as to the question of the appropriateness of the term "parliament" in relation to the particular place in which they gather in Russia to hear the dictates of the Supreme Soviet, we must remember that the word "parliament", after all, comes from the world parler; and the one thing they cannot do is speak-except to make appropriate sounds at times prescribed by the ruling authority.
Whatever objections we may have to what is done here, there is plenty of evidence of the fact that we still can speak, and there is a distinction in regard to the two methods. But most certainly, everyone who has an opportunity to go there under an appropriate arrangement will gain some advantage by seeing what communism is actually like in Russia itself. I would hope that under appropriate arrangements it might be possible for some of the members of this parliament to go to Russia and to have some of them come here. Under our rules they cannot
Inquiries of the Ministry speak here, and I do not know anyone in our house who could speak over there so that they could understand it; but the fact remains that it would be an opportunity to gain information, to extend the contacts; and at this time what we need more than anything else is some meeting between the people who themselves in the end will decide whether there is to be peace or war.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker,
. I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I wonder whether his attention was drawn to an article in today's Globe and Mail in which the head of the physics department of London university has warned us of the probable genetic danger if atomic bomb tests continue? Can the Prime Minister tell us whether this government is prepared to initiate that study into the danger that the United States federation of scientists asked for recently?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my attention has not been drawn to the article in this morning's Globe and Mail, but I have seen similar articles in other publications at other times. This is a matter which has, no doubt, given serious concern to those who feel that they have a background which would enable them to have some well based opinion upon these subjects. It is a matter that is being seriously studied here and elsewhere, but the Canadian government has not decided to take the initiative in the study of the problem.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinion):: May I
ask the Minister of Public Works whether he has now had an opportunity of discussing with the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation the question I raised in the house on Wednesday, and whether he is now in a position to comment on my question as to whether it is government policy to do what was recommended in his speech on Tuesday by the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that the lending provisions of the National Housing Act should be extended to include older houses? If that is not government policy, how does it happen that the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation comes to make such public statements in the realm of policy?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity of discussing this matter with the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, who says he had no intention whatsoever of making any statement that could be interpreted as government policy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Was it a feeler?


Robert Henry Winters: There certainly was no intention to put it out as a feeler. There was an interpretation put on certain remarks that were made in the course of a panel discussion and not from a prepared text. It was in no way intended to forecast or indicate government policy.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister indicate what is government policy on the subject?


Robert Henry Winters: Government policy is as set forth in the National Housing Act, 1954.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No more?



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. A question of mine, directed to him yesterday, the right hon. gentleman declined to answer on the ground that the basis of the question contained information of which he was not aware. There were two items of information in the question: one, that there was an adequate supply of natural gas in Alberta; and, two, that there were private interests prepared to build a pipe line to Winnipeg. I presume the minister does not wish to maintain that he is unaware-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member be kind enough to put his question?


Owen C. Trainor: The question is, Mr. Speaker, if I may presume to enlighten the minister-


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not in order in this parliament.


Owen C. Trainor: -there was a company known as the Western Pipe Lines that applied to him for a permit-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Owen C. Trainor: So far as I know, the principals of that company are not dead yet, and I am sure they would be prepared to build this pipe line.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.

REQUEST FOR DATE OF FINAL PAYMENT ON 1953-54 pool
On the orders of the day:


John George Diefenbaker: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister in a position to say whether the final payment on the 1953-54 pool will be announced before the Easter holiday? Is he in a position as yet to say what the total amount for distribution will be?
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I was looking into that question not later than yesterday. I doubt whether we shall have the figures by adjournment time. However, they will be put out by the wheat board as soon as they are available. I do not know what they are.


John George Diefenbaker: How soon?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In three or four weeks' time, probably.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That Items numbered 92 to 111 inclusive of the main estimates, 1955-56, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the standing committee on external affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, when the secretary of state of the United States landed at Uplands airport a little over two weeks ago, one of the first statements made by him was of great interest to me. He was reported in the press as follows:
In his brief statement at the Canadian airport, Mr. Dulles referred to Canada as "a Pacific power" and said he looked forward to talks with Canadian ministers during his two-day visit.
Some of us have been trying to emphasize that fact for several years, and yet it must have come as a surprise to many hon. members that the United States secretary of state would make a statement of that kind. Of course, it is very true; Canada is, and has been for some years, one of the leading Pacific powers. Today the greatest threat to civilization is in the Pacific.
I propose to speak this afternoon as one of those Canadians, living west of the Rockies, whose outlook is to the Pacific, and to those nations which lie around that great ocean. After all, Canada is in the north Pacific where


[Stage Direction]
there has been actual armed aggression for nearly five years, starting with the North Korea attack on South Korea in June of 1950. Now, we have in Korea an uneasy truce which has been broken by North Korea and by the red Chinese on more than one occasion. I need only remind Your Honour that eleven United States airmen are still being held by the red Chinese in violation of the terms of that truce agreement. Our own Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) indicated in this house on March 22 the nature of aggression by red China. The minister was asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) about a proposal by the United States that certain clauses of the Korean armistice agreement should be denounced. This is what the minister had to say, as reported on page 2250 of Hansard:
That situation is a difficult one because of violations by the North Korean government of article 13D of the armistice agreement which prohibits the importation into Korea of military equipment and because of the inability of the neutral nations supervisory commission set up by the United Nations, which has two communist members out of four, to take effective action to control such imports. Proof of the violation of this article was indicated on February 5 when communist jet planes attacked a United States aircraft. These jet planes were based on North Korea, though there had been no jet planes based on North Korea before the armistice.
In addition to the fact that there have been these breaches of the armistice agreement we know that once the armistice had been negotiated the red Chinese turned their attention to Indo-China and in due course took over the northern part of Viet Nam. We now have aggression and threats against Formosa. At the moment the red Chinese are exceedingly truculent and I have verification of that fact by the Secretary of State for External Affairs who spoke on Thursday last in this debate. I quote from page 2341 of Hansard of March 24 as follows:
And so we cannot ignore in this connection the communist intention, loudly and frequently proclaimed, to attack and occupy Formosa and the islands.
I would point out that in the Pacific area there is no protective fence such as we have in the Atlantic in the form of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The only agreements for maintaining peace in the Pacific consist of several bilateral treaties between the United States and other countries, one with Japan, another with South Korea, the third with nationalist China and a fourth with the Philippines. In addition there is the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization, the member nations of which are the three Asiatic nations of the Philippines, Thailand and Pakistan; also our sister commonwealth
External Affairs
nations of Australia and New Zealand; and France, the United Kingdom and the United States. Finally, there is the tripartite treaty between the United States, Australia and New Zealand, which as hon. members know is called the ANZUS treaty.
These various nations to which I have just referred have established a line of defence which includes the Aleutian islands, which stretch out for several hundred miles west of the mainland of Alaska, Japan, Okinawa, Formosa, the Philippines, southeast Asia, Australia and New Zealand. This line of defence has been in existence for some time and it is the line of defence nearest to communist China.
This brings me to the question of Formosa. In June, 1950, when North Korea started the aggression against the republic of Korea the United States seventh fleet was ordered to protect Formosa from communist invasion. This year we have had threats by the communists that they were going to take Formosa. On January 24, President Eisenhower delivered his famous message to the United States congress and I should like to read the pertinent paragraphs of that message dealing with the importance of Formosa. The President had this to say:
In unfriendly hands, Formosa and the Pescadores would seriously dislocate the existing, even if unstable, balance of moral, economic and military forces upon which the peace of the Pacific depends. It would create a breach in the island chain of the western Pacific that constitutes, for the United States and other free nations, the geographical backbone of their security structure in that ocean. In addition, this breach would interrupt north-south communications between other important elements of that barrier, and damage the economic life of countries friendly to us.
The United States and the friendly government of the republic of China, and indeed all the free nations, have a common interest that Formosa and the Pescadores should not fall into the control of aggressive communist forces.
That was a clear-cut declaration by the President of the United States, a declaration which I believe accurately reflects the opinion of the American people.
What about Canada? The following day, on January 25, the Secretary of State for External Affairs was asked by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) for the views of the Canadian government on this question of Formosa. I do not intend to refer to the statement made by the minister in reply to that question, but when he had finished I asked a supplementary question, to be found on page 499 of Hansard and which reads:
May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a Eurther question? Does the Canadian government take the stand, or does it not, that Formosa is in the first line of defence for Canada's west coast?
[Stage Direction]
External Affairs
Here is the minister's answer which I suggest is rather surprising:
' That also is another question dealing with far-reaching matters of strategy on which I would hesitate to express an opinion at this moment.
The other day when he delivered the opening speech in this debate the minister made another statement about Formosa, to be found on page 2342 of Hansard. He said:
-we have to recognize that in dangerous times like these positions which are demonstrably of tactical or strategic advantage in the struggle with communist aggression or imperialism cannot likely be abandoned in the face of communist threats by those who hold them.
Then he went on to make this significant statement:
Formosa is considered by many to be one such important position.
No attempt to say what he thought or what the Canadian government thought, merely the most indefinite statement that Formosa is considered by many to be one such important position.
When the minister speaks he sometimes reminds me of an incident which occurred in a Vancouver court a number of years ago when a Chinese witness was under interrogation by a counsel through an interpreter. The counsel put a question to the interpreter and then there followed about 15 minutes of dialogue between the interpreter and the witness. Finally the counsel became desperate and could wait no longer. He said, "Well, well, what does he say?" And the answer came back, "He says yes".
Now, there is one big difference between the witness in that incident and the minister, in that one frequently can never be certain whether the minister says yes or no.
This Formosa policy of the government is extremely indefinite and I submit that the Canadian people are entitled to have an answer to the question which I asked on January 25. In other words, does the Canadian government take the stand, or does it not, that Formosa is in the first line of defence for Canada's west coast?
I believe that Formosa is in fact in the first line of defence for Canada just as it is for the United States. Canada is much nearer to Asia than is the United States, apart, of course, from Alaska. Canada is on the route from Siberia which, as we know, is Russia in Asia, to the United States. During the war many Russian airmen flew United States lend-lease planes from Edmonton up through the northeastern corner of British Columbia, across the Yukon and Alaska over the Bering strait to Siberia. Canada is nearer by sea to Siberia and red China than is the United States, apart from Alaska. The Russians have a great submarine fleet. If there should ever

be submarine attacks across the Pacific ocean the Canadian coast would be a closer target than the coast of Washington, Oregon or California.
I point out to hon. members what happened during the second war. The day after Japan struck at Pearl Harbor we had an air alarm in Vancouver and the entire city was blacked out. It was believed that Japanese planes were attacking that city and, as a matter of fact, Canada had on her coast at that time as many planes as could be carried on one Japanese aircraft carrier and most of the Canadian planes were obsolescent. Later we had an attack by a Japanese submarine on the west coast of Vancouver island. Then we had Kiska in the Aleutians seized by the Japanese and an attempt was apparently made to attack Dutch Harbor which was the next United States air base to the east. This was supposed to have been prevented only because the United States air force flew out beyond the Japanese ships and then flew back in at them, with the result that the Japanese thought there was a United States force in the rear.
On the west coast of Canada during the last war-less than ten years ago-we had two Canadian divisions, one to protect Vancouver island and the other to protect Prince Rupert. We had an armoured train operating on the Canadian National Railways from Prince Rupert for 100 miles inland up the Skeena river to Terrace. On the west coast we know what it means to have no defence line for Canada off the Asiatic coast. Now, in 1955, Canada is a prime target. Today this country is worrying about continental defence and quite rightly so. Canada and the United States are prime targets at the present time.
I remind hon. members that the policy of Canada has always been to defend herself as far as possible from her own shores, and that policy is more important today than it has ever been before both in the Atlantic and the Pacific. An attack on the west coast or by air through Alaska would be very unlikely while Japan, Formosa and the Philippines are held by the free nations. On the other hand, if Formosa is allowed to fall or is given to red China, as some of the members of this house on my left seem to advocate, then the first line of defence for Canada has been broken.
Therefore I repeat that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should give the Canadian people an answer to my question about Formosa when he closes this debate. The people of Canada are entitled to leadership on that question.
President Eisenhower has given leadership. In his message to congress delivered on

January 24 of this year he gave red China fair warning that the Americans would fight to protect Formosa. In giving them that warning he left himself room for bargaining with regard to the offshore islands of Quemoy and Matsu. I quote again from his message. He said:
Moreover, we must be alert to any concentration or employment of Chinese communist forces obviously undertaken to facilitate attack upon Formosa, and be prepared to take appropriate military action.
I do not suggest that the United States enlarge its defensive obligations beyond Formosa and the Pescadores as provided by the treaty now awaiting ratification. But unhappily, the danger of armed attack directed against that area compels us to take into account closely related localities and actions which, under current conditions, might determine the failure or the success of such an attack.
Later he continued:
In the interest of peace, therefore, the United States must remove any doubt regarding our readiness to fight, if necessary, to preserve the vital stake of the free world in a free Formosa, and to engage in whatever operations may be required to carry out that purpose.
The president went further; he said they would welcome action by the United Nations. He was very careful to make that clear in his message. He said:
Clearly, this existing and developing situation poses a serious danger to the security of our country and of the entire Pacific area and indeed to the peace of the world. We believe that the situation is one for appropriate action of the United Nations under its charter, for the purpose of ending the present hostilities in that area. We would welcome assumption of such jurisdiction by that body.
And again he said:
Again I say that we would welcome action by the United Nations which might, in fact, bring an end to the active hostilities in the area. This critical situation has been created by the choice of the Chinese communists, not by us. Their offensive military intent has been flaunted to the whole world by words and by deeds. Just as they created the situation, so they can end it if they so choose.
Not only did he do that but he has restrained nationalist China by making them vacate the Tachen and Nankishen islands. In addition he went to congress for approval of his policy in the very finest parliamentary tradition and he received overwhelming support-practically unanimous support-from the congress of the United States.
When I hear attacks made on the United States in this house I wonder if those who are making them have read this resolution passed by congress. It reads:
Whereas the primary purpose of the United States, in its relations with all other nations, is to develop and sustain a just and enduring peace for all; and
Whereas certain territories in the west Pacific under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China are now under armed attack, and threats and
External Affairs
declarations have been and are being made by the Chinese communists that such armed attack is in aid of and in preparation for armed attack on Formosa and the Pescadores,
Whereas such armed attack if continued would gravely endanger the peace and security of the west Pacific area and particularly of Formosa and the Pescadores; and
Whereas the secure possession by friendly governments of the western Pacific island chain, of which Formosa is a part, is essential to the vital interests of the United States and all friendly nations in or bordering upon the Pacific ocean; . . .
And then follows a recital of the treaty between the United States and nationalist China, followed by this resolution:
Resolved . . . that the President of the United States be and he hereby is authorized to employ the armed forces of the United States as he deems necessary for the specific purpose of securing and protecting Formosa and the Pescadores against armed attack, this authority to include the securing and protection of such related positions and territories of that area now in friendly hands-
The President is not given any authority to attack lands now held by the Chinese. The remainder of the resolution reads as follows:
-and the taking of such other measures as he judges to be required or appropriate in assuring the defence of Formosa and the Pescadores.
Then follows the final paragraph:
This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations or otherwise, and shall so report to congress.
I think we should take note that there has been no attack since this declaration was made or since this resolution was passed by the United States congress and I doubt very much whether there will be one. In any event the decision rests with President Eisenhower personally. We know him. We have seen him and heard him right here in this chamber. We know President Eisenhower's record. We know his character. We know that his aim is peace. There is no member in this house who can get to his feet and say honestly that President Eisenhower is not a man of peace.
For myself, I am prepared to leave this extremely difficult decision to President Eisenhower. I do not want to be accused of having become pro-American or anything of that kind. I come of United Empire Loyalist stock, and you are not likely to see any Canadians of that descent taking an attitude that is too much pro-American. In fact, in 1947 I voted against my party and with the
C.C.F. on the bill which became the Visiting Forces CU.S.A.) Act, which was giving the United States forces in this country certain rights over their troops. I must admit that I did not vote against it for the same reason as did the C.C.F. but still I voted against it.
[Stage Direction]
External Affairs
On this question the Canadian government seems to disagree with President Eisenhower's plan for elbow room for giving himself room in which to bargain. As reported at page 2342 of Hansard the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) said:
It is true that some members of that coalition, including Canada, cannot subscribe to all aspects of United States policy in this Asian area, especially in regard to the coastal islands.
That was a sort of half-clear statement of government policy. But I ask the minister, when he closes this debate, to answer this question: Is it the belief of the Canadian government that the offshore islands, Quern oy and Matsu, should be handed over to red China in the hope of inducing the communists to stop fighting, even though the red Chinese are still demanding Formosa itself and show not the slightest indication of any other intention but to try to seize Formosa?
I point out that the United States is not asking Canada for any help. To hear some speeches made here, one might think that the Americans were wanting us to do any fighting for them that might arise or might begin as a result of this policy; but they are not asking Canada for any help. I point out further that if they turn these islands over to the red Chinese, it might break the morale of the national Chinese army. Do not forget that in that army there are thousands of troops who deliberately chose freedom as against going back to red China, although they were subjected to every kind of pressure in order to try to persuade them to go back to the communist army. More serious still, it might destroy the confidence of the Asian allies of the free countries in their intentions. In addition, of course, it might hamper the defence of Formosa. This second question I have placed before the minister today should be answered when he closes the debate. I repeat that the Canadian people are entitled to an answer.
This brings me to a third and broader question, and it is this. Does the government believe or does it not that in the Pacific communist aggression can be stopped by giving up territory-and that, of course, means giving up people as well-which is what was done in northern Viet Nam? Or putting the question in another way, does the Canadian government believe or does it not that in the Pacific a stand must be taken at some point by some nation or group of nations? For instance, will the minister tell us whether the Canadian government believes that the British should give up Hong Kong? That question was raised in the British house a few days ago, and we all know the prompt and

indignant answer given by Sir Winston Churchill to the effect that Britain had no intention of giving up Hong Kong. What does the Canadian government think about that question?
Let us recall what we have seen in Korea and in Indo-China. Let us recall-and all too often people in the free countries seem to forget this-that the communists have followed consistently a policy of fighting or threatening to fight, then getting what they want by negotiation, and then starting all over again. We know or should know by now that peace can never be gained by appeasing an aggressor any more than a bully can be handled by giving in to him. On February 16 Secretary of State Dulles put the situation clearly when he said this:
It should not ... be carelessly assumed that peace and security will be promoted merely by the non-communist nations indefinitely granting onesided concessions to the communist nations . . .
If the non-communist Asians ever come to feel that their western allies are disposed to retreat whenever communism threatens the peace, then the entire area could quickly become indefensible.
In my opinion, appeasement can end only in communist conquest. Appeasement is contrary to the character of the Canadian people. This nation was not built by leaders who believed in appeasement, and this nation will not achieve its true destiny by following any policies of appeasement. A firm stand has been taken in Europe. At this very session this house put Canada firmly behind the rearmament of Germany. If any step could have been expected to antagonize the Russians and to lead to war, that was such a step. Yet this parliament took it. Now, some steps must be taken in Asia to stop aggression in that area of the world.
Finally, I have a fourth question for the minister. Will the Canadian government work for and advocate a protective grouping of the nations of the Pacific such as exists in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I have raised this question on different occasions in the house, and the Conservative party has taken this stand, that there should be a security pact of the free nations in the Pacific area. I should like to know now from the Secretary of State for External Affairs where the government stands on this question. Such a protective grouping would be the most effective way of stopping communist aggression. If it were taken, Canada would have a voice in the policies that are adopted, instead of being in the position in which she is now, of being bound by the decisions made by others. Furthermore, Canada would benefit greatly in a material way if there were a grouping, not only for protection but also for the promotion of trade

and friendly intercourse between the nations who were parties to any such pact.
In the past, the government attitude on this question has not been very helpful. Canada would have nothing to do with the ANZUS treaty. I was told Canada had not been invited to join the United States, Australia and New Zealand. Then, when I asked whether Canada wanted to be invited or had ever intimated she wanted to be invited, I was met by a stony stare or a pleasant smile. I could never get an answer to that question. I believe that if Canada had asked to become a party to that treaty, she could have been. Certainly the Canadians who live on the west coast believe it is of the utmost importance that our ties with Australia and New Zealand be kept as close as possible.
The government attitude with regard to the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization also has not been one of very much enthusiasm. There may be more reason for that because most of the nations, or at least some of the nations in that organization, quite rightly appear remote from the northern Pacific. However, I am afraid the government has not been very alert to things that have been happening in the Pacific. It is far more interested in things going on across the Atlantic in Europe, and there is also some reason for that, of course, because most of our people stem from European stock.
However, I believe the Canadian government has failed and is failing today to give the Canadian people leadership in facing Pacific problems. I repeat my request of the minister, that when he closes this debate he give the house an answer to the four questions I have placed before him. I believe answers to those questions will help Canadians clarify their thinking on Pacific problems, and that of course is of the utmost importance in a democratic nation.
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: In parliament and out of parliament, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) delivers a great many speeches. He is kind enough to send me copies of those speeches. Most of them are very good; some of them are not so good and others are very bad, in my opinion. I am sure the minister will excuse me if I cannot subscribe to the theory of infallibility which seems to be accepted by so many government supporters. Actually, I do not believe the minister does require so many bouquets as he receives.
I should like to say, however, that I think the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs need not take an inferior position to his opposite number in either the United States or the United Kingdom. One of the
External Affairs
misfortunes of Canada during my lifetime has been that we have suffered from an inferiority complex for so many years. We allowed Westminster to formulate our foreign policies, and more recently we seem prepared to allow Mr. Dulles to decide what is good and what is not good for Canada.
I have a copy of the minister's speech at the Geneva conference in May, 1954. I feel that this is one of the speeches the minister delivered that will be remembered for a long time. The information I received in Europe last summer was that the minister, and the Canadian delegation, deserved the major credit for achieving the cease-fire in Korea and preventing the war spreading to Indo-China. The minister having taken a firm stand on that occasion, I wish he would place the Canadian point of view more firmly on a great many other occasions. Speaking on the radio on March 6, in connection with education week, he delivered a speech on education, foreign policy and the hydrogen bomb. This was another very valuable contribution made to the appreciation of world problems. Regarding the hydrogen bomb he said:
If one of these thermonuclear weapons burst near the surface of Ottawa, it would, by its blast and heat, not only obliterate this city, but through the fall-out effect of radioactive material, it would probably gravely endanger the lives of all people exposed in Montreal and its vicinity as well; so contaminate that city that it would have to be evacuated. If the winds, including those up to 80,000 feet above the earth were going faster than usual, the area of lethal contamination might be much larger. . .	.
So we must face the practical certainty that if any general war is allowed to begin, it would become nuclear war, and both sides would have to face the catastrophic consequences. Surely, any creature capable of reason must prefer the present situation, however unsatisfactory, to such consequences. Surely, too. both sides would prefer to tolerate the uncertainties of present-day life to the certainties of nuclear war.
Then later on the minister said:
Our method is peaceful persuasion and perhaps we are approaching a juncture in history when violence might seem less attractive to its devotees than discussion and agreement. We must work on in that hope; never give up.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, both the speeches at Geneva and his radio address were very useful contributions to a better understanding. I come now to his address on Canadian-United States relations in Toronto, March 14. Unfortunately, in this address he put on the Dulles record with all its harsh tones. His criticism of Russia, I am sure, would be very pleasing to Mr. Dulles; but the suggestion that Canada is prepared to let the United States decide whether war in Formosa is of vital concern to Canada, whether the defence of Quemoy and the Matsu islands is essential to our defence, is a question concerning

External Affairs
which the minister, both in his Toronto address, and in his speech here a week ago yesterday, did not do justice to the thinking of the Canadian people.
He mentioned in his speech on March 24, as reported at page 2343 of Hansard:
It is inconceivable to Canadians, it is inconceivable certainly to me, that the United States would ever initiate an aggressive war. It is also inconceivable that Canada would ever take part in such a war.
The second reason, as I see it, is that the only aggressive force that threatens us today, or that could commit a major aggression, is communist imperialism. Does anybody believe that we could or should keep out of an all-out struggle precipitated by communist aggressive power which, if victorious, would end everything that makes for free and decent existence?
This is one of his blasts against communism in Russia and China. And he says:
It would be impossible, in my view, for either the United States or Canada to be neutral if the people of the other country were engaged in a major war in which their very existence as a people was at stake.
The minister would no doubt argue that if war over Quemoy and Matsu should develop, and if the United States were getting the worst of it, and if China did invade the United States and it appeared as though that country was going to be defeated decisively, we in Canada would not stand by. I think that is very far-fetched, to say the least. I think the Canadian people just cannot be sold on the idea that Quemoy, at the mouth of one of China's main harbours, and less than five miles from the mainland, is necessary to the defence of the United States.
At a round table conference in Toronto over the week end I might say there happened to be eight Americans and one Canadian discussing matters of international concern. This would seem to indicate that those who arranged the conference seemed to think that probably Canadians did not have valid opinions on these questions. But when the question of China, Formosa and the offshore islands was under discussion, an American, who was defending the Dulles policy in the area, was asked this question: How far is Quemoy from the mainland and how far from San Francisco? His reply was that it was something less than five miles from the mainland, and 12,000 miles from San Francisco. I think he was out somewhat in the distance from San Francisco. Anyway, we know it is a long distance.
Anybody on this side of the Pacific who argues that the defence of these islands is necessary either for the defence of the United States or for the defence of Canada, must have a pretty vivid imagination.

The Ottawa Citizen of February 2 carried a story from Hong Kong written by Homer Bigart of the New York Herald Tribune service suggesting that, without exception, top officials of the British crown colony, both civilian and military, think the United States would be foolish to fight for Quemoy and Matsu. From a purely military point of view, these offshore islands just are not worth fighting for, was the comment this correspondent heard over and over again.
Then, in one of his week-end reviews, a few weeks ago, Mr. J. B. McGeachy said something about the history of Formosa, and drew our attention to the fact that this area has belonged to China for a long time. I have done a little reading about the history of the area, and find that over 2,000 years ago Formosa was part of China. Then, a hundred years before this continent was discovered by Christopher Columbus, Formosa had an official governor general, or one in some similar office, looking after its affairs on behalf of China.
I think it is unreasonable for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to suggest that Canadians cannot make up their minds, and that this parliament cannot decide on its own account whether or not the defence of these islands would be necessary for the defence of Canada.
I suggest that he should be on the side of J. B. McGeachy. And then, of course, along with this very controversial question is that of recognizing communist China. Since Great Britain has recognized her, and since it has been suggested that the United Nations should try to get communist and nationalist China around a conference table, I think it would be a great help if the Canadian government would now come out in support of the recognition of communist China.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), speaking at Seoul on March 8 last year, is reported by Associated Press as saying:
I do feel that some day we are going to have to be realistic. We are going to have to admit the present government of China is the government the people want.
And Clement Attlee, former prime minister of Great Britain, speaking at Margate, at the Labour conference said:
It is absolutely ridiculous not to recognize what is the effective government of China. And that government is not the regime of Chiang Kai-shek.
And Premier Nehru of India has gone on record in this fashion:
There will always be trouble in Asia and elsewhere until communist China is recognized in the United Nations.
And foreign minister T. Clifton Webb of New Zealand urged the admission of communist China to the United Nations.

Someone was good enough to send me a clipping from the Vancouver Sun headed "Mather's Nightcap", written by Barry Mather. It bears the subheading "Looking Backward and Sideways at the 4th of July", and the dispatch from Chungking states:
The Chinese government today flatly rejected a French proposal, that the Great Powers recognize Rebel America. The Chinese Foreign Office stated: "China is unalterably opposed to the recognition of a subversive and revolutionary regime which has gained power through force and violence."
And in the same article a dispatch from Upper Canada bearing the notation "With the liberation army, by our own military correspondent" states:
A top-level spokesman for General Johnston's headquarters told the press today that the rebel leader, Washington, and his followers have been "completely out-manoeuvred." "By withdrawing steadily to the north," he said, "we have lured the bulk of the rebels after us. Their line is now so extended that surrender is expected within a few days."
And then in the same article this dispatch from Moscow:
The Russian ambassador to Britain, Boris Shudemov, called today on His Majesty, George III, and extended, on behalf of the Russian government, "full assurances of good will" in connection with Britain's speedy action to put down an attempted leftist-led revolt in the Americas.
\
So much for Formosa and China. I now come to the diplomatic front. As I indicated earlier, I think the minister's remarks this afternoon were most unfortunate in a world with so many tensions. He accused the Russians of using offensive language and, from his lofty pinnacle, discussed a proposal which has come to him. I wonder what he thinks the reaction would be if someone asked him to dinner and, before deciding whether he would accept the invitation or not, he expressed his views with as much feeling and as much heat as he did this afternoon regarding the shortcomings of his prospective host, and said that later on he would consider it.
I notice in the press that the minister was on television last night. I am told that he is a very personable person on television. Although he has had information regarding this matter for some time, I understand that he muffed very badly the question of this invitation to Russia.
The hon. member for Kamloops was asked a similar question when he was on television some time ago.


Mr. Sluder:: The hon. member was on television recently.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Yes, I was on television but not on press conference. I thought that the question asked by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) might have received
External Affairs
a more courteous reply. The minister might have said: "Yes, certainly we have received the information; we shall give most careful consideration to it."
At this stage I wish to repeat the suggestion I made a year ago when a similar debate took place. At that time I thought that a useful purpose would be served by Canada taking the initiative in proposing a visit with a view to having a better understanding, and if I recall correctly I suggested that the delegation should be led by His Honour the Speaker and should include the minister, the Leader of the Opposition, our own leader, the leader of the Social Credit party, one of the women from the Conservative group and the only woman member on the government side. I repeat that suggestion at this time. I might say that it is one of the few suggestions I have made since coming to parliament that brought me a great many letters and quite a number of editorial comments. There were very few critical comments as a result of that suggestion. A great many people seemed to think that a useful purpose would be served. At this time I would suggest that the Prime Minister also be included in the delegation.
I hold in my hand a souvenir of the visit of the Prime Minister of Canada to India. I do not think there is anyone in the world who would expect that if the Prime Minister went to Russia he would return as an avowed communist. I am sure that those who know the Leader of the Opposition would not have any worry about his changing his mind if he should pay a visit to Russia. I submit that if a multimillionaire like William Randolph Hearst could risk his reputation by going to Russia when the Formosa crisis was at its height and could risk his life in that country, this land of freedom which is surrounded by two giants, one to the north and the other to the south, might well consider sending a delegation.
The Nation had a story in its issue of March 12, mentioning that Mr. Hearst on his return was quite favourably impressed with some of the things he saw. He was convinced that the present leaders were:
-not possessed with the madness that drove Hitler to bring Germany down in ruins nor by the recklessness that led Mussolini to tie Italy's kite to the shooting war of nazidom's short-lived conquest.
Mr. Hearst, speaking to the Press Club in New York on his return, said that Mr. Khrushchev mentioned to him in the Kremlin before he left that if he got into trouble with Senator McCarthy on his return he might call on Mr. Khrushchev to testify that during his stay in Russia he was a loyal and capable spokesman for the capitalist point of view.

External Affairs
Just prior to going to press the Nation telephoned Mr. Hearst and asked him a few questions. He assured the Nation that his visit was prompted by a desire to get a firsthand glimpse of the country and the people of Moscow; secondly, that he did not receive any prior suggestion or intimation from the Russians directly or indirectly that he would be welcome. And of course they did not bother asking the question whether he had any subversive interest whatever. He explained that within a week after his request had been made to the Soviet embassy in Washington he had received the necessary visas for himself and his two associates. He felt that the Formosa situation was sufficiently important to warrant his visit. He pointed out that his interviews were reported accurately and fully by the Soviet press. He mentioned a discussion with General Zhukov. General Zhukov was asked whether he had been invited by General Eisenhower to visit the United States and he replied:
Yes, General Eisenhower invited me to the United States on two occasions.
He was asked whether he would go and he replied:
I have received no invitation so far, and I think that the state of relations between our countries just now does not favour such a visit. Neither the American nor the Soviet people would understand it if Marshal Zhukov were to go to America in the present state of relations between the U.S.S.R. and the United States. I sincerely desire better relations betwen our two countries. I should like to visit the United States, and would do so with pleasure if relations improved.


Mr. Marlin:: What document is the hon. member reading from?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I am reading from a Soviet news bulletin which I am sure the minister receives through the mail. If the Secretary of State for External Affairs will indicate that it is an improper bulletin-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Quite proper.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: It comes through the mail and is published by the press office of the U.S.S.R. embassy at 354 Stewart street, Ottawa. Does the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicate that it is not a proper bulletin to read from? I might say that Mr. Hearst has never questioned the accuracy of the reported interviews that he had with Zhukov and other top people; I might say, incidentally, at this time that at a press conference in Washington, President Eisenhower was asked a question regarding his friendship with General Zhukov. He replied that they were very good friends during their stay in Germany. He was asked whether he had not invited General Zhukov to Washington and he replied that he had. He was then

asked whether he would extend that invitation now and he said that he would have to consult his advisers. A week later, after he had consulted his advisers, he said he could not extend the invitation now, which is a great pity.
I think those two generals who had to face so many problems in Germany in the years after the war should have a chance to come together and discuss what they might do at this particular time.
A dispatch from Washington by James Reston, a New York Times correspondent, mentioned that the policies that are being followed in the United States now create a great many problems for the people who should be their friends.
I now come to another section that I think is very important. While the Canadian people and the people of the world are agreed that the United Nations should be doing a worth-while job, the specialized agencies are not getting the assistance they deserve and should have. The Atlantic charter outlines some of the goals that we set for ourselves in the post-war years. I would like to remind hon. members that this was the objective that was set for us back in August, 1941. We wanted to see that people all over the world were able to have their full share of the things that were available so that there should not be hunger, poverty and disease in so many parts of the world. Well, the United Nations has set up machinery so that we now have fairly accurate information regarding the problems that exist in the world. I am not satisfied with the machinery that the minister has, first of all, to make information available to members of parliament and to the public.
A year ago when I was getting ready for my speech I telephoned the information section of the minister's office to find out specifically something about the work that is being done by FAO, WHO, UNESCO, UNICEF and the technical assistance branch. I was referred to the Department of National Health and Welfare which has a very good information service. I phoned there but I was told that I would have to go to external affairs for information about WHO.


Murdo William Martin: You should have called the minister.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I realize the minister has a great deal of information available and has also a most efficient staff, but I wanted information as to what was going on in the various departments. I got a run-around from the various government departments, agriculture, health and welfare and trade and commerce.

Since then I have been to headquarters of WHO in Geneva and FAO in Rome and have discussed this problem with them. They explained that they can provide information when requested, but unless a government requests it they do not dig it up. They told me that if I made my requests through the regular channels I would get the information in due course. On my return I asked the Department of Agriculture to get the information regarding two of my friends who are well known to everybody from Saskatchewan, Dr. J. B. Harrington of the field husbandry department of the university and Professor Hardy who was formerly head of the agricultural engineering division.
Dr. Harrington has had two very interesting assignments in Egypt and India. At his own expense he took some very good coloured pictures and since his refturn he has held many meetings in Saskatchewan on his own time telling service clubs and church organizations and any who were interested something about the problems and the solutions.
I thought that some department in Ottawa should have information that there was such a person as Dr. Harrington, where he had gone to, what he had done and that they would be interested in having his story told to the Canadian people. No one seems to worry about this particular problem.
We are spending some money on these agencies. We are going to spend $323,000 on FAO this year; $289,000 on WHO; $500,000 on UNICEF and $267,000 on UNESCO-we are down a bit there-and $850,000 on technical assistance. Mr. Harold Wilson in "The War on World Poverty" tells us something about the income problem that has to be faced. We are told that in Indonesia the national income is $25 per person per year; in China it is $27 and in South Korea $35. Then when you come to countries like the United States you find they have the highest income, $1,453; Canada is next with $870; then comes New Zealand with $856 and Switzerland with $849. Those figures were taken a few years ago and at the present time we are up to over $1,000 in Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: What year?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: These are some United
Nations figures for 1949. It is now recognized that we cannot expect to continue to live in a world where two-thirds of the people have the sort of income that the people have in India, China, Korea and Burma, less than $50 a year, while one-third of the people living in countries such as this have incomes of upwards of $1,000 per person. Maybe years ago we could argue that it was no concern of ours how people lived in other parts of the 50433-1661
External Affairs
world, but radio, television and modern forms of communication have made our world so small that if we have two-thirds of its people living under conditions such as these we are bound to have trouble.
Dr. de Castro in "The Geography of Hunger" deals with this problem. Dr. de Castro who is chairman of FAO, was away from Rome while we were there but it was suggested that his book would give us all the information we wanted to get from Dr. de Castro. I hope that hon. members will find time to read this most excellent production. In his foreword to the book Sir John Boyd Orr points out:
Yet hunger has been from time to time the most dangerous force in politics. It was hunger which precipitated the French revolution. A mob of women from the slums of Paris marched to the parliament house demanding bread. The politicians fled. The women, joined by the men, then marched to the Bastille. The fall of the Bastille was the death knell of the feudal system in France, and the beginning of a new era in European polities. The revolutionary movement in the "hungry forties" of the nineteenth century was due to the same cause. The Chartist mob in England cried "Bread or blood". With the free import of cheap food the revolutionary spirit in England evaporated.
Dr. de Castro describes some of the conditions in his own country of Brazil, but it will be noted that he covers pretty well the whole world. I think he would prefer it if I used some of his references to his own country. He recalls a foreigner who was visiting Brazil and who was shocked with the living conditions in a country where nature had been so kind. The visitor said to one of the local people:
Don't beans grow in this country?
No, senhor.
Rice?
No, senhor.
Some fruit or other?
No, senhor.
The foreigner was puzzled to know why this was so when trees and everything else seemed to look so healthy. He could not understand why these things would not grow, so he asked the native if he had planted some of these things to see if they would not grow. The native's eyes lighted up and he said, "Ah! Plantando . . . da". That is, "Of course they will grow if you plant them." Two-thirds of the world's people never have enough to eat, nor do they have the know-how to cultivate their land. Dr. de Castro points out:
It is estimated that at least 25 per cent of South America could be cultivated for one purpose or another, but the land in use at the present time does not exceed 5 per cent of the total area.
If only 5 per cent out of a possible 25 per cent is being cultivated it is not surprising that the people in those areas are not getting their fair share of the world's food.

External Affairs
I see that my time is running out but I appeal again to the minister to ask his colleagues to permit him to set up an information service covering the work of the United Nations so there can be made available to members of parliament, the press and radio, up to date information regarding the problems being faced by these specialized agencies.
Two of the ministers attended the Danny Kaye picture which was made available by Paramount the other night entitled "Assignment Children". Mrs. Sinclair reminded us that we have contributed $500,000 toward the work of UNICEF, but one should realize that that works out to only three cents per person as compared with $58.81 for our liquor bill and $30.65 for our tobacco bill. When that is realized I think it will be conceded that we are falling down in our information branch getting across to the Canadian people the proportions of these world problems. The people at headquarters in Geneva, Paris and Rome are frustrated because governments are not making ample funds available to them with which to do a worth-while job. I am sure the minister will give us more information, and that his colleagues will in turn make it possible for him to have additional funds in order that Canada might give leadership in this important work in the troubled world in which we live.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on external affairs, I realize of course that we are debating something that is not just of local importance but something that has world-wide implications. As we are considering that, we are reminded of the fact that in his speech the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) referred to the place that Canada now holds in the councils of the world, the responsibility that is hers because of the position in which she finds herself and also that in the foreseeable future he did not see any lessening of that tremendous responsibility.
We are inclined to think of external affairs as something that can be understood by the great majority of Canadians, but apart from just hearing a few references such as Indo-China, Korea, and Formosa and some other places, I am sure that a great many of our Canadian people have little understanding of the world situation at the present time. Even we who are privileged to sit in this chamber must depend upon the sketchy pieces of information which are given to us from time to time and we find it extremely difficult to arrive at conclusions that we feel are right in the light of the great world conditions that exist at the present time.

In taking part in this debate I am not attempting to masquerade as an expert in these affairs at all, but for a considerable number of years I have been interested in human relations and so I find this area of parliamentary responsibility of special interest to me.
It was my privilege last fall to attend the United Nations general assembly as a parliamentary observer and although that experience may have become rather commonplace to those who attend year after year I must say I found it of exceptional interest. As I listened to the debates in the various committees and also in the plenary sessions I endeavoured to form a mental picture of world conditions at the present time. In endeavouring to assess the value that was placed upon the United Nations Organization by the various delegates I found a rather wide divergence of opinion as to its effectiveness in the world of today. Some people seemed to be of the opinion that with the new atomic era into which we have been so unceremoniously ushered the United Nations has to a greater or lesser degree outlived its usefulness. There are others who felt that the work of the United Nations was worth while in some respects but in many other respects it had failed to measure up to the expectations of the founders of that great organization. I found that others were hoping against hope that the United Nations Organization would be adequate for the challenge of this new age in which we find ourselves. They thought that if anything would accomplish the purposes and objectives for which we are striving, the United Nations would be the medium by which they would be realized. We are hoping, of course, and we are trusting, that through work of the United Nations and through the program it is carrying on something really worth while will be contributed to the welfare of the world.
Although I was interested in all the committees I must say I spent most of the time at my disposal sitting in at the first committee. It seemed as though I was especially drawn to that committee possibly because I knew that the question of disarmament was one of the greatest problems that faced the statesmen of our world today. The agenda for that first committee, as it appeared in the journal of the United Nations, was as follows:
1.	The regulation, limitation and balanced reduction of all armed forces and all armaments: report of the disarmament commission.
2.	Conclusion of an international convention (treaty) on the reduction of armaments and the prohibition of atomic, hydrogen and other weapons of mass destruction.

The debate in this committee was very-extensive with most of the members participating. Sitting on the sidelines, it seemed to me that the smaller nations appeared to think of the world political struggle as a battle of giants but in addition to that they felt there was a real danger that in the struggle they themselves would be trampled to death. As they had a perfect right to be, they were very vocal in their pronouncements and emphasized the importance and the necessity for these giants to resolve their differences, to call a halt to the gigantic armament race and begin to plan for an era of peace and progress.
During the time I was privileged to be there the outstanding event in that committee was the submission by the Canadian delegation of the draft resolution on disarmament. I have a copy of the famous Soviet news bulletin to which the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) referred It is not perhaps the same issue but it is the same publication. Although I have been tempted to digress somewhat and to reply to some of the statements that he made, I am not going to yield to that temptation. However, in this particular publication of Friday, March 11, 1955, it speaks of the ninth session of the general assembly held in September. I am afraid one would gather from reading the bulletin that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), who was the acting head of the delegation at that time, did not have very much to do with the proceedings. Judging from this report it appears that the Soviet union made all the statements and proposals and then the committee simply fell in line and adopted them. However, this particular resolution called for further efforts to be made to reach an agreement on proposals to be embodied in a draft international disarmament convention providing for, as I have already intimated, the regulation, limitation and reduction of all armed forces and conventional armaments, prohibition of the use and manufacture of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, and the establishment of controls adequate to ensure that no state would have cause to fear that its security was in danger. It also suggested, among other things, that the disarmament commission reconvene the subcommittee to continue its work in this regard. We are given to understand, of course, that this committee is in session at the present time.
This resolution was first submitted as a Canadian resolution and it later appeared with some amendments under the co-sponsorship of Canada, the United States, the U.S.S.R., France and Great Britain.
External Affairs
I have said this before, Mr. Speaker, but I repeat that great credit is due the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who was acting head of the delegation at that time, for the way in which he carried through that series of delicate negotiations with Mr. Vish-insky and the other powers in order to achieve agreement on the details of the draft resolution.
Without indulging in flattery I think I can say that the stature of Canada has been enhanced and her influence broadened through the course that was pursued on that occasion. At the assembly, and on different occasions since then, it was stated that the soviets did advance from their previously adamant position with respect to these particular issues. I remember the restrained optimism with which the news of the soviet co-sponsorship was received by the committee. There were, of course, very few who were prepared to accept the agreement as indicating a reversal of the previously held positions but most, if not all, felt that there was some softening of the soviets' attitude and that it was to be accepted that for some reason, understood or not understood, the way for further negotiation was opened.
Mr. Speaker, these events are now in the past. But the important question is this: What prospect does the future hold for the implementation of the desirable objectives outlined in the draft resolution? I think there is one thing that we should remember in spite of much that has been said to the contrary and that is that the long-range soviet policy remains unchanged. An article taken from the Toronto Globe and Mail of February 21, 1955, by Edward Crankshaw, reads as follows:
The communist drive toward world revolution is with us again, openly and harshly, and conditioning the actions of the new rulers of Russia.
Any doubt about the ideological background to the personal struggle in Moscow between former Premier Georgi Malenkov and party secretary Nikita Khrushchev are dispelled by an important policy statement in the January issue of the Soviet communist party journal Communist.
The article is called "The Strategy and Tactics of Leninism" and it restates the old bolshevik aim of world revolution more categorically and candidly than at any time for the past 30 years.
Those are just two brief paragraphs from that article. There has been a great deal of talk about coexistence. Speaking personally, I think all the talk about coexistence is just a blind to cover up the continuing plans for subversion, infiltration and aggression. The delegates at the United Nations expressed alarm-in spite of the vehement denial of the soviet delegation-that the U.S.S.R. was exporting revolution. I say the delegates expressed alarm at the continued advance

External Affairs
and the continued campaign being carried on in their own countries in an endeavour to overthrow the properly constituted governments of their countries and to bring them into line with the communist ideologies. I think that Korea and Indo-China are examples of what to expect as Russian imperialism continues its drive towards the ultimate objective of world domination. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the "leopard has changed his spots" or to convince the world that the soviets are desirous of peaceful coexistence, but there is everything to prove that, as quickly as possible-yet as slowly as necessary-communism is seeking to bring nation after nation, and groups of nations, under its power.
As we think of the continued plans of communism, and as we consider their objectives, our attention is called to the suggestions that have been ventured by some nations with respect to our own program of atomic development and arms build-up wherein they have said that regardless of what soviet Russia does the western powers should take the lead and destroy all atomic weapons, and should prohibit their use. I think that suggestion is ridiculous. On the contrary, any proposed reduction, any suggested prohibition or any contemplated relaxation should take place only when there is foolproof assurance that it will not jeopardize our position with respect to self-defence and the ability to safeguard the welfare of the free nations of the world. As long as soviet long-range policies remain unchanged, there must be no let-up in our military preparedness program.
We welcome any sincere and straightforward negotiations to rid the world of threat of war, and any plan to ease the peoples of the world of the intolerable financial load of defence expenditures, but there must be no more retreat or compromise in the face of the diabolical menace of world communism. Any negotiations must see to it that the balance of strength does not pass from the free world to the side of Russian imperialism.
Perhaps it is superfluous to offer advice to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) but, Mr. Minister, we exhort you to be on guard as you have been in the past, lest expediency or desperate desire for peace, shared by us all, might tempt you to compromise or to follow the program of appeasement.
First of all, the first committee at the United Nations was to deal with the matter of the prohibition of nuclear weapons. We have all read of the fearsome power of atomic and hydrogen weapons. We have had pictures in the papers and broadcasts over the radio

with respect to the destructive power of these new weapons. I do not think any one of us is in the dark with regard to the terrible potentiality of the atomic and the hydrogen bombs. Another matter was the reduction in conventional armaments. I am not going to dwell on that matter. The third was the control body to be set up in order to see that any plan and the proposals or regulations of any plan were fully recognized and observed by the respective nations. As reported in Time magazine of March 14, 1955, Sir Winston Churchill said:
"What ought we to do? . . . It does not matter so much to old people; they are going soon anyway, but I find it poignant to look at youth in all its activity and ardour and, most of all, to watch little children playing their merry games, and wonder what would lie before them if God wearied of mankind.
Disarmament would be the best solution, said Churchill. "But facts are stubborn things, and one of the stubbornest is the soviet government refuses to accent any practical system of international inspection".
I am sure this afternoon we all agree that disarmament is desirable. We would like to see it accomplished. I think President Eisenhower recognized the desirability of that when he appointed a secretary to head up a disarmament department. There are many complications, as was pointed out just recently in an article in the newspapers. It spoke of the difficulties that confront us in any program of disarmament, such as, first, the accumulation of the stockpiles of atomic weapons; second, the small atomic weapons that we now have at our disposal; third, the problem of adequate control.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, in the face of the world conditions, with the constant threat that is before us and the absence of any great ray of light and hope, that we can do nothing less than maintain our military preparedness until such time as that control organ can be set up and we can be assured it will work adequately and effectively in seeing to it that the nations observe any plan for disarmament.
I think there is something else we have to do in the face of world conditions. We must recognize our responsibility with respect to the need of many nations for technical and material assistance. This has been referred to, and after all I have said about the necessity for military preparedness I must say that this, as well, is a matter of great importance. We do appreciate the programs that are now being carried on with respect to technical and material assistance to other nations, and we are reminded of the work of the United Nations technical assistance program with the contributions that are made to that particular fund. We have been reminded the

last several weeks of the contribution made through the Colombo plan to the nations of southeast Asia, and how Canada has increased her contribution by $1 million. We do appreciate what has been done and what is being done.
But I submit that there is a great deal more we could do, and should do, in order to discharge our moral obligation to the peoples of the world. The need is still with us. Starvation is still rampant in some sections of our world; malnutrition abounds, yet; we have the ability to meet these needs in such a wonderful way. We have surpluses that are causing us embarrassment. We have a tremendous productive capacity in our nation, and it would seem to me that we could do more and we should do more with respect to material and technical assistance to other nations of the world. It is a moral obligation that we have. Not only is it a moral obligation, but I believe self-defence requires that we do something to alleviate the distress of other nations. We cannot forever stand idly by when we have so much and they have so little. We must do our utmost to evidence our concern for, and our interest in, the welfare of other people.
The third thing I believe we must do is to carry on at every opportunity negotiations for the settlement of international problems. Now, I realize to a very small degree the problems that confront us when we talk about negotiations. Nevertheless, as has been mentioned today and on other occasions, I do not believe we can allow any opportunity to pass by that promises, in any degree whatever, to lessen international tension and maintain the peace in our world.
Another matter to which I wish to refer this afternoon, and perhaps this is a little out of the ordinary, is that as we think of the menace of communism we must realize the necessity for a strong moral and spiritual foundation. Think back into history, and not too far back, and we can recall occasions when we faced emergencies. There were crises. We all remember how our sovereign called us to prayer. We did not think that was strange. But somehow it seems rather strange to introduce suggestions like these into a debate such as we are having today. It may be that we are just unconsciously by-passing some of the important truths in this respect; but I believe, as I have said, that if we are going to face the problem that confronts us and present an adequate defence against communism while preserving our own freedoms and liberties, we must build our house upon strong moral and spiritual foundations.
External Affairs
The battle now is not just for territory; it is for national advantage. Some have said it is for the minds of men, Mr. Speaker, but I believe it is more than that. It is for the very souls of men. It is the conflict of the ages, if you please; right against wrong, truth against error, freedom against slavery, light against darkness, God against Satan. I introduce this theme into a debate on external affairs because we must recognize the essentiality of moral and spiritual resources in our endeavours to maintain our own security and in the defence of the free nations of the world.
I have a clipping taken from the Montreal Gazette of March 18, 1955, and I should like to give several brief paragraphs from it:
Ostensibly, the communist attack Is on capitalism; in fact, it threatens the moral foundations of society.
Communism is not merely materialistic and atheistic, it is anti-moral. Its basic doctrines are the negation of morality. Its theorists ridicule all the moral codes that mankind has so laboriously built up.
Communists teach that moral codes grow out of economic systems. That belief alone would destroy society. It would lead to the fatal falsehood that morality does not have to be taught. Morality has to be taught-and it has to be taught anew to every generation.
And another paragraph:
But that is not the worst of it. The communists' doctrine of the class war leads them to adopt a code of ethics that is the precise opposite of what all the great religious and moral systems of the world have agreed in calling good.
And that, Mr. Speaker, is why I say if we are going to combat communism we must not depend only upon weapons, no matter how destructive they may be. We must not depend only upon technical and material assistance to the underdeveloped nations of the world. We must build sure foundations in our nation that will make us strong to challenge evil in our day and generation.
Mr. Paul S. Peak, advertising and public relations manager of the Imperial Bank of Canada, addressing a meeting of the advertising and sales executives club of Montreal had this to say, when speaking of the choice given citizens of the free world, with the high standard of living they enjoy:
Such freedom, Mr. Peak said, needed absolute honesty, purity, unselfishness and love.
"There is one ideology which can beat the ideology of the totalitarian state," he said. "It is freedom to choose. We must choose to be governed by God or we will condemn ourselves to be ruled by tyrants.
I would like to see a little more emphasis on the spiritual wealth of the nation".
Empires in the past have perished not at the hands of invading armies but because of moral and spiritual deterioration and disintegration within. The great powers are

External Affairs
not the atomic bombs, with all their tremendous power potential. The greatest powers in the world are righteousness, faith in God and prayer.
I should like to quote from Time magazine of February 28, 1955. This article quotes the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I think these words are very true. He said:
We have gone from the iron to the uranium age, from the horse and buggy to the jet . . . Seventy-three years ago they hadn't heard of atom or jet. They had time to enjoy a sunset . . . They were more secure morally. This moral insecurity of ours means that men are turning to strange gods. Communism is the worst of these false gods. It is the black mass of our time, with its insistent, insidious appeal to the twisted, the frustrated, the perverted and the distressed. Nor will it be destroyed by material means alone, by bread or bayonets or circuses. It must be opposed by a strong moral belief, by a moral purpose which shows itself in service and sacrifice both in the individual and the nation.
Again I say I am in full agreement with these words attributed to the minister. I appreciate the wariness with which the Secretary of State for External Affairs views any and all proposals emanating from the Soviet union.
In closing let me say this: We do not want to miss any opportunity which may present itself to move toward the easing of international tension and the maintenance of peace. On the other hand we do not want to find ourselves in the position of being helpless in the face of communist intrigue and expansion.


Mr. A. R. Lusby (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate we have had presented a considerable variety of shades of opinion as to what should be the position and course of action of this country with regard to the various areas of international tension, and particularly of course with regard to the most potentially explosive of them all at the present time-Formosa, and the islands adjacent to the Chinese mainland.
Here the discussion necessarily resolves itself largely into a consideration of our attitude, wether it is to be approval or disapproval, support or otherwise, in relation to the policy of the United States in this area. It is not my primary purpose in joining in this debate to enlarge upon this particular question. My primary purpose is to make a few remarks about the United Nations. However, in view of all that has been said about the situation-and I have followed the debate with some attention-I wish to say that of the views I have heard expressed regarding the Formosa crisis, and certainly it is no less than a crisis, those of the Secretary of

State for External Affairs to my mind commend themselves as outlining the only rational and realistic position Canada could take under existing circumstances.
It seems to me that hon. members who have offered opinions differing from or contrary to those of the Secretary of State for External Affairs are veering too far in either one direction or the other. Certainly I fully agree that it is not compatible with our status of independent nationhood and with our increasing stature in the world-and I think I may be pardoned for beating the patriotic drum to that extent-that we should merely play the role of, shall we say, the tail to the American comet or the 49th state of the union. I think that is probably accepted by every member in the house. I believe if we were to do that it would not be in the best interests of either ourselves or the United States. We have our own part to play. We have our own contribution to make to the cause of world peace as well as to many other matters of world import.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, it certainly seems to me that it is in the highest degree unrealistic for us to lose sight of the fact as, I fear, some hon. members who have preceded me in the debate have been inclined to do, that our fortunes and our destiny and our national safety, indeed our very existence, are inextricably bound up with the United States of America, the strongest champion in the whole free world.
If in our best judgment any phase or detail of foreign policy of the United States with regard to Formosa or, for that matter, any other centre of world danger, is likely to imperil rather than strengthen the security of the community of free nations, it may very well be not only our right as a sovereign state but also our duty as a responsible member of that community to offer the soundest possible criticism we can of that aspect of American policy, possibly even to the extent of proposing a different course of action which we think may better cope with the exigencies of the situation. If we do that we shall render finer service than by any blind and unreasoning adherence to whatever our ally may propose.
We have seen that American statesmanship -and in this respect it is no different from that of any other country, including our own; I hope I am not treading on any honourable toes when I say that-is not infallible. We know that the statesmanship of any country is liable to error. It is certainly not our part, as I said, to adhere to any policy of any nation if we consider it to be faulty or dangerous in its probable consequences. But risk alone, the risk involved

in a policy, certainly cannot be the sole criterion since, as I think some hon. members said earlier in this debate, any policy that could be adopted to stem the tide of communism, except possibly one of abject appeasement, must necessarily involve a very weighty element of risk.
The present United States policy with regard to Formosa and the offshore islands is not necessarily, let us grant, the best one. It may be unsound; it may lead to an open clash in those waters, and it is well that we examine it with care rather than hurry to associate ourselves with it without giving it that degree of careful thought. But while red China shows no inclination whatever to even open negotiations for a peaceful settlement, is there any hon. member in this house who can propose a better alternative? I have not heard any proposed, and I doubt very much whether any can be proposed. We must never forget, Mr. Speaker, that our whole position in this world of democracy and communism is based upon a fundamental unity of aim and purpose as between ourselves and the United States. We are in complete and total agreement that the free world must be defended at all costs against the inroads of communism. Differences may arise and, as I said a moment ago, even the duty to differ may arise, concerning details or the best manner in which to achieve that aim and purpose. But if in some such instance a course of action pursued by our ally, though neither approved nor supported by ourselves, should bring in its wake the world holocaust, then what possible choice could we have? Could we stand aside in any major war involving the United States because it had been precipitated by what we regarded as mistaken United States policy in Formosan waters or elsewhere?
To me there is only one answer to such a question, and that is the one which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has already given. Indeed, it seems to me the question is fundamentally academic; for certainly the decision would not be one of our choice; it would immediately and forcibly be thrust upon us by the communist powers.
It is upon such reflections as these, Mr. Speaker, that I base my approval of what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said in this debate concerning our position with regard to the present Formosa crisis. Above everything, of course, it is essential that we avoid any serious rifts in the united front against communism.
I should now like to turn to an aspect of the world situation which has not been greatly emphasized in this debate, namely the ultimate need to attain a lasting peace in the world rather than the immediate need 50433-167
External Affairs
to avert an imminent threat of war. That this debate should be primarily directed toward the latter consideration is, of course, existing circumstances being what they are, almost inevitable. The present division of the world into hostile camps practically prohibits, for the time being at least, any comprehensive policy for a universal and permanent settlement of differences. Even if the current moves toward disarmament meet with some measure of success, even if the North Atlantic treaty alliance provides a satisfactory level of armed strength in Europe, even if some form of truce-there does not seem to be any better possible settlement in sight at the present time-is arrived at in the Formosan strait, even if all this and more are accomplished, we shall still be far from an era of permanent peace.
All these things I have mentioned might be likened to the building of a shelter-it may very well be a strong shelter-against a storm; but certainly, Mr. Speaker, they will not themselves bring to the world the sunshine of perpetual peace. If a permanent solution is ever to be found it must be, I am convinced, by the creation or the development of some form of international organization working effectively and efficiently, representing all or substantially all the nations of the earth and eventually involving, no doubt, some degree at least of abandonment of the cherished principle of absolute national sovereignty.
Today, undoubtedly, that seems little more than a vain dream. Certainly its quick realization is no more than a vain dream today. But if we postulate that its ultimate attainment is impossible, then it is my belief that after all the days or the years or the decades of postponing the final disaster, total war must inevitably come upon us, or at least upon some future generation. The stakes are the highest humanity has ever played for. I remember, Mr. Speaker, that in my college days-and that was a relatively untroubled time, when hydrogen was chiefly known as a component of water-there was a very popular poem by Mr. T. S. Eliot entitled "The Hollow Men". The last two lines ran this way:
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
Today you might reverse that, because there is the very present danger that the world will end with a bang, and there will be very little of mankind left to whimper.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but since it is five o'clock the house will proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.

Private Bills PRIVATE BILLS



SECOND READINGS


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


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Thomas for the second reading of Bill No. 185, to amend the Canada Elections Act (ballot papers).
Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks that were made by the sponsor of this bill when he spoke on March 11 last. I think it would be appropriate for me to say a few words about the principle of this bill. When the hon. member moved second reading of the bill the other day he expressed the view that the purpose of this measure was to remove the confusion which in his opinion would result from the fact that at
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite).]
times there is more than one candidate with the same name running in the same constituency.
My first observation is that there are already in the act provisions which would dispel any such confusion. There is a considerable time between the issuance of the writs of election and polling day, and this would enable the electors to be told the exact identity of each candidate, what he stood for and the policies he would advocate if elected. The campaign is generally long enough and at times strenuous enough to afford to each candidate a full opportunity to make himself known to the electors to whom he is appealing for votes.
There is another provision in the act which requires a candidate to list not only his name but his occupation and place of residence on the ballot paper. I feel that is enough to dispel whatever confusion might be created by the existence of similar names on the ballot paper.
If there is confusion, as the hon. gentleman contends, my submission is that the proposals contained in this bill would not do much in the way of clarification or help in dispelling that confusion. In fact my view is that they would add to the confusion. May I state why I believe this would add to the confusion rather than clarify the issue.
The bill suggests that on each ballot paper would appear what is referred to as the political affiliations or interests of each candidate. I must admit that I cannot understand what is meant by those words. The hon. member for Greenwood thought perhaps it might refer to the occupation of the candidate. My view is that it cannot refer to that because the act already contains the provision that the occupation of the candidate must appear on the ballot paper.
What puzzles me even more is the procedure suggested in the bill under which the recognized leader of each political party or group would file with the returning officer a written direction indicating which candidates should appear on the ballot papers as representing the party he led. That of course would mean that there would have to be a recognized leader for each political group.


Mr. Thomas:: Read the rest of it.


Roch Pinard: I shall a little later. We have at the present time different groups and parties represented in this house. At the present time there may be no dispute as to who are the leaders of these political groups, but the time might come when the leadership of a political group was in dispute. This has not happened so far in our country, but

we have seen where controversy has existed in other countries as to who is the leader of a political group.
Even though there may not be any difficulty about that and even though the recognized leader of a group could always be found to file this suggested written direction, greater confusion might be created if instead of having only a similarity of names you might have a similarity in the political affiliations of candidates. In other words you might have more than one candidate claiming to be a member of the same party, with the result that the so-called recognized leader would not know what to do.
If he made a choice and selected one candidate as being the candidate of his choice, that would be equivalent to declaring that the others were outcasts. In other words he would be deciding that so and so was the candidate for that political group and that no other could claim to represent it. I believe that ought to be determined by the electors themselves.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you thinking of Ottawa East?


Roch Pinard: Not necessarily. There might be occasions even in our own party where more than one candidate would claim to belong to our group. This might very well happen in the case of Social Credit candidates in Quebec, where a candidate might belong to l'union des electeurs and at the same time claim to belong to the Social Credit group. I do not know what the leader of the Social Credit group would do in that case. He might say that the Social Credit candidate whose name appeared on the ballot paper was their candidate and the candidate of l'union des electeurs was not.
Then what would happen if the recognized leader of a group refused to file a written direction of that kind? Would it then be left to the candidate to list his political affiliation on the ballot paper, and would it remain with the returning officer to pass judgment as to who should be considered as belonging to a certain political group? Then there are also the independents who would have to be considered.
Therefore I believe there are a number of reasons why this measure would add confusion rather than bringing about clarification of the issue. I would remind hon. members of what the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) said when he spoke in the debate on March 11. The hon. member said that a member of parliament is not elected to represent a given political group or only the people of his own constituency. He is elected to represent all the population of Canada.
Canada Elections Act
His true allegiance is first to the people of this country and then to the political group to which he claims to belong.
I am not questioning at all the good motives of the hon. member, but I think what he proposes would not bring about anything in the way of clarification of whatever confusion he thinks occurs as the result of similar names appearing on the ballot papers, and for this reason I would oppose the legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words, and what I say will be in support of the proposal contained in the bill submitted by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Thomas). I have listened with interest to the arguments of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pinard) against the bill, but it seems to me that in part of what he has said he has been splitting hairs, and in part he has really missed the point. At the conclusion of his remarks he repeated the position taken by the hon. member for Quebec South on March 11.
No member is listened to in this house with greater interest than the hon. member for Quebec South; but although we listen with interest to what he says, it does not follow that we always agree with his point of view. I thoroughly disagree with what he said on March 11 when he said, as recorded at page 1959 of Hansard:
If on the ballot paper itself an individual who proposes to become a member of parliament labelled himself, for the time during which he will be a member, as the supporter of such and such a party, it would be extremely difficult for him, both in conscience and in the view of his electors, to say that from now on he repudiates the pledge he made to his electors when he said he was a Liberal, a Conservative, a Social Crediter, or anything else you may mention.
I indicated by a question at that time what I wish to state further now. It seems to me rather inconsistent to argue that the name of the political party should not be printed on the ballot paper when one realizes that all the parties in this country, including the Liberal party of which the hon. member for Quebec South is a prominent member, most certainly advertise the names of their parties on their election literature. They make it crystal clear in their election literature at election time that they are seeking votes for their candidates as candidates of particular parties.
I have saved some of the literature which was put out in the election campaign of 1953 and I am going to quote some captions and slogans which appeared on some of the material in order to underline my point. Here is a leaflet which was put out in the

Canada Elections Act
constituency of Winnipeg South Centre. My hon. friend who is sitting here will well remember it. This leaflet reads:
Vote to continue the tax rental agreements-
Vote Liberal on August 10-
In Winnipeg South Centre vote Hanks, A. W.
Similarly, I quote from another leaflet which was put out:
For continued prosperity-
I am sure the unemployed will be interested in this.
*-and sane government, vote Liberal. In Winnipeg South Centre vote Hanks, A. W.
Here is a letter with a picture of a gentleman in the upper right hand corner, a gentleman many of us remember well, George A. Cruickshank, who was described in 1953 as the Liberal candidate for Fraser Valley federal riding. There is a line at the top of the letter which reads "Liberal headquarters"; no question at all but that the campaign for this candidate, as well as for the other gentleman whom I mentioned a moment ago, was a campaign to elect this man as a Liberal. I quote from another leaflet:
To put your East York candidate on the winning team with Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent, vote Liberal-J. D. Thomas.
Well, this particular Thomas did not get here as his namesake who is sponsoring this bill did. He was presented to the electors not just as an individual by the name of J. D. Thomas. He was put forward as a Liberal. He happened to be beaten by another person whose postcard advertisement reads:
Re-elect R. H. "Bob" McGregor-Progressive Conservative-York East.
Surely there is no question about it. All of us know that in the literature that is put out in our support at election time the name of the party is played up. Oh, I know there are times when this is not true. I have an example here which I shall not quote, but I will pass it over to my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). This will refresh his memory of the fact that the name of the party was not played up in that leaflet. But now I shall quote from an advertisement which appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune of Tuesday, August 4, 1953. It is a large advertisement which contains a picture of the Prime Minister and the catch line is, "For a greater Canada-vote Liberal!" Then appear the names of the five Liberal candidates in the greater Winnipeg area.
I realize that once in a while the name "Liberal" was played down; for example, in this advertisement which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of Friday, July 31, 1953,

where the catch line reads, "Vote St. Laurent!". The name "Liberal" also appears in that advertisement, but in very small type. There was no question about who the recognized Liberal leader was, although that seemed to be one of the problems worrying the Secretary of State. There was no question about it in that advertisement, nor was there any question but that each of the candidates whose names appeared there would be recognized as Liberal candidates and Liberal members if they were elected. As hon. members know, the four Liberals in the city of Winnipeg did not do so well in 1953. None of the four was elected.
I have here a newspaper clipping concerning that campaign, which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of July 29, 1953. It reports a statement made in the course of the campaign by a prominent member of this house, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). The dispatch is from Victoria, by Canadian Press, and it reads:
I'm fighting my last battle, trade minister declares-Trade Minister Howe said Tuesday night, "I think this will be my last election," and that, "I want to make sure the Liberal party is strong when I leave it."
I could read more of this dispatch but I shall not take the time and it might appear as though I were trying to strike another note if I did. The fact remains, however, that he was pleading not just for C. D. Howe or Dr. Frank Fairey in whose support he was speaking to be elected, but he was seeking support for the Liberal party as such.
I have in my hand another document. This appears over the signature of a man whose name has been ringing in our ears a good deal this week. I refer to Mr. Duncan MacTavish. He is the gentleman who thinks members of parliament are mischievous boys indulging in free speech. I might say this is a document which was sent to the Canadian troops who were overseas at the time of the 1953 election. The Secretary of State may not have seen it, but it underscores the point made by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin when he introduced the bill. On page 3 of this document in large red type the following appears:
Liberal candidates-1953-candidats Liberaux
Then the candidates are listed in all the constituencies where there were Liberals throughout Canada. Also, in both English and French, in a box, appears this note:
Attention
In some electoral districts the names of the candidates are the same. It is important that you check the initials with the deputy returning officer's list of candidates and make sure you write in the correct name so that your ballot will be counted for the Liberal candidate if such is your wish.

I draw to the attention of the Secretary of State the fact that the president of the national Liberal federation, Duncan Mac-Tavish, was worried about this very point during the election campaign of 1953 and went out of his way, presumably with party funds, to see to it that the information as to who were the Liberal candidates was made available to all the troops overseas.


Mr. Low:: Which would indicate weakness.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Very definitely. In the meantime, I am looking over this document to see whether or not it conformed to the law. Maybe it escapes my notice, but I do not see anything on here indicating who printed it. It was published, of course, by the national Liberal federation of Canada, but the name of the printer is not given.


An hon. Member:: Is there any union label on it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is no union label on it. If there were, you would know who printed it. But no, you cannot tell where this document was printed. I am rather shocked to discover this fact. When I got to my feet I had not realized that Duncan Mac-Tavish would break the law of this country, but that is what he did, because section 71 of the Canada Elections Act requires-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaiie):: Order. I do not like to interrupt the hon. member in his extremely interesting discourse, but I think he will agree with me that the question before the house is whether or not political affiliations should appear on a ballot paper, and not whether some document issued some years ago was or was not legal. Had the document been a ballot paper perhaps his discussion might have been in order. But I would ask the hon. member to come back to the bill.


Solon Earl Low: It is an extremely interesting discovery, nevertheless.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that had I, before I got to my feet, realized what I discovered while I was speaking, I would have said it much quicker and got ahead of your ruling. In any case, you will recognize that what I have been doing is answering arguments put forth by the hon. member for Quebec South and the Secretary of State, who claimed that it is somehow degrading to candidates for parliament to suggest that the name of the party they support should be put on the ballot. My point is that political parties at election time make great efforts to attach the name of the party to the candidate in all their election literature, whether
Canada Elections Act
that literature is legal or illegal; and if that is done, I submit that we should be consistent and have it on the ballot paper as well.
As to the other arguments raised by the Secretary of State just now, may I say that they were obviously a bit weak. He thought there was provision already to avoid confusion, and suggested that when there were candidates with the same name, their first names or initials would be different. Sometimes they are similar. He suggested that the addresses of candidates and their occupations were also a means of identification. As hon. members realize, that may not be sufficient identification for the purpose of people who go to the polls to vote.
As to the point raised by the Secretary of State in connection with the difficulty of determining candidates that a recognized leader recognizes as followers, surely he was splitting hairs. I think also he failed to recognize that in my hon. friend's bill there is provision, where this process is not carried through, for the returning officer to put on the ballot paper the political party name suggested in the nomination paper by the candidate himself. I do not think there is anything substantial in the arguments that have been advanced by the Secretary of State.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need say any more. Were I to take the time to do so I could quote further from some of the interesting documents on my desk which I saved from the last election.	It is a
fact that at election time, in election literature, every candidate goes out of his way and every party goes out of its way to connect the party name with the name of the candidate so the electors of the country will know which party they are supporting, and which political philosophy they are endorsing. If we do it in other respects, surely it is a good idea to put the name on the ballot paper as well. I remind hon. members that it is done already in two or three provinces, and I think nothing would be lost-indeed I think something might be gained-if we did it in federal elections, which is the principle of the bill now before us.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on this question. I find it difficult to. understand the opposition expressed by the Secretary of State to the proposal that the political affiliation be shown along with the name of the candidate on the ballot paper. I am rather afraid that the Secretary of State has been raising obstacles that do not exist, and has been putting forward hypothetical instances which I greatly doubt would ever be experienced. We have had this system in

Canada Elections Act
the province of British Columbia for many years and it has worked out exceedingly well. There have not been all the complications-


An hon. Member:: The system was brought in by the Liberals.


Harold Edward Winch: Yes, it was brought in by the Liberals. There have not been all the complications that have been raised this afternoon by the Secretary of State. Not only have the problems he has envisaged not come about, but it should be recognized that when the Liberals brought in this system in the province of British Columbia, it was for extremely good reasons.
What were those reasons? First of all, it was the belief in British Columbia-and I think it should be the belief here-that every person whose name appears on the voters' list has the right to cast his ballot and to make sure that he casts his ballot for the person for whom he wants to vote.
Let us not fool ourselves at all. There are thousands upon thousands in this dominion who want to vote, but they are divided into three categories. There are those who know the names of the candidates for whom they want to vote and who know the party to which he belongs and for which they want to vote. Then there are those who remember only the name of the candidate. That is all right, because his name is on the ballot paper. But everyone in this house knows quite well that there are countless thousands who, when they go to the polls, know the party for which they want to vote but who

and it occurs time after time-have forgotten the name of the candidate of that party.
Any of us who have worked in our campaign offices and our committee rooms on election day and the week before-and I think all of us have done so-know what happens. I think it is safe to say that out of every ten calls we get, either by phone or in person, nine will be for the purpose of inquiring what is the name of the candidate of such and such a party in such and such a constituency. That being the case-and we all know it is true-and because we all want the voter to have the right to vote for the actual person or the party for whom he wants to cast his vote, then why should we not, in the name of democracy, have on the ballot paper the political affiliation along with each name?
This system has worked exceedingly well in British Columbia, and I am sure it would work just as well in a federal election. The job is not too severe as far as the party leader is concerned. I had the honour of

being party leader in the province of British Columbia for 14 years and under the authority of the act, as the recognized leader, I had the right to tell the returning officer who were the official candidates of the C.C.F. The Liberal premier had the same right, and he did on behalf of the Liberals exactly the same as I did on behalf of the C.C.F. There was no difficulty.
There is one other point I think should be noted, and that is the reason it is advisable to have this type of legislation. It is advisable in order that a person may be certain he is voting for the right candidate if there happens to be two who call themselves the official candidates of a certain party. Time after time in all parties, provincial and national, you have internal dissensions, disruptions and disputes, perhaps in one constituency or in two or three constituencies. The party know who is the official candidate, but somebody gets up on his own and says, "I am the official candidate"; yet he is not the man who was nominated and who the president says is the official candidate. It makes no difference whether it is the C.C.F. party, the Social Credit party, the Liberal party or the Conservative party. That is the sort of thing that happens.
The voter is entitled to know who is the official candidate of any party. It is not right that anyone else who wants to run for election should be able to falsely capitalize on the name of a political party when he is not the official candidate of that party. Of course he must have the right to run, but it is not right, fair or decent that he should be allowed to capitalize on the name of a political party. At the moment this can be done. There is nothing that can be done by a recognized party or by a recognized official candidate to prevent it.
We can very easily solve these problems and make certain that the voter is able to vote for the person and the party he wants, merely by accepting the proposal before us to have the party affiliation placed alongside the name of each candidate. I have said this has worked and is working in other parts of Canada. It could work just as efficiently in a federal election. I hope the Secretary of State will take a second look at his position on this matter and will remove his objections.


Roch Pinard: Would the hon. gentleman allow a question?


Harold Edward Winch: Yes.


Roch Pinard: Supposing there was more
than one candidate claiming affiliation to the same political group in his nomination papers, what would happen? Would the confusion not be greater than otherwise?


Harold Edward Winch: No, because the recognized leader of the party must certainly know who is the official candidate, if all parties operate on a democratic basis, as I presume all in this house do.


Roch Pinard: If he were to refuse to file the written direction referred to in the bill, what would happen?


Harold Edward Winch: I would say that could be
taken care of easily by the fact that it should be illegal for a person to take a status to which he is not entitled.


Roch Pinard: How would the electors know the recognized leader had filed a written direction, without having a chance to look at it? If it is done on nomination day, would the electors have to go to the returning officer's office to look at the papers to find out whether or not the written direction referred to had been filed?


Harold Edward Winch: When you file your nomination papers you indicate the party to which you claim affiliation. At the time of the nomination the recognized leader of the party notifies the returning officer in writing of the name of the official candidate, and that is accepted by the returning officer. If the leader does not accept his democratic right when you have this system, and does not file the name, then the returning officer can take it as it is submitted by the nominee. I doubt if there would be any political leader in Canada, if he had this right, who would not exercise it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I think the time has come when I have to point out to hon. members that we are not in committee. The minister had the right to ask the last speaker questions for the purpose of clarification, but I think that has been done. The hon. member for Dauphin.


Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: As a matter of principle, I would have no objection to having the party affiliation affixed beside my name on a ballot paper. However, I am not quite as enthusiastic about this bill as some of my colleagues. We are all, of course, entitled to our opinions and I am going to express mine.
In the first place, I have some grave doubts as to the effectiveness of this bill to do what it seeks to do, and in the second place as to the propriety of one part of it. As to the effectiveness, I believe that if the objective is to make clear the political affiliation of the candidate in question, it would be reached more effectively and more properly by having an amendment to the form of the nomination paper itself, rather than to section 28 of the act. If you take the stand that wherever
Canada Elections Act
there is no written direction by the recognized leader of the party in question to the returning officer, then the name of the candidate and name of his party shall be as it appears on the nomination paper, then it is the nomination paper that should be the governing factor in this whole question. From that point of view I believe the objective would be achieved in a more proper manner if the nomination paper were amended. Speaking personally, I do not believe it is up to the party leader to designate who is the official candidate in any election.
I agree with the Secretary of State that this would lead to a great deal of confusion. You will note the bill states that the name of the political party or interest represented by a candidate shall be shown in the manner required by a written direction, if any, of the recognized leader of such party, and it shall be filed with the returning officer before five o'clock in the afternoon of nomination day. This amendment deals with the Canada Elections Act which governs all the territory from coast to coast. This provision cuts the time rather fine when he has to file this direction before five o'clock on nomination day. In many constituencies it is not clear who is the candidate until the official nomination day ends, and that is about two o'clock in the afternoon, if I recall correctly. The party leader is thus given three hours to decide who is the official candidate in each constituency from coast to coast. The leader has to know the name of the candidate and whether or not he represents the party.
I think that is the greatest weakness in the bill. It leaves the onus on the leader of the party to do what, in my opinion, is the duty of the candidate himself. After all, the candidate is duly nominated under the provisions of the act by a number of persons who sign his nomination papers. He accepts that nomination by placing his signature on the nomination papers before witnesses. In other words it is the candidate, together with those who affix their signatures to the nomination papers, who are responsible for that act. I do not think it is right to make anyone else responsible for that nomination. The people who are performing that act of offering the candidate to the electors should accept full responsibility for it. As I said at the outset, I have no objection whatever to having the party affiliation included on the ballot paper, but I feel it would be far more effective to provide for that on the nomination paper itself.
At the moment, all the nomination paper calls for is the names of the persons endorsing the candidate and the candidate's signature and his occupation. It would be a simple

Canada Elections Act
matter to provide an additional space on the nomination paper calling for the political affiliation of the candidate and leaving it optional to him to fill in that space or leave it vacant. As a matter of fact as I read the act, and I read it quite carefully, there is nothing which would prevent a candidate from stating his party affiliations in his nomination paper now. The act does not state that he must do so, but there is nothing to say he cannot do so.
Section 28 of the act, which this bill seeks to amend, states that the ballot paper shall contain the names, addresses and occupations of the candidates set out in the heading of the nomination papers. We see that the word "occupation" is not defined in the interpretation section of the act. With due regard for those who may have had more experience in legal matters than I have, from my own observation I feel there would be nothing illegal in a person stating his party affiliations in the space provided for "occupation". There would be nothing wrong if a candidate said that his occupation was "Liberal", and there is nothing in the act to say he could not do this. It would be perfectly legal.
I am not saying that this is the best way to arrive at the objective. It would be more orderly if, on the nomination paper, together with the space provided for the occupation, for purposes of greater identification there were a space for the party affiliation of a candidate who might wish so to designate himself.
In saying this I come back to the original proposition, that I believe it is the responsibility of those who sign the nomination papers sponsoring a candidate, and of the candidate signing the papers accepting nomination, to decide who the candidate is and what he represents. And I do not think it is right to ask any person outside that constituency to have anything whatsoever to say about either the affiliations or the qualifications of the candidate concerned.
If it happened that there were two candidates with similar names, similar initials and similar occupations, and there was a danger of confusion on the day of voting which, I believe, is one of the reasons advanced for this bill, then I would refer hon. members to section 28 (3) which states:
Any candidate may, within one hour after the close of nominations, supply in writing to the returning officer any particulars of his address or occupation which he considers to have been insufficiently or inaccurately given in his nomination paper.
Then it goes on to say what shall be done. I have no doubt the purpose of this subsection was that if, on nomination day, a

candidate were to learn that another candidate with identical name, initials and occupation was to be nominated, he would have the opportunity within one hour to make whatever changes might be necessary in the designation of his name and occupation so as to distinguish between himself and the other candidate, and thus avoid confusion.
That is the safeguard set out in the act, and I think it is well to keep it in mind. I believe the purpose of the bill-and I am using my own imagination, realizing that the sponsor will speak for himself-is to clarify the identification of the candidate concerned. It is the belief of those who have put the bill before the house that the addition of party affiliations would aid in this identification. If that is the objective, then I suggest the proper way to attain it would be to have the nomination paper amended to provide an opportunity for the candidate wishing to exercise that privilege to do so.
For that reason I am in line with the principle of the bill, although it is difficult to distinguish between principle and method. However, if the principle is that the candidate who wishes to do so may designate his party affiliation, then I am in favour of that principle. But if this bill goes to the appropriate committee it is my intention to seek an amendment to it, because I do feel the onus should not be placed upon a party leader but rather upon the candidate and those who sponsor his nomination.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am quite interested in this amendment, because it provides that all ballots shall be of the same description and that they shall contain the names, addresses, occupations, political affiliations or interests.
I remember reading, in the days when Mr. Mackenzie King was prime minister, his frequent references to interests. From time to time he referred to powerful financial groups or corporations as "interests". And I recollect once being in the gallery of the House of Commons as he read a list of members in the other place belonging to the Conservative party who were connected with what he called the "interests".
As I listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre paying an appropriate tribute to Mr. Duncan MacTavish, I was wondering what would happen if we adopted this amendment, and whether by doing so we would not prevent his entering these halls and speaking to us here in parliament with the authority with which he spoke the other night when addressing the Liberal federation, when he said that members of parliament

were doing harm to the country when they pointed out the conditions existing-


Robert Henry Winters: He did not say that.


John George Diefenbaker: -and when he also warned as to the danger to parliament of such a situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps we can now return to the subject matter of the bill.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will grasp immediately the significance of my remark when I refer you to the fact that if this amendment is passed from now on the political affiliations or interests of a candidate will have to be inserted. I was pointing out, in view of the fact that Mr. MacTavish is a director in 19 great corporations, as we read in the Ottawa Citizen of March 31, just how impossible such a ballot would be. As a matter of fact no ordinary ballot could possibly be devised to cover the interests of that gentleman in the corporations which have honoured him with directorates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do you regard corporations as political interests?


John George Diefenbaker: It does not say "political interests." It says "political affiliations or interests". I am not in any way believing that the adjectival description would apply to the second word in the sentence, because it is disjunctive.
This shows the danger inherent in an amendment such as this which, as I said a while ago, would deny Mr. MacTavish the opportunity to speak in parliament as he spoke to the federation. On that ground I must say with due respect to the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, who has introduced the amendment, that I shall have to oppose it. I know the hon. member introduced it before that magnificent speech was made to the Liberal federation and before the Ottawa Citizen pointed out the many interests of Mr. MacTavish. And, even yet, I believe that if we want him here, some consideration should be given by my hon. friend to an amendment which would remove that part of the description which, in the case in question, would result in a denial of that opportunity all Canadians ought to have to serve in the House of Commons.
Having said that, I must also add that I believe the political affiliations should not be on the ballot paper. If the word "interests" was there, and a man in Mr. MacTavish's position desired to enter parliament, the ballot paper would be very long indeed. Political affiliations-well, who would determine the political affiliations? Would it be the president of the association? Who would determine who was the official candidate and who was
Canada Elections Act
the unofficial candidate? All these things indicate the difficulties in the way.
I do not believe the other arguments advanced by the hon. member for Greenwood and others who have opposed this measure need to be repeated by me. They appeal to me. I think of the potential danger in that word "interests", and in parliament having the services of the gentleman I mentioned so that he would be able to read the lectures to parliament here that he now has to read outside.
(Translation):


Mr. Gerard Legare (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker,
I do not wish to prolong this debate, but I would like to offer a few remarks. I will vote against implementation of this measure because I am convinced that it is far from being such as to clarify the issue at all. As a matter of fact I rather feel that in many cases it would have the very opposite effect.
I do not have to look very far for an illustration, no further, in fact, than the last election in my own constituency where there were three Liberal candidates. It has been suggested that the word "official" be added to the political affiliation. But suppose the party leader refused to designate his official choice? In that case all candidates would have the same political affiliation. For that reason I do not think the proposal is sound, and I will vote against it.
On three occasions I was called upon to act as returning officer in my own constituency, and never once did any voter suggest to me that the lack of any indication on the ballot as to political affiliation had given rise to any confusion whatever. I rather feel that adding it would only make for greater confusion. That is why I propose to vote against this proposal.
(Text):


Ray Thomas: Mr. Speaker-


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


Ray Thomas: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to assure the hon. member for Prince Albert that if his main objection is the fact that Mr. MacTavish could not get his name on the ballot, if this bill gets into committee we shall make the proper amendments to see that the gentleman may do so, either by cutting it down slightly or by making his particular ballot three times as wide.
One thing has been proven, and that is that there is no earthly reason why the political affiliations should not be put on the ballot paper. Not one logical reason has been

External Affairs
put forward why this should not be done. The main arguments of the hon. member for Greenwood, the hon. member for Quebec South, and the hon. member for Prince Albert were these. We are gathered here as a group of friends tied to no political affiliation. We are elected as individuals; we sit in the house as individuals, and this should be an association of friends and not an association of political groups.
I quite agree that probably should be so. But let us not forget that after we are sent here-and I am not going into all the details of how we are elected on party tickets, which ye are-we are segregated into political groups in this house. The seating plan gives the political affiliations of all hon. members. The list of members that is sent around to the offices by the queen's printer lists them all according to political affiliation. On the back pages of Hansard every Wednesday there appears an alphabetical list of the members of the House of Commons along with their constituencies, their addresses and their political affiliations. It does seem strange that if ye are to sit in this house as not only inembers of parliament but as members of groups in the house, and if we are designated as such in official documents, we should not be elected on the strength of our political as well as our personal qualifications.
I move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Thomas the debate was adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: At eight o'clock the house will resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson;
That items numbered 92 to 111 inclusive of the main estimates, 1955-56, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the standing committee on external affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.
Azel Randolph Lusby: Mr. Speaker, five o'clock found me speaking on the very real danger of utter destruction which confronts the world today. Since then we have

had three hours' grace; we may have three years, or more for that matter; nonetheless the danger must be considered as of the very greatest imminence.
I had said also that in my view the only permanent solution was some effective form of world organization of nations. Therefore, Without minimizing in the least the importance of those policies which are our only immediate available resource for safety, let us never lose hope that the future may bring, and bring in time, that effective form of international organization of which I speak and therewith the end of wars and rumours of wars and the possibility of war.
Today, as we all know, there is a form of international organization, the United Nations, which was created in that very hope and for that very purpose of ending war. What I have said largely and what I am about to say, is inspired by my interest in that organization. I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to attend the general assembly of the United Nations in New York last fall as a parliamentary observer with the Canadian delegation. While there I acquired as much knowledge as I could of that organization and its functioning. I see in it a hope for mankind not otherwise discernible.
It may be that I have been reading the wrong newspapers, but I have been disturbed by what seems to me increasing cynicism and pessimism with regard to the United Nations. I suggest that this attitude has become all too common in newspaper editorials and articles, those potent purveyors of digested opinion by which it is inevitably fostered in the minds of thousands. To a considerable degree, though perhaps not so much in this country, it has appeared in the utterances of many public figures.
We have heard and read that the United Nations is dying and that it has become a mere debating society; that there are few united notions in the United Nations. We have even heard such derogatory references as UN windbags, costly impotence and so on. We do not have to run far to read or hear such journalistic and other comment of this kind. I think perhaps it has spread more in the United States, but I am afraid it has also spread to a considerable extent on this side of the boundary also.
Perhaps an attitude of pessimism has been encouraged by the fact that so far the United Nations has fallen woefully short of its primary objective of being an effective instrument of world peace. Certainly today our hope for national safety must largely repose elsewhere. It is true, of course, that many measures are being taken, NATO for instance,

which come directly within the letter of the United Nations charter. But I must say that I have always had some difficulty in reconciling such alliances, at least on the military side, with the true spirit and ultimate purpose of that charter.
Of course it is usually easier to tear down than it is to build up, but apart from that I realize fully that such criticisms of the United Nations as I have mentioned are by no means baseless. They are founded on inescapable fact; as a matter of fact they even have their value in pointing out numerous weaknesses which are inherent in the organization as at present constituted and functioning.
In some aspects the United Nations does appear to be moribund. It is more noted for dispute than for agreement. Deadlock, usually achieved in important matters by the veto or threat of the veto, is a common result. There are windbags at the United Nations who often engage in endless and aimless debate. As a matter of fact I have endured their droning myself. I was able to go back to my chair quite frequently, shut my eyes, and think myself back in this very chamber. Of course none of us is perfect.
As a matter of fact I have wondered if back in the distant days of Simon de Mont-fort, at the news of the calling of the first English parliament, from which this House of Commons traces its proud lineage, the wiseacres of that day did not shake their heads and prophesy as many frustrations for that organization as now plague the United Nations, and if they did not mutter in their beards that it would not work. But at least they had no newspapers to write letters to in those times.
In any case, what is said in derogation of the United Nations has a solid if unpleasant basis of fact. Nor does the immediate prospect of greatly improving the effectiveness of the organization seem bright. Consider one matter, the admission of new members. With half the states of Europe and many of Asia, including the effective government of mainland China, on the outside and their entry barred by one faction or the other within, the United Nations is still far from being a representative world organization.
I have mentioned the effective government of mainland China. In case my meaning should be mistaken I wish to say at this juncture that I am certainly not advocating either the recognition or admission to the United Nations of the red Chinese government in its present mood. Certainly it could hardly qualify as peace-loving within the terms of the United Nations charter. I merely suggest that if a stable peace is to
External Affairs
be attained some day we must hope that government will eventually qualify itself in this regard. For all I say, indeed, is with an eye to the future, and not even the immediate future.
As against all the problems and failures of the United Nations let us set up a not inconsiderable tally of solid accomplishment. Let us remember that if there are aimless talkers at the United Nations there are also men of vision. The organization provides a forum for the expression of world opinion. I do not think even Russia is entirely indifferent to world opinion. The United Nations has been a strong champion of human rights. Although it has not attained its fundamental purpose, the abolition of war, it has composed numerous local conflicts, any one of which might have led to a major outbreak. Palestine, Kashmir, Indonesia, Korea, Greece, Berlin; all these might be inscribed on the United Nations banner as victories in the cause of peace, even though as yet some of these victories cannot be considered complete.
Through the activities of the United Nations and its associated specialized agencies much has been done to raise the standards of health, sustenance and education among the depressed millions of the earth. Much too has been done to strengthen the economy of backward nations. Those of you who saw the picture "Assignment Children" recently shown here can better appreciate that phase of United Nations work which is portrayed. The program of atoms for peace, instituted under the auspices of the United Nations last year, may prove to be one of its major accomplishments in ameliorating the lot of humanity.
Paradoxically enough, Mr. Speaker, I think that if the organization had come into being with no object beyond its work in the fields of health, education, and social and economic welfare, there would today be a much keener appreciation of its worth and far less talk of its failure. However, although its work in these fields is a very real contribution to the cause of peace-for peace cannot be soundly based on poverty and wretchedness-the failure of the United Nations in its primary objective, the permanent removal of the shadow of war, not unnaturally overbalances all else. But even here a proper perspective must be maintained. What are the ten years of the United Nations' existence as against the age-old search for peace? Indeed, those who founded the organization considered that the first ten years would be experimental only, a time for trial and error. I may add that the

External Affairs
American founders were by no means so oblivious to the likelihood of trouble with Russia as is often supposed.
At the end of ten years, therefore, there is in contemplation a thorough study of the United Nations charter with a view to effecting such changes and improvements as the experience of the decade may suggest. Whatever revisions may be made, we cannot suppose they will eliminate or avoid the present difficulty with which the organization contends; the cleavage and struggle between the world forces of democracy and communism. But I suggest that the likelihood of significant revisions emphasizes the fact that the organization is not static nor dormant, and that there is room for improvement and expansion; that what is now little more than the first draft of that buttress of peace which man aspires to build may yet develop into the complete structure. It is at least a hope, and to abandon it would be to my mind a counsel of despair, carrying the connotation that the horror of total war, soon or late, is inevitable.
I sincerely commend to this government, therefore, that it continue its policy of strong support of the United Nations organization, and endeavour in every way to increase its strength and prestige. In particular I should like to see an intensified program to disseminate knowledge of the United Nations and its functions more widely among the people of Canada. In the continued existence of the organization there lies at least some prospect of better things to come. But if the great experiment is allowed to fail, if the United Nations goes the way of the league of nations, it may well be a sign that man himself is far along the road to his own destruction.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, this debate on
external affairs is hardly the type of debate that many of us might have expected to be participating in when the war ended ten years ago. After one of the most decisive victories in all history there were few then who did not contemplate the possibility of long years of stability, long years of the kind of peace that had been earned by the sacrifice of so many young men and women, and older people as well, throughout the world.
We are confronted today with the dreadful reality that scarcely a day goes by without some new incident reminding us that we are living through a most precarious period of history, in which new forces are constantly forming to threaten the very survival of the system which we thought had been established with great security at the end of the last war.
At this time there are three places very much in our minds. These three places have
[Mr. Lusby.J	< j |
been brought to our attention in the press and over the radio very frequently in these past few days. The first of these is Formosa, to which most of the discussion in this debate has been directed. The second is Viet Nam, where we see not only a division of forces as between communists and non-communists, but a tragic division within the ranks of the non-communists as well. Then, to remind us that this is a world in which trouble might appear at any point or place or time, we have learned today that at midnight last night the communists who supervise the highways leading into Berlin suddenly imposed taxes that were 10 and 12 times what they had been previously on trucks carrying vital supplies into that isolated city. We see the beginning of something that conceivably might create all the pressures and difficulties that were encountered at the time the airlift was needed some years ago.
Formosa has attracted our attention because we are told of the massing of forces there which might lead to a general outbreak. It seems to me that one of the things we should bear in mind in connection with what is taking place there is the fact that was emphasized by Sir Winston Churchill in the House of Commons at Westminster only a short time ago, and which was repeated again within the past few days by Sir Anthony Eden. The threat to Formosa is a threat which particularly involves the forces of the United States.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said in this debate, circumstances might well arise out of any general conflagration which began there that would involve us as well as other freedom-loving nations. Nevertheless there is a particular obligation of the United States in connection with Formosa, and we can perhaps take some comfort in the knowledge that the decisions that will be made there will be decisions entirely within the hands of the President of the United States. I am sure there is not an hon. member of this house, and there are few Canadians, who would not express confidence in the judgment, military knowledge and desire for peace of that great leader in this democratic world of ours.
That does not mean, however, that we should be expected to follow the lead of the United States on every occasion. They have made it clear that they do not expect that of us. I must say that certain recent events have at least given considerable reason for the belief that we have some reason to look with admiration and respect to the wise, cautious and farsighted course followed by the British government in dealing with international affairs. We do not of necessity

follow any other government, but it has been pointed out to us that we live in times that no longer can be measured in terms of ordinary wars.
In this debate we are discussing-as we shall be doing in every debate on external affairs and defence, which are such closely related subjects-the survival of humanity itself; it is nothing less than that. It is hard yet for any of us to grasp the dreadful reality that it is now within the range of possibility that human beings could destroy life on this planet of ours by building and exploding a sufficient number of hydrogen bombs to contaminate the whole air about us for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years to come. It is like something out of a terrible nightmare, yet it is a reality.
This terrifying truth about the hydrogen bomb has produced in the minds of all too many people a form of hopeless fatalism which discourages positive action with regard to defence or those measures which seem to be essential for the preservation of our society. The picture is terrifying enough, Mr. Speaker. God forbid that we should ever lose hope for peace. God forbid that we should ever accept as inevitable the destruction that would follow the full use of all the explosive powers that have been created and built up within these past few years. God forbid that we should ever cease striving with all our strength to retain sanity and to preserve that peace that many of us here thought was so secure after the immense sacrifices of the last war.
The greatest living statesman-perhaps the greatest living human being; certainly the man with the longest knowledge of war and the possibilities of war based upon an infinite understanding of history-has given us hope even in these dreadful days. Only a short time ago, in the picturesque language he employed, Sir Winston Churchill held before us the possibility that peace and security might be the sturdy child of terror. At some point the power to destroy will be so great on both sides of the iron curtain that it does not matter much whether one side or the other has a little bit more of that power. If there is available enough power to destroy all the great centres of industry, of concentrated population and of transportation in the leading countries on either side, it does not make much difference if you have four or five times the number of bombs that would do that job. At some point we are going to reach a balance of terror. When that happens, much will depend upon the clarity of thinking of all people who are free to discuss, to talk and to think. Much will depend on the spirit of the free peoples. Much will depend upon
External Affairs
their determination to preserve in any way they can a sensible, orderly life under that overhanging cloud.
A great many who are in this house tonight will remember vividly that in the early days of the last world war no person was allowed to move around London or the larger cities of Britain without a gas mask. I think the same thing was probably true in the other countries. There were in existence at that time terrible and extremely destructive gases. They were never used. The reasons for that fact may still be difficult to determine. I prefer to believe that neither side wished to begin destruction of that nature.
Those who were in London in the early days of the last war will remember that ghastly figures were given of the expected casualties when gas attacks came. They were not saying, "if gas attacks come"; they were talking about the casualties when gas attacks came. They did not come. That kind of warfare did not happen.
Conceivably this new kind of warfare might not happen. After all, the Russians are people strangely like ourselves in many ways, except in the political thinking of those who have control. They have the same number of bones in their bodies. They have two eyes, a mouth, a nose, and most of the ordinary responses; and they like to live. It is not likely that, without a good deal of consideration, they would precipitate a situation in which they would know that within hours destruction which would make Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem like child's play would suddenly be visited upon Moscow, Stalingrad, Leningrad and all the great cities and industrial centres of Russia.
Naturally we do not contemplate such a possibility with any satisfaction. One thing we all know is that such a war is not going to be started from our side of the iron curtain. It is not within the realm of possibility that the United States, Britain or any of the democratic countries is going to start a war of that kind. There is therefore hope; and while there is hope each one of us should be constantly considering ways and means by which the possibility of peace may be extended.
This afternoon the Secretary of State for External Affairs mentioned the suggestion that has been made that there be an interchange of parliamentary representatives between the countries beyond the iron curtain and those on this side. Well, why not? After all, people sometimes forget that it was quite easy to travel in Russia some years ago. In fact, when we talk about the days of the czars as though stern conditions existed then

External Affairs
which were relieved by the communists, it may be surprising to many people to learn that then there was no difficulty whatever in going to any ticket office here in Canada and buying transportation by boat and then by rail to anywhere in Russia. In fact you could cross Russia without a passport. Now no Russian can move from one town to another without a passport. It is not only people from outside who must have passports.
By all means let us hope that the opportunity to visit and see Russia will be extended. I should like to go back again, but under reasonable assurances. I have seen two of their jails, and I would prefer when I go back again that it be under appropriate arrangements that suggest the possibility of carrying on ordinary activities without interruptions of that kind. We must recognize that so far this is only a gesture. But if it should prove to be a reality, then I would hope that an appropriate number of the members of this house, which would be determined in the usual way, would visit Russia. I would hope they would have a chance to visit the Ukraine, which is a separate nation by declaration of Russia itself. I would hope they would have a chance to visit Poland, Rumania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and the Baltic states, and see exactly what the conditions are there. If there is anybody who has any softhearted attitude toward communism, if he keeps his eyes open when he is there he will come back with no uncertainty as to what communism really is.
I would hope that Russians would come here. We give them a good deal of freedom as it is. We certainly give their agents plenty of freedom. By all means let them come. Let the contacts be extended. But let us not lower our guard at any time. Let us not be led into any false sense of security. Let us hope that by exchanges of this kind the possibility of real contacts, real understandings, a real exchange of ideas, might be increased. Today this, at best, would only be a beginning.
During this time we may live with a balance of terror there still will be the necessity for what we loosely describe as conventional forces. Let us not get carried away with any idea that because there is this immense power in existence it is not going to be necessary to have the kind of forces that can deal with difficulties that arise from time to time, such as that which occurred in Korea. After all, the attack on Korea came many long years after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet that war was carried on without a single atomic weapon being used.

I most earnestly hope that difficulties will not arise in the Formosa straits that will lead to a general conflagration in that area. I may be rash but nevertheless I have the hope that they would not lead to a world conflagration. They did not in Korea. I have very real doubts that the men in the Kremlin are going to invite that kind of destruction in Russia if China becomes involved in a local conflict of that nature, which only they will precipitate if its starts at all.
It is not my intention tonight to make extended remarks about Formosa or about Matsu and Quemoy, which have been under discussion. Nevertheless there are one or two things I should like to mention. I was intrigued by the emphasis placed on the distance from Quemoy and Matsu to the coast of the United States. This point was raised in the debate today, as though that proved outright that they were really not of much concern to the United States.
May I make it very clear that I am not going to engage in any speculation as to the strategic importance of those two islands; that is peculiarly the problem of the government of the United States at this moment. But the distance is not the test. Berlin is also a long way from here or from the east coast of the United States, as are a number of other places in which we are greatly interested.
One of the things which it seems to me would bring a greater sense of understanding among us all in discussing the situation at Formosa would be to stop talking about Chiang Kai-shek and comparing his qualities with those of Mao Tse-tung. I must admit that I find it difficult to understand from what source some of my friends to the immediate left have formed such a high impression of Mao Tse-tung. Without in any way comparing these two men, why not let us be quite clear about the fact that it is not Chiang Kai-shek the government of the United States is supporting. The government of the United States has decided that the island of Formosa and the Pescadores, at any rate, are part of a general defence line in the Pacific. They have not forgotten Pearl Harbor. They have not forgotten that at a time when the hitting power of aircraft was very limited compared with what it is today, for a time it seemed as though their whole west coast might be open to attack because of what happened at Pearl Harbor. They have decided that Formosa is an essential link in that chain of defence islands in the Pacific.
I think we would all keep our arguments on a much saner basis if we recognized that

fact. I do not subscribe for one moment to all the terrible descriptions of Chiang Kai-shek that are put forward by my friends to the immediate left. In fact I doubt if they have evidence of some of the things they say. I have not seen it, and I doubt if they have. Most certainly there is no reason for any of us to believe in the interpretation they put on the actions of Mao Tse-tung, who has murdered millions of his own people. But let us remember that if Chiang Kai-shek were not there today and someone else were there, the United States seventh fleet would still be in the Formosa straits and United States aircraft would be on the air bases in Formosa, as they are at this time.
I welcome that. I welcome it for more than one reason. It is the reality of the situation. It is the reality of a situation in which the government of the United States says, without reservation, "We are going to take the appropriate steps to see that communist aggression moves no farther west into our own area". Also I welcome it for another reason. It seems to me that perhaps they will understand a little better the presence of British troops in Hong Kong and Singapore if they realize exactly why it is that they are in Formosa, and thus dispel any of the illusions that might otherwise surround that situation.
I mention this because I believe that frankness, appreciation of definition and clarity of purpose are the proved essentials of peace. I believe that horse trading and loose situations are the very things that invite trouble. I think that is what we learned at the beginning of the last war. And I would hope to see within some not too distant time a more precise definition of what the real defence line is in that area, and in other areas of the Pacific. I think we have very convincing reasons why that should be a very hopeful thing for us.
We must try to preserve peace in every way we can. But surely if history teaches one thing it is that we will not preserve peace by some form of horse trading with the communists now or at any other time. We can no more buy off Peking or the Kremlin than we were able to buy off Hitler in the days before September, 1939.
I think we have received great encouragement from a place which has come back into the press prominently in the last 48 hours, and which is not far removed from Formosa in terms of principle even though it is half way across the world. If there is one thing we can learn from what has happened in Berlin it is the importance of a clear definition of the boundary line and of the issue, and of what will happen if that
External Affairs
division is not recognized. When we are sometimes told about the geographical location of certain places, and when it is argued that this place or that falls more logically into one area than another, let us remember that there is no more unreasonable situation in the world today, and I doubt if there ever was a more unreasonable situation, than that with which Berlin is confronted at this very moment.
There is a city with millions of people, a small island of freedom more than a hundred miles inside the Soviet zone. There does not seem to be any sense in it. They get all their supplies over two or three limited highways. There are three narrow air strips five miles wide which must be followed when flying in there. There are rail lines going there, passing through Soviet territory and supervised by the Russians. Yet Berlin has grown and prospered, and West Berlin today is a place of great vitality and confidence.
Why? Because of a very courageous decision, because of what seemed to be a very daring decision. The three western powers, Great Britain, France and the United States, said in simple, clear and unequivocal terms: West Berlin is part of West Germany; access to West Berlin is part of the survival of that city. No matter how irregular the boundaries may be-and they are very irregular between East and West Berlin-there are the boundaries; the moment those boundaries are threatened, that means war.
That was an ominous declaration. It was a declaration which aroused great concern at the time. There were British, French and American troops in that distant island of freedom, completely surrounded by Russian armour, Russian infantry and Russian aircraft. Yet there has been no attempt to change those boundaries. There was the blockade, when the airlift was suddenly brought into existence by the western powers to supply Berlin. Now we see this special tax measure as another attempt to interfere with transportation. But Berlin, with all the irregular boundaries passing through that city, remains as the junction point of two worlds, and West Berlin remains as an island of freedom. Never has there been a time, never, when the Russians could not have marched into that city within a comparatively few minutes. But they knew what that meant, and Berlin has remained free.
For that reason I suggest that appreciation of definition both as to boundaries, as to issues and as to consequences does assume tremendous importance in our efforts to preserve peace. I have mentioned Berlin as an illustration of why I hope we will have exact and precise definitions in the east.

External Affairs
Nevertheless we must remember that this is the responsibility of the United States. I for one do not believe that trouble there would bring about a general conflagration. I think we can therefore refrain from undue criticism of our friends in the United States in their efforts to deal with this particular problem. That does not mean we abandon any right to express our opinion, and I am expressing my own opinion once again. Preciseness of definition will be of maximum help.
I have used Berlin as an illustration, but let me refer to it in another way. Already there has been a debate in this house in regard to German rearmament. In that debate in this house as elsewhere there was heartburning, there were uncertainties, because it is not easy to forget that twice within the lifetime of most of us Germany has been the aggressor and that many in this house tonight bear on their bodies the marks of those struggles started by German militarism. Nor is it easy to forget the ghastly pages of history which contain the names of Dachau, Buchenwald and Belsen and those other horror camps which forever stand as a blight on the record of the German people, with all the great qualities they possess.
We made our decision. It was a right decision; it was the only decision which offered hope. It was the decision which the British people were called upon to make after the Napoleonic wars, when another dictator had visited destruction on the whole of Europe. History is useful as a guide. It is worth remembering that Napoleon was not regarded with any very friendly sentiments by the people of those nations into which his troops had entered in cold aggression. Whether it be in Madrid, in Vienna, in Prague, in Warsaw or in Moscow, there are memories of the aggression of that time.
When that war was over and Wellington was the head of the Grand Alliance, the very same arguments were put up to him. Never again must France be allowed to have arms with which to threaten the peace of Europe. It is worth remembering today that it was Wellington who said, "If France is to be a member of the society of Europe, then our purpose must be to gain the friendship of the people of France, and that can be done only if they are treated on terms of equality". It was his decision, accepted it is true by the government, and on the basis of that decision the greatest historic friendship of all time began when France and Britain marched side by side through the generations that followed.
Surely there is a lesson for us today. Yes, there were horrors and there were terrors imposed by the troops of Napoleon, not comparable, it is true, with the stories that came out
[Mr. Drew.l
of Germany and out of German-occupied countries in the last war, but bad enough. We have seen the lesson; we can hope there will be friendship of that kind, and that hope should be justified by the wonderful contribution made to the life of our country by people of German stock who have come here to live and who are among our very finest citizens. What better evidence could there be that there can be no such thing as some fundamental weakness in the German strain than the fact that the President of the United States, who today is the most powerful leader of the western world, came only a couple of generations removed, direct from Germany. These are the things that give us hope, but there are also reasons for concern.
Those things should be borne in mind. There was every reason for France to show some concern, as she did. It would be appropriate in this house, a few days after France has ratified those agreements, to express our admiration of the men who did ratify them under difficulties that we simply cannot understand. After all, there were reasons why it was difficult for France to agree, which were not before our eyes when this decision faced us.
Across the whole of France are tragic reminders of German invasion in 1870, in 1914 and in 1939. Anywhere you go from the North Sea to Belfort on the Swiss frontier, anywhere you go from the Pyrenees to the northern frontiers, anywhere you go from Brittany or from the famous beaches of Normandy, you see those cemeteries which day by day remind the people of France of what German aggression really meant. I marvel that they were able to gain support for those treaties. They have done it, and from this house could well go words of admiration, of hope and of great confidence in a country which, with all that evidence before it, with millions of graves of two world wars in their own soil, have joined in this great and challenging act of friendship. But they were conscious of the dangers. They were emphasized during the debates; nor should we forget them.
Part of those Paris treaties that take the place of the European defence community deal particularly with the unification of Germany. I wish to speak on that. Chancellor Adenauer has made it clear that his primary purpose is to bring about the unification of Germany. That is an understandable ambition. In the declarations approved at Paris it was clearly stated that this must be by peaceful means. Germany, under the signature of Chancellor Adenauer, undertakes that

it will be by peaceful means, but Chancellor Adenauer will not be there forever. Therefore let us look at that situation for a moment.
What does unification mean? There is no doubt about the fact that it is constantly in the German mind. Just last week the Bundestag passed the appropriate measure to start rebuilding the Reichstag, which is not a hundred yards from the Soviet sector of Berlin, a fairly challenging gesture. It is intended to emphasize to the communists as well as to the west that Berlin is the capital of Germany. That is in their minds.
What happens when West Germany is rearmed? East Germany is substantially rearmed now. Is East Germany faithful to the communist cause? The answer is emphatically no. The answer to that question was given on June 17, 1953, when the food riots in Berlin sparked a series of outbursts in every city in Germany which amounted almost to open revolution. There was no integrated plan; it was a spontaneous outburst against communist control. I saw the official records of what had happened in those East German cities when I was in Berlin last August. I had no idea until I saw them that there had been great bloodshed in many cities, that tanks and armoured forces were required to put down the uprisings. That is how strongly the people felt.
I mention this because it may suggest what could happen when a rearmed East Germany and a rearmed West Germany stand side by side. Suppose something happened in East Germany which called for Russian intervention. Would a rearmed West Germany stand idly by? I do not need to answer that question. Or is it possible that the two forces might come together in some other way?
Many hon. members here will remember the ingenious device employed by von Rin-telin in the first world war to destroy allied ships at sea. It was a small lead tube about the size of a cigar and contained two chemicals separated by a thin plate. The chemicals gradually ate into the plate and at a given time met and an explosion occurred. I do not think it is unfriendly to West Germany to suggest that it is tremendously important that we recognize this danger which in turn could carry the spark which would involve communist forces beyond. Now is the time to make sure there is a clear understanding and a clear definition as to how this is going to be done; that there is no uncertainty, and that there should be agreement that there must be allied staff officers so closely in association with the troops of West Germany that there could be no reallocation and redeployment of troops preparatory to any
External Affairs
movement of that kind without the western powers being fully aware of that fact. These are realities; they are the kind of realities we must face if we are going to have peace.
When we talk about unification, just what do we mean? Is it unification of West Germany as we know it today and East Germany as we know it today? Most people think of it as the union of West Germany and East Germany which we see on the map, but the West Germans do not think of it as that. I wonder if it was sufficiently realized when a very important gesture was made last July to place Berlin in the German structure and members of the Bundesversammlung were flown into Berlin to elect their new president. The new president, Theodor Heuss, was elected in what is known as East Prussian hall. East Prussia is not in East Germany; East Prussia is well beyond the boundaries of East Germany.
In Berlin there are pictures which show the people there what they describe as the lost provinces. There are nine of them, but only three are in East Germany. I should think it would be important that we have a clear understanding of what they mean by unification, that there be a precision of definition because in any uncertainty about it there could be the makings of great trouble in the years ahead.
We have taken a bold and I believe necessary step in the western world in restoring sovereignty to West Germany, in assisting their rearmament, in extending the hand of friendship and widening the channels of trade. But let us not blind ourselves to those things which could cause difficulties in the years ahead unless they are understood and faced today.
I mention these because Canada with her 15 million people can never be suspected of aggressive intentions. Her voice can be heard. There is no government which is not willing and anxious to hear the opinions of the government and people of Canada in regard to matters of this kind. I would hope that perhaps we will contribute something to the understanding and solution of this problem, because I would be very sorry if in the years ahead we continued to be worried by uncertainties such as those which were associated with the Danzig corridor in years gone by, and other uncertainties of that kind. This must be done if we are to establish some sort of general stability in this period which we hope may be one of peace.
I leave my remarks in regard to the military situation there. I hope and pray that following the lessons of the past the good spirit of Germany may emerge triumphant in partnership with the west, and that we may

External Affairs
contribute much to the fellowship and understanding which will bring them wholly into our partnership. But I am sure the firmness of that friendship and the hope of peace will depend upon our frankness in facing issues and in pointing out dangers before it is too late to discuss them in reasonable and understandable terms.
We are going to have a period of coexistence whether we like it or not. We are in a period of nuclear coexistence. It is going to involve a lot of thought, a lot of discussion and a lot of very earnest effort. In the desire to attain peace there is certainly complete agreement within this house. May I say to my friends to the immediate left that if by inference I have been critical of any statements they have made, I certainly do not question the fact that within this house there is complete unanimity in the desire to achieve peace by the means that seem best to those who put forward arguments in different forms.
If we attain some stability and can gain time, then much can happen that we cannot foresee today. There was nothing in the arithmetic of war in the summer of 1940 to show how victory was going to come to Britain. They stood firm. Time was on their side, and God in his infinite wisdom followed a course which brought victory. And I believe it was Divine guidance, because it was the decent thing that prevailed.
If we in the western world will stand firm today in acceptance of the principles to which we subscribed at San Francisco in 1945; if we are patient in our efforts to maintain peace by the collective strength of the western nations, and if we do not abandon principle for expediency, then I believe that in this balance of terror which nuclear coexistence has brought we may see the birth of a real and extending peace. Precise definitions, strict adherence to principles, with all the nations of the world committed to the same principles of freedom, with patience in carrying forward the cause of peace, may still offer hope in the face of this dreadful terror.


Owen C. Trainor: My
hon. friend from Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) in his speech this afternoon saw fit to castigate the Secretary of State for External Affairs for a rather mild criticism of Soviet statesmen. At the same time he utterly ignored the violent vituperation of Soviet statesmen against the western nations, in the Soviet equivalent of Billingsgate.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: But the minister is a Christian.


Owen C. Trainor: All right, but why ask for a different standard for the communists? After all, he is a world statesman; he should be compared with other statesmen.
Mr. Speaker, one of the more curious phenomena of a debate on foreign affairs in this house is the unanimity with which the C.C.F. party attacks the United States, engaging gleefully in the seemingly pointless pastime of plucking the eagle's tail feathers. I say this phenomenon is curious because at first sight there does not appear to be any logical explanation. However, on reflection two possible reasons present themselves.
In the first place the United States represents the antithesis of the socialist ideal. It violates with impunity every tenet of the socialist creed, and moreover has the extremely bad taste to enjoy conspicuous material success while doing so. It must be galling to devote all one's waking moments and even one's dreams to contemplating the glories of a socialist utopia only to find that one's next door neighbour already possesses everything one could have imagined in one's fondest dreams and more, without benefit of the socialist's magic wand and, what is worse, under the aegis of that hated system, free enterprise. To realize that while the whole world is perilously balanced on the verge of bankruptcy this hated exemplar of free enterprise is able to provide the billions required to arrest the plunge into chaos; to have to accept favours from one's ideological enemy is gall and wormwood indeed.
The second reason is less tangible and probably springs from a vague ideological sympathy with the communist world. This sympathy probably springs from the common ancestry of socialism and communism. It should never be forgotten that Karl Marx was one of the earliest exponents of the socialist dogma in the western world. It is true that the Fabians, to whom our C.C.F. brethren probably profess a spiritual affinity, rejected the cold logic of Marxian conclusions and preferred a watered down version, more palatable if less logical. Nevertheless there probably remains a certain fellow feeling for the Russian branch of the family, as misguided and rather crude fellows, to be sure, but still repositories of the original, if now perverted, socialist gospel.
It is therefore quite natural that the United States should be regarded as the reactionary enemy of all things revered by the socialists. On the other hand while there is a vociferous and, I believe, sincere condemnation of the totalitarian aspects of Russian communism, nevertheless, in so far as the communist party line reflects the ideal of socialism, which it

does in some respects, it meets with approval and adherence from all socialists. This provides a plausible explanation, at least, as to why the C.C.F. party supports the cause of communist China and condemns the position of the United States in respect of the dispute over the status of Formosa.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that in attempting to assess the role which Canada should assume in world affairs the primary and overriding consideration is full recognition of the general, central and elementary fact that the world, for the moment and for the foreseeable future, is divided into two hostile and irreconcilable camps. On the one hand we have a monolithic aggregation of power represented by the U.S.S.R. and the satellite countries, and opposed to it a bloc of the free nations of the world headed by the United States.
For practical purposes it has to be recognized that the United States possesses the only effective concentration of power in the free world capable of opposing the Soviet juggernaut. Consequently it is imperative in the interests of self-preservation that all the free nations, including Canada, give unstinted support to their real protector against the rapacity of Soviet imperialism. This does not mean a slavish obedience to United States domination in respect of over-all policy. We should reserve for ourselves freedom of expression through diplomatic channels on such matters as may involve our interests.
Throughout all this, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we must never lose sight of the one paramount consideration that the only effective force precenting communist world domination today is the United States of America. We must proceed on the assumption that the United States will not precipitate an atomic war, and on the equally certain assumption that if there was not a risk of effective retaliation the Soviet union would not hesitate to start such a war tomorrow. Truly, Mr. Speaker, we walk on the verge of the abyss, but I see no reason or no wisdom in the advice of those who would have us scorn the handrail.
In the world's continuing crisis the Eisenhower administration continues to exercise an admirable restraint, a refusal to be carried away by predictions either of inevitable war or of an easy peace. The communist enigma leaves us no choice but to prepare for the worst, but it does not commit us to accept the worst. We must not cease to explore whatever roads may lead us away from war. In this objective we can rest assured that we shall have the sincere and unqualified support of President Eisenhower. We should
External Affairs
not allow ourselves to be misled by the vapor-ings of certain irresponsible sections of United States public opinion. Such men are dangerous, and we may thank God that United States foreign policy is based on saner counsels.
In the welter of speculation on Soviet intentions that is going on in the world today one recognizes as valid Sir Winston Churchill's description, that they are "a mystery wrapped in an enigma". In this welter of speculation by columnists and editorial writers only one clear lesson emerges, that of the futility of speculation where the totalitarian mind is concerned.
The confusion of the experts in this connotation is strikingly apparent. The disgrace of Malenkov and the emergence of Khrushchev -or perhaps Marshal Zhukov or even Marshal Bulganin-as the major contender for Stalin's power merely emphasizes the danger of making absolute predictions of what effects may follow from communist causes. Other experts argue that Khrushchev is already too old to establish himself as Russia's absolute ruler. They point out that it was Khrushchev who nominated Bulganin for the premiership. It was Beria who. only two years ago, nominated Malenkov for the same post. These facts, it is claimed, point to a continuing struggle for power, and consequently the danger that Russia will take serious risks of war has decreased.
Similar expert disagreements exist over the question of red China's intentions in the Formosa straits. As we have reason to know from experience, a totalitarian world is one in which words are divorced from meaning, in which war can mean peace and peace war, and in which the objective has been abolished by decree. Whether or not Peking's bellicose words mean actual bellicose intentions, or whether in the face of United States force a de facto cease-fire will be permitted to prevail, is something no one in the west really knows.
In this atmosphere of confusion what may Canada do to promote a modus vivendi between these tremendous conflicting forces? It seems to me that we would do well to promote the mobilization of the British commonwealth of nations as a moral force for peace. Of course, the commonwealth is ill-equipped to enter the lists in a struggle where naked power is the criterion of effectiveness. Nevertheless if the commonwealth could be organized to speak with effective unanimity in world councils the moral effect would be incalculable. Maybe this is but an idle dream; but if any member of the commonwealth is fitted to play the leading role in such a rapprochement, surely it is Canada.

External Affairs
In view of the march and countermarch of conflicting ideas across the world stage, what possible conclusions or at least tentative guides to action exist? There are, of course, the obvious conclusions, the ones that have become cliches. The west must keep up its guard; it must remain strong and firm; it must turn its back on appeasement. With those statements it is impossible to disagree, for if we should forget them we are lost. But they are not enough. They take no cognizance of the possibilities for settlement by negotiation, slender though they be. They are not flexible enough to take advantage of opportunities for easing world tensions as such opportunities may occur.
If one might be permitted to paraphrase slightly an old watchword, the western nations should trust in God, negotiate and keep their powder dry or, perhaps I should say, keep their atomic nuclei fissionable.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wonder whether my good neighbour would permit a question before he resumes his seat?


Owen C. Trainor: Certainly.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Would he not agree that we must make up our minds very soon whether or not we are going to live in the same world with the communists? Would he not agree with his leader? Would he not agree that we should make a special effort to live in peace with them?


Mr. Ferguson:: The Russians are trying to make up our minds for us. What is wrong with you. Don't be ridiculous.


Owen C. Trainor: I would suggest to my hon. friend that the surest way of living in peace with the Russians is to make absolutely certain that we run no great risk if they attack us, by keeping strong.


Mr. A. M. Fraser (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should first of all like to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the admirable exposition of policy which he presented to the house when he opened this debate. It was a most clear and comprehensive statement of the difficulties that face the free nations in the explosive area of the Far East.
I was particularly impressed by the skilful course which he charted through the shoals and shallows of the Formosa straits. If 1 may do so, Mr. Speaker, it is to the Formosan question that I should like to address my remarks tonight, and especially to the policy enunciated by the United States with reference to Formosa and the Pescadores. I do this because I think all hon. members will agree that that policy is fraught with

all-important consequences not only for the United States but for this country, and indeed for all the free countries of the world. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs has so clearly put it, United States policy on Formosa is of vital concern to Canada.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that in order to set forth this policy we should go back to the statement made by President Eisenhower in his message to congress of January 24 of this year. It was in that statement that this policy was clearly enunciated. We should note also, I think, that this policy regarding Formosa is based upon the defensive treaty of last December between the United States and the government of Chiang Kai-shek, a treaty which was ratified by the United States Senate on February 9 of this year.
As I see it, the immediate objective of that policy was to prevent Peking from attacking Formosa, and to draw a line across which red China was warned she would advance at her peril. But we lose sight too easily, I think, of the other side of the picture, the second aspect of this policy. This policy of the United States not only warns Peking but it restrains Chiang Kai-shek from attacking the Chinese mainland. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this policy, by which the United States has put communist China on notice, is predicated upon the belief that the loss of Formosa to Peking would be a great disaster. If we consider the matter for a moment I think the soundness of this view is irresistible.
From the strategic point of view Formosa forms a vital link in that Pacific chain of defences which stretches from the Aleutians to the Philippines, and if Formosa were lost that chain would be snapped. Australia and New Zealand, sister countries in the commonwealth, would be in peril and indeed a break-out of the communist forces into the wide expanse of the Pacific would become a real possibility. Second, from the psychological point of view the fall of Formosa would be a very harsh blow to the confidence which the peoples of Asia are placing in the pledged word and the military strength of the United States. It would in particular, I think, undermine the confidence of the Chinese who are living in other parts of Asia, outside the mainland of China, and outside Formosa; in southeast Asia, for example. Such then, as I see them, are the main features of this United States policy.
I would next like to discuss the two main lines of criticism which have been directed against this policy. With the first of these lines I am disposed to agree. This first ground of criticism is that the line which has been drawn by the United States is too

blurred; it is not precise enough or definite enough, because it involves the offshore islands of Quemoy and Matsu as well as Formosa and the Pescadores, and because the United States has not definitely stated whether or not it will defend those two islands. Mr. Dulles, the secretary of state, has told us that they will not be defended as such, but they may be defended if the United States conceives that a red Chinese attack on them is a preliminary to an assault on Formosa and the Pescadores.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to agree with this view. I believe it would have been better if the line could have been drawn more definitely, more precisely. At the same time, however, I think we must try to understand the motives that lay behind the United States decision with regard to Quemoy and Matsu. As I see them, there may have been perhaps three reasons. The strategic reason, I think, was probably the least important of them. The position of these islands does, of course, enable a blockade to be maintained on Amoy and Foochow, and particularly enables supplies of jet fuel, for instance, coming by sea to be intercepted. This fact is of considerable importance, in view of the long haul across Asia from Russia, which is the only practical alternative.
More important, however, than the strategic reason is, I think, the diplomatic, the fact that the United States wanted to retain the freedom of manoeuvre, to use these two islands as a lever as it were with which to obtain the future acceptance of a ceasefire in Formosa. It may be claimed if such a pledge were made by Peking it might afterwards be repudiated, but in that case, of course, Peking would appear before the world condemned as a violator of the pledge. Then the moral case of the United States would be unassailable.
So much, then, for the first criticism to which United States policy has been subjected, a criticism with which, as I have said, I have a measure of agreement. The second ground of criticism is one which I cannot endorse. This is the ground which says that President Eisenhower's message to congress and the policy which is based on it mean a threat of war and are a provocation to communist China. I cannot agree with that, Mr. Speaker. In this connection, I should like to quote two or three extracts from the speech delivered by the President to congress on January 24, as reported in the New York Times of January 25:
The most important objective of our nation's foreign policy is to safeguard the security of the United States by establishing and procuring a just and honourable peace. In the western Pacific
External Affairs
a situation is developing in the Formosa straits that seriously imperils the peace and our security.
Not a word there about aggression, but rather defence of the United States and security. He went on:
In the interest of peace, therefore, the United States must remove any doubt regarding our readiness to fight if necessary to preserve the vital stake of the free world in a free Formosa, and to engage in whatever operations may be required to carry out that purpose.
Later in the same speech he added:
Again I say that we would welcome action by the United Nations which might in fact bring an end to the active hostilities in the area. This critical situation has been created by the choice of the Chinese communists, not by us. Their offensive military intent has been flaunted to the whole world by words and by deeds. Just as they created the situation, so they can end it, if they so choose.
The policy expressed in those words was overwhelmingly endorsed by the congress, in the House of Representatives by a vote of 409 to 3 and in the Senate by a vote of 85 to 3. I think it is clear, Mr. Speaker, from these quotations from the message on which the United States policy was based that that policy is not intended to threaten war but to safeguard peace, that its object is not to defend Chiang Kai-shek but to defend the peace of the world.
Here, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that any attempt to identify this policy with the defence of the Chiang Kai-shek regime appears to me an extremely superficial estimate of the situation in the Far East. It has been argued in this house that the Chiang Kai-shek regime is rotten, and that by allying itself with that regime the United States is allying itself with a government that does not deserve to exist but should be banished into exile, and that therefore the United States is pursuing a wrong policy. But as has been expressed by other speakers in this debate, and more particularly this evening by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), no matter what government were on Formosa the United States seventh fleet would still be defending that island today; because it is the island, not the government, that is of the essence of the question.
So far as that goes, though I hold no brief for Chiang Kai-shek nor for his entourage; though I admit they are no plaster saints, yet they do not in my mind compare unfavourably with the Chinese in Peking. I would not like to live under either of these governments, but if I had to choose I think I would choose the regime of Chiang Kai-shek.
In what I have said I hope I have succeeded in showing that the intentions of the United States have not been aggressive. I believe

External Affairs
the peaceful intentions of the United States have been convincingly demonstrated in recent months by several factors. First, let me recall to the house that the United States approved New Zealand's resolution in the United Nations security council, inviting Peking to discuss a cease-fire. The United States could have vetoed that invitation, but it did not do so. That invitation was allowed to go forward by Russia, as well. Yet on January 31 it was bluntly rejected by Peking.
Again, not only did the United States persuade Chiang Kai-shek to evacuate the Tachens and thereby relieve an explosive situation, but it actually provided its seventh fleet to help carry out that evacuation. Moreover, though subjected as we understand it to very strong pressure by the Chiang Kai-shek government, Mr. Dulles has steadfastly refused to comply with the repeated requests of Chiang Kai-shek to give an unconditional guarantee to defend Quemoy and Matsu as such-and I stress the words "as such". I believe also there are grounds for believing that Peking could have Quemoy and Matsu in return for a cease-fire, but up to now it has rejected all overtures for a cease-fire. There may even be indications also that the United States is moving-slowly, perhaps, but moving-toward acceptance of a two-Chinas principle.
Bearing all these things in mind I think we must agree that the United States, far from provoking war and far from taking an aggressive attitude, has gone out of its way to try to obtain a peaceful settlement of the Formosa question. In contrast, let us look at the attitude of Peking. First of all there was its rejection in very summary terms of the United Nations invitation to the cease-fire discussions. That rejection came on February 3. Likewise there was its intransigent reaction to diplomatic overtures which, we understand, have been carried out by the United Kingdom, by Mr. Nehru of India, and possibly also by Russia for a cease-fire in the Formosa straits.
We know, too, that the Chinese in Peking have been claiming that Chiang Kai-shek's withdrawal from the Tachens was a victory for them. And we are all too familiar with the repeated boasts emanating from Peking that the communist regime will take Formosa by the end of this year. Bellicose actions unfortunately are in keeping with the aggressive policy which Peking has been pursuing almost uninterruptedly since its intervention in the Korean conflict. Indeed, the Korean truce has been represented by Peking propaganda as a victory for communist arms. Likewise Peking has hailed the Geneva settlement of the Indo-Chinese war as a victory for herself.
[Mr. Fraser (St. John's East) .1
It does seem, Mr. Speaker, that these successes, or pseudo-successes, have intoxicated the Chinese communists with perhaps an exalted idea of their armed might. This mood in which they find themselves is very dangerous, because when men are intoxicated it is very difficult to reason with them. That. I think, is one of the reasons the situation in the Formosa straits is so terribly dangerous. The peace-loving governments must redouble their efforts to avert an explosion, to persuade Peking to adopt a more reasonable, more receptive attitude.
I am all in favour of unremitting negotiation, no matter how unlikely success may seem. Negotiation must be continued because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate; but negotiation must be accompanied by preparedness. We must not relax our vigilance; we must not drop our guard. A clear line must be taken, must be drawn and must be maintained. But if war does come-please God it may not-over the Formosa question, then as I see it the war guilt will not be with Washington but with Peking.
Now, as I have said, every possible effort must be made to prevent such a war arising. The immediate task is to negotiate a ceasefire. This would provide a breathing space, and we understand that efforts are being made to that end now. But a breathing space, though it is well so far as it goes, does not go far enough. A long-range solution must be found. Perhaps a beginning could be made by the cession of Quemoy and Matsu in return for a pledge from Peking to keep hands off Formosa; but a long-range solution must be of larger scope and in all modesty

for I know, of course, that the best brains in the armed services of all the countries of the world are engaged in this problem at present -may I make a tentative suggestion that might perhaps be worth considering.
I think, first of all, that long-range solution must be based upon some form of neutralization of Formosa, perhaps under United Nations guarantee. At the present time, of course, Formosa is in effect neutralized but by the United States. A United Nations guarantee might be more pacific, less dangerous; but I cannot agree with those who would suggest that Chiang Kai-shek be exiled along with his 600,000 soldiers. It is a difficult thing to exile 600,000 men. I confess I do not know where they might go. I think the nationalists should be permitted to retain Formosa, at least for the time being, if under a United Nations guarantee. Eventually there might be the possibility of a plebiscite among Formosans themselves, not yet I think because I doubt very much whether they have reached

the stage when they are capable of selfgovernment, and to hand over a strategic island to the administration of inexperienced hands at such a dangerous juncture would be most imprudent. But eventually training might precede a plebiscite.
You will notice I have not mentioned a trusteeship, because a trusteeship would suggest grave practical difficulties. It is all very well to speak of United Nations trusteeship. Who is to be the trustee? Who is to administer the trusteeship? I confess I find it hard to see that there could be agreement on a trustee at the present time, and collective trusteeship would very probably lead to friction and disagreement among the trustees themselves. The old question would arise, quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Eventually, too, there might be the possibility of enabling communist China to give sufficient proof of her good intentions, of a change of heart and then the question of her admission to the United Nations might be reconsidered.
Together with these purely political suggestions, Mr. Speaker, there must of course, I fully agree, be the provision of economic and technical assistance along the lines of the Point Four program and the Colombo plan; and even more important, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs pointed out in his speech, there must be a wholehearted
External Affairs
and sympathetic effort to encourage the peoples of southeast Asia and Formosa to develop democratic governments of their own under which they can live in peace and freedom. Only by these methods, military, political, economic and social, shall we be able to build up a true resistance to the onset of communism in the Far East. That must be done; otherwise, Mr. Speaker, the world balance of power might be upset, to the grave disadvantage of the freedom-loving nations.
If Formosa and southeast Asia were to fall under communism, either by invasion or by infiltration, then indeed the frontiers of freedom would be perilously narrowed.
On motion of Mr. Nesbitt the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: I am quite sure that hon. members would like to complete this debate before the Easter recess, as well as the other matters I announced the other night. Therefore, if there is any possibility that the debate on the resolution with respect to unemployment insurance may be completed on Monday, we shall go on with this debate on Monday.


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


[Stage Direction]
Fourth and fifth reports of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. -Mr. Cavers.
Mr. Speaker:: As it is not intended to move concurrence in the report this day, is it agreed that the deputy clerk dispense with the reading of the report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING

[Stage Direction]
Third and final report of sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.- Mr. Cavers.
Mr. Speaker:: The same observations apply in this case. Shall the deputy clerk dispense with the reading of the report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



STANDING ORDERS-CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. R. F. L. Hanna (for Mr. Harrison) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on Friday, April 1, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I desire to table copies in English and French of the white paper in connection with the budget for 1955-56. This procedure of tabling the white paper on the day before the budget was adopted three years ago and has, I believe, proved useful to hon. members.
If it meets with the approval of the house, I would move that it be printed in today's Votes and Proceedings so that hon. members will have an opportunity to study it before I deliver the budget speech tomorrow night.
I would also ask the consent of the house to have it printed in tomorrow's Hansard, together with the budget speech.


Mr. Speaker:: By leave, is this motion agreed to?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


TEXTILES


Mr. Kirk (Anfigonish-Guysborough):: 1.	Has the federal government, through the Department of Trade and Commerce or any of its departments, crown companies or agencies, studied the possibilities of assisting the textile industry by using radioactive substances?
2.	If so, with what results to date?
3.	Have any of the above departments, crown companies or government agencies experimented with textiles by treating same with silicons to tighten the weave and make cotton and wool durable?


John Horace Dickey: 1 and 2. While familiar with what has been done abroad, the national research council has not made any detailed study of the possibilities of assisting the textile industry by the use in Canada of radioactive substances.
3. Fairly widespread use is being made in Canadian textile mills of silicone finishes, especially on fabrics made from synthetics. The necessary research and development work on this problem has been done by the firms who manufacture silicone materials, and the details of their application and of the properties which they impart are matters of common knowledge to informed textile technicians.



TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT AIRCRAFT STORAGE

Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	Do Department of Transport aircraft pay the regular storage fees for aircraft stored at government civil airports?
2.	If not, how is the cost of this storage defrayed?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	No. It is considered that if the department were to charge itself for services rendered to itself, this would involve unnecessary and useless bookkeeping.
2.	Such charges, if made, would be included in the revenues of the department and also in the expenses of aircraft operation and maintenance under the main vote "Airways and airports, operation and maintenance".

Questions



NATO-MILITARY TRAINING IN CANADA

Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Since the establishment of NATO, how many persons from countries other than Canada have received or are now receiving training in Canada under the provisions of any NATO agreements or arrangements?
2.	From what countries have such persons come, how many in each case, and how many in each year, since the establishment of NATO?
3.	What is the total amount spent to date for the training of such persons, including transportation, maintenance or any other costs met by Canada?


Mr. Blancheile:: 1.	5,510 as at 28th February 1955.
2.	The following nations are participating under NATO agreements: United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Italy, Norway, Turkey and Portugal. Figures of trainees by country by year cannot be given without the permission of each nation.
3.	$271,695,990.15 to 28th February 1955, including the provision of necessary capital facilities.



DRAGGER TYPE VESSELS, MARITIME PROVINCES

Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	What was the total amount paid in each of the Atlantic provinces for the years 1946 to 1954 inclusive, under assistance in construction of vessels of the dragger or long-liner type?
2.	What was the total amount paid under this regulation to fishermen of Gloucester county, New Brunswick, for the period mentioned in question No. 1?
3.	What was the total number of vessels entitled to assistance during this same period and how many of these vessels were affected under section 55, subsection (3) of the Fisheries Act restricting their fishing operations to outside the 12-mile limit?


Mr. MacNaughl:: 1 and 2. See below.
3.	(a) 125; (b) one.



STATEMENT OF AMOUNTS PAID IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES FOR ASSISTANCE IN CONSTRUCTION OF VESSELS OF THE DRAGGER OR LONG-LINER TYPE FOR THE YEARS 1946 TO 1954 INCLUSIVE

[Stage Direction]
Fiscal Year	New Brunswick	(Gloucester County, N.B.)	Nova Scotia	Prince Edward Island	Quebec	New- foundland	Total$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.40 504 20	(35,092 20)	40,504 2040 392 80	(49,392 80)	49,392 8044,175 45	(37,854 30)	44,175 4510 354 50	( 6,451 50)	13,263 00	32,617 5014,236 20	(14,236 20)	60,552 90	29,756 10	104,545 2025,256 55	(17,089 05)	101,264 10	14,246 10	6,486 15	147,252 901953-54	34,458 60	(28,008 75)	65,500 05	32,683 20	8,626 20	6,827 70	148,095 751954-55	57,268 20	(50,131 95)	40,045 50	16,514 85	25,170 75	82,049 55	221,048 85Total	284,646 50	(238,256 75)	280,625 55	93,200 25	40,283 10	88,877 25	787,632 65
Note.-The regulations became effective only on April 1, 1947.

Mr. Purdy:: 1.	Does the Department of National Defence
employ at Debert:	(a) civilian labourers; (b)
civilian guards; (c) the services of the corps of commissionaires, for guard duty?
2.	If so, what are the hours of duty and the hourly rate of wages in each case?


Mr. Blancheile:: 1.	(a) (b) and (c) Yes.
2.	(a) Civilian labourers: the standard work week is 44 hours and the prevailing hourly wage rate is 80 cents.
(b) civilian guards (watchmen): the standard work week is 48 hours and the salary wage
r

range $2,220 to $2,580 per annum; classified civilian personnel are not paid at hourly-rates.
(c) Commissionaire: The hours of duty are set by the Canadian corps of commissionaires and the hourly wage rate is 70 cents.



ANNUITIES BRANCH


Mr. Hees:: How much was paid out by the annuities branch of the Department of Labour for advertising government annuities, on radio, newspapers, periodicals and any other medium for each of the years 1949 to 1953 inclusive?


Mr. Gregg:: Fiscal Years
1949- 50	 $ 60,191.95
1950-	51	
53,333.881951-	52	
96,004.411952-	53	
111,725.421953-	54	
97,731.76



T.C.A. FLIGHTS, MOOSE JAW

Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	Have representations been recently received by Trans-Canada Air Lines, asking for a daily flight into the city of Moose Jaw?
2.	If so, has Trans-Canada Air Lines considered these representations?
3.	Has the company decided to make such a daily flight?
4.	If not, for what reason?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.
4.	The matter is to be again reviewed following completion of delivery of Viscount aircraft now on order which may make available the DC-3 time necessary for such a stop.



FEED SCREENINGS

Mr. Howe (Wellingion-Huron):: 1.	How many carloads of feed screenings were shipped into the province of Ontario during the year 1954?
2.	What was the grade of each carload shipped?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	400.
2.	Carloads of feed screenings shipped into Ontario
(a) to Fort William/Port Arthur graded as follows: 61 carloads; 1 carload; 205 carloads;
1 Feed screenings; 2 Feed screenings; Uncleaned screenings.
Cb) to Ontario points other than Fort William/Port Arthur graded as follows: 126 carloads; 7 carloads; 1 Feed screenings; Uncleaned screenings.
50433-168J
Questions



TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT AIRCRAFT

Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	What aircraft are operated by the Department
of Transport?
2.	What services do these aircraft perform?
3.	Are they used to transport government officials, and, if so, how many times has this occurred during the past?
4.	Are they used to transport members of the government, and, if so, how many times has this occurred during the past fiscal year?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	Twenty-four aircraft are operated by the
Department of Transport and consist of: - Douglas DC-3 (2); Lockheed 10-A	(2);
Beechcraft C18-S (1); de Havilland DH-114
(1); Bell helicopter 47D-1 (3); Lockheed 18-08A (2); Lockheed 12-A (2); Beechcraft D18-S (6); de Havilland DHC-2 (5).
2.	Calibration of aids to navigation; inspection and development of airways, air routes and airports; investigation of accidents in remote areas; training to maintain or improve the skill and technical knowledge of departmental personnel; transportation. Helicopters are used for ship to shore transportation, ice patrol and reconnaissance from government ships in northern waters, and to familiarize technical officers of the department with the operation and maintenance of this type of aircraft.
3.	These aircraft are used continually for departmental and government work. It is not practicable to state how many times in the past they have been used to transport government officials because since the department was organized in 1936 there have been thousands of flights. Precise information as to the number would necessitate the examination at district headquarters in various parts of Canada of the log books of departmental aircraft, and it is believed that some earlier log books are no longer available.
4.	Yes-126.



STEVENSON AIRPORT, WINNIPEG

Mr. Churchill:: 1.	Is the Stevenson airport area to be enlarged?
2.	If so, by how much and in what direction?
3.	What is the area of the airport?
4.	Are the present runways of this airport to be extended?
5.	What distance are the ends of the present runways from the boundary of this airport?
6.	What is the clearance from the side of the present runways to the boundary of this airport?
7.	Are new runways to be built at Stevenson airport? If so, where and of what length?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	Yes.
2.	1,720 acres to the north and west now being acquired.

Questions
6. 2,100 acres excluding the extensions mentioned above.
4.	Yes.
5.	The distances of the ends of the present runways from the present boundaries of the airport are:-Runway end 13, 2,100'; Runway end 31, 2,100'; Runway end 18, 1,150'; Runway 36, 3,300'; Runway 07, 950' (under construction); Runway 25, 850' (under construction.)
6.	The minimum distance from the centre line of any runway to the nearest airport boundary is 800', and the maximum distance is, in certain places, about 6,000'.
7.	Yes. One new runway will eventually parallel the existing runway 18-36, and be located 5,000' to the west thereof, and another will parallel the present runway 13-31 and be 5,000' to the northeast thereof. Construction of these runways to an over-all length of 10,000' may eventually be needed.



ATOMIC RADIATION


Mr. Enfield:: 1.	Is any research being carried out by the Department of National Health and Welfare regarding the harmful effect of atomic radiation on humans?
2.	Is any research being done in respect to radiation effects in Canada resulting from atom bomb tests that have taken place in the United States of America?
3.	Do researchers know anything about the genetic effect on humans of such radiation?


Mr. Marlin:: 1. Yes. Radioactivity, of course, is not a new phenomenon. Since life first appeared on this planet, living beings have been exposed to cosmic and natural radiation. Thus it is not an essentially new influence which is being considered, but an increase in the intensity of an influence which has never been entirely absent.
It was not until the discovery of radium and X-rays over half a century ago that the possibility emerged that some human beings would be exposed to greater amounts of radiation than naturally occur in the everyday environment. Since that time, scientists have shown a continuing concern for the possible harmful effects of uncontrolled radiation. A system of protection has slowly developed, as is manifest by the precautions observed in the use of X-ray and radioactive materials and in the regulations governing the use of isotopes in this country since the war.
Problems associated with radiation have engaged the attention of officers of the Department of National Health and Welfare and of a number of other government agencies for more than ten years.

Experience gained during this period enabled Canada to pioneer in developing a promising advance in the treatment of cancer-the cobalt 60 beam therapy unit-which has since brought new hope to thousands of cancer victims and has received world-wide recognition. Many industrial uses of radioisotopes have also been developed in Canada, ranging all the way from testing the welds on enormous metal castings to controlling the thickness of paper as it comes through the paper-making machines. These isotopes have also been made available to other countries.
As a result, Canadian scientists have gained firsthand experience in the study of radiation effects and the development of adequate safeguards against them. On March 14 of this year, a reply was tabled which outlined some of the activities carried out by the department for the safe handling of radioactive materials.
The interest of the department in radiation, however, predates these more recent developments by several years. For example, since 1951 the department has accepted responsibility for the supervision of the use of radioactive isotopes in university and hospital laboratories and in industrial operations.
In carrying out this responsibility, a film monitoring service is maintained for the protection of persons working with radioactive isotopes. Advice is also provided during the planning stages of radioisotope laboratories in order that arrangements can be worked out for the safe handling of radioactive materials and for the disposal of radioactive waste in such a manner that there will be no danger of contamination. In addition, it is planned to provide training courses emphasizing the safe use of radiation.
Anticipating an increasing use in this country of radioactive materials for industrial and medical purposes, arrangements were made some time ago to send a senior physicist of the department to the United Kingdom for special training.
There is at all times continuing consultation between the Department of National Health and Welfare and other government agencies such as the national research council, the defence research board, and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, having an interest in this field.
As a result of all this joint effort, there is every reason to believe that the measures taken in this country for the protection of those persons who are likely to be exposed to radioactive materials are fully as effective as those carried out anywhere.

2.	Yes. This research is carried out, not with particular reference to experiments being undertaken in any one country, but with reference to the effects of radiation, from whatever source it may come, occurring in the different regions of Canada.
3.	Yes. The biological effects of increased radiation may be divided into two categories -the somatic effects, or those which lead to disease in the exposed individual; and the genetic effects, or those which cause changes, usually adverse, in his descendants. Any somatic effects which might arise would affect only the generation irradiated but genetic effects would show up in future generations.
As to somatic effects, it is the opinion of medical scientists that the most important results might be an increase in the incidence of certain malignant conditions, but these usually result from much higher radiation exposures than those which are now being considered.
With regard to the genetic effects, it has been established by experiments on certain rapidly-breeding lower forms of life, such as bacteria, plants, insects and small mammals, that genetic changes can be produced by exposure to radiation.
It is pointed out by geneticists that the characteristics transmitted from parents to offspring are determined by the structure of the genes. Certain genes produce certain characteristics, such as the colour of the eyes and so on. A particular gene may also be related to a physical or mental defect. It so happens that genes are capable of mutating or changing and that all such mutations, being permanent, are carried on in later generations.
In the exposure of experimental animals to radiation, there has been observed an increase in the rate at which these mutations occur. Usually no harmful effect shows up until, at some future time, mating takes place between two animals carrying the same mutated gene. Since a study of genetic changes in humans would inevitably take several generations, the belief that radiation might cause genetic damage in humans is based mainly on the evidence that it does so in other forms of life.
In determining genetic effects on man there are two principal difficulties. First, most mutations will remain hidden until one individual receives the same mutated gene from both parents. Secondly, naturally occurring genes for recessive defects and abnormalities are already numerous in the population. Neither these naturally occurring mutant genes nor those that might be induced by radiation are likely to produce an effect in
Questions
the children of the individuals carrying them unless the parents have received the same defect from a common ancestor.
In general, there has been much misunderstanding between the possible hazards to human health arising from weapon trials and those that would result from nuclear warfare, with the result that some of the more sensational statements made on this subject have been confusing.
Since there remain a number of unanswered questions in this field, there is a need for continuing research and investigation into the genetic problem. Increasingly large numbers of people are being exposed to increasing amounts of radiation because of the wider use of radioactive materials in industry, research and medicine. In addition, there has been a slight, though appreciable increase in radiation all over the world as a result of the weapon tests.
However, the best scientific evidence available, indicates that it is most unlikely that any significant genetic effect would result from the increased radioactivity that has occurred.
Canadian scientific experience in this connection is confirmed by that of research scientists in other countries. For example, in a statement in the British House of Commons on March 22 last, the minister of health, the Right Hon. Iain Macleod stressed these points:
(1)	Radiation does produce genetic effects and the radioactivity of the planet has increased slightly as the result of nuclear bomb explosions.
(2)	Present knowledge is insufficient to fix precisely the level of radioactivity above which genetic damage would significantly affect the well-being of populations.
(3)	Research in genetic changes is necessarily and inevitably slow in producing conclusive results.
(4)	It is extremely unlikely that the increase in radioactivity which has appeared up to the present will have any appreciable genetic effect.
While the genetic problem is exceedingly complex, the important factors are known and Canada possesses at the present time the scientific potential to carry on continuing investigations in this field. The Department of National Health and Welfare is pursuing research efforts with a view to the further development of a long-range program for the collection and study of human data that will aid in the assessment of this problem.
The department is carrying out a systematic and continuing examination of all evidence available in order to ascertain all of

Motions for Papers
the facts in connection with increased radiation. As the program develops further, it will involve, among other things, the constant examination of a variety of materials to determine the level of potentially dangerous radioactivity.
In furthering this project, full advantage will continue to be taken of the experience of outstanding Canadian scientists who have a particular knowledge of this field and every effort will be made to co-ordinate this longterm study with Canada's over-all public health program.
The government is fully aware of the problems posed in the field of public health by atomic developments and will continue to take proper steps to assess progressively the possible hazard to human health of increased radiation background.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Was vote No. 369 of the estimates of 1954-55 spent as detailed on pages 442 and 443 of the said estimates?
2.	If not, how much was spent with respect to each such detail?
3.	What alterations were made in the details of the said vote?
4.	Was any of this vote spent on any matter not listed in the said details?
5.	If so, on what was it spent, and how much?
6.	On whose recommendation were alterations made in the details of this vote, on what dates were such alterations made, and by what authority?


Robert Henry Winters: Return tabled.


WOOD SCREWS PURCHASES
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What purchases, if any, of wood screws in excess of $1,000 for each purchase have been made by the government or any agency thereof, since January 31, 1954?
2.	Were such purchases made after competitive bidding?
3.	Did Canadian manufacturers bid on such purchases? If so, which companies tendered?
4.	To whom were the contracts awarded?
5.	Were the goods finally purchased of Canadian manufacture? If not, from whom were the same purchased?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


John George Diefenbaker: For a copy of all letters and communications received by the Minister of Trade and Commerce since the 15th of March, 1955, relating to the appointment of Mr. Stanley Loptson to the board of grain commissioners.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION ACCOUNTS

Mr. Fulton:: For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, etc., exchanged between the office of the Auditor General and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and/or the Minister of National Revenue, since January 1, 1950, relating to the accounts of the said corporation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the minister spoke to me about this motion. I would ask to have it stand for today.


Mr. Speaker:: No. 5 stands.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE ACCOUNTS

Edmund Davie Fulton: For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, etc., exchanged between the office of the Auditor General and the Department of National Revenue or the minister or any official of the said department, since January 1, 1950, relating to the accounts of the said department.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize. I now see there is a typographical error. The wording in motion No. 6 was intended to read, "Department of National Defence". In view of this typographical error, and as it takes the department by surprise, perhaps it would be better if this motion were to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: No. 6 stands.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION ACT

Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada or any department or minister thereof, and the governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, or any department or minister thereof, since January 1, 1953, with respect to the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: May
I direct a question to the Prime Minister? Is the Prime Minister arranging a meeting with the premier of Saskatchewan and some of his colleagues during their visit to Ottawa in connection with the federal-provincial meeting beginning April 26, to discuss the draft agreement regarding the proposed South Saskatchewan river dam, presented to the Saskatchewan government by the Minister of Agriculture last autumn and which was accepted, in principle, by the provincial government?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, to the question as drawn I might perhaps, because there are some parts of it that I could not answer in an affirmative way, make a short negative answer, but I do not think that would be satisfactory. As a matter of fact the premier of Saskatchewan wrote to me last month to see if arrangements could be made for some of my colleagues and myself to meet with some of his colleagues and himself at the time of the preliminary federal-provincial meetings to discuss the proposed construction of the South Saskatchewan dam. In answer to Premier Douglas I quoted my reply to a question asked in the House of Commons on January 13 of the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), concerning that subject as reported at page 134 of Hansard. That quotation was as follows:
There has been no tenative agreement arrived at, Mr. Speaker, as the basis of a distribution of costs because there has not yet been any decision by the federal government that it could take the responsibility of recommending this project to parliament as one that would be in the national interests of Canada generally.
I advised Premier Douglas that that statement still represents the federal government's position as it stands, and that I did not think that, even if we were able to reach a tentative agreement as the basis of the distribution of costs of the project as a joint undertaking, that would enable us to make at the present time a decision one way or the other about the project, especially in view of the fact that we would be in the midst of discussions about the whole problem of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. I added that if he wished to have me and a small committee meet him and some of his colleagues immediately after our preliminary federal-provincial meeting, I would of course arrange one and would do my best to fit it in at a time that would suit his convenience.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE POSSIBILITY OF AGREEMENT AS TO RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYABLE UNEMPLOYED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: May I
direct a question to the Prime Minister? Will the Prime Minister indicate to the house whether or not it is the intention of the government to attempt to reach an agreement with the provinces at the April meeting regarding the responsibility for employable unemployed?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I would not like to say anything about what will be done at this
Inquiries of the Ministry preliminary meeting. It is a meeting of the ten provincial premiers with, I assume, some of their advisers and representatives of the federal government. Now, that will not be a conference that will be directed by the Prime Minister of Canada. It will be a conference of the heads of the ten provincial governments and the federal government. We are all interested in what will best serve the interests of Canadians, and I assume that we shall do our best to reach such decisions then, or at a later time, as will be in the best interests of Canada generally.



INQUIRY AS TO AGENDA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: In connection with the dominion-provincial conference which is to be held later this month, may I ask the Prime Minister whether any agenda has been drawn up, or is it being conceived simply as a conference to frame an agenda for a later conference?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): It was conceived as a conference to frame an agenda for a later conference, but that is not exclusive. That was the tenor of the invitation to the provincial premiers, and the invitation was accepted without there being any indication as to whether or not any other matters would be raised.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I take it from the Prime Minister's answer that the government has no objection to discussing any question at this preliminary conference that may be raised there?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Oh, the federal government would not take the position that it could refuse to discuss any question that any of the premiers wanted to discuss at that time. We are meeting as Canadian officials, and it would not be conducive to a satisfactory tenor of the discussions for the federal government to take any attitude that would be looked upon as unreasonable by any of those attending the conference.


Mr. Rowe:: Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether there has been any communication between the premiers of the different provinces as to the agenda?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That I could not say. There has been no communication with me about that, but I could not say whether as between each other there have been communications. I have not been so advised.


William Earl Rowe: No; I meant between the premiers of the different provinces and the Prime Minister of Canada.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, to the best of my recollection of the terms of the answers received there has not been. I would not want to assert that there is no allusion to anything else in any one of those letters, because I would want to look at them again; but to the best of my recollection, as I received them, I have found no suggestion other than an acceptance to come to this preliminary meeting to arrange for the main conference.


Mr, Hees:: May I ask the Prime Minister whether there have been any recommendations from provincial premiers that unemployment be discussed at this meeting?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I could not make any firmer answer to the question than the one I have just made to the previous question that was just put to me.



REPLY OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can he inform the house in regard to the reply of the government of the United States in response to the communication read to this house some time ago asking that they reconsider the restriction on oil moving from Canada to the United States?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge we have not the permission of the United States to make that reply public, although we asked for it some ten days ago.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might add a word. As I understand it, one of the difficulties is that the United States government itself wishes to comment on and reply to the representations we have made. At the end of last week they asked for a delay until their reply to our representations had been drafted and submitted to us, when both documents could be tabled. I am not sure whether anything has happened this morning, but I shall be glad to look into it as soon as I get back to my office.


George Alexander Drew: Without entering into a debate on the subject, may I point out that the house is adjourning for Easter the day after tomorrow, and since this subject is one which involves a principle of immense importance and 

may have a wider application than the movement of oil, I would hope it might be suggested that it would be appropriate to have this information before we adjourn on Wednesday.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Milton Fowler Gregg: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend and consolidate the Unemployment Insurance Act and, inter alia,
(a)	to increase benefit rates, as well as to provide for certain changes in the duration of both regular and seasonal benefits;
(b)	to adjust the contributions, and to change contributions from a daily basis to a weekly earnings basis, and benefits from a daily to a weekly basis;
(c)	to provide a graduated scale of allowable earnings in place of present provisions related to casual earnings and non-compensable days and,
(d)	to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, I should like to give the committee this afternoon a fairly full explanation of what it is desired to accomplish under this resolution.
In introducing this resolution I make no apology for the fact that it is the second one under this heading recommended to this house in a period of less than 12 weeks. This measure today is by no means an afterthought of the one I presented in January. Instead, these and the January amendments are all one of the same piece. The reasons why I did not bring these forward in January were, first, that we wanted still more time to study the larger changes represented by this resolution before presenting them to the house. We wanted parliament to have ample opportunity for a full and detailed consideration of the proposed larger changes, after they came to this house. We wanted the item related to the improved supplementary benefits to go into effect in January so as to make its impact upon this winter's serious unemployment, which it has. So, in the light of those considerations, the only way I could see was to divide the task into two parts when seeking the necessary legislative approval. If and when the bill, based upon this resolution, receives royal assent, then the January amendment will have been absorbed and will be administered as part of the new consolidated act. As study

on these matters was in progress I was curious to see what was in the minds of those who were here when the present act was passed through the various stages of this parliament.
I found it very interesting and, I think, useful reading. The first resolution, corresponding to the one we have here today was introduced by my predecessor, Hon. Norman McLarty on July 16, 1940.
I am going to quote from part of that resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a bill to enact a scheme ol national unemployment insurance to be administered by a commission appointed by the governor in council, and to create an unemployment insurance fund from contributions from specified persons and from moneys provided by parliament for the payment of insurance benefits, to be administered by the commission . . .
That was the main part of the resolution. There are patches of Mr. McLarty's speech that I find of special interest:
It has received in principle the approval of every section of this house. It has received the consent of every province in the dominion. It passed the parliament at Westminster within the last two weeks in less than nineteen minutes of debate.
Then further on:
At the time the resolution was passed asking the parliament at Westminster to confer the necessary power to enact this legislation, we were at war. We are at war today; but I suggest that the particular occasion has not changed in so far as the desirability of this measure of social legislation is concerned.
I am sure it is very difficult for us today to put ourselves back into the dangerous atmosphere of that 16th day of July in 1940 when Mr. McLarty was talking about that first resolution. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) said Friday evening:
There was nothing in the arithmetic of war in the summer of 1940 to show how victory was going to come to .Britain.
It is inspiring therefore to read how under the dangers of that summer this government with the unanimous backing of parliament was clearing the ground by amending the British North America Act and introducing a resolution that made possible what Mr. McLarty called "this measure of social legislation". I have read the debates of that day and there are enlightening passages. One is greatly tempted of course to quote at length but I shall refrain from doing so and read just a few extracts at random. Mr. McLarty said:
The total number of workers in 1941 who will be under this act is 2,100,000.
Unemployment Insurance Act
The figure today is of course around 4,000,000. Then he went on to say:
It is almost trite to suggest that an unemployment insurance measure does not exercise its full benefit at a time when employment is at a low level. Necessarily the fund which must be created can best be created in a period of high employment. On July 1 this year employment in this country was higher than it has ever been at any time in our history.
Hon. R. B. Hanson, then leader of the opposition and representing in this house the great constituency of York-Sunbury, is reported on page 1562 of Hansard as having said:
This scheme must be on a sound actuarial basis, and we must have concrete evidence that such is the fact. It will not do to adopt any scheme or plan which is simply a device for transmitting money raised by general taxation or borrowing.
And again:
There is a class of workers in this country who may be called "safe" employees. Perhaps that is not very well put. There are those in "safe" employment in this country who, under any scheme, if they are brought under the act . . . will be taxed for the benefit of those who are engaged in what might be termed the "exposed" positions.
Mr. Hanson here outlined the whole idea behind the insurance plan. Then the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Mac-Innis) is reported at page 1658 of Hansard, still dealing with unemployment insurance, as saying:
I have always supported it, not only on this occasion but every time it has been brought up in the house. As a matter of fact, as a member of organized labour of long standing I supported this principle long before it was accepted by many in this house. But to say that it is not a cure for all our social ills, and even to say it is not a cure for unemployment, is only stating a fact. There is something it does; as far as it goes it is a planned and orderly way of dealing with a social problem and to that extent I think it should have the approval of everyone who believes in dealing with these matters in an orderly, planned manner.
The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Han-sell), speaking for the Social Credit party, is reported on page 1662 of Hansard as follows:
I do not believe that our group will be found in opposition to this legislation. Broadly speaking, under the present economic setup, it will help to some extent to relieve unemployment so far as financing the unemployed is concerned.
I need not go on to repeat what was said about monetary policy. Finally I should like to give this summary by Mr. McLarty:
The surest foundation on which to base democratic government is a happy and contented people. Nothing militates more against happiness and contentment than fear.

Unemployment Insurance Act
Then referring to the passing of the act he said:
This done, it will be recorded of the present generation that . . . we were not unconscious of our duty and our obligation to promote the welfare and happiness of our own people.
That ends my quotations. All of this was under 15 years ago. Ever since then I am glad to say that this contributory social measure has retained the full support that it had in 1940 of all parties represented in this house. It was a new plan and new and difficult ground had to be broken, but whenever it became quite clear that it could be improved to meet more effectively the conditions experienced by our Canadian workers this government has recommended that such improvements be made.
So the present act was passed in its original form by parliament on August 7, 1940. The original measure set an upper limit on salaried workers coming under the plan of $2,000 and provided these benefits:
A weekly maximum for a single person of $12.24 and for a person with a dependent a weekly maximum of $14.40.
I should like to indicate the principal changes which have been made and the years in which they were made. I refer to them because they were important changes. The Hon. Humphrey Mitchell in 1943 brought in changes that eased the conditions for requalifying in a second benefit period; raised the insurable limits for salaried workers from $2,000 to $2,400 a year; and brought under insurance all workers paid by the hour, day, piece or mile, regardless of the amount of yearly earnings.
In 1946 Mr. Mitchell again brought in changes which broadened the interpretation of a dependent; increased the allowable subsidiary earnings for claimants from $1 to $1.50 a day; and extended the coverage to seamen-both deep sea and inland waters.
In 1948 Mr. Mitchell brought in changes which added a higher contribution class and increased maximum weekly benefits to $14.40, single rate, and $18.30, dependency rate; again widened the definition of a dependent and raised the ceiling for salaried workers from $2,400 to $3,120 a year.
In 1950 during the illness of Mr. Mitchell these changes were brought in by my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). They were important changes because they incorporated a completely new provision to help take care of the difficulties arising from our Canadian climate. The changes in 1950 added still

further contribution classes and again increased maximum weekly benefit rates to $16.20, single rate, and $21, dependency rate; provided for supplementary benefit payments in the winter months, January 1 to March 31; raised the ceiling from $3,120 to $4,800; and extended coverage to the logging industry in all parts of Canada.
In 1952 I brought in changes which increased the maximum weekly benefits to $17.10, single rate, and $24, dependency rate, and reduced the waiting period from eight days to five days.
In 1953 I brought in changes which provided for continuing benefit payments to persons who become incapacitated after starting to receive unemployment benefits.
In January, 1955, changes were introduced which increased the duration of supplementary benefit payments and brought up the rates to the level of regular benefits; and now we are proposing further changes in the plan.
Mr. Chairman, in all the changes and amendments I have mentioned above, several objectives have constantly been kept in view. One of them is that the insurance plan shall be maintained on a sound actuarial basis; that both the employment and insurance phases of the plan shall be adapted to meet Canada's special conditions; that the bulk of contributions be paid by the two parties directly benefited-workers and management -with the taxpayers at large making the minority contribution and bearing administration costs; that higher benefits be provided a worker with a family, compared with those to the worker with no dependents; that the benefits designed to alleviate the hardships of unemployment should not be of a nature that would lessen the incentive to work when jobs are available; and that an important accompaniment of the plan is to help workers find suitable jobs through the national employment service, and management find suitable workers.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that Canada can take a good deal of satisfaction out of the effective way in which this plan has been working out for the benefit of Canadian workers. Since Mr. McLarty's time about an average of 3,500,000 workers have come under it. It has also been to the advantage of the 250,000 employers who participate in the act and it has also been of great advantage, to my mind, to all the rest of us.
Benefits from this plan, payable to the unemployed workers entitled to them, regardless of their other resources, have helped to maintain purchasing power and greater stability in local labour markets especially during periods of temporary unemployment.

They have taken some of the burden of relieving the unemployment costs of the municipalities and public welfare agencies.
This has been done by a method that preserves the self-respect of the worker, because when he is out of a job he gets a weekly benefit that is not charity but something he has helped pay for himself.
During the immediate past fiscal year, for the first 11 months some $210 million was paid in insurance benefit, with $35 million in February last.
All told, from the inception of the scheme to the end of February of this year insured workers have received almost one billion dollars.
The plan has done something more, and, of primary importance. It has made available, through the national employment service, facilities for enabling workers to find jobs and for employers to find workers.
This is a service that is free, that is available to insured and non-insured workers alike, and that is given without any discrimination because of race, colour, national origin, politics or religion.
From July 1941 to the present date the employment service helped to place nearly 14 million Canadian workers.
However, over the years the act in its present form has become somewhat complicated. Simplification has been needed that workers and employers might more readily understand its terms and that the administration by the commission might be facilitated.
Experience has shown that the amount of protection at present given to certain groups of workers is not enough.
Unemployment Insurance Act
This is particularly true of young workers who have not been in insured employment very long and of workers who are not able to secure steady employment.
Also, some benefit rates are no longer in line with earnings and they need to be raised.
The new seasonal benefits initiated in January last should be made to apply to future winter seasons.
There did appear to be the need of providing for a better income maintenance plan.
It is also desirable that the amount of work it puts upon employers should be kept to the minimum necessary, and that efficient and economical administration should be possible.
These objectives have been kept in view in the proposed revision of the legislation.
The most important changes concern the contributions and benefits.
The contribution rates and the basis on which they are paid have both been revised. At present, workers made their contributions to the fund on a daily rate basis.
In the lower wage brackets these rates are a considerably larger percentage of the worker's earnings than in the higher brackets.
At this stage, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask permission to insert some tables in Hansard, if I have unanimous consent to do so, because it will be seen more clearly by hon. members if it is tabled.


The Chairman:: Has the hon. minister
leave to have the tables incorporated in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The tables follow:



COMPARATIVE TABLES

[Stage Direction]
Table I-Present Benefit Rates

Employee	Weekly	Weekly Benefit	Average	Average Earnings
Weekly	Earnings	

 Earnings	
[Stage Direction]
Contribution	Range	Single Dependency in Range Single Dependency18 cents	
Less than *9.00	* 4.20	* 4.80	* 5.60	75 0	85 724	"	
* 9.00 to 14.99	6.00	7.50	12.80	46.9	58.630	"	
15.00	to	20.99	8.70	12.00	17.85	48.7	67 236	"	
21.00	to	26.99	10.80	15.00	23.70	45.6	63.342	"	
27.00	to	33.99	12.90	18.00	30.20	42.7	59.648	"	
34.00	to	47.99	15.00	21.00	40.95	36.6	51.254	"	
48.00 or over	17.10	24.00	57.50	29.7	41 7
50433-169i
2660	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance Act
Table II-Proposed Benefit Rates
(z)
Benefit % of
Employee	Weekly	Weekly Benefit	Average	Average Earnings
Weekly	Earnings	

 Earnings	
[Stage Direction]
Contribution	Range	Single Dependency in Range	Single Dependency16 cents	Less than $15.00	$ 6.00	$ 8.00	$11.80	50.8	67.824	"	
$15.00	to	20.99	9.00	12.00	17.85	50.4	67.230	"	
21.00	to	26.99	11.00	15.00	23.70	46.4	63.336	"	
27.00	to	32.99	13.00	18.00	29.65	43.8	60.742	"	
33.00	to	38.99	15.00	21.00	35.60	42.1	59.048	"	
39.00	to	44.99	17.00	24.00	41.60	40.9	57.752	"	
45.00	to	50.99	19.00	26.00	47.55	40.0	54.756	"	
51.00	to	56.99	21.00	28.00	53.50	39.3	52.360	"	
57.00	and	over	23.00	30.00	59.70	38.5	50.3
Old Supplementary Benefit Rates (See "Weekly Benefit"-Table I)
(x) Prior to January 10, 1955, Old Supplementary Benefit rates were an average of about 70% of those shown in Columns under "x".
New Seasonal Benefit Rates (See "Weekly Benefit"-Tables I and II)
From January 10, 1955, till proposed Bill becomes law, New "Supplementary" Benefit rates are 100% of those shown in "x".	.
After the proposed Bill becomes law, New "Seasonal" Benefit rates will be 100% of those shown in 'z .
It is proposed that future contributions be made on the basis of weekly rates of about 1 per cent of earnings, with a like amount contributed by employers.
There will be nine earnings classes and the scale of contributions will run from 16 to 60 cents a week. This just slightly exceeds 1 per cent of average earnings in every contribution class. It thus makes the contributions more equitable in that the rate of contribution as a percentage of earnings shows much less variation than the present scale. This will be seen more clearly by referring to the table I have just now tabled.
Generally speaking, the contribution payable by a worker will be lower than that now required for the corresponding earnings class. At the same time the regrouping of the contribution classes will provide additional classes in the higher earnings ranges, so that additional and higher rates of benefit will be available to workers in those earnings classes.
At present, the maximum contributory bracket is reached when a person earns $48 or more a week. The new scale provides for three further classes, which carry on up to earnings of $57 or more a week, as indicated in the tables.
The change from a daily to a weekly rate of contribution will help also to simplify the administration of the act. It will reduce the work involved for employers where contributions are made through the use of stamps,

since six daily stamps will be replaced by one weekly stamp. The contributions will be based on earnings without reference to any specific number of days. The stamp placed in the book will represent the actual earnings in a week whether the period being worked be one or more days. If there is more than one employer in a week, two or more stamps will be placed in the weekly space up to the maximum contribution required of 80 cents from the worker and 60 cents from his employer. All the stamps acquired in a week will be counted as one week's contribution and the worker will be given credit for the total contributions made so far as benefit rate is concerned.
The benefit rate will be determined by the average rate of contributions in the last 30 contributory weeks. Where the earnings in a week are in a very low range provision is made for crediting only half of a stamp, to avoid penalizing a claimant by lowering his average weekly contribution rate unduly. The present insurance book and contribution records will be retained with suitable modifications to fit in with the revised proposals previously outlined.
As to the benefit features, there are several material changes. I give, first, the reasons for them. Experience has made it clear that the present act does not give sufficient protection to workers who are just entering insurable employment and those who by force of circumstance are not able to find steady
[Stage Direction]
work. At the same time it provides longer protection than is required for the vast majority of workers. We have found that although about one-third of all those establishing benefit rights are entitled to 180 days or more under the present act, only about one-twentieth actually draw benefits for a period longer than 180 days. Many of these one-twentieth are married women and elderly people for whom alternative social security programs would seem to be more appropriate.
We feel that it is particularly important to provide better protection for young people just entering insurable employment and for those workers who can do little more than meet the minimum contribution requirements because of the effect, for instance, of seniority clauses in collective agreements. These clauses mean that when lay-offs do occur, substantially the same group of workers lose their jobs each time, thus interrupting the build-up in their contributions and reducing their benefit entitlement. In other words, the very workers who have needed protection the most have often found their opportunity to earn it is severely limited through no fault of their own.
For these reasons, we are proposing that the benefit formula be changed so that a greater amount of protection is made available to workers who have not been able to find steady work. The present formula provides a minimum of 6 weeks' benefit and a maximum of 51 weeks' benefit, depending on the length of time for which an insured person has contributed. To qualify for the minimum of 6 weeks a worker must have made, in the two years preceding his claim, 180 daily contributions, or the equivalent of 30 weeks' contributions.
The new benefit formula will provide a minimum of 15 weeks of benefit, instead of 6, for all workers who have made 30 weekly contributions in the two years preceding a claim for benefits. It will be possible for workers to earn additional weeks of benefit by additional contributions on the basis of one week's benefit for two weeks' contributions that have been made within the two years prior to the claim.
The maximum regular benefit will be 30 weeks. For the increased number of workers who will now qualify also for seasonal benefits the maximum total of regular plus seasonal benefits will be 45 weeks. I will outline the seasonal benefits later. I might indicate here, Mr. Chairman, that the reason the name "seasonal" is proposed instead of "supplementary" is because it was felt it was a better name for the benefits referred to.
4. 1955
Unemployment Insurance Act
Approximately 95 per cent of all claimants now draw less than 30 weeks' benefit. The new benefit formula will therefore take care of the great majority of persons who ordinarily work in insurable employment. At the same time it will provide much greater protection to those who do not have long and steady employment by lowering the maximum entitlement available, which has been made use of by only a small number of workers, and by increasing substantially the minimum amount of benefit available. The total effect of this change is to redistribute the amount of protection so that a greater proportion of it can actually be taken advantage of by insured workers who become unemployed.
The actuaries have estimated that, if these provisions had been in effect a year ago, the net result of lowering the maximum and increasing the minimum entitlement as now proposed would have been an increase in the number of benefit days available to claimants of approximately 4J million, or an increase of about 6 per cent. The changes as a whole will mean that fewer claimants will exhaust their benefit before finding work. In the past the majority of workers using up all their benefit rights were those whose entitlement was less than 15 weeks. The new act will in practice give greater protection to a greater number of workers and will tend to concentrate that benefit where it is most needed.
At this point I should like to say, however, that we were concerned as to the existing equity of those workers who are under the present plan in making the proposal that the duration of the maximum regular benefit be cut from 51 to 30 weeks. To take care of that matter we are here proposing the following. In view of the reduction of the maximum duration of regular benefit from 51 to 30 weeks, it is felt desirable to provide for a transitional period during which those who have accumulated credits under the present act might be eligible for more than the maximum of 30 weeks of regular benefits under the present proposal. Although the new act will provide better protection for the great majority of workers, we have felt it is important to ensure that no one loses any equity which a presently insured worker may have built up over the years under the present act prior to these amendments. This objective will be accomplished by providing for a transitional period of three years from the time the new act comes into force.
During these three years, all workers who exhaust the benefits available to them in their first benefit year under the new act
[Stage Direction]
Unemployment Insurance Act will have their contribution record reexamined to determine whether or not they might have received more benefits under the old act. In the great majority of cases they will already have exceeded the amount of benefit protection they would have received under the old act. However, if it is found that they would have received more protection under the old act they will then be given the additional benefit coming to them on the old basis. In this way no worker will lose any equity which he may have built up over the years, while the great majority will receive a much greater protection under the new arrangement.
The adoption of a weekly contribution basis rather than a daily one will make it easier for workers to build up contribution rights, particularly if they are forced to accept short-time employment. For example, if a person ordinarily working on a five-day week goes on short time of four days a week, under the daily stamp system he would receive four daily stamps for his week's work rather than one weekly stamp. That meant that, if the short-time condition lasted for three months, under the old daily plan he would be credited with 52 days or 8J weeks. Under the new weekly plan he will be credited with 13 weeks.
In order to requalify after a benefit period has terminated, a claimant will have to acquire additional credits by building up eight weeks of contributions in insurable employment since the commencement of his previous claim, and have at least 30 contribution weeks in the previous two years. Contribution weeks more than a year old at the time of a subsequent claim, if they have already been used on a previous claim, cannot be used a second time to qualify either for rate or duration.
With respect to benefits, we are proposing to increase the weekly benefit rates. The new maximum for a person with a dependent will be $30 per week in place of the present $24 per week, and for a single person it will be $23 per week instead of $17.10. The scale from there down is shown in the tables which I have filed. When the act first came into operation the scale of benefit rates was designed to preserve a certain relationship between the ordinary rate of earnings and the benefit payable. This relationship has been impaired as a result of the rise in wage rates and, as a large number of insured persons have moved into the top benefit class, the ratio of benefit to average earnings has dropped considerably. By a revision of the earnings classes it is intended to restore the proper relationship between benefit and ordinary earnings, so that this will not result

in over-insurance in the lower earnings ranges or in under-insurance in the upper earnings ranges. This is shown in the tables.
Another very important feature is the provision of what will now be known as seasonal benefits. These seasonal benefits will replace the supplementary benefits in the present act, and will incorporate substantially the changes recently made during this session. It is proposed that seasonal benefits be available to the same two classes of workers as at present, namely, those who exhaust their regular benefits after April 15 of any year, and those who do not have sufficient contributions to qualify for regular benefit but have made 15 weekly contributions subsequent to March 31 preceding their claim. Like the supplementary benefits, these seasonal benefits will be available from January 1 to April 15 of each year. They will provide the full rate of benefit for 15 weeks in the case of those who exhaust their benefit rights and for from 10, formerly 3, to 15, formerly 6, weeks in the case of those who have at least 15 but not 30 weeks of contributions.
The protection offered by these seasonal benefits is the same and in some instances better than that now available from supplementary benefits after the amendments made last January. The present method of paying benefit on a daily basis, under the act as it now stands, is involved and leads to a number of difficulties where holidays and short-time employment are concerned, particularly where some claimants are on a five-day week and others are on a six-day week. In addition, the provision that the first day of unemployment shall be non-compensable and also the provision with regard to earnings from subsidiary employment are misunderstood by claimants and, I might add, by a great many other people. To overcome this, the new plan proposes that the non-compensable day be eliminated and that claimants be allowed to earn a specified amount during a claim week without reducing their benefit. Earnings above this amount will be deducted from the benefit payable.
It will be immaterial whether the allowable earnings are from subsidiary employment carried on outside of the claimant's usual hours of work or from any other type of employment. This new provision will simplify the computation of benefit and will provide a greater measure of protection to workers who can find casual employment or who are working short time. It is not proposed to make any change in the effect of the waiting period, but a minor change is proposed. The waiting period at the beginning of a benefit year can now be deferred to
[Stage Direction]
a later date in order to prevent hardship when a new benefit year commences after a claimant has been unemployed for some time. It is now proposed that the waiting period in such cases be waived entirely, if this has not already been done within the preceding year.
A number of other amendments of a minor character and a general rearrangement and consolidation will be found in the bill. It will be complete in itself, incorporating all the required sections of the existing act whether amended or unamended. I shall ask that the bill be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations after second reading.
When the unemployment insurance advisory committee met on December 14 last to review the amendments regarding seasonal benefits, it was of course necessary for the committee to have before it the views regarding this general revision as they were then held. Later when plans had further crystallized to the point where they were nearly the same as the amendments now proposed, a further meeting of the advisory committee was held on February 15. In order to review these final recommendations, as reflected in the actual bill, the committee has called a further meeting for tomorrow, April 5.
I think it would be in order on this occasion for me, as the minister responsible for the time being to the government and to parliament for reporting on the operations of the unemployment insurance commission, to say a word or two about those who are responsible for the carrying out of the will of parliament in the administration of this legislation. The commission is a semi-autonomous federal government agency. It is proposed that its status in this regard shall remain unchanged. It is an agency with large, far-flung central, regional and local offices whose workers have a very intimate contact with the lives of fellow workers in private industry throughout the country. After the first of the year the unemployment insurance commission workers were called upon to superimpose the new seasonal benefits upon their administrative machinery. This was done without hitch or fuss and with no delay in service to their customers. Both employment and insurance workers in those offices have now just passed a peak work load that has had more stresses and strains this winter than at any time in the past.
Mistakes have been made and I know that complaints have been received by hon. members. Yet with all that a great deal of evidence has come to me this winter to indicate that our staff has been coping with the situation in most commendable fashion. Further,
4, 1955
Unemployment Insurance Act in spite of the pressures they have continued to apply the provisions and the benefits of the act with the whole accent constantly placed on the factor of human need. For that I wish to express appreciation this afternoon.
It will be apparent from what I have said, Mr. Chairman, that what the government is here proposing is not merely a series of amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is something much more fundamental than that. We are undertaking, in fact, the most far-reaching revisions of our unemployment insurance program that have been attempted in the decade and a half of its existence during the course of the seven times the legislation has been reviewed by the house.
The act since 1940 has served as the steady bulwark of protection in times of unemployment for an average of 3,500,000 Canadian workers and their families. During this time, it has proved a flexible and effective federal instrument of social security. This was the first of the comprehensive nation-wide social security measures which marked, in the postdepression years, the emergence of a new sense of social responsibility on the part of the Canadian people.
Born out of the suffering and the hardship of the great depression, the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1940 established a new dimension of social statesmanship to which all our subsequent social legislation-family allowances, the new veterans charter, old age security, the national health program, rehabilitation of civilian disabled, have faithfully conformed. It was the passage of the Unemployment Insurance Act which enabled my predecessor, who introduced it, and all his fellow countrymen, for the first time to speak of "a Canadian social security program".
The system which has developed from those first beginnings owes much to the pioneering spirit of those who brought in this enactment. In a very special sense it has been called a twentieth century bill of rights for the Canadian worker.
What we are doing today, in the new legislation which I have the honour to introduce, is adding a worthy addition to the steadily-growing structure of social security that we have been building in Canada. Approval of these proposals will go far to provide an answer to the problems of the large number of our workers who undergo short periods of unemployment such as has been experienced these past few winters.
I have every confidence that on the basis of this sound foundation, supplemented by whatever additional measures will be worked
[Stage Direction]
Unemployment Insurance Act out in the forthcoming co-operative discussions with the provinces, the Canadian wage earner will be able to look forward with confidence to a new era of incentive, security and opportunity better than anything that he has yet known.
I commend this resolution to the committee.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: It has been indicated that the hon. member for Fort William wishes to ask the minister a question.


Mr. Mclvor:: I was wondering if it would be possible for us to have this bill to take with us during the recess, as it is most important that we should have time to study it.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The bill is ready. What the hon. member suggests, of course, will depend upon the discussion taking place in the house.


Mrs. Fairclough:: Mr. Chairman, I must say I had not intended to go in any detail into the history of the Unemployment Insurance Act. However, inasmuch as the minister has made quite a point of tracing back the origin of the act of 1940, and inasmuch as at the close of his remarks today he has referred to this act as the first, to use his words, of the comprehensive nation-wide security measures-and there was much more in the same vein-I feel it would not be proper for us to proceed with the discussion of this measure without bearing in mind that it was on February 12, 1935, that the late R. B. Bennett, who was then prime minister of Canada, introduced to the House of Commons the first unemployment insurance scheme.


Mr. Croll:: Which the courts disallowed.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Which the courts disallowed, as the hon. member for Spadina has said, and quite rightly. And why? Because the Liberal government which followed the government of Mr. Bennett in that same year made it a point, as one of its first items of business, to throw that act to the courts, in the hope that it would be disallowed, instead of seeking the co-operation of the provinces.


Mr. Garson:: Is this an attack on the courts?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, this is an answer to some of the truck that has been thrown into the debates in the House of Commons for many years. Certainly since my entry to the house I have had to listen to it; and I am not going to listen to that sort of stuff any longer.
I suppose there is rarely a piece of legislation introduced that does not have some flaws in it. Granted that, at the time the legislation was brought down, it probably did

not have the support it should have had from the provinces, still it would have been a simple matter to have obtained that support, had the government so wished. But the government did not.


George Harris Hees: They did not wish it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: They did not wish it to have any support, and they made no effort to get the support of the provinces. And so, rather than implement a piece of legislation brought in by a Conservative government, the Liberal government of Mr. King sought to destroy that legislation and, indeed, succeeded in destroying it, although six years later, having delayed the protection which was due to the workers of this country for that period of time, the Liberal government then brought in what was basically the same legislation.
Now, in 15 years conditions change.


An hon. Member:: Under a Liberal government.


Mr. Fraser (Peterborough):: They change for the worse.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I might add they also changed after 1921. But memories are short. I remember back to 1921. I was one of those out of work in 1921, as I was in 1931.


Mr. Martin:: When the hon. member says that, she disillusions us.


George Harris Hees: She must have been only a kid.


Stanley Howard Knowles: She was a little girl then.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Anyone who comes to the House of Commons has no right to have any illusions.
As I was about to say, there have been many changes since this act came into force in 1940. Wage rates have doubled. Hours of work in some instances have been almost cut in half. Certainly several of the provinces have introduced legislation respecting maximum hours of work, and labour itself has negotiated for an even shorter work week than that dictated in much of the legislation on the provincial statute books.
All this has created an entirely different labour picture from that in effect in 1940. In 1940 and 1941, when this act began to operate, the economic conditions in the country were entirely different. As the minister said, when quoting Mr. McLarty, we were in the midst of war. It is to be expected that over the years coverage would be extended, and that there would be changes in the act. The official opposition has supported the government in respect of most of those changes, and has even made suggestions for what it considered to be a broadening of the provisions of the act.

In the meantime the fund has grown steadily. Within the last nine years it has more than trebled. In the thirteenth annual report of the commission I find that on March 31, 1945, the fund stood at $268 million. On March 31, 1954, one year ago, the amount in the fund was $881,225,000. The latest figures which are available, namely those of February 28, just a little over a month ago, show that the fund stands at $869 million, which is slightly below the amount at which it stood on March 31, a year ago. There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Chairman, that when the figures are available at the end of the current year they will show that the fund is lower than that because the calls which have been made upon it have been particularly heavy this year. However, in spite of this reduction it is a fact that the fund is still running in the neighbourhood of $900 million. This in itself is a sign that the plans which were laid and the alterations which have been made in the act over the years have in no way injured the fund, and we now ask ourselves whether it is too large.
After what we have been through this year,
I do not think many of us would want to see it depleted, but we certainly do not think it was ever contemplated that the fund would reach unwieldy proportions. In each instance, when the minister has brought suggestions to the house for alterations in contributions-I recall when the supplementary benefits were put into effect and when the one cent a day increase was brought in-we all thought that the supplementary benefits would eat up the additional contribution, and probably the payment of the supplementary benefits would deplete the fund in spite of the additional contributions made to it. That did not prove to be the case, and time went on. As I said, we now have a fund of approximately $900 million. This brings up the problem of just where we are going and whether the workers of this country have the coverage to which they are entitled. There are still several classes of workers who are not covered, and some of those classes have repeatedly asked for coverage. I am not going to try to deal with them all. I should like to mention one in particular, namely, the coverage to be afforded to fishermen.
In January of this year, when the former amendments to the act were under consideration, to which the minister referred, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich made a plea for fishermen and men who are connected with the fishing industry. He referred to tradesmen who were employed by fishing companies and who were in employment which is deemed insurable. I think I could do
4, 1955
Unemployment Insurance Act no better than to read this short description which he gave, when he said, as reported at page 77 of Hansard:
There are certain companies which are engaged in the fishing industry and which employ a large number ol men who are not actual fishermen in that they are not employed in the catching of fish but they are connected with the lifting of fish from various fish traps which are established legally in the strait of Juan de Fuca. I refer particularly to men who are employed in such companies as the Sooke Harbour Fishing and Packing Company as pile drivers, and men who are employed in the repair of the leads which guide the fish into their traps. These men are not fishermen in the ordinary sense of the word. They do not go out in boats to catch fish. They are employed in the fishing industry, but they are very definitely tradesmen of another classification.
The hon. member was speaking of fishermen in general and of tradesmen employed in the fishing industry as well. I would think, Mr. Chairman, that no one who knows anything about the problem of fishermen being considered eligible for unemployment insurance will minimize the complications which are involved in finding a basis, under the act as it now stands, by which assessments to the equivalent of the contributions of wage earners and employers could be collected from fishermen. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, as I quoted, described some of the anomalies that exist on the west coast. It is also a fact that the west coast fishing is very well organized. There should be no difficulty, I would think, in producing a formula for coverage of employees in that industry. Likewise, in Ontario, fishermen have become well organized in associations and co-operative marketing and I would think that they could quickly rally to any realistic requirement that would enable them to contribute and benefit from the unemployment insurance fund. Everyone knows of the large and successful Quebec united fishermen's co-operative, which could readily bring about the means of enabling fishermen and the buyers of the products of their labour to contribute to the unemployment insurance fund so that the fishermen could reap the benefits therefrom. I do not think there is any doubt that the organized fisheries industry, the strong co-operatives and the private corporations which exist in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick could quickly agree to meet the requirements of regulations designed to enable the fishermen to gain the benefits of unemployment insurance. Nova Scotia has never been backward in reaching out and claiming just deserts for her sons, and I am sure that the industry in that province likewise could be quickly organized to participate in this scheme.
The production of the labour of by far the majority of the fishermen in Newfoundland, I understand, is marketed under the administrative direction of the federal government

Unemployment Insurance Act fisheries board, and it has contracts with an exporting organization of dry salted fish known as the Newfoundland Associated Fish Exporters Limited, better known to us as NAFEL. Between this federal government board and the exporting agency, I would think that the administration machinery is available through which to implement an assessment on the product of the labours of fishermen in that province as a means of admitting them to eligibility under the unemployment insurance scheme.
With respect to Newfoundland in particular, Mr. Chairman, I think a great many promises were made during the election campaign of 1953, which I hope the minister is now prepared to fulfil within the framework of the revised Unemployment Insurance Act. It is advisable that the coverage for unemployment insurance should be as wide as possible, and should embrace as many categories of workers as possible. I am not without some knowledge of the difficulties that appear in certain classifications, and I realize that some of our workers might never find it possible to participate in this scheme. But on the other hand there are some, such as those I have just mentioned, who, with a little ingenuity on the part of the government, could be included in both the contributions to and benefits from unemployment insurance.
The labour force, as reported on February 19, was 5,391,000. According to the report of the unemployment insurance commission, to which I referred a few minutes ago dated March 31, 1954, the coverage of paid workers was 61-6 per cent. Surely, Mr. Chairman, in a country as broad as Canada, which the labour department and the unemployment insurance commission have reputedly so well organized, a larger percentage of the labour force could be included, now that the foundation has been laid, now that 15 years have gone by and various amendments have been made to the act from time to time.
I call upon the minister when he is discussing this bill with the advisory committee, which I think he said would be tomorrow, to discuss this phase also because it would seem to me that in the time which has elapsed since the last survey was made, of the fishing industry for instance, some four years ago, the advisory committee must have more information available.
Then with reference to the amendments to the act in general: In January when this was first mentioned in the speech from the throne a number of articles appeared in the newspapers, I think mostly Canadian Press dispatches, which sought to guess at the type of amendment which would be forthcoming. The main guess at that time was that the
[Mrs. Fairclough.l

recording of contributions by stamps in books of employees would be discontinued and a method substituted of a 1 per cent deduction matched by the employer, the employer to remit these funds monthly to the unemployment insurance commission.
But as time went on we heard no more about that. Now the minister is bringing down his bill and has made his announcement with reference to the changes. I noticed that two or three days ago the newspapers had pretty much the same material which the minister gave to us today and it became apparent that rather than have a 1 per cent levy the stamp system would be retained although in a more easily handled way. I must say that now that this report has been corroborated by the minister it is apparent from some of the changes he has mentioned that they will undoubtedly smooth out some of the administrative difficulties, not only from the point of view of the department but at the employer level as well.
There is no doubt that the perforated stamp system in use was a complicated method of recording the days worked and frequently resulted in the elimination from the benefits, or the disqualification from benefits, of employees who had worked as much as 175 of the 180 days within the required period of eligibility. Some of these people found that rather hard to take.
As I understand the new scheme, there will be a weekly stamp and a requirement of 30 weeks of contributions rather than 180 days. It will be possible for an employee to benefit if he has had any work at all in the 30 weeks regardless of whether it is one day or five days. I think that that is all to the good.
Some of the other amendments which are suggested, I take it, will reduce the rate of contribution for those in the lower wage brackets and provide benefits at a higher rate for those workers in the higher wage brackets. All of which is likewise to the good.
Whether the average which has been struck by the department will prove to be sufficiently high remains to be seen. I realize the difficulties under which the department must labour in trying to strike a balance which will provide sufficient benefits for the employee without making work completely unattractive to those who consider that receiving benefits is better than working. I think that those are definitely in the minority, that most of the workers in this country would prefer to work at their regular jobs no matter what the benefits were.
There are some things about the references which have been made that concern me. I am very much concerned about the reason

for the curtailment in the number of benefit days whereby the maximum is reduced from 51 weeks to 30 weeks. I realize that the minister has said that during the transition period care will be taken to see that a worker who has built up a reserve will not suffer. However, this is going to go on for some time and the day will come when people who are retired either voluntarily or compulsorily will find that they cannot claim the benefits which they have built up over many years of working.
Certain it is that many people in industry today are compelled to give up their jobs to younger workers at as early an age as 60 years, with 65 years being the popular age. We talk about the benefits which have been made available to workers and we do a lot of bragging about our old age security scheme and our old age security program which are in effect in Canada, but it seems to me that there is a wide gap between the age at which a man may be forced to retire and the age at which old age security payments would become available to him. In those intervening years one thing which has helped the average worker in forced retirement has been these 51 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits.
It is all very well to assume that these benefits are not in effect insurance benefits but are a sort of pension for these workers who have been retired, but I maintain that regardless of the reason for the severance from employment, a man who has contributed for many years to unemployment insurance is entitled to the full benefits. The fact that his severance from employment is due to an industrial ruling which throws out of work all people over a certain age in a given plant should not mean that he will not receive the benefit of the contributions which he has made over the years.
This thing will hit those very people who have been the backbone of the unemployment insurance scheme, that is those people with steady jobs who work along day after day, week after week and year after year without any hope of benefiting because they never expect to be unemployed. True enough, their first unemployment is when they are forced to retire. Many of these people are capable of taking employment. They go to the unemployment insurance office and register for employment but there is none available because of their age.
It would appear that in these amendments it is proposed to cut down their benefits from the 51 weeks which were available to them previously to 30 weeks. If I am to understand that, from what I heard the minister say and from what I have read in the newspapers, then we will oppose it because it is
4, 1955
Unemployment Insurance Act not proper that these people should be refused benefits at the very time when they need the benefits to which they have contributed for many years.
I should now like to say a few words with respect to allowable earnings. I was interested in the minister's remarks. I hope that in the regulations governing this amendment the worker will be permitted to glean his allowable earnings from whatever source he pleases. That was the construction that I put upon the remarks made by the minister. It has certainly been the case heretofore that if the worker had employment which paid him $2 a day he forfeited $4 of unemployment insurance benefits which is little enough incentive to work.
I know of one man who obtained night employment which paid him $16 a week and because of that he lost his unemployment insurance benefits of $24 a week. The only solution was for him to work for less money. Eventually he decided to retain the same job but suggested to his employer that instead of being paid $16 a week he should be paid $10 and this was done. By reason of having the earnings derived from his subsidiary employment reduced to less than two-thirds of their value he was able to retain his unemployment insurance benefits. The alternative course would have been for him to stay at home, not work at all and collect the $24 on which he could not live anyway.
One of the outcomes of this system was demonstrated in Hamilton last week. We had a snowstorm-not as severe a storm as we had in Ottawa, but quite a heavy snowstorm-and it was impossible to obtain the men who were needed for snow shovelling because if they took this type of work, which they knew would last only for a few days, their position with regard to unemployment insurance benefits would be jeopardized. It is a foolish law which inflicts conditions like that upon men who are otherwise willing to work. I do not think it should be necessary for a worker to be confined to subsidiary employment. If he can obtain a little employment in his regular field I think he should be permitted to take it. I hope that the minister has borne that in mind when bringing in the amendments and that provision for this will be made in the revised act.
We had something to say earlier this session, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the terminal date for payment of supplementary benefits. The minister has now made some remarks which would indicate that the term "supplementary benefits" is to be removed from the act and that we will still have
2668	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act the supplementary benefits but under a different name; a case of a rose by any other name, I suppose.
I should like to speak for a moment about the need for extending not the benefits themselves but the period of the payment of those benefits. April 15 is practically upon us now and while the sun has been shining for a few days and the snow is melting, the type of work which is available to many of these men has not yet opened up. We had the same situation last year; it is not a new situation. It would seem to me that rather than placing in the act a specific terminal date there should be some flexibility to the termination of the supplementary benefits, or by whatever name you may call them.
In certain parts of Ontario where the weather does not open up as quickly as it does in southern Ontario it might be necessary to extend the supplementary benefits even to the 1st of June, but whenever conditions demand it I believe there should be sufficient provision under the act for taking care of these people, even if it has to be done by regions. It might be that rules would have to be laid down according to the weather which is encountered in the various parts of Canada.
A few days ago an hon. member of this house asked the minister if any consideration had been given to the extension of the date for this year and his reply, as I remember it, was that the government had not yet decided. There are many problems which need to be solved and which are brought up by speakers in this house in various debates from time to time. There is the problem of the young people who enter the labour force and are unable to secure work; or, if they secure work, who work for a short time and then are unemployed and have insufficient contributions to qualify for unemployment insurance. I know the minister has made reference to that in his remarks and has said that the new regulations which he proposes to bring in will help cure that situation. Whether or not the new regulations will be broad enough to take care of this situation remains to be seen and it will be interesting to see precisely what he has in mind. There is also the matter of immigrants who come to this country, who work for a while and are then thrown out of employment before they have made sufficient contributions to qualify for benefits. I am sure the minister is aware that it has been a matter of contention in various parts of the country as to who is responsible for these people and whether they should be looked after by the unemployment insurance 

commission or whether they should be a charge on the department of immigration. If the minister is not aware of the fact, I think he would be interested in knowing that there are several different opinions on that score. In some centres the immigration department takes charge of these people quite gladly and in others they wash their hands of them and say they can do nothing for them. Whether this means that the two departments should get together and formulate a policy concerning these specific workers as a matter for government consideration I do not know, but I commend it to the minister for his consideration.
There are those workers, Mr. Chairman, who are taken ill or who suffer disability between the time of their severance from employment and the date on which they apply for benefits. This too creates an anomaly since the worker who is taken ill subsequent to receipt of the benefits has been taken care of now for a couple of years or so.
I had one case not long ago when a man called me up and said that he had been laid off on a Friday night for an interminable period, or so he was led to believe. On Saturday, of course, the unemployment insurance offices were closed, and Monday was a statutory holiday. On Monday he took his family out and succeeded in injuring himself; he broke his arm. Therefore he was declared ineligible for benefits by the unemployment insurance commission. Well, it is quite possible that these things happen particularly on a long week end. The papers are full of stories about the number of accidents which occur during the course of a long week end. However, if some of these unfortunate people are in the position of having been laid off on the previous Friday then they are automatically disqualified for benefits. This is another matter which I think the minister has had under consideration and is rectifying in the current bill.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I know that the minister would be very disappointed if I did not mention once again in my remarks on any unemployment insurance measure the matter of regulation 5A (1). I could not let this opportunity go by without assuring the minister and the house that whenever there is a debate at any time on unemployment insurance you will hear about it until it has been removed. This clause was not put into effect until 1950 and it affects only married women. I have followed the questions which have been asked because they are published in some of the trade magazines. It is amazing how frequently there is a question asked with reference to the

circumstances under which a married woman can qualify for unemployment insurance. I picked this one out because it is typical. The question which was asked, and which I understand is answered by some official of the department, is this:
Why am I disqualified for not having 60 contributions since marriage when I worked six months after I was married?
The answer was:
The regulation says that you must have 60 contributions since your marriage if you were unemployed at the time you were married. On the other hand, if you continued to work after you were married, you must have 60 contributions after your first separation from employment following your marriage.
Of course, I suppose the answer to that is that anyone contemplating marriage should just quit her job and say, "I am now unemployed", and then immediately after marriage go back to work; in two months of work after having resumed her position she could qualify. I suppose these people never thought of that. I throw it out to them as a suggestion.
I would not feel so strongly about this particular regulation if it were not for the fact that it is the only one of which I know which is definitely discriminatory against one class of worker. The minister knows as well as I do of various classes of workers who at times make a run on the unemployment insurance fund. They find out that they can have a couple of weeks of holidays. If they handle it discreetly it will be made to appear that they have been laid off for lack of work. Then having received their benefits, after a while when they have had a little holiday, they can go back to their employment again.
That is something that has happened not once but several times. I am sure the minister is perfectly well aware of the classes of employment in which it occurs. Yet this one group of workers is the only one which is mentioned in the regulations, to my knowledge, or which has a definite regulation governing the matter of availability for employment. I urge the minister once more to have it removed. I think it is ridiculous. I do not know why it was ever put in there in the first place except that, having had some instances of married women claiming unemployment insurance where probably it was thought they had no intention of rejoining the labour force, it was felt that this regulation would stop the practice to which I have referred. I might say that I have much the same sort of feeling with reference to the proposed amendment to the act of which I spoke a few moments ago with reference to those people who are retiring from industrial
4, 1955
Unemployment Insurance Act work through no fault of their own. If that is the case, I intend to oppose that amendment as well. I ask the minister now, when he is making amendments to the act, to see that this regulation 5A (1) is taken out of the regulations.
While we talk about unemployment insurance and while we try to build up the fund to take care of emergencies which arise in the industrial life of this country, it seems to me that we cannot allow to pass the opportunity to examine slightly the causes of unemployment. I have no intention of taking up the time of the committee by going fully into this matter in which I am keenly interested but I want to say just this.
We hear quite a bit of talk about proposals which are being put forward more and more by union members for what is called a guaranteed annual wage, guaranteed employment and various other names. I would suggest that there is hardly an industrialist in this country who would not be delighted to have his plant work 52 weeks of the year and to have all his employees employed 52 weeks in the year. In my estimation, industry is ready and willing to co-operate in the matter of year-round work, but the situation is not entirely in their hands. I ask the committee to consider for a moment this situation. If one industrialist attempts to spread employment he places himself economically in a position where he is unable to compete with his rivals in the same line of business. He may say, "I can cure this matter; I can call in my competitors and we can agree that we will take a certain line of action which, true enough, may raise our costs a little bit but it will give to these people employment for a full period each year." Then what happens to him?
He calls in his competitors. They confer together. They are willing to adopt the same system that he is willing to adopt in order to give steady employment. Then the Minister of Justice steps in and says, "You cannot do this. You have connived together to raise the price of your product and therefore you are guilty under the Combines Investigation Act". So he is left right back where he started, except that he may have had a nice fat fine slapped on him also.
Clearly, Mr. Chairman, it is a problem in co-operative action between industry and government. Surely we can give to industry some of the benefit of the doubt that they take this action with good intent and for a purpose of supplying work for their employees. Surely the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Justice and any othei members of the cabinet who may be interested can get together and try to find
2670	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act some way of solving this employment problem. I submit to this committee, Mr. Chairman, that it is a problem which can be solved. Before this bill has been approved by the house I trust that all these things I have mentioned and many others will have had full and proper consideration not only by the standing committee on industrial relations but also by every member of the House of Commons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, to the extent that the bill forecast by this resolution makes provision for some real improvements in the Unemployment Insurance Act, we welcome it. We also welcome the fact that it is the intention to refer the bill, after it has had second reading, to the standing committee on industrial relations so that it can be thoroughly examined by the members of that committee. The committee has the power to send for persons, papers and records and I am sure that it will exercise that authority.
In thinking of what I would say, Mr. Chairman, I have decided to pattern my remarks after those of the minister, in this sense. As I see it, he dealt with the subject under three headings. In other words, like Gaul, his speech was divided into three parts. The hon. member for Hamilton West seemed to feel that all the gall was in the third part. In the first part of his speech the minister gave us something of the history of the enactment of this legislation in 1940. In the second part of his speech he outlined the changes being proposed in the bill to be based on this resolution. In the third part of his speech he asked us to see this resolution in the context of a reputed over-all Liberal social security program. It was there that the hon. member for Hamilton West felt that the gall came into the third part of the speech. However,
I shall have something to say about that matter when I reach that portion of my own remarks.
The minister started off by saying he had found it extremely interesting to go through the debates of 1940. It so happens I spent the week end doing the same thing. I found it interesting to read the debates not only on the resolution and the bill respecting unemployment insurance itself but also on the motion for an address to Westminster for an amendment to the British North America Act to make unemployment insurance possible. I found in the course of my reading that Mr. King had strongly recommended to members of the house that they peruse sessional paper No. 152, tabled on June 25, 1940, which contains the correspondence between the federal government and the provincial premiers leading up to the
[Mrs. Fairclough.l

general agreement that the British North America Act might be amended so as to write unemployment insurance into the British North America Act as class 2A of section 91.
What interested me particularly as I read the debates of 1940 was that there seemed to be more attention paid to the constitutional aspect of the matter, more attention paid to the question as to whose was the responsibility for unemployment insurance, than there was to the actual details of the bill itself. The hon. member for Hamilton West has drawn attention to the fact that the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1940 was not the first one presented to parliament but rather that there had been one introduced in 1935 by Mr. Bennett which had been referred by the succeeding Liberal government to the Supreme Court of Canada and then to the judicial committee of the privy council. Incidentally-


Donald Methuen Fleming: They did not try to uphold it either.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Incidentally-


Paul Joseph James Martin: You know they could not possibly.


Donald Methuen Fleming: They did not try. The King government did not make any effort.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Incidentally, for the third time-


George Harris Hees: Dirty Liberals.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -since the hon. member for Hamilton West has suggested that the history of this act should go back beyond 1940 I suggest it should go back considerably beyond 1935. As a matter of fact it was during and after world war I that the trade union movement of this country first began to advocate and call for the enactment of unemployment insurance. I suppose it was not unnatural, in view of the popularity which the labour people of the country were giving to this idea in those years, that the Liberal party at its famous 1919 convention included in its platform a plank calling for unemployment insurance. Of course the fact that it was written into the platform in 1919 did not mean it was to be brought into effect overnight, any more than the health insurance which is talked about by my hon. friend across the way, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but at least unemployment insurance was achieved in 21 years.
In the meantime, as hon. members will recall, the matter was discussed in the House of Commons a great deal, frequently on the initiative of my predecessor, as the member for Winnipeg North Centre, the late J. S. Woodsworth. Hon. members will recall the

very famous exchange of letters in the year 1926 that had to do with old age pensions. At least, hon. members will remember mainly the old age pension part of that correspondence between Mr. Woodsworth and Mr. Heaps on the one hand and Mr. King and the other party leaders on the other. I remind hon. members that old age pensions were only one subject of that famous letter and of Mr. King's reply. Concern for the unemployed was the other subject. Likewise, in 1928, and very largely because of the pressure exerted in parliament by Mr. Woodsworth and others associated with him, the select committee on industrial and international relations was given this instruction: That in the opinion of this house, the committee on industrial and international relations be authorized to investigate and report on insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity.
That committee made a report approving in principle of unemployment insurance but drawing attention to certain constitutional difficulties. The matter came up again in 1929. That would be ten years after it was written into the Liberal platform in 1919. Mr. King still stalled on the ground that there seemed to be some problem of a constitutional nature. Hon. members are aware of what happened from then on. Mr. King did nothing while he was in power up until 1930, but in 1933, while in opposition, he pledged that if the Liberal party came back into power after the next election they would take the necessary steps and conduct the necessary negotiations with the provinces to bring about a nation-wide scheme of unemployment insurance. Then there followed Mr. Bennett's legislation of 1935 which, as has already been said, was referred to the courts in 1936 and declared ultra vires both by the Supreme Court of Canada and by the judicial committee of the privy council.
In 1940 the act which is now on the statute books was brought in. Before it was brought in there was a resolution, which was debated in the house on June 25, 1940, calling for an address to Westminster so that the British North America Act might be amended. As I say, that debate was extremely interesting and some of the arguments advanced during its course carried over into the debate on the unemployment insurance legislation itself. I found particularly interesting the position taken by Mr. King, by Mr. McLarty, who was then the minister of labour, and by Mr. Lapointe, who was then the minister of justice. All three of these late gentlemen figured very prominently in these debates.
They made the contention very strongly that what they were seeking was not just a clarification of a somewhat ambiguous position. They did not go for the idea that there
4, 1955
Unemployment Insurance Act was any uncertainty, that maybe unemployment was a provincial matter, maybe it was a federal matter, maybe it was half and half. No, they took the position that as from 1867, as from the adoption of the British North America Act, unemployment had clearly been a provincial matter. They did not argue with that at all but they took the position, and Mr. King said this particularly on second reading of the bill, that Canada had moved a long way since 1867 and that in 1940 the time had come to make a clear-cut and definitive change. The time had come to say that industrial and economic conditions were such that we had to transfer concern over unemployment and responsibility for dealing with it from the provinces to the federal parliament.
Mr. King insisted that the federal parliament had the right to request Westminster to change the British North America Act without getting the consent of all the provinces, but at the same time he said, "This matter is so important I think we should get that consent." One of the reasons he gave for the considerable delay in connection with the matter was that it took time to get the consent of all the then nine provincial governments of Canada. He made a great deal out of that in the debate both on the resolution respecting the amendment to the constitution and in the debate on the legislation itself. Through all of this runs the theme that parliament was being asked to make a specific change, to transfer to the field of federal authority what had clearly been a provincial responsibility under the British North America Act from 1867 down to 1940. Without getting into the argument that went on here a while ago between my Conservative friends to the right and the Liberals across the way, I think even my friends to the right would agree it is a good idea that the British North America Act was amended and that it is now clear beyond any doubt that the responsibility for insuring against unemployment is a federal matter.
One of the points Mr. Lapointe made in the debate on the resolution addressed to Westminster was that no unemployment insurance act, no matter how well drafted, could be perfect for all time, and that amendments would have to be made as time went on. So he insisted that if any attempt were made to establish unemployment insurance on the basis of consent as between the provinces on the one hand and the federal government on the other, or if any attempt were made to establish such legislation on a concurrent basis, then certainly difficulties would be encountered just as soon as any amendments had to be made to the legislation. He indicated
2672	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act it was not enough just to get concurrence; you would have to hold that concurrence through future years. Therefore it was imperative that the matter be transferred once and for all to the federal authority.
I take no exception to the position taken by Mr. Lapointe, by Mr. King and Mr. Mc-Larty in that debate, but I think the government should recognize what flows from the decision made at that time. All the provinces agreed. In due course the resolution passed this House of Commons and the other place unanimously. I think some reference was made in the debate later on to the fact that it took only 19 minutes for Westminster to agree to the requested amendment to the British North America Act. In other words it was agreed all round that unemployment insurance is clearly and exclusively a federal matter. I submit it flows from that that the federal authority is the one that has the responsibility to insure against unemployment, not only by means of a particular statute that might be called the Unemployment Insurance Act but by whatever means are necessary to see to it that unemployment is minimized, or that the suffering which flows from unemployment is mitigated so far as those who are unemployed are concerned.
So I submit that what Mr. King said in the debate on this matter in 1940 is even truer today. He said in 1940 that we had come a long way since 1867 in the economic and industrial conditions of this nation, and that we had to make a change. Well, the change was made. And we have come a long way since 1940, Mr. Chairman. We used to hear the words "technological improvement" and "technological advances". Those words have now been replaced more or less by the new word "automation". To some extent it may be the same thing, but at a much higher speed. It may be that the difference is so great that it is one of kind rather than of degree.
In any event I suggest that in 1955 the problem of unemployment has become as much greater than it was in 1940 than that of 1940 was greater than the problem of 1867. There is no constitutional argument any more. The Liberals made sure of that. They said they had to be sure of it, and that there had to be no argument about it in future. It is all there, particularly in the words of Mr. Lapointe and Mr. King on June 25, 1940. All right, they have the authority; they have the responsibility. I am talking about the federal government, these same Liberals who sit across the way today. And I submit there flows from what was done in 1940 that this 

federal government now has complete responsibility for the problems that arise from unemployment.
We are glad to have a bill like this brought in at the present time, containing the improvements indicated by the Minister of Labour. But I suggest that under that heading of unemployment insurance, which I prefer to put in its other form as insurance against unemployment, the federal government has a responsibility which calls for far more than is presented to us in the legislation laid before us today.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure my hon. friend will agree that that may or may not be the case. We will not argue that at the moment. But there is no question that the amendment obtained in 1940 was to enable the federal government to pass a measure which would permit it to require contributions from various groups for the purpose of bringing into being the Unemployment Insurance Act. And that was all that measure did. The question my hon. friend is now arguing is apart from the point altogether, although admittedly it is a very important question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There goes the orderly
arrangement of my speech, in the three parts I suggested when I started. I shall have to change it around because of that interruption by the minister, but I don't mind. I was saving this for later on in my remarks. However, the interjection by the Minister of National Health and Welfare prompts me to turn to Hansard of July 19, 1940, to read some things he said that day when he was just an ordinary private member, sitting as the hon. member for Essex East.


John Horace Dickey: Nothing "ordinary".


Stanley Howard Knowles: I agree. He was an extraordinary private member.


George Harris Hees: They used to call him the Essex flash.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Incidentally, since I have referred to the hon. member who is now Minister of National Health and Welfare, and since what he had to say on that occasion had to do with unemployment insurance-and that is the subject now before us-perhaps I should go into two or three of the points he made. He of course supported the legislation, and claimed some paternity for it. That is not unlike the minister today. But he also was quite upset about the remarks of the then leader of the opposition, the late Mr. Hanson, to the effect that the plan did not look to him to be actuarially sound. The Minister of Labour quoted today from Mr. Hanson's remarks. I was wishing he would go on and

quote what the then member for Essex East had to say in reply to Mr. Hanson on that point.


Paul Joseph James Martin: One great man at a time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I pause for a moment to make sure the Hansard reporter heard that. I turn to page 1777 of Hansard of July 9, 1940, where the then member for Essex East had this to say:
No unemployment insurance scheme in any part of the world has yet been able to operate without calling from time to time upon the national exchequer for further assistance, and for us to assume today that there will in the course of time be no further demands upon the treasury is, I think, not to face realities.


Murdo William Martin: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And he went on to say:
If by "actuarially sound" is meant that we shall seek to establish a measure which will be actuarially sound in the sense that life insurance is, that is impossible in unemployment insurance because the nature of the risk in life insurance is altogether different from the nature of the risk in unemployment insurance. While it is laudable to try to make unemployment insurance actuarially sound, we must not be unmindful of the fact that it is impossible really to make it actuarially sound.
In other words the then member for Essex East-and I commend him for it-was more concerned about getting this legislation through and getting coverage against unemployment than he was in its actuarial soundness. So far as he was concerned the treasury was still there to dip into, if necessary, to make sure this coverage would be provided.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He is the big dipper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall quote this statement to him again one of these days, when we are trying to get him to bring in health insurance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will you help me if I do?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Help you? We are pushing you. The quotation to which I am now going to refer relates particularly to what the minister said a moment ago as to whether or not I had the right to contend that insurance against unemployment called for something more than just a specific unemployment insurance bill. This was in the debate on the resolution preceding the unemployment insurance bill itself, when the then extraordinary member for Essex East had this to say:
... unemployment insurance in itself is not sufficient-*
I am waiting for the minister to say "Hear, hear".


Paul Joseph James Martin: No one in his good senses would disagree with that statement.
Unemployment Insurance Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Fine.
I continue:
-unemployment insurance in itself is not sufficient to meet the needs presented by a situation of that sort and must be related to the question of unemployment relief, to the question of the rehabilitation of labour-


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says that is
right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said that no one in his
good senses takes issue with my hon. friend.


Mr. Nowlan:: The minister is not sure
what is coming next.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I continue:
-and to such questions as national health insurance and the like.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Therefore, Mr. Chairman,
my authority for suggesting that insurance against unemployment as a federal responsibility calls for more than just an unemployment insurance act at this point is none other than the then extraordinary member for Essex East, the present Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You could not go to a better authority, I guess.


George Clyde Nowlan: A shrinking violet.


Harold Edward Winch: We now pause for station
identification.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not know what the
minister will say when I tell him I am now going to turn to another authority in the person of the late Mr. Mackenzie King.


Paul Joseph James Martin: There are hierarchies, you
know.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. King, in debating this
matter, said at nage 1116 of Hansard of June 25, 1940:
I might perhaps be permitted to say a word or two concerning the attitude of the Liberal party towards unemployment insurance. In so doing I should like to go as far back as the time when I had the honour of being chosen the leader of my party. I refer to the national Liberal convention which was held in 1919. At that convention a resolution was passed endorsing social legislation as part of the Liberal policy.


Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury):: That was only a chart.
Mr. Mackenzie King picked up that retort and then finally got down to the point where he said:
The resolution passed in 1919 was expressed in the following words:
"In so far as it may be practicable, having regard to Canada's financial position, an adequate system of insurance against unemployment, sickness,-

Unemployment Insurance Act
I am glad to see the Minister of National Health and Welfare nodding his head. I continue:
-dependence, old age, and other disability should be instituted by the federal government in conjunction with the governments of the several provinces."
Mr. King went on to say:
When the Liberal administration came into office in 1921 we indicated our hope that while we were in office we might soon be in a position to enact some measure of social insurance.


George Clyde Nowlan: Hope deferred maketh the
heart sick.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was Mr. King. He
said in 1940, when the house was dealing with unemployment insurance, that this was part of the Liberal government's chart for an over-all social insurance program. Perhaps I should read one more sentence from the late and great Mr. King.
It took time to gain that end.
Some others who took part in that debate are still with us. I refer in particular to my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, and my colleague the present member for Vancouver-Kingsway, or for Vancouver East as he was then. They had contended that at a time when parliament was asking Westminster to amend the British North America Act to include the authority for unemployment insurance, parliament should go further and ask for authority for social insurance. Mr. King felt he had to make some reply to what my leader and my colleague said, and this was it. At page 1118 of Hansard of June 25, 1940, he had this to say:
As the correspondence will show, one of the circumstances which enabled us to get the approval of all the provinces was the fact that we were asking for only one amendment, specifically related to unemployment insurance. I imagine the provinces have felt that they would like to wait and see just how that amendment works out before they give their consent to amendments of wider scope.
There is a typical Liberal approach. In 1919 you lay down an over-all program for old age pensions, for unemployment insurance, for sickness insurance and all those other social benefits. You bring it in step by step, very slowly. In 1940 you face the fact that to go any further you need an amendment to the British North America Act; but no, you do not ask for an adequate amendment to cover the whole field, you just ask for one point and leave it to the provinces to tell you later on whether they are satisfied. Well, we have had 15 years since that time, and still no suggestion comes from the other side that if it is necessary to obtain another amendment to the constitution to make possible a nation-wide program of

health insurance, that anything along that line is being done, despite the fact that the present Minister of National Health and Welfare himself said in July of 1940 that unemployment insurance is not enough, but that we must have other measures including health insurance.
Perhaps in what I have said, Mr. Chairman-and I thank or blame the Minister of National Health and Welfare if this speech is not set in the three water-tight compartments that I intended it should be at the start-I have been dealing with history and the gall of the Minister of Labour all mixed up together. But I think the history of this matter is interesting, and I would hope that hon. members might be prompted to read some of the history behind this legislation; for it does make it crystal clear that what this Liberal government wanted was a clearly defined, unanswerable, unassailable authority for unemployment insurance. I submit that if this government has taken that authority by getting an amendment to the British North America Act, there goes with that authority the federal responsibility to deal with the whole problem of unemployment, including full responsibility for the employable unemployed, whether covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act or not.
Incidentally, one of the arguments put to the provinces when they were asked to agree to the amendment to the British North America Act was that it would save them money in terms of unemployment relief. Here, for example, is a paragraph from Mr. King's letter to Hon. Adelard Godbout, premier of Quebec, written on January 16, 1940. This is contained in sessional paper No. 152, tabled on Tuesday, June 25, 1940. Mr. King said this:
In asking for the view of the Quebec government, at your early convenience, I should perhaps add that the establishment of a national scheme of unemployment insurance should, it is anticipated,-
No one can doubt that this is Mr. King's language. I continue:
-have the effect, once the scheme is in full operation, of reducing substantially the financial burden which now falls on the provinces for the provision of unemployment relief.
Mr. King made that point in every letter which he wrote to an industrial province. I point out-to his credit-that the letters he sent to the various premiers were not carbon copies of the same letter, but they were written in the light of the circumstances in each of the provinces. Well, that was part of the bargain; that was part of the arrangement that was made with the provinces in 1940. The federal government said, "You give us this authority and we shall be lifting the load from the provinces so far as unemployment is concerned".

I might point out, Mr. Chairman, that in effect what has happened is that the federal government has taken over the responsibility for the easier part of the unemployment problem, that part that can be insured against, the part that can be covered by contributions, but the federal government left with the provinces the residual part of the problem, the hard core. I submit that is most unfair, and that it is not in keeping with the spirit of what was done in 1940 when the federal government insisted upon and got for the parliament of Canada full control over unemployment insurance or as I put it, and I think justifiably, insuring against unemployment. I submit that as this problem becomes greater in these days of automation we have to have a great deal more than is contained either in the legislation we have had thus far or in the proposals brought forward today by the minister.
Some of the possible angles of approach have been indicated already by the hon. member for Hamilton West, although she did not align herself too closely with one I have in mind, namely the guaranteed annual wage. The guaranteed annual wage has to come; and while it is a debatable point whether it should be enmeshed with the Unemployment Insurance Act or provided in some other way, it has to come just as surely as night follows day.
I know there are those who will reply that you cannot do that without encouraging people to look for the day when they can receive an income without working, but let me read to the minister some words that he uttered on a certain occasion. I have in my hand a booklet entitled "Employer-Employee Relations Conference, eighty-first annual general meeting Canadian Manufacturers Association, Royal York hotel, Toronto, May 28th, 29th and 30th, 1952." One of the guest speakers on that occasion was the Minister of Labour. The minister made quite a speech, and on page 5 of this printed report he was dealing with the problem of seasonal unemployment. He was pointing out to the manufacturers association that it would be in their interests as well as in the interests of everyone else if seasonal unemployment could be minimized. He had this to say:
There are also business costs involved which could be avoided through a greater degree of employment stability. In many firms when operations are seasonally curtailed there are, as you know, continuing overhead charges. Such fixed charges include taxes, rent, insurance, depreciation and maintenance of equipment. The salaries of executives have to be maintained and it is often not feasible to discharge salesmen at such times. The office staff is usually kept on at something approaching its normal strength.
If there is a fundamental point at which we in this group have an approach that is
4, 1955
Unemployment Insurance Act different from the approach of other groups in the house it is right there. The Minister of Labour is not unique in this, because he speaks the mind of a great many hon. members of this house in other parties who accept it as axiomatic that of course the salaries of executives have to be maintained and that it is difficult to discharge salesmen, and indeed that you must maintain office staffs the year around. It is accepted as axiomatic that fixed business charges such as taxes, rent, insurance, depreciation and maintenance of equipment have to be met, but the attitude of the Minister of Labour and of many hon. members of this house stops there. I am not taking this out of its context so far as the minister's speech is concerned, because he goes on to another subject in the very next sentence.
Our contention is that the worker has just as much right to year round maintenance as has equipment. Our contention is that the worker has just as much right to a guaranteed annual wage as has the executive or any other of the highly-placed people in business and in industry. As I say, this is the point about which we feel most strongly and where there seems to be a difference of approach between us and other sections of this house.
But I say to the minister and to the government that they are going to have to do something about this question of a guaranteed annual wage. I say to them that philo-' sophically and socially it is sound and justified, and I say to them as well that a facing up to the guaranteed annual wage is called for under section 91, class 2A of the British North America Act, which gives the federal government authority to insure against unemployment.
There are other things that can be done. A shorter work week will have to come. It is also becoming more and more evident that as automation progresses, just as was the case or should have been the case with technological advances, its benefits must be distributed among the community as a whole. That is where we come in with wider social security legislation such as health insurance as suggested by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in 1940, and all the other proposals that can be enacted to distribute among all our people the advantages of an industrial age that has moved on to the point where under automation can now produce goods and services to an unlimited extent.
I call upon this house to face this matter in its broader terms, to face the tremendous issue that we are up against in this day and age. It is akin to the industrial revolution brought about by the introduction of steam power. There lies ahead of us either economic

Unemployment Insurance Act dislocation and misery if these problems are not solved, or what might be called a golden age for our people if we can see in the conditions which now face us a chance to distribute among all our people the advantages of the great wealth of goods and services we are now able to produce.
I should like to say a few words about some of the details outlined by the minister in his remarks. I refer to the detailed changes that he says will be made by this bill. First of all I am glad to note that we are to be given not just a bill to amend the act here and there, but rather a complete consolidation of the act. So many changes have been made since 1940 that it is desirable there should be a new act with all the legislation in one place.
We welcome the increase in the benefits. Also, I think it is a good move that the contributions and benefits are to be on a weekly rather than a daily basis. Likewise I think it is a good move that the amount which a person on unemployment insurance benefits can earn is being put on a weekly rather than a daily basis. Most of us know of many cases where there seemed to be unfairness because of the application of this provision.
I welcome the fact that the minimum number of weeks for which benefits may be drawn is to be increased from 6 to 15, but there is a question in my mind regarding the reduction of the maximum from 51 to 30 weeks. I shall not press the point now, but I will wait until there is a chance for questions to be answered. However, that does seem to be quite a substantial reduction. The minister has pointed out that by the addition of 15 weeks of supplementary benefits the 30 weeks could become 45, but if I correctly understood what he said it would seem that that would follow only if the 15 weeks came in a period of the year when supplementary benefits are payable. That being the case, it seems to me that we are going to have to look into that question, either in committee of the whole when dealing with the resolution or when the bill is before the standing committee on industrial relations.
I want to join with the hon. member for Hamilton West in urging that something yet be done about the discrimination against married women. She pointed out correctly that this did not come into effect in 1950. As hon. members will recall, when an amendment was made to the act in February, 1950, there were a number of provisions in the bill that we had been crying for at the time, but some that we had not asked for were also tucked in. Some of them, if I may say so, turned out to be "jokers". Some were provisions the significance of which we did not really grasp at the time. One was an amendment to the


act making it possible for the commission to pass regulations dealing particularly with married women. It was under that provision which was put through the house in February, 1950, that later all the damage was done by regulation 5A. I recognize, because I have had the opportunity of discussing the matter with-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I am sorry but I am afraid I must advise the hon. member that he has exceeded his 40 minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right, Mr. Chairman, I shall sit down and come back at it later. The minister knows what I think on that as well as on the other points that have been raised. Such improvements as are forecast by this resolution are welcome; but as the Minister of National Health and Welfare said in 1940, there is a long way to go yet in dealing with this tremendous problem of unemployment.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Chairman, in my first words I would like to compliment the minister for doing something I had hoped a great many other ministers might have done when they were delivering complicated statements preceding the introduction of bills in this house. I received from the minister an advance copy of what he was going to say, so while he gave his statement I was able to follow it page by page and mark those passages which should receive emphasis and which I should stow away in my mind. I think it is an excellent idea, and I express the hope that some of the minister's colleagues will follow his example when making statements in the house in future, particularly with reference to technical legislation of the kind we are now considering.
I am always grateful-and I am sure I speak for my colleagues1-when I see the government bring in improvements to existing laws, particularly those laws which have to do with human welfare. It may be argued, of course, that all laws are of that nature, but I will pinpoint it a little more specifically by saying legislation concerning social welfare, providing the laws are based on sound principles.
The bill that is to be introduced after this resolution has been approved promises to be one which will make a number of commendable improvements in the unemployment insurance law. I was not here when the act was passed by this house in 1940, but if I had been here I feel sure that I would have supported it. I was at that time in the Alberta legislature, and I there supported the granting of provincial consent which was required before the present federal act could be passed by this parliament and made law.

For this reason I say I am quite certain I would have supported the act, perhaps making some criticisms of it. However, the Social Credit group in this house did support the bill in 1940, and we support it now.
Over the years we have felt that changing conditions and a broader understanding of the problem have made changes in the first legislation most necessary. We have felt all along that unemployment insurance is not enough by itself to provide what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to as insurance against unemployment. I believe that my colleagues in the house pointed out that fact in 1940 when the Unemployment Insurance Act was being considered. We have always been most concerned about changes in our whole economic policy that would be effective insurance against unemployment.
When I see unemployment insurance legislation brought into this house at any time, whether or not it is designed to improve the existing law, I feel that the government is demonstrating a lack of faith in its own economic policies. Unemployment insurance, Mr. Chairman, is simply a pair of crutches to me, rather than a good healthy body. We would prefer, of course, to see a sound condition in the economic policies which would make it possible for us to get along without crutches. I think everybody would agree with this. We are glad, however, that the unemployment insurance legislation is on the books, and we say so because the government is not living up to the promises it made to the people.
In 1945, when I took part in my first election in the federal field, billboards from one end of the country to the other were plastered with huge signs that promised jobs for everyone if the people would vote Liberal. I think everyone in this house remembers that slogan; if the people would only vote Liberal there would be jobs for everyone. Well, the people' did vote Liberal in 1945, in 1949 and again in 1953, and I ask you to seriously consider whether or not they got what they were promised. I do not have to make accusations; my hon. friends on the other side of the house, if they will just think about it honestly, will realize that the people did not get what they were promised.
What did they get? Unemployment insurance. That does not provide insurance against unemployment at all but is merely a palliative to bolster up an ailing economic structure. Whenever you see such legislation placed on the books or being used it is a sign of economic illness. What we are considering today is a medicine which the government hopes will cure the ailment. We have not
4, 1955	2677
Unemployment Insurance Act been given a prescription telling us how to build a sound, healthy body. It is unfortunate that we do have unemployment developing. Of course it is fortunate that we have an unemployment insurance program to help in some measure at least when unemployment presents itself, and so we welcome the changes and improvements promised in the legislation which is to follow this resolution.
My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre mentioned the necessity of facing up to the situation particularly in regard to the requirement of labour generally for an annual wage.
I think he referred to a guaranteed annual wage. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this country must soon face up to the question of a guaranteed annual wage, because it is going to become a most important issue much sooner than is thought by many people. I believe we have to give it serious consideration and think the matter through, rather than being guided solely by our emotions in respect to it.
I do not know just how in the world those who are promoting the idea of a guaranteed annual wage think it can be paid without a serious increase in the cost of production. I cannot quite follow how they propose it can be done without creating a serious increase in the cost of production which will have to be borne by a comparatively small proportion of the population of the country for the benefit of others. If the guaranteed annual wage program could achieve benefits across the board for the whole of the Canadian population and guarantee them some stability of income, then I could quite understand how everyone with a heart and a social conscience could go for it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did you not regard your national dividend as of benefit to everyone?


Solon Earl Low: Oh, definitely, but what I am getting at is this. No one has yet put forward a proposal with respect to a guaranteed annual wage that takes the weight off the single industry in which the people are engaged who are to get the guarantee. That is the trouble. That is why it is so vastly different from the proposals we have made with regard to a national dividend.
Here is the next important point. A guaranteed annual wage program does not do anything but cause a redistribution of wealth which, if carried to its extreme, would reduce everybody to the same level of poverty. It does not increase by one red cent the purchasing power available to the people of the country. If we are to guarantee the workers of our country an annual income-something I am all in favour of-it seems to me that what we must have is a program that goes
2678	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act far deeper than merely a redistribution of the insufficient purchasing power that is at present in existence. That is why we are asking that this whole matter be clarified most carefully. We are not taking our stand against it for the moment, but we are giving it study.
I warn members of the committee that within the next few months they are going to be obliged to face up to this whole matter of a guaranteed annual wage as a solution for what my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre describes as the serious situation in which many workers find themselves today where they are asked to be on call for employment when the employers in the industries need them, but to be content to remain without income for the balance of the year. That is the problem and we shall have to face it. But whether the guaranteed annual wage is the answer I certainly am not prepared to say.
The unemployment insurance program, amendments to which we are considering today, is a technique which is based on redistribution of wealth as a means of stabilizing our economy. We in the Social Credit group supported the original unemployment insurance program because we realized that it would go to a certain extent, at any rate, in providing stability for an economy. It seems clear that the experience over the years would indicate that some redistribution of wealth is necessary if it is moderately applied. But as I have already pointed out, to carry it too far would not bolster up an ailing economy but would actually tend to destroy it by its own weight, and that is the kind of thing we must be careful about.
I think our experience over a period of 14 years shows that redistribution by itself does not go far toward stabilization. If it did we would not be having the trouble we are having today with unemployment. All the things that have been introduced into our economy since the end of the war in 1945 have not gone too far toward stabilizing the economy. Most of the measures have been based on the redistribution of wealth already in existence. Our experience with them should have proved by now that what we must find is some more fundamental solution that may take into consideration a certain amount of redistribution of wealth,, but based upon the important principle that when we go all out and produce the abundance that we can produce in this country, we must have a means of distributing that wealth so our people can use it.
We must develop the local market, because this Canadian market is by far the most important one we have for the goods we can 

produce. We must introduce measures that will make it possible for the consumers in this country to buy and use the goods we can produce. Otherwise we are going to get ourselves constantly into trade difficulties, unemployment difficulties and all manner of other difficulties.
We must get down to much more fundamental principles than merely the superficial redistribution of wealth. Redistribution of purchasing power is what it really becomes. When there is not enough of it, what good does it do in the long run merely to redistribute it? Let us see that there is enough in the first place so that our production can be bought and used by our people if they want it. Then if it becomes necessary to do some redistributing, let us do it on that modest scale that will not destroy our economy and press it down under the sheer weight of a thing that is superficial and impossible.
Since this legislation is to be referred to the standing committee on industrial relations it is not necessary for me to go into detail with respect to the proposals outlined by the minister in his admirable statement today. I merely say that we reserve our opinion on some of these specific matters-in fact, on all of them-until the bill is brought in and we have had a chance to study it in committee. Suffice it to say at the moment that we are glad to see these amendments being brought in. We compliment the minister on his forethought. I think he has gone a long way to improve this act. We shall give him support on every one of those provisions in the bill that we find to be good.


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Chairman, this resolution proposing the amendment of the Unemployment Insurance Act supersedes a notice of motion that appears on the order paper today under my name but which I intend later to ask to have withdrawn. It reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act so as to increase the regular and supplementary benefits to single and married unemployed workers.
In the Welland area there is a good deal of heavy industry, and over the last year and a half or more there has been considerable unemployment. Such highly responsible people as the heads of municipalities, heads of labour unions and others have made representations to me as to the inadequacy of the payments under the Unemployment Insurance Act. From going about among the unemployed in the practice of medicine, I would say that my observations bear out the fairness of these representations.

I should like to thank the Minister of Labour who, on behalf of the government, earlier this year introduced the amendment by which the supplementary benefits, now called seasonal benefits, were increased. This amendment has already become law and these increased payments are helping many unemployed employables get through the winter months when it is difficult to obtain employment. These further proposed revisions of the act will tend to simplify it. Many features of the act were difficult to understand, and I would think anybody who tried to figure them out would find that. Calculations were involved, and some who drew benefits were never convinced that they received their fair share of those benefits.
I am glad to know also that it will be easier to qualify under the act, and that some who have been in the labour force a shorter time than heretofore will qualify when they are not employed.
As under the present arrangement, workers are put into different categories in accordance with their weekly earnings. Contributions and benefits bear a much more direct relationship to the different ranges of earnings, and there is an increase of benefits mostly in the upper and lower income groups. I was glad to hear the minister say that no worker would lose any equity in the fund.
I notice that in the lower and upper income groups, for example, the benefits are increased by 25 per cent. It is proposed that these benefits should be paid for a maximum of 30 weeks. I saw figures some time ago which indicated that 90 per cent of all claimants drew benefits for 20 weeks or less. The 30 weeks' duration of payment of benefits would cover a very high percentage. I think the minister said today it would cover 95 per cent. A certain number of those falling within the small percentage of cases where 30 weeks was not a sufficient period of time would get supplementary benefits. It is pretty hard to figure how the supplementary benefits would work out, but I understand that in any 12-month period it is possible for workmen to draw up to 45 weeks' benefits.
I realize that the main principles are laid down in the legislation and that the commission will have power to make regulations to deal with procedures and details of administration. I hope these regulations will be sufficiently generous to include some of the borderline cases where it has been impossible to qualify under the act. I realize that most Canadians prefer gainful employment to idleness and drawing unemployment insurance. I also realize that unemployment as such does not come within the scope of discussion of these amendments.
4, 1955
Unemployment Insurance Act
The Unemployment Insurance Act has proven to be excellent legislation and is suitably adapted to the purpose for which it was intended, but like most legislation it needs to be amended from time to time to meet the needs of our people. It helps the workman to bridge the gap between periods of employment. This is of great benefit to the community in which he lives because he can continue to buy the necessities of life, thus helping the economy not only of his own community but of Canada as a whole.
I find many misconceptions in the minds of the people about the act. Many are of the opinion that only the workmen contribute to the fund and that the government contributes nothing, when in fact the government contributes 20 per cent and the employers and employees 40 per cent each. The government administers the fund through the Department of Labour, and when this cost is taken into consideration we find that the government actually contributes about one-third and the other two-thirds is shared equally between the employers and employees. I presume the same ratio will be closely approximated under these new amendments.
From observation I would say that the benefits have worked well in cases of short periods of unemployment, but when these periods have exceeded two months most of the unemployed have found it difficult to make ends meet. As I said before, the new schedule of unemployment benefits bears a more definite relationship to earnings, and for most ranges of pay the benefits are definitely and substantially increased. This will be of great assistance in helping the eligible unemployed to meet the ordinary costs of living.
When a worker has used up his benefit days it has often been difficult for him to qualify for the winter supplementary benefits under the act, either because he has been unable to obtain work or when he has obtained work it has been in non-insurable employment such as agriculture. As an example, such employment as temporary work on a farm, the picking of fruit in the early and late summer months, has aided the worker in keeping his family during these months but has failed to build up any benefit days which might help him to qualify for seasonal benefits during the winter months. I know it would be most difficult to include all lines of work and class them as insurable, but I cannot help think that a worker doing any such worth-while work is contributing as fully to the economy of Canada as if employed in insurable work.
The maximum benefit paid to a married man at the present time is $24 a week, and

Unemployment Insurance Act this is to be increased to $30 a week. A family had great difficulty in getting by on the $24 because of certain fixed charges they had to meet. First of all there is housing. Rents are high, and whether the worker pays rent or monthly payments toward mortgage retirement, taxes and insurance, it takes quite a sizeable amount from his $24 a week.
Then there are fixed and often increasing amounts to pay for services such as water and light. In Ontario, for example, the hydroelectric power commission has increased the cost of hydro power because of expansion and frequency change-over. Then we have the fixed costs for heating. I realize of course that in the case of families with children they are greatly assisted by family allowances made available by the government, but these amounts are often used entirely to meet the extra costs incidental to children attending school such as the buying of books, extra clothing, etc.
The point is that when the family budget is tight the amount available for the purchase of food is inevitably cut down. I am free to admit that some of the more inexpensive foods are more healthful and nutritious. On the other hand we must see that our people, and especially our children, have a well-balanced, nutritious diet for maximum health.
There are certain aspects of unemployment where the unemployment benefits do not meet all the needs of the family. In most provinces-and this is true in Ontario-medical and hospital insurance soon lapses and any sickness in the worker's family requiring hospitalization means that the municipality and the province must assume the cost. These costs have been going up markedly in the last year or two in certain areas of unemployment.
Then we have the problem of older workers, and by "older workers" I mean those beyond 40 or 45 years of age who find it difficult to get insurable employment. Because of the pension plans in various plants it is not economical to give employment to men over these ages. Many of these pension plans have been in operation a comparatively short time, with the result that those who have retired or are now retiring are receiving comparatively small pensions. I am convinced that it is wrong to retire anyone because he has reached a certain chronological age, whether in government or in industry. Those who are unfit retire of necessity, while the others who are fit and well able to carry on would be much happier and more contented if they were allowed to work beyond a certain arbitrary retiring age.
I have observed many of these people. Some of them whose main interest in life


was their work develop a moroseness, a sort of chronic mental illness which is soon followed by a physical breakdown. We should remember that some of the best contributions to the welfare of mankind have been made by those who have reached an age beyond our arbitrary retiring ages. Certainly I have seen many good workmen who were more than 60 or 65 years of age. In that regard, it should be noted that in some plants the retiring age is as low as 60. Our high standards of living and advancements in medical science are responsible for gradually increasing the proportion of the older age groups in our population; and unless we keep them productive we are creating a social problem. This means that we have an ever-increasing number of people living off our working class who, after all, create our wealth and pay the bulk of our taxes.
It should be within our ingenuity to devise ways and means of enabling these older workers to continue at work if they wish and can do so. In this way we would be helping the economy of our country and the mental outlook of these people. The real victims and sufferers in a state of unemployment are those able-bodied workers who, for one reason or another, are not eligible for any unemployment insurance. We have help for those who are unable to work but no organized public assistance for those we class as the employable unemployed.
This is the one serious gap in our social security services, and it has existed since 1940, since the enactment of the Unemployment Insurance Act. The provinces for the most part ceased to contribute to the cost of municipal relief, except for the unemployable persons.
In Canada, because of our climate, I think we are bound always to have some seasonal unemployment. I think, too, that in our free enterprise system-in fact in any system-it would be impossible always to eliminate the ups and downs in employment. Part of our economy, indeed part of the economy under any system, depends upon world commerce; and this will vary with the vagaries of nature, the scarcity and abundance of crops.
I am much in favour of the changes set out in this legislation-these increased payments -and I think they will be well received. I do think, if I had any criticism of the bill, that the payments in relation to the seasonal benefits are too rigid. April 15 is close at hand, and we are bound to have considerable unemployment when these benefits are terminated. I would like to see power given to the governor in council to extend the seasonal benefits for a limited time, when conditions warrant.

Tomorrow night the Minister of Finance will present his first budget and I am sure many hon. members, like myself, hope for certain changes. Whether we get our wishes or not I feel he will bring in a budget consistent with good government and our obligations in this uncertain world, and at the same time try to cut down the need for unemployment insurance. In this we wish him every success.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I was greatly
worried when the minister spoke a little while ago, because I thought we were going to have an accident. I thought he was going to break his wrist patting the government on the back for its activities in connection with unemployment insurance.
One would have thought, Mr. Chairman, that this unemployment insurance was the gift of the government to those who are unemployed. There has been no recognition of the fact that the employee contributes 40 per cent and the employer 40 per cent, and that the government's contribution is only 20 per cent. Listening to the minister, one would have thought nothing had ever been done by way of unemployment insurance, outside of what this government has done.
I was very pleased indeed to hear the charming member for Hamilton West in her own inimitable fashion set the government right on this question as to who introduced unemployment insurance. It was the Conservative party. And who was it that killed it successfully for six years? It was the Liberal party. It was good to hear the truth come out at last because, as we know, truth will out; and I am glad it did.
Hearing the minister speak on behalf of the government and tell about the wonderful things he imagined they had done in this field, I was reminded of a story about a Texan who went out to Australia. You know, in Texas they claim everything is bigger and better, just as this government claim things are bigger and better under a government of the Liberal party, and just as the government claim that anything worth while that has been done has always been done bigger and better by them. Well, this fellow went out to Australia and was being shown around a sheep ranch. Things are really big out in Australia but no matter what he was shown he would say, "Oh, buddy, that ain't nothin'. It's bigger and better in Texas." Finally the chap who was showing the Texan around was getting a little fed up when, just at that moment, a kangaroo went whizzing by, nearly knocking the Texan down. He jumped back and said, "My Lord, what was that?" The fellow from Australia said, "Oh, don't you have grasshoppers in Texas?" 50433-170
4, 1955
Unemployment Insurance Act
That is exactly the kind of thing that happens here. We hear it said by those who support the government that nothing ever happens that the Liberal party did not introduce. Of course the Liberal government need not get mixed up about what a kangaroo looks like, because they have Jumping Jack with them every day. He is right there before their very eyes.


Mr. Weir:: When do we laugh?


George Harris Hees: Everybody else has.
This act is certainly a great improvement for those who are entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, but what I want to know is what is going to happen to those tens of thousands of people who on April 16 find themselves with no jobs and no unemployment insurance; with no entitlement and no benefits, either regular or supplementary.
When unemployment insurance was debated earlier in the session, the minister and the government assured us that by April 15 everything would be in good shape, and there would be no unemployment. When I asked the minister about it he said, "Oh, well, there will be very little unemployment at that time", and just passed it off in that way.
Well, Mr. Chairman, we all know that unemployment has not decreased, because the last figure was greater than the one before, and I should think the next one will be even greater still. As the hon. member for Welland has just said, April 16 is close at hand, and there will be a great number of people out of jobs and with no entitlement at that time. After that date, great numbers will be going to unemployment insurance offices; but they will simply be told, "Sorry, chum; there is nothing for you. After all, you have to remember that there really is no unemployment. The minister has said that it is only 'seasonal and regional'. Therefore we cannot give you any unemployment insurance."
So he will go home to his wife and say, "Sorry, dear; I can't give you any money to buy food and clothing. We can't get coal or pay the doctor's bill because, after all, the government says unemployment is only seasonal and regional, and there is nothing to worry about." And those people are going to get hungrier and colder and wetter and sicker; but so far as the government is concerned, it will not bother in the slightest degree because, after all, "This thing really is not unemployment", they say; "this is just something that is a passing phase."
The government think there are not enough people involved to embarrass them at election time. Therefore they are perfectly happy to cut these people off without even

Unemployment Insurance Act a thought, and leave them alone to figure out some way of paying their bills and buying food and clothing. I ask the minister and the government to view this matter from a humanitarian point of view, not just from that of dollars and cents; of columns of figures; or of lists of voters at election time. This is something which involves human life and human suffering. Today there are more than half a million people unemployed. We have 12 days to go to April 16. There are going to be just about as many unemployed at that time. Tens of thousands will have their unemployment benefits cut off at that time. Human suffering in this country is going to increase many times because of the action the government plans to take.
I urge the minister, solemnly and earnestly, to reconsider the decision to cut off unemployment supplementary benefits on April 15. As the hon. member for Hamilton West urged when this matter came up earlier in the session, these supplementary benefits should be extended to at least May 15. In view of the fact that unemployment has not decreased, that the figures are getting higher every month-we have had the second postwar peak in succession-it is obvious that there is going to be great human suffering if the government carries out its present plan. I urge the minister to reconsider. I hope before this resolution passes he will tell us that the government intends to do that, and in addition to extend the supplementary benefits to at least May 15.
I would ask the government seriously to consider starting these benefits again about November 1 if unemployment again appears to pose a serious threat, as it did last fall. If it appears next fall that unemployment will approach serious dimensions I ask the minister to look at this thing from the humanitarian point of view, and to realize that human suffering cannot be allowed to exist in the proportions in which it will exist after April 15 if something is not done.


Milton Fowler Gregg: In view of what my hon. friend has said may I ask him whether he believes that this fund should remain actuarially sound or whether it should be converted into a relief measure, which is inherent in what he said a moment ago?


George Harris Hees: 


Milton Fowler Gregg: It is very important.


George Harris Hees: It is extremely important.


William Gilbert Weir: As a businessman, what would you say?


George Harris Hees: Right at this moment we have almost a billion dollar surplus in this fund.


Mr. Sinclair:: Surplus or reserve?


George Harris Hees: One or the other; it is there. It is money that has been put in, 40 per cent by the employer and 40 per cent by the employee. It is there, ready to be used to meet this very great need. I say that at the present time the government should extend supplementary benefits to at least May 15, and if necessary longer than that. When this government calls together the conference on April 26 to discuss the agenda for a later dominion-provincial conference, it should discuss with the provinces the basis on which relief that is necessary in the future should be shared by the dominion, the provinces, and the municipalities.
I have suggested that we go back to the 40-40-20 basis that was used between 1939 and 1941, and work out a proposition with the provinces so that when people are unemployed through no fault of their own, and find that they have no entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits, they do not suffer actual hardship in the form of hunger, cold, .lack of clothing and lack of shelter. That is my suggestion to the minister and to the government.


Mr. Brown (Essex West):: I have no intention of drawing the fire of the hon. member for Hamilton West, because I certainly am not anxious to have the wrath of my charming and vivacious friend, as she has been termed, brought upon myself.
The government should be commended for the procedure taken in bringing in these amendments to a worthy act. It was most generous of the minister to refer in such a kindly way to my predecessor, the late Hon. Norman McLarty, who did a great deal to see that the original act was brought into effect. Hon. Norman McLarty represented the constituency of Essex West from 1935 to 1945 when, because of ill health, he had to withdraw.
The history of the Unemployment Insurance Act has been put on the record by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and that record, of course, will speak for itself. At this time I do not think that history is of too much importance except from the purely partisan point of view, particularly as to who did or did not do certain things at certain times. We are very grateful that we have this act, and we trust that it will continue in effect and that beneficial improvements will be made to it from time to time.
The constituency of Essex West, which I represent, is composed chiefly of the city of Windsor and one suburban township, and is very much interested in this bill. In that area we are a sort of mecca or focal point for labour. Labour is drawn to that area

by high wages. That high wage rate has been in effect for some time, and we have had ever-rising rates for many years. Then we are in close proximity to the city of Detroit, which is a large industrial United States city. In fact the city of Detroit, as I have so often said in this house, is on three sides of the constituency which I represent.
In the city of Windsor and within a radius of 50 miles, we have 2,500,000 people or more. There is a very high wage rate in that area and a very highly industrialized population. The climatic conditions of that area are easier and less rigorous than in other parts of Canada, with the result that a great many labour people throughout Canada are most anxious to live in my constituency or in close proximity to it, or generally in that part of the country. However, it does present problems to the municipalities. Apart from industrial strife and pointing the way to industrial improvements throughout the whole country, there are problems caused by the influx of labour. These are felt very much by the municipal authorities, and confront them day by day.
If I may quote a few figures, in 1954 the city of Windsor, in co-operation with the province of Ontario, appropriated $193,273 for relief purposes. Of course that was under provincial legislation; but it so happened that in that year moneys in the amount of $250,069.82 were spent, leaving a deficit of $56,796.82. The policy of the city of Windsor has been to assist heads of families, and heads of families alone, where there is dire need. Of course if a person is an unemployed employable and has exhausted his benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act the city does what it can to find him a job and assist his family. But they assist merely in the way of providing the bare necessities of food and fuel.
In 1954 there was paid out by the city of Windsor a total of $40,768.74 for which they had appropriated $10,000, leaving a deficit of some $30,768.74. Therefore we are most grateful for the operations of the Unemployment Insurance Act, when we stop to consider that at times there have been some 11,000 or 12,000 people registered as unemployed in our local office.
The community welfare council of Windsor has been studying this matter and has made recommendations to the minister. I noted that the minister stated that the benefits under the act are to be increased. The welfare council has recommended that they be increased to $35 a week for married men and $24 a week for single men. I think an increase of 25 per cent is most generous, and 50433-170i
Unemployment Insurance Act will go a long way in solving some of the problems and reducing the fear which besets a great many people.
We must realize at all times that the purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Act is to relieve the fear of unemployment. It is insurance against unemployment, just the same as the fire insurance we place on a house we may own. We pay our premiums and we know exactly what we are going to get if the property should be totally destroyed by fire. This is not a dole; this is not a subsidy for employment; we must keep constantly in mind that it is insurance which we have paid for and that the benefits are ours by right.
Generally speaking the labour unions and industry in my community are most anxious that there be an increase.	Times have
changed since 1940, when the act was first brought in. At that time the cost of living was not so high but wages also were not so high. The dollar of that time would probably be worth something like 60 cents today. So the unions and industry are united, I believe, in requesting that there be an increased contribution by both which would result in higher benefits to the unemployed. I think the recommendation made by the minister of $30 per week for married men is most desirable.
We should keep in mind also that while wages have gone up considerably, the cost of living has increased. I am not sure from what the minister said just what maximum will be allowed as income and what the average contribution will be, but I am sure all this will be taken into consideration so that larger allowances may be provided.
There is great objection to the present provisions of the act in my constituency, where the principal industry is the automobile industry. An employee may be working seven days a week for a time; and then when things become slack he may go on a three-day week or have to find other employment. I think the method of making contributions under this act should be overhauled. As I remember, the minister stated that there was some thought of changing that, and I am in accord with what he had to say.
Before I conclude I should like to say just one word in connection with the point brought up by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that automation in industry is becoming more popular. I think that is a good thing. The Ford Motor Company of Canada has recently spent many millions of dollars in converting the plant at Windsor to one which is largely automatic. With the coming of automation and the bringing in of machines to do the work which man's hands have done:

Unemployment Insurance Act in the past, the worker will have to possess greater skill. That means that if the worker has not applied himself to acquiring the necessary skill his chances of being unemployed are much greater.
I urge upon all young people who are thinking of going into industry that they take advantage of the facilities provided not only by the provincial governments and the municipalities but by the federal government, which gives assistance under the vocational training plan carried on under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour. In this machine age, :in this automatic age, in this atomic age which is coming we will need the most highly skilled technicians.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, when I read the resolution that we are now debating I was somewhat at a loss to know just how we should regard this new amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act. A remark the minister made just before we adjourned for supper left me still in some doubt when he challenged the hon. member for Broadview as to whether he considered that the Unemployment Insurance Act was to be regarded as a relief measure, or whether he wished it to be an actuarially sound fund.
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether it really is or ever has been actually an actuarially sound fund-that is, a fund a professional actuary would tell us was sound-because we have had to dig into the public treasury periodically. More important still, we all know that if the necessity arises we are going to dig into it again. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the very fact this act is now being amended in this way is an indication that in the government's mind it is meant to do perhaps something more than the original Unemployment Insurance Act was intended to do because-mark this, Mr. Chairman-it has been brought in this year when, for the first time since 1940, the Canadian economy has taken a downward turn, the first time that unemployment has become a really serious, dangerous economic problem.
If the amendments to the act were merely designed to make it a more generous and effective measure for the relief of occasional unemployment, then one is forced to wonder just why the government did not do this last year or the year before, when the Canadian economy was in a much better position

than it is now to carry this load. Therefore I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the government itself has really not quite made up its mind what the purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Act is to be.
It may be, of course, that the government is still hoping that before the provisions of this new amendment fail to cope with the situation, the unemployment situation will have improved to the extent that we can go back to the sort of position we occupied last year and the year before. However, I have the idea that in the back of their minds they know that the machinery of the Unemployment Insurance Act may have to be used in the fairly near future for a rather different purpose than its original intention; that is, to cope with a growing problem of, if not permanent at least very long lived, unemployment.
For that reason I think the suggestion made this afternoon by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is one that should merit considerable inspection on the part of the government. If they are going to use the act as a measure to deal with more or less permanent unemployment, then eventually the government will have to establish some sort of machinery that will provide an annual guaranteed wage for Canadian workers. I think that is really the point we have come to in our thinking today, and that is a very long way from what our thinking was a few years ago. We appear to have reached the point now where most people are prepared to admit that any Canadian citizen who is able and willing to work is entitled to his livelihood, and that if he cannot get his livelihood by means of employment in industry then the community as a whole has to come to the rescue. I suggest that is one of the uses to which this unemployment insurance legislation will eventually be put.
It is perfectly true, as the hon. leader of the Social Credit group said this afternoon, that a guaranteed annual wage will constitute a redistribution of wealth. I was rather puzzled and wondered just why he considered that was a much more superficial thing to do than to inflate the currency and distribute the diluted mixture-


Mr. Blackmore:: He did not advocate inflating the currency; get the record straight.


Colin Cameron: Well, it is over 30 years ago, Mr. Chairman, that a friend of mine put in my hands a book by the late Major Douglas, which I studied with a great deal of care. In spite of the fact that Major Douglas is English, it left something to be desired. Aside from the fact that his economic theories had some fundamental flaws

it was perfectly obvious from reading the A plus B theorem which I studied very carefully that in the final analysis the Social Credit theory is bluntly and plainly one of inflation-


John Horne Blackmore: Reflation, not inflation; there is a difference.


Colin Cameron: Well, "flation" anyway; "re" or "in", it is "flation" anyway. The difference amounts to this, Mr. Chairman, that rather than redistribute the wealth as suggested by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre, our friends to the left here would rather increase the number of tickets for the available wealth, divide those up, and hope by some mysterious means to increase the real wealth coming to each member of society. I think the redistribution of wealth as proposed by the guaranteed annual wage is something we are going to have to face very soon.
As I said the other night on the air, I consider that the present unemployment situation is fundamentally much more ominous and serious than the problem we faced during the thirties, because at that time we were faced with a broken-down economic machine. Factories were closed down, goods were not being produced, services were not being provided and in that situation there was little cause for wonder at continual and rising unemployment. But today we have a very different situation and I submit, Mr. Chairman, it is much more dangerous and ominous. It is a situation in which our economic machine is running almost at full tilt, yet we have discarded some 600,000 of our working population, have pushed them right outside the fence.
As evidence that we have done this and that the government recognizes it, we have this resolution before us tonight. That can be the only explanation. I am not quarrelling with it but I am suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that it is an inadequate means of dealing with a serious and, as far as one can see, virtually permanent situation unless we introduce something in the nature of the guaranteed annual wage with its consequent redistribution of wealth. So while I am delighted to be able to support this measure, I think it is only right that the people of Canada should not be deluded into thinking it is a serious and effective means of coping with a problem that everybody except the government recognizes is the most serious we have faced since the end of the war.
We shall, of course, examine the details of the bill when it comes before us and endeavour to have it widened a little more
4, 1955	2685
Unemployment Insurance Act than it is at present. Fundamentally, however, the government eventually is going to face the necessity of finding some means of providing a means of livelihood for those who have been discarded from our productive machine due to the methods by which we produce and distribute goods.
The suggestion of the minister that this is an actuarially sound insurance fund is, in my opinion, really whistling in the dark. While it is possible to present a facade of actuarial soundness by means of putting in a little bit more from the treasury, it is really rather a clumsy method of using this machinery to cope with a problem that this legislation was never intended to cope with.
I hope the government is not going to be satisfied to rest on its oars-and small oars they are; they are hardly more than little paddles-with what they produce in this resolution, but will start to cope with this problem that is going to cause the Minister of Labour continual and increasing headaches in the months to come.


Mr. Philpoti:: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to yield to the temptation tonight to get into a debate about Social Credit. I am saving my speech on Social Credit for a more suitable occasion. I am afraid that if anybody mentioned Social Credit too much we would have my good friend the hon. member for Lethbridge keeping us here all night and we would never get any Easter holidays.


John Horne Blackmore: Right you are.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: We still rise at
ten o'clock.


Elmore Philpott: I am a bit sorry that the hon. member for Hamilton West is not in her seat at the moment. If she were I think I might have some remarks to make about the historical background of unemployment insurance. The first time I aspired to parliamentary office was in the constituency of Hamilton West in the year 1931. Believe me, just to espouse unemployment insurance, as I then did, was to be considered extremely radical indeed or even red.
I am also a bit sorry that the hon. member for Broadview is not in his seat, because when I heard him speak today, weeping such copious tears with a smile from ear to ear, I could not help thinking of the song by that fellow who used to sing over the radio. You could not tell whether he was crying or laughing. The words of the song-I wept at your wedding-were to this effect: Your father was crying, your mother was crying and I was crying, too; and it ends up in a great burst of laughter.
Tonight for a few moments I want to deal with some of the serious points having to do

Unemployment Insurance Act with the unemployment insurance picture. Of all the social welfare measures that have been introduced in Canada in the past generation I think this is probably the most useful one to the most people. It has been a tremendous success. All the calculations on which it was based have been proved by experience to be too conservative. We had a longer period of sustained prosperity than even the most optimistic experts had predicted. The result is that today we have in the fund a reserve, a surplus or whatever you want to call it, which is much greater than any of the statisticians could have calculated in advance.
I am heartily in support of the minister's proposal to increase the benefits. I think certain other improvements in this act could be considered as time goes on. I for one have never been able to see the justice or the common sense of striking off the rolls at the time she becomes pregnant a married woman who is employed and needs employment. I think one of the changes we could consider in the act-if not now, certainly in future years-is to provide that where a woman is working and needs work, her benefits should be allowed during her period of pregnancy just as they would be allowed for any other type of involuntary unemployment.
Tonight for a minute or two I want to speak about what seems to me the greatest weakness in our whole unemployment compensation system in Canada. This name, of course, as we all realize, is a misnomer. As the hon. member for Peace River, the leader of the Social Credit group, pointed out today this is not really unemployment insurance; it is unemployment compensation. Of course we all know that this government would not survive and-if we want to take a long-range view- for that matter the whole western system of democracy as we now have it certainly would not survive unless this problem of chronic and large-scale unemployment were solved. I think we can all take that statement for granted, and no one has ever said it better or more to the point than did our Prime Minister who sits on our front benches today.


An hon. Member:: What is he going to do?


Elmore Philpott: We will know partly what he is going to do tomorrow night, when the budget comes down, because that will be the first instalment.
Tonight I am going to talk about what seems to me to be really the greatest weakness in our unemployment compensation system in Canada today, and it is this. Those who need unemployment compensation most have no coverage whatsoever. I thought the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre 

made a most important and, I may say, surprising revelation today when he was quoting and trying to score a point against the Minister of National Health and Welfare, when he read those quotations from the speeches and the letters of the late prime minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out that the prime minister of the day in 1940 had written to all of the provinces individually telling them that he was sure the Unemployment Insurance Act that was then being instituted would greatly reduce their burden of relief for the unemployed. I was just sorry that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had not brought that fact out a few weeks earlier, because for weeks and even months past we have heard ad nauseam the contention that the total responsibility rests with the federal government.


An hon. Member:: Does it not?


Elmore Philpott: The constitutional position now is that the legal responsibility for the care of unemployed employables who are not entitled to any unemployment compensation definitely rests with the provinces.


Mr. Regier:: You know better than that.


Elmore Philpott: I for one wish to urge that at the dominion-provincial conference of this year we eliminate this greatest weak spot in our whole unemployment compensation system. Tonight I am not going to venture to suggest how these unemployed employables could be covered but I urge every government in Canada-not only the federal government but every provincial government -to bring this subject to a decision, to quit this business of passing the responsibility from one to another, to come to a firm decision so that never again at any time in the future could there be any doubt as to what happens; so that everybody in this great Dominion of Canada may be sure that he does not have either to starve or to steal.
The least we can do in times of temporary unemployment, even as serious as we have had this winter and last winter, is to see that everybody in Canada who is not covered by regular unemployment insurance, as set up in this act which is now being made more generous, gets adequate assistance on an agreed in advance formula that shares the burden fairly among the dominion, the provinces and the municipalities, so that never again shall any unemployed man or woman in this whole Dominion of Canada have to go around from pillar to post wondering where his or her livelihood is to come from the next day or week.


Mr. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Chairman, I do not feel at all qualified to talk about

the technical aspects of the proposed changes in this act. As a matter of fact I feel that few are in that happy position. On the other hand, there are few who have not been affected in some way or other by this legislation in the last 14 or 15 years.
First of all, though I do not think hon. members to your right, Mr. Chairman, would wish it, I think we should dispel the growing feeling among the public that the changes suggested by the minister are going to be the answer to the very serious unemployment problem which faces us. I certainly get the feeling that the propaganda machine has been hard at work. I listened to the radio last night, and I am sure the newscast I heard would lead the unemployed to believe that parliament was embarking today on a program that would end unemployment forthwith.
Of course nothing could be further from the truth. First, it would seem that those whose need is greatest can expect little help. Those whose needs are less, and I admit there are few who need less and not more, those whose earnings might have allowed them to accumulate some savings, will gain more. I do think the major changes might have been directed toward helping those whose needs are greatest.
In addition, I agree with the hon. member for Hamilton West that we should strenuously oppose restrictions on the rights of those who qualify for retirement under the age rulings in effect in certain industries, and who at present receive benefits for a period of 51 weeks. It is a wonderful help in the stress of transition for older workers. It enables them to adjust to a new setting, to get that cottage in the country, and personally I know of several who have done so. It enables them to settle down without drastic financial shock in moving from a good paying job to a nominal and sometimes inadequate pension.
I realize that unemployment benefits are in no way to be considered as a pension, nor should they be because as far as these people are concerned in nine cases out of ten the national employment service is unable to place older workers who retire at 65 and sometimes at 60. It should be remembered that these older workers cannot get the old age pension until they are 70 years of age. I definitely believe that there should be no cutting down of the 51-week benefit period for this class of recipients. We should be striving with all our power to make the declining years of our elders as pleasant and comfortable as possible.
Another point causes me some concern. It has to do with the requalification requirements. With conditions as they are this
Unemployment Insurance Act spring, I think it can be a very serious matter. I understand that a claimant will have to acquire credit for eight additional weeks in insurable employment since the commencement of his previous benefit year, must have at least 30 contribution weeks in the previous two years, and that contribution weeks more than a year old at the time of a subsequent claim cannot be used a second time to qualify either for rate or duration.
This requirement may have a very serious effect this year. It appears that we may carry a large group of unemployed right through the summer. If improvement is not noted soon, and it is a very big "if", there may be countless unemployed who will be unable to get eight weeks' credit before another autumn slack period closes down on them again. What then? They are out of luck, no matter how long they and their employers may have been contributing to this plan.
That brings me to my final point. It appears that anxiety to maintain individual equities in this scheme makes the whole program of restricted benefit. I think ordinary employers and employees have an entirely different conception of the function of the act than the technicians who draft the legislation. The ordinary layman, whether he be employer or employee, has provided the hard-earned dollars that have gone into the scheme, and it is mostly their money and not the government's. They have provided the money thinking that while they are working they are providing for those who are not, and securing their own future, feeling that if misfortune should strike them someone else will be working to provide for their help. That is, I believe, the basic thinking behind the ordinary insurance scheme, but not so here.
In order to provide effective relief I believe we will have to shake off the shackles of the individual equity requirements. The fund has plenty of money in it. I do not think it is necessary to provide additional help from the public purse, but the fund must be made an effective instrument in order that all those who need help may get it. If we do not make it so, then I think both employer and employee can allege that their money has been taken from them under false pretences.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of interest to the minister this afternoon when he outlined the proposed amendments to the act. Ordinarily on a resolution like this we would not try to go into the details of the legislation, but in this instance we have before us the statement of the minister. He opened up the act pretty wide and went into many of its ramifications.

Unemployment Insurance Act I suppose it is a good thing to do it at this time because we will be recessing in a couple of days, and the minister probably wanted to give members an opportunity to discuss the matter fully before leaving.
I also listened to many of the other speeches. When the act was passed in 1940 I was a member of the house and I had the pleasure of taking part in the discussions, criticizing and trying to bring about certain amendments. I remember quite well the effort put forth by chambers of commerce, boards of trade, trust companies and others in this country. They put on a lobby in and around the house to prevent the passage of the Unemployment Insurance Act at that time. I remember many people coming to me and, mind you, these were the representatives of the captains of industry who have unemployment on their hands today. They did not want the act passed. They did not want the national employment agencies, and they do not want them now. I have no illusions about where these people stand so far as legislation of this kind is concerned.
Opposition at that time came from many directions. I remember some of those people saying to me that it was not the time to do it. It never is the time to pass social security legislation. They said that we were entering a war, that the financing of that war was going to be a terrific problem to the Canadian people, and this type of legislation would bankrupt the country.
I think the government, particularly the prime minister, showed a good deal of good judgment and courage when the act was introduced. The attitude taken was that if there was any time to embark upon legislation of this kind, that was the time to do it-[DOT] during the war-because there would be full employment. We know there never is unemployment during wartime. It was felt that the war would last for some time and everybody would be working and contributing to the fund, so that it could be built up to serve as a kind of shock absorber when the war was over. Well, that is what happened.
As the minister indicated this afternoon, there is in the fund at the present time over $900 million, and about $1 billion has been paid out in benefits. It seems to me this is a pretty good illustration of the soundness of the economic and social judgment of those who were responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Act. It worked, despite the prophecies of bankruptcy that were made at the time.
I listened to the minister's outline of what he proposes to do and, so far as it goes, I can see nothing wrong with it. He is going [Mr. GiUls.l

to lift the rates from $24 to $30 for recipients with dependents, and he will step up the rate of $17.10 to $23 for those without dependents. That is all very fine for those who have benefit rights. If one is unemployed and has the right to receive benefits, then he will profit by this change. But I would remind the minister that those who need help at this time are the thousands of people across Canada, some of whom have been unemployed for the last two years, who have exhausted their rights to regular and supplementary benefits. They find themselves outside, and they have nowhere to turn.
I suggest to the minister that in some sections of the country there is unemployment to the extent of 100 per cent, and that the industries that formerly employed these people are no longer operating. This is true in many of the textile centres, and it is also true in several coal sections of Nova Scotia. These are the people for whom I thought the minister would do something when amending the act.
While I agree with these increased payments, I say those persons who are not getting anything are the ones who should have received first consideration. The difference between $24 and $30 is not going to make anyone rich. If a man has a family it will not put much more food in his house. If benefits, even to the extent of $24, had been extended to persons in that position until they were gainfully employed again, at least it would have put something into their homes and would have assured a means of livelihood for the families of men in this position. At the present time, however, they have nothing.
I have in my hand a telegram sent to the leaders of the different parties in the House of Commons on behalf of the Pictou county industrial development committee. It is signed by Mr. A. M. Macintosh and comes from New Glasgow, Nova Scotia. I shall not read it but it says, in effect, that in the area of Pictou county the mine at Westville went out of production, and that 400 or 500 miners and their families at that point are totally unemployed and have no means of employment.
I realize the minister is doing something; I give him credit for that. He is trying to retrain some of the miners for other jobs in other areas, if they can find jobs when they are retrained. The minister knows, too, that the Allan shaft at Stellarton, within a few miles of Westville, went out of commission and about 1,400 employees have been thrown out of work. That whole area is completely and totally unemployed.

The telegram points out that in that area, affecting the towns of New Glasgow, Stellar-ton and Westville, over 1,500 people are receiving benefits, and that those benefits will run out by the 18th of this month. At that point there are 1,500 people who will not have anything after the date I have mentioned, and there is nowhere they can go to find employment.
A few days ago I sat in on the committee on railways and shipping and Trans-Canada Air Lines, and noticed in the capital budget of the Canadian National Railways that huge sums of money were spent and are going to be spent in the building of railway cars, sleepers and freight cars. In the Pictou area, about which I have been talking, there is a large and efficient plant that could build freight cars or sleeping cars or, for that matter, any other type of rolling stock used by the railways. I do not think orders to any extent are placed in that area, but I am wondering if in his spare time the minister might get in touch with his colleague the Minister of Transport to find out if something can be done which would benefit the 1,500 people in this Pictou area. I would ask him to get some orders for the company at Trenton to stimulate the area and create some employment. I leave this with the minister, but mention it only to show him that, while what he is doing is all right for those who have the right to benefits, it does not help those who are totally unemployed.
I do not think it is useful to quibble about responsibility in this matter. Whether we are in the municipalities, in the legislatures or in the House of Commons, as human beings and Canadian citizens it is our duty to do everything we can to see that other citizens in Canada are given at least food, clothing and shelter. In this matter we have hidden far too long behind the British North America Act, particularly in the matter of unemployment insurance, and we are trying to hide behind it again and place the responsibility for employable unemployed on the municipality. Under a constitutional interpretation that is where it is today.
After listening to conferences of mayors across this country for the last five or ten years everyone in the House of Commons knows that practically every municipality in the country is bankrupt. They have no means of taxation except against property. And in every part of the country, in every municipality, the property tax is as high as they dare put it; because if we keep on shoving up municipal taxation we will not find many people willing to buy houses and get their roots into the ground. It would be better for 50433-171
4. 1955
Unemployment Insurance Act them to rent so they could walk out when they like, rather than take the responsibility of full citizenship.
We have taken the right to enact a measure for unemployment insurance. We went over to Westminster and, upon returning, we said, "We have this right." But we have not exercised it; or if it has been exercised, then only to a limited degree. The government has said that it is going to cover a select group in the country and insure them because it is sure most of that group will not be unemployed. The way the fund has grown is a good indication of the truth of my statement.
Let us for a moment consider the railway workers who are steadily employed and who are more or less in sheltered employment. They pay into this fund, but not many of them will get anything out of it. We have covered other industries from which we are reasonably sure there will be continuing contributions. But we have dealt out large numbers of people, those who are called the seasonal unemployed, or the regional unemployed. In many instances the unemployment across the country has lasted long enough to exhaust not only their regular benefits but their supplementaries as well.
I want to tell some hon. members who think this is just a passing phase that in my judgment it is not. The war is over. I hope we shall never see another one, but don't forget that between wars we have always had this static unemployment problem. I can remember it since I was 12 years of age, when there were no cushions against it and it was pretty tough. I can remember the period between 1914 and 1939 when we were down in the depths of the depression struggling and could not get out of it until another war came along, and then we had full employment. While we are praying for peace let us make the necessary preparations, through legislation, to utilize the money and the forces that we mobilize for war by guaranteeing our people at least sufficient to clothe, house and shelter them.
I hear many people talking in this house about building up backward nations. Build them up; but you must realize that as you build up the backward countries to which you are exporting today, they will become exporters. Take India. A few years from now India will be self-sufficient in many things, and we shall not be able to sell her anything. As we build up and raise the standards of these countries to which we are shipping our surpluses today we are putting ourselves in the position, unless we change our tactics, where we shall have surpluses on our shelves and nobody to use them, if

Unemployment Insurance Act we are not prepared to distribute them. That is the kind of world we must look forward to. If we are to have peace in the world and war no longer as the solution of our difficulties or an alternative to unemployment, these are some of the things we have to think about.
I would suggest even yet that the minister's department should give serious consideration, if not under the regular act, to the emergency measures they are prepared to take to lift the load of the employable unemployed off the municipalities, because the municipalities cannot carry it. Many of the provinces cannot carry it without assistance. It is time we got down to business and began to get away from the idea of trying to hide behind constitutions that were written in 1867, and realized our responsibilities to our fellow men as citizens of this country.
It is a sad commentary on human affairs that many of us in this house have seen two wars come and go, and we see the same conditions piling up again when there is no war. Surely we should have learned some lesson from the last two wars. If we can send billions to NATO and millions to the outside world it is pretty nearly time we began to stop talking about unemployment in Canada and began to look after our own people in so far as food, clothing and shelter are concerned.
I should like to bring another specific matter to the attention of the minister. It has to do with the waiting period. I believe the waiting period of five days should be wiped out. The unemployed paid for the five days. They insured themselves against that unemployment. It is insurance they bought and paid for; at least those who are eligible for it did so. They insured themselves against total unemployment, and in those five days they were totally unemployed.
Let me show the minister how it works in some instances. It is not so bad if a person had four or five years' steady employment and then became unemployed. The five-day waiting period is not such a bother in that case. The minister will recall that I have written to him on several occasions on this matter. I have received telegrams and letters from nearly all the mine workers' local unions in Nova Scotia.
From the month of November to April 15 there is no shipping up the St. Lawrence. The insurance is lifted in November and shipping stops. For the last couple of years practically all the mines in Nova Scotia have been working three days a week from November to April 15. The men are 50 per cent unemployed. They cannot draw unemployment insurance because of the five-day waiting period.

This is how the. thing works. You are idle for three days this week. You cannot establish a claim because you are not idle five days. You go to work next week and you work three days, but those three days cannot be charged back to the previous week. You have to establish five days consecutively, unbroken. Despite the fact that the men are idle 50 per cent of the time they cannot establish a claim under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I have written the minister about it; we have talked about it. The last letter I had from him was dated February 15. I sent him a long memorandum that I had received from the executive board of the union to see if something could not be done to iron out the difficulty. The minister said he was checking with the commission to see if the establishment of what we wanted would upset the actuarial plan of the fund. I have not heard any more about it since, but in view of the fact that it has been an active matter for the last couple of months I thought something might have been done under the act with regard to the five waiting days.
If you cannot wipe out the five-day waiting period altogether some regulation should be drawn up to give a special dispensation with respect to the five-day waiting period in such instances as these, or you could make an arrangement under which the three days of this week and the three days of next week could be put together in the two weeks and then the worker would be entitled to at least one day's unemployment insurance. Then, having established their five waiting days, they would not have to re-establish the five waiting days with respect to any unemployment after that. Their claim would be established and they could carry on from there. It is a tangled proposition. It does not happen in all industries though it does happen in some, particularly in the coal mining districts where they have to ship by water.
We shall bring this matter up in committee. The minister can take a look at this again with his officials and be prepared to give us an answer in committee as to whether the suggestions made by the unions are practical or otherwise. I leave it there until the committee is in session.
May I say a word with respect to the national employment offices. There is no doubt about the value of the work they have done. As the minister indicated this afternoon, they have helped in placing some 14 million people in employment sinc'e they were established. That is a big thing in itself. There have been a lot of changes in the act and a lot of extra work has developed since

the offices were set up. I am not so sure that in some of the sections of the country that I know the staff the minister has in these offices is adequate to take care of the job they have to do. The space in some of the offices certainly is not all that is desired. The minister should take a look at them right across the country, because when these offices were established it was pretty much a matter of collecting funds, meeting a few people and sending them out to work. Everyone was looking for people to work at that time.
During the past four or five years a terrific load has been placed on the national employment offices that was not anticipated when they were set up. That is particularly true with respect to space and personnel. I have seen them working night and day in my own area when the coal company decided overnight to place a directive on the radio saying that 1,600 men were to be thrown in the discard tomorrow in a certain area. That is all the notice we get. Then, of course, those offices had to handle those people and try to get them registered and their claims sorted out.
I think you should take a look at the offices. I think a lot of the personnel are greatly underpaid. You have good men in these offices who could get better jobs somewhere else with the qualifications they have. I think you should take a look at their salary ranges. I know some of them who are working for rather small wages when you realize the work they have to do and the responsibility they have to assume.
The manager or the supervisor of employment at these offices takes considerable responsibility and does not get very much help from the big organizations. I am sure that General Motors, Dominion Steel and Coal, Canada Packers and the rest of these fellows do not patronize these offices for their requirements. They run their own show. I think if these offices were accepted for the purposes they were intended to fill and could do the kind of job that was done during the war you would have a much better employment picture in most communities. The national employment offices could question personnel and make out cards listing their qualifications. Then if these industrialists would send in their employment requirements they could at least pick out the right people and put them in the right grooves. But they want to run their own show, with the result that you have a pretty conflicting employment situation in the compact communities where you have large industries. You have two sets of offices trying to deal with the same problem.
4, 1955
Unemployment Insurance Act
As I said in the beginning, most of these people do not want national employment offices anyway. They want to run their own show. When they run it into the ground the only thing they want from the government is subsidies. They get themselves in the hole and then they say that if they are given $65 million they will be able to carry on. But they say to the government, "You cannot tell me whom to hire; you have no right to tell me anything." I suggest that the minister take a look at these offices with special reference to space and personnel, to see if they are being overloaded at the present time. My own experience is that they are badly overloaded, and more people could be used to good advantage.
Then a word with regard to regulation 5A under section 35 of the act. This is my particular baby, as I suppose I have done more hollering and written more letters in the last five years about it than anyone else in the house. I agree with the hon. member for Hamilton West; regulation 5A should be taken out of the act. It is not a regulation, it is a bear trap for married women. I would not mind if it were applied as it was intended to be applied, but here is what happens.
Say a girl is working for the telephone company-I run into a lot of them-and she knows nothing about this regulation. She intends to get married, and her vacation is coming up. A good time to get married and have a honeymoon is during your vacation. She intends to come back to work. She goes and gets married, comes back and works for a few months and finds that nature has played her a trick and she has to stop working. She may have paid unemployment insurance for ten years, and naturally expects that she will get the benefits. But when she makes her application the manager tells her that she cannot get unemployment insurance, that getting married or the result of marriage is not a reason for being unemployed. She is told that she will have to come back to work for 90 days in insurable employment, and then she can obtain unemployment insurance.
I have known of cases where a girl got married, went back to work and worked for three years. Then she stopped work or was let out. I know of several who were let out. When they applied for unemployment insurance the manager told them they could not get it as they had been married three years ago and this was their first job separation. He told them they could not get unemployment insurance unless they went back to work for 90 days in insurable employment. A woman may work three years after marriage, but she cannot get benefits because of

Unemployment Insurance Act regulation 5A. This forces a woman who is going to get married to leave her employment for that purpose, then reapply for employment which she may never get.
This makes for dishonesty, because if an employer will say the girl had been let out because he has a policy against employing married women she can get the benefits under those circumstances. But her employers must lie for her. Or he can say that there was not enough work and they had to let her out. She would then get her unemployment insurance. But if he tells the truth and she tells the truth she is penalized by being refused the benefits of unemployment insurance.
I suggest to the minister that before he finalizes the bill before the committee he lift out regulation 5A. There is no redress from it. I have handled two test cases. I went before the board of referees, but before you can make an appeal to the umpire here in Ottawa you must get a split decision by the board. You have to break the board in two, and I did that twice. I brought the cases right through to the umpire, but it was no use. There is no way around this bear trap, so I suggest that it should just be lifted out and put out of the way. Section 35 as it is without regulation 5A is all right, but in my judgment 5A is all wrong.
I should like to say a few words about the problem of employment as related to technological advances. Automation is the new word now. They always get a smokescreen. If you used the word automation through the country the average worker would think you were talking about one of these little tin men you make run around with electronics. This is merely technological advance. In plain and simple language it means that the machine is replacing man.
When I hear people say that a large public works program is needed my mind goes back to the Canso causeway. The prediction in 1952 was that this would employ 1,500 people and take three years to build. Well, it took 262 people 18 months to do that job with the machinery that was employed. The St. Lawrence seaway is visualized as providing employment for thousands and thousands of people, but just wait until they get at it. With the equipment they have available today they will dig that seaway with so few people in such a short space of time that you will think it was always there. That is not the answer. Public works are simply a palliative or a stop-gap; they may help in some communities, but they do not provide the answer to unemployment.	,
You say that we cannot stop progress. That is fine, but I do not consider it progress when

you are placing thousands and thousands of people permanently in a position where they cannot provide a living for themselves. The figures which are placed on the right side of the balance sheet by the use of equipment in my judgment do not represent the kind of progress we need in this country.
We have to answer this question. If we are going to perfect machinery which is to take the place of man then we must answer the question whether man is going to be the servant of the machine or the machine the servant of man. That is the question we have to answer. The answer to date has been that man is going to be the servant of the machine, but the fact is that there will be a small number of privileged few who will amass great fortunes for themselves and in doing so bring about poverty and misery and degradation for the many.
In the final analysis that is what this question of unemployment boils down to. There are things we can do about it and there are things we will have to do about it. Don't forget that we are always talking about our way of life. Our way of life is the way the average person lives. A fellow who is unemployed who looks at his family starving is not going to take kindly to all this talk about the British North America Act and technological advances and automation and all that sort of stuff. That is not going to satisfy him. If he is hungry he will want something to eat, and he will likely accept any kind of proposition which guarantees that he will get something to eat.
I think Canada and the United States must begin to consider the production we now have and our potential production which will be increased because of the terrific advances we are making in equipment and machinery. We must consider what we are going to do with it, how we will use it and what we will do with our surpluses. We have to start thinking about the establishment of the six-hour day and the reorganization of our working forces across the country to make more employment for more people in order to give those who are working and producing and paying taxes a little more leisure. I think if we were working in a mine, a steel plant or a factory, where one is required to drive at top speed, we would agree that six hours in one of those places is long enough. A little more time should be spent in the sunshine, or in reading or recreation.
More people must be given work. That is the only way we can give the average citizen a share in the progress we are making in the field of automation or technological progress. There is no other way of doing it, and we have to start thinking about it.

I think the guaranteed annual wage is something that has to be taken into consideration. I said that in this house six years ago, long before they began to talk about it in the United States. I said that people who have employment have as much right to a guarantee that they are going to eat seven days a week as the managerial staff and the white-collar staff. The latter have it now. All civil servants have it. Anyone who works for the government has a guaranteed wage, sick leave arrangements and all those things.
In asking for a guaranteed annual wage industry is merely asking for something that is already established in many sections of our society, and I do not think anyone who takes that position is being unreasonable because in the final analysis the fishermen, the miners, the farmers and the workers produce the wealth of the entire country. The others are service organizations and a necessary part of organized society, but without the primary producers there would be no need for managerial or white-collar staffs, or anything else.
I have never forgotten one statement Abraham Lincoln made in his day on that particular subject. He agreed that capital had a right to a return on its investment, but he said that labour had a prior right because labour came first and if it were not for labour there would be no capital. That was the position he took, and I think his statement is equally true today. In my judgment the implementation of the principle he enunciated at that time can be brought about only by the guaranteed annual wage.
Probably there are dangers for the worker in the guaranteed annual wage in that he becomes a partner in the industry and is tied to the bondholders and stockholders and must go along with the industry. However, it might be the instrument that would prevent many of the upheavals which occur every year or two in the renegotiation of contracts; it could serve that purpose. A lot of union men would not like the workers to tie themselves to industry in that way, but I am glad to see that a man like Walter Reuther in the United States is supporting it very strongly, and a certain section of the Canadian unions is also doing so.
I think it would be well for the minister, perhaps through an interdepartmental committee, to look at the question of the six-hour day and the guaranteed annual wage, and to do some research on it; because it has to come and it will come and we should bring it about in a sensible, organized way based on good solid research, as was done when the Unemployment Insurance Act was created.
4. 1955
Unemployment Insurance Act
Another thing which I think the department should be thinking about in the field of social security is a national retirement allowance. I have said that in this house a good many times. The types of industrial pension which we have today are a means by which we throw away a good many millions of dollars. Every industry whether big or small has its own little pension plan under our present system, and none of them is adequate. The pittance they pay means very little at the end of the trail and although hundreds of millions of dollars are invested in them I think they serve little purpose.
I said a long time ago that there is only one way we can adequately cover the people of this country with a retiring allowance, and that is by the means used in establishing the old age security fund. If it is negotiated with those who are affected I am convinced they will turn over the funds they have invested today and use them as the basis for a national retiring allowance, and then everybody can be covered by taxation. It might cost 6 per cent, which is the average percentage of my income contributed during the time I am working, to give me a retiring allowance of $100 or $125 a month. I think every worker in this country would be prepared to pay it. It could be put in the hands of a branch like the annuities branch, people who are competent and capable of handling that type of thing. Then when I reached age 65 I would retire and would have the guarantee of the government behind me. I would receive my cheque regularly, just as pension cheques and family allowance cheques are distributed regularly. That would represent real security and it is the only way we can adequately cover the people of this country.
I have made that statement several times in past sessions, and as a result I have received a great many letters from small industrialists in Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and other sections of the country. Their letters told me to keep on pushing for that kind of allowance because they felt I was on the right track. They said that they as small industries find themselves in the position that they cannot offer the kind of pensions offered by large companies. They said they would like to protect their workers but cannot, but under the scheme I advocated they could contribute through taxation and cover their workers in the way they would like to do it. They said this would bring uniformity right across the country, and everyone would know they had a guarantee with regard to retiring allowances.
As it is today the pensions established in industry are only as secure as the balance sheet of the industry, and many of them are

Unemployment Insurance Act going into liquidation after workers have paid into the plan for years. When the company fails and there are a lot of men approaching retiring age there is nothing for the men and they receive no return on their contribution. I have seen it happen in industries close to where I live. That is another matter the department should take a look at.
If we are going to retain the kind of society we have, then we have to start doing that kind of thing. We cannot continue as we have for the last two generations, when we had unemployment, misery, poverty and no future for the youth of the country who were .the lost generation between the last two wars, riding box cars from coast to coast. No one assumed responsibility for them. We cannot carry on like that any further.
Many promises were made after the last war, but we are on the same trail we were on in 1939, prior to the second world war. We cannot go on like that. We have to start measuring up and introducing social changes. War is no longer going to be an alternative in this country or in the United States in relation to the question of decent living standards.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have said more than I intended to say. I could continue to talk for hours on this particular subject, but I shall allow my case to rest there.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Chairman, I listened with keen interest to the talk given by the Minister of Labour this afternoon. I noticed one sentence in which he said that this amendment and the implications thereof were all of one and the same piece. To me that was a rather significant sentence. He says it is all of one and the same piece; it is all inadequate and all of the same inadequacy. I noticed another sentence of his that I thought was rather significant, when he said "We must not lessen the incentive to work if work is available". That sentence reminded me of the many insinuations I have heard to the effect that there are a number of people who love to see a large number of unemployed. To them a large number of unemployed means that they are able to keep labour in its place, as they see it.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Will the hon. member tell me the words I used that would lead him to believe that I said I was glad to see a large number of unemployed?


Erhart Regier: I am sorry, but I did not mean to say that. As far as I remember the words they were that we must not lessen the incentive to work if work is available. If the minister would like to deny that sentence, I shall be most happy to hear him.
[Mr. Gillis.l

Unemployment Insurance Act by way of health insurance is coverage that will take care of the bill for $1,500 or $3,000 with which he may be faced.
Relating that to the matter of unemployment insurance, the average workingman receiving $300 a month or more does not need insurance to cover him for one month or three months. I submit what he needs is insurance that will cover him for one year, two years or three years. When we come to the regulations under the Unemployment Insurance Act we find that the workingman does not have any insurance against the situation for which he needs insurance. He has insurance for one month and, if I understood the minister correctly, up to somewhere in the neighbourhood of 11 months, but he does not have insurance to take care of the situation for which he really needs insurance. It is just the same as in the field of health, and all the private health and hospital insurance schemes are alike in this regard. They will not give you insurance to cover the situation for which you really need insurance. They will only insure you to a limited extent. So too the government of Canada only provides insurance for the unemployed for a limited period, a period during which they might easily get by on their own.
I regret the continued demands for eliminating this waiting period or that waiting period. The unemployed people of Canada need insurance for something for which the government is unwilling to give them insurance. They need insurance to cover long-term unemployment. If the minister thinks this does not apply to the average worker, may I say that it certainly does apply to the unemployed worker once he has reached the age of 40 or over, or even 35 or over.
We have had unemployment insurance for some time now, and it is about time we revised our attitude toward it. First of all, we do not want insurance; we want employment. We want employment at decent wages. And second, if we have unemployment insurance, then we want to have it payable not until the benefits expire but until employment is again found for us.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, the hour is getting late and I am not going to speak at length. I must say I listened with interest to the minister's statement on this resolution. However, it is usually my practice to read such statements so I am quite clear on what has been said.
I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Cape Breton South have placed the position of this group clearly before the committee. I did enjoy the historical review of the evolution of
[Mr. Regier.l
unemployment legislation given by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. While he was giving it I was inclined to think in terms of the past, and my thoughts went back 50 years and to the tortuous path the federal government has taken in accepting the responsibility for labour legislation.
In the early days of this century the federal government accepted certain responsibility in connection with legislation for unions, as applying to workers within the provinces. Then in 1903 a royal commission was set up by the federal government to investigate strikes and serious labour troubles occurring in the gold mining and hard rock mining industries of British Columbia, as well as among carpenters and workers on the railways. That commission went to British Columbia and after some months made a report to the House of Commons. I might add that the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King was secretary to that commission. The concluding paragraph of the commission's report, it seems to me, does indicate the great improvement in our outlook toward labour problems. The concluding paragraph of this report, which dealt with industrial disputes in the province of British Columbia, is in these words:
At the same time we feel quite free to admit that, while much good can be accomplished by wise legislation, the labour problem, so-called, is incapable of final solution, and that it will be with us as long as human nature remains what it is, and present civilization endures.
I think there is a very different outlook today toward labour problems, and since that time we have made a great deal of progress. In this report, which was presented to the House of Commons, the commissioners recommended that labour disputes in British Columbia go before the exchequer court and be dealt with there.
This calls to mind an early experience of the former prime minister in my constituency. He was sent out there, as deputy minister, to act as conciliation officer in a dispute between the western federation of miners and certain mining companies in Rossland, British Columbia. I remember reading in the newspapers about his trip. I thought the Rossland paper stated the situation rather well when, adopting-the crisp form of news reporting followed by those early weekly papers, it said:
A roly-poly man with a cherubic face, in a bowler hat, riding a scraggy nag arrived in Rossland. He was the deputy minister of labour, Mr. Mackenzie King.
This would seem to indicate that at that time the federal government accepted some responsibility for labour problems involving men who were not employed in national industries.

Then we have seen, in the lapse of years, a change in the situation. It has been found necessary to change the constitution before the workingmen of Canada could get unemployment insurance. Possibly the minister will be able to explain the reason for this changed situation. This change became even more interesting to me because of the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I should like now to place before the minister certain anomalies I have found in the act, in my experience. A good many persons have brought the matter to my attention, and t shall bring it before the House of Commons.
I refer to the position of men who work in forestry in British Columbia. These men are found in quite large numbers in the central part of the province, and I presume there are many of them in other parts. They go out on duties such as surveys, or felling snags, or burning brush, or slashing, or any other work required in the conservation of timber. While the cooks in the camp who cook for them, or the carpenters who build their camps, or the men who build the trails for the various roads are covered by unemployment insurance, those men who work at felling the timber, cutting the logs, slashing the brush or burning it are not covered by the act.
In this connection I wish to read a letter which outlines clearly what I have in mind. Before doing so, however, let me pay tribute to the local management of the national employment service in my district, particularly in recent years. The manager there has done excellent work in visiting small communities and attending meetings of the Legion, trade unions, various institutes or lumbermen's organizations, and has taken great pains to explain the regulations and how applications should be sent in. These visits have been most helpful and have cut down the loss of time that formerly occurred because forms were filled out improperly because those who filled them out did not understand the regulations and the procedure.
The letter I have before me was written by the manager of the local employment office in reply to a young man who had worked during the summer at cutting logs and felling trees, who eventually became unemployed and expected to receive unemployment insurance. This was the letter he received:
Dear Sir:
We refer to your letter of January 25, 1954.
We regret the delay in answering your letter. The delay was due to the fact that we requested an official ruling from Ottawa in respect to your case.
4, 1955
Unemployment Insurance Act
This, may I say, is only one case of a good many.
As we previously stated to you, your employment with the B.C. forest service was considered as employment in forestry, and therefore not insurable.
For your information, we quote an extract from the letter received from Ottawa:
"As you have told Mr. Rogers, employment in forestry is not one of the employments at present covered by the act. It is specified as an excepted employment in part II of the schedule to the act. The expression 'employment in forestry' is interpreted as meaning the cultivation of forests, the management of growing timber and the prevention of forest fires. To ensure uniformity of interpretation throughout the province, we have determined with the concurrence of the British Columbia forest service the classes of employees of this department who are to be insured and those who should not be insured. Thus clerical staff, research workers, draftsmen, truck and tractor operators, mechanics, carpenters, dispatchers, and scalers are insured because they are not directly engaged in forestry work."
In my opinion this is a most hair-splitting decision. It continues:
"On the other hand, foresters, lookout men, rangers, patrolmen, cruisers, fire suppression crewmen, and those engaged in tree planting and clearing brush, etc., are, of course, not insured as this work is actual forestry.
Mr. Rogers and his crew were engaged in clearing brush after logging operations. This is an operation classed as forestry and the employment was not insurable. Cooks, like carpenters and mechanics, are not engaged in a forestry occupation. They are tradesmen engaged in their own trade and are properly insured."
In view of the above information, we feel that your standing in respect to unemployment insurance coverage should be quite clear.
I bring that to the minister's attention because it does work a hardship on a good number of men, and the very men who do the casual work. The men who are covered are, on the whole, year-round employees of the forestry service of British Columbia; but the men who are hired in the summertime to go out and clear up the debris to prevent fires, and who in some cases do the slashing and tree-top lopping of timber in areas in which private operators had been working, do work identical with that which is being done by men who work in the woods. Under the present regulations under the act they are not covered. I bring this to the minister's attention because it does work a hardship on a good number of men who are employed in that work for possibly eight or ten months every year and are then laid off; whereas most of those who are employed throughout the year are covered by the act.
I ask the minister to look into the question because there is an absurdity in the definition or application of the word "forestry".


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, in listening to this very interesting debate I realize that the hon. member for Cape Breton South and

Unemployment Insurance Act I are the only two of those who have spoken who were here in 1940 when the legislation was passed, though quite a number of other hon. members on both sides of the house were here at that time.
Hon. members who were here then will recall that June 25, 1940, was a pretty black day. The Germans had overrun the low countries and France, and everyone was quite worried about the future. However, the government of the day, anxious to get the very best from Canada's working force, felt that unemployment insurance should be made law. While members of all parties gave enthusiastic support to this legislation, yet it is obvious from the present problem that confronts Canada that this proposal is not adequate. I am sure no one is going to oppose it, but if this is the government's major answer to Canada's present unemployment problem, it just is not good enough.
The hon. member for Vancouver South suggested that the provinces have a real interest and responsibility in this field. I would like to remind the house that on June 25, 1940, the then minister of justice, Mr. Lapointe, in introducing the resolution that asked Westminster to change the British North America Act, said, as reported at page 1109 of Hansard:
And whereas, if a uniform and effective system of compulsory unemployment insurance is to be adopted throughout Canada, it will be necessary to amend the British North America Act, 1867, to enable the parliament of Canada to enact the necessary legislation;-
In due course section 91 of the British North America Act was amended by adding thereto as class 2A the following:
2A. Unemployment insurance.
Section 91 of the British North America Act reads-I shall not read the whole paragraph-
-and for greater certainty but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms of this section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this act) the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to say:-
Then it gives a list of 29 fields such as the following: postal service, the census and statistics and, of course, unemployment insurance. As it stands now, under the British North America Act no province would be permitted to pass unemployment insurance legislation even if such province had the funds, and I think it is pretty obvious that since the provinces and the municipalities get such a small share of the taxpayer's dollar to spend they would not be able to

undertake the responsibility of dealing with the unemployment situation we now have in Canada.
In another debate the hon. member for Saskatoon said something about the leakage that is involved in connection with public works projects. For example, if the government of Saskatchewan were to undertake the building of the South Saskatchewan river dam, we shall say at a cost of $100 million, not more than $25 million of the total would be of any assistance to the province of Saskatchewan in providing work with wages or business for the business organizations of that province. About half the amount would benefit other provinces of Canada, and almost 25 per cent of the total would benefit places other than Canada. Since the country in which we live is dependent upon each section, I think it was quite right that in 1940 we should have changed the British North America Act to make it perfectly clear that the federal government should have the responsibility for dealing with the problem of unemployment.
Several of my colleagues have referred to the guaranteed annual income. Tomorrow night the Minister of Finance is going to bring down the budget, which is looked forward to with a great deal of interest. Representations have been made to the minister that he reduce the income tax. I for one have never made such representations to him, and indeed I have said there are a great many more people in Canada who are worrying because they cannot pay income tax than are worrying because the income tax is too high.
Those who are paying income tax are granted certain exemptions. A single person has an exemption of $1,000 and a married person of $2,000. Since we have accepted that principle for so many years we should also accept the principle that every person in Canada should have a guaranteed income, that no one should have to live on less than a certain amount. I am not going to say what that amount should be, but if we are to have for income tax purposes an exemption of $2,000 for married persons and $1,000 for single persons, we should decide that the economy of Canada will stand an income for every person of the country.
The automobile industry has been mentioned. Walter Reuther, of the United Automobile Workers, emphasized in Cleveland the other day that the industry should be prepared to guarantee an annual income to everyone in the automobile industry. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that the general manager, all directors, the sales staff, and all the office workers in that industry now have a guaranteed annual

income. I submit that the machinists and the mechanics who do the work in the factories, and are just as necessary to produce automobiles as are the officials, should have a guaranteed annual income provided by this industry as a part of the cost of producing automobiles.
In the white paper today the Minister of Finance mentioned that last year the gross national product was worth around $24 billion. If my arithmetic is correct that works out to about $1,600 for every man, woman and child in the country. We can face the fact that we can increase this amount or we can decrease it. We can increase the $24 billion by making it possible for every ablebodied person in Canada to perform some useful work. I submit that while the Minister of Labour has not been charged with this responsibility so far, he should ask his colleagues to give him the wider powers and the necessary funds so he can bring in legislation in order that the 600,000 people who are now in the ranks of the unemployed might look forward to finding a chance to do some creative work.
It is as plain as a, b, c. If the 600,000 people are given a chance to do creative work the gross national product next year will be a good deal higher than the $24 billion mentioned by the Minister of Finance. On the radio the other night the hon. member for Nanaimo mentioned that the gross national product was down about $600 million as a result of the failure of the wheat crop in the prairie provinces. That factor is having a very direct effect on the unemployment problem. Farmers who lost their crops last year or those who have not been able to sell their crops are not included in the 600,000 in the ranks of the unemployed, but many of those farmers are in a position where they are denied the privilege of buying their fair share of the goods available in Canada. I submit that the municipal and provincial authorities cannot cope with this problem, but in my opinion the federal government can deal with the problem of the farm population receiving $600 million less in the way of purchasing power.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I have been following this debate all day and have been making what I consider a rather determined effort not to curtail the discussion of every aspect of unemployment insurance, including a great many aspects of unemployment. But I am afraid I must come to the conclusion that a guaranteed annual wage or other provisions whereby a shortage of farm income on the prairies can be corrected by federal government action cannot be said to come within the purview of this resolution, which states
4, 1955
Unemployment Insurance Act that it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend and consolidate the Unemployment Insurance Act. I particularly do not want to curtail the hon. member after having allowed other hon. members to discuss a guaranteed annual wage and so on, but I am strongly of the opinion that the hon. member who now has the floor has really gone beyond the Unemployment Insurance Act, and I think he will have very little difficulty coming back to it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I had finished with that and I am going to conclude promptly. In conclusion I would like to remind the cabinet particularly that when this legislation was passed originally the then minister of finance announced the theory that whatever is physically possible will be made financially possible. That was a sound financial theory, and it is equally sound today.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I do ask the hon. member to co-operate. We really are not discussing the general outlines of financial systems; we are discussing whether it is expedient to amend and consolidate the Unemployment Insurance Act. I would ask the hon. member to help to keep the discussion somewhere on the track.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I am concluding. I think the minister should recommend to the committee that necessary amendments be made to the legislation so he can deal with the problem of the other people who are unemployed but who are not going to be covered by this legislation.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I assure you that I am going to speak to the motion now before us as to the advisability of amending and consolidating the Unemployment Insurance Act. I am certain in my own mind that practically all the workers in Canada will welcome the progressive amendments which were outlined to this committee this afternoon and which will be included in the bill the minister proposes to bring in to amend and consolidate the Unemployment Insurance Act.
However, in listening to the minister this afternoon I must admit that I was somewhat puzzled by certain phases of his explanation as to the policies and amendments he had in mind. As we are in committee stage on the resolution I would like to deal with about three of those phases which are giving me some puzzlement and which I think most definitely should be clarified before we have the actual introduction and second reading of the bill, in order that the Minister of Labour can give us a clearer understanding

Business of the House
and explanation as to the motives and purposes behind the three phases which I desire to discuss.
As there are three phases which I want to talk about I should like to call it ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall take as the first item No. 5, consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 4, to regulate the exportation of power and fluids and the importation of gas. I understand that these
are very minor amendments and so far as I am aware there is no objection to them in the house and we could dispose of the bill almost at once. Then we shall continue with this debate; then take the adjourned debate on the motion to go into supply, and then the adjourned debate on the motion with respect to the reference of external affairs items to the special committee. I would hope that we can conclude all these items of business before we adjourn on Wednesday evening.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 5, 1955