1955-01-13

RIPPLE ROCK


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: I beg leave to table a report, prepared at the request of my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) on the removal of Ripple Rock, which is a submerged navigational hazard in Seymour narrows, about 100 miles north of Vancouver. This report has been prepared by the associate committee for navigational facilities on the west coast, established by the national research council to study this project.
This committee was established after two previous attempts to remove the rock by surface methods, using techniques then known, were unsuccessful. This report concludes that the rock can be successfully removed either by surface operations, using present-day techniques, or by tunnelling. It recommends in favour of the latter as being the more positive approach.
I have asked Mr. Victor Dolmage, an eminent consulting geologist, who has had wide experience on the Kitimat project and other undertakings of this general nature, to indicate whether, in his opinion, this report could be translated into an engineering approach to the problem complete with plans and specifications.
Mr. Dolmage has now reported that in his opinion this is entirely practical, and he has been retained to prepare the required plans and specifications. It is anticipated that tenders will be called and that the work will be done under Mr. Dolmage's general supervision, on behalf of the Department of Public Works.
It is estimated that it will require some six months to prepare plans and specifications and that the rock can be removed within a space of two years after the contract is awarded. It is estimated that the total cost
involved will be in the vicinity of $2-5 million. Funds will be sought in the supplementary estimates for the next fiscal year in an appropriate amount to cover expenditures incurred in 1955-56.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works arising out of his statement. Can the minister give assurance to the house that the government will take all necessary steps to protect the residents in the vicinity of Ripple Rock against any possible loss or damage to property arising out of the blasting of the rock.


Robert Henry Winters: I can say that is one of the factors that have been taken into consideration.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (for the Minister of Finance):: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the public accounts and the report of the Auditor General for the year ended March 31, 1954.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Yesterday the hon. member for Oxford asked me if any protests had been received from the hotel association of Canada in connection with the administration of the proposed Canadian National hotel in Montreal. I told him that I did not think I had received any, but over the week end a letter had been received from Mr. Caswell, executive chairman of that organization, containing a resolution which I think does amount to a protest in that connection and which asks for reconsideration of the matter.
Yesterday or this morning, I am not sure which, a letter was received from the Alberta hotel association, enclosing a copy of

Inquiries of the Ministry a resolution which seems to be in the same terms as the other resolution. I am informed that similar letters were addressed to my colleague the Minister of Transport, and that the resolution has been referred to the authorities of the Canadian National Railways.



SALE OF HOTELS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister give the house any information about the sale of Canadian National hotels, with particular reference to the safeguarding of the rights of the employees concerned?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: I may say that I received notice of this question just a few minutes ago. I shall endeavour to answer it on the earliest possible occasion.



BOOK OF REMEMBRANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. L. Jones (Okanagan Boundary):: Will the Minister of Veterans Affairs say whether the government has yet decided about the placing of the second world war book of remembrance? If so, when will the book be placed in its permanent home?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: This matter is under
active consideration at the present time. For the information of my hon. friend and members of the house I may say the book of remembrance for world war II, which was expected to be ready at the end of 1955, might not be completed until a later date.



IRRIGATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. What is the present position of negotiations that have been going on between the Saskatchewan government and the federal government with regard to the South Saskatchewan dam and irrigation project? Is it a fact that a tentative agreement has been arrived at as the basis of a distribution of costs as between the federal and provincial governments?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There has been no tentative 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.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask an additional question? Is it not a fact that the federal government has submitted to the government of Saskatchewan some tentative agreement?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, I would not say it is a fact that the government of Canada has submitted to the government of Saskatchewan a tentative agreement. I understand officials of the P.F.R.A. have been discussing with officials of the Saskatchewan government what terms might be acceptable to the government of Saskatchewan if a decision were made. And I understand that my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has had some interviews, discussing the draft that has been prepared by the officials with the premier and members of the Saskatchewan government. But that is as far as the negotiations have reached at this time.
I have seen this draft that was prepared, and there were provisions in it which I feel quite sure we would not be prepared to recommend to parliament. That is where the matter stands at the present time.


John George Diefenbaker: Was that the provincial draft, sir?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Well, I cannot say that it is a provincial draft. I am rather under the impression it is a draft that was prepared by officials of the P.F.R.A., who have always been convinced that it was a project that should be proceeded with.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I ask a supplementary question. Are we to understand that the Minister of Agriculture in these negotiations has been negotiating on his own?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Oh, no.


Major James William Coldwell: Because the Saskatchewan government is under the impression that the latest proposal is sent from the government of Canada to the government of Saskatchewan. That is the way it has been put to me.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The minister has not been negotiating on his own. But if there is any impression that this is a proposal for the carrying out of the project by the government of Canada, it is a misapprehension; I think they are well aware that there has been no decision made yet to go ahead with the project at this time.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. When does he expect to receive the report of the restrictive trade practices commission following its investigation into the whole practice of loss leader selling?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: I should think, Mr. Speaker, within about two months.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 6, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, it is not our purpose to deal at length with this bill because, as was stated when the resolution was discussed, the bill is pretty much in line with that resolution. However, there are one or two things I would like to say.
I would refer first to a technical matter. I notice that in deleting subsection 1 of section 93 no provision has been made for renumbering the other sections. I believe that will have to be accounted for in some way. We now have subsection 2 as the first subsection in section 93, and no mention is made in the bill of renumbering the sections.
Then with regard to the table of rates, as I said the other day members in the official opposition as well as other members in the house have spoken at different times with respect to adjusting the rates of supplementary benefits since the rates of regular benefits were raised. I cannot help wondering just how the department got around the fact that despite subsection 1, which is now to be repealed, and which says that the rates of supplementary benefit shall be 80 per cent, during the period of time since the regular rates of benefit have been raised the rates of supplementary benefit have not been anything like 80 per cent.
As a matter of fact in some cases, notably in the lower rates, they ran about 80 per cent; but the higher the rate of daily contribution ran, the lower proportionately has been the rate of supplementary benefit which was paid. In the top class, for a person with dependents the amount paid was just 70 per cent, despite the fact that the act says the supplementary benefits shall be 80 per cent. I also note that apparently those persons
Unemployment Insurance Act without dependents have fared much better, in ratio, than those who had dependents; because even in the top bracket they managed to get 75-44 per cent whereas persons with dependents received only 70 per cent.
Probably the minister will explain that when he speaks. Now that the act is to be amended I mention this only as a matter of interest, but it has been a fact that people have been deprived of their just rights under this section.
Then with regard to section 94, last year when the season was well advanced we asked on two or three different occasions whether any plans were made, because of the urgency of the situation, to extend the period for the payment of supplementary benefits beyond April 15. The answer we received was that the matter was under consideration and, finally, that no action would be taken.
And so, Mr. Speaker, to support the remarks which were made in the house during the course of the debate on the resolution the other day, and at other times, and in order to bring this matter to a head I should move an amendment to clause 2. Shall I move it now or wait until the section is before the committee? Perhaps I should wait, and when clause 2 is before the committee of the whole I shall offer my amendment.
With those remarks, we are satisfied.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, there is not much one needs to say with regard to this bill more than was said when the resolution was before the committee of the whole house a few days ago. But I wish to emphasize by just how much this measure, useful though it may be, fails to meet the unemployment situation, at least in my part of the country. Before leaving home to come to Ottawa for this session I had more calls in regard to unemployment than at any time, I believe, since the winter of 1938-39.
I appreciate the value of this so far as it goes. The labour organizations have been asking for it for a long time. The bill does two things. It extends the period in which supplementary benefits may be paid, and it raises the amount of the supplementary payments to that of the regular payments under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I was again interested in seeing the benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act, which will now be the supplementary benefits as well as the regular ones, and noting the very little difference between the weekly benefits of a person without a dependent in the first category, who has contributed, and a person with a dependent. Under the act an unmarried person without a dependent now
136	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act receives a weekly benefit, whether regular or supplementary, of $4.20. If he is a married man and has a wife and, say, one child he gets weekly benefits of $4.80, which is 60 cents more than he would receive if he were a single person. Then the amounts go up a little bit but, if we take the next category, it is $6 for the person without a dependent and $7.50 for a person with dependents.
What is required here is the raising of the amount of the benefit in all categories. I believe for some time at least these amounts could be raised without any change in the contribution. Because of the increases in the cost of living since the rates were established, those rates now provided are no longer adequate. The more unemployed we have, and the longer the period during which people are unemployed, the more inadequate the rates will become.
While there is no intention on our part to delay this measure in any way-as a matter of fact we wish to hurry it along as much as possible-we wish to say that as far as we are concerned it is very definitely an instalment, and a very small instalment, of what must be done for the unemployed if we are to enable them to live as citizens of this wealthy country should live.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: It is not
my intention to hold up this bill at all. We all had a chance the other day to say what we had to say with respect to the general principle of the bill, and everyone agreed that action should be taken immediately.
When I was speaking the other day, I said in a general way that this was not going to be a cure-all for the problem of unemployment. I recalled vividly the situation that exists in my own constituency and in Drum-heller, where the coal mining industry is practically a thing of the past. In fact it got to be so bad that the provincial government had to allot, I think it was, $100,000 in order to move the miners out of that district entirely, because they could see that the coal mining industry, as far as western Canada is concerned, is getting worse rather than better.
Of course part of the blame can be laid on this government because of their policy in regard to the importation of foreign coal. But as I see it, the benefits from unemployment insurance are certainly not going to help in the Drumheller district. That is what I am concerned about. What are we going to do with these people after this legislation is in force and they have exhausted their 60-day minimum payments? That is the question that is bothering the working people of the day.
[Mr. Maclnnis.l

This is going to be of assistance. It introduces an increase in the amount of supplementary benefits, and it also introduces a new principle, in that we are now going to establish a 60-day minimum period during which supplementary benefits may be received. That is all to the good, but it is not in any way going to solve the problem of unemployment. I know that the minister will say right away that it was never intended to solve the problem of unemployment. But if things are going to continue to get worse, as they have in the past-and we must acknowledge that; I think the minister himself acknowledges that now-in the employment field, then what is going to happen after the supplementary payments have been exhausted?
This is only a palliative, and it is a mighty small one at that. It is going to be gratefully received; it is something the workers are entitled to. Hon. members and the minister should be greatly concerned; and he should bring down amendments, which he has already indicated he intends to do, that will materially assist in meeting the unemployment problem until such time as the workers are re-employed, not until such time as the 60-day period has elapsed. That is the responsibility of this government, and that is something we have to do.
Any further remarks I have to make, Mr. Speaker, I shall make when we come to the sections of the bill.
(Translation) :


Mr. Lionel Bertrand (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, the measure introduced by the government is highly satisfactory to me and I wish to say how much I am gratified by it. In the first place it is not to be denied that extra winter benefits have been and continue to be of very great value to workers faced with seasonal unemployment. The government must be commended for their decision in making these benefits equal to ordinary benefits.
The people of my constituency are kept very busy during the summer months in the building trade and other related fields. But during the winter they have more difficulty in finding employment of a permanent nature. I support this measure without any reservation whatsoever.
I understand, of course, that it is not calculated to strike directly at the unemployment situation in our area, a situation which at times, during 1954, has been a source of very real concern, to say the least. A number of industries in my constituency have had to face competition from foreign products. Goods manufactured abroad where labour is paid at ridiculously low rates have been flooding

this country, selling at prices which our own businessmen are unable to match since they have to keep on paying salaries designed to maintain the high standard of living of which we are so proud. That is why the government should be careful in advocating certain types of trade, even though trade may be generally advisable and even necessary to our national economy. They must do everything in their power to protect the interests of our own Canadian firms, such as the Dominion Rubber located in St. Jerome, or the Regent Knitting Mills of the same city, both of which are indispensable to local progress and employment. And if, through our trade policies, some plants or companies happen to be harder hit than others, the government must show them special consideration when it comes to letting contracts; such action will be appreciated by all.
Canada must trade with all the countries in the world and this trade, which is bound to be bilateral, is not without causing some unfavourable or irksome reactions here and there, in various spheres of our national economy. It therefore behooves the government to compensate, in one way or another, the business enterprises which, with a view to ensuring the progress of the community, make more personal sacrifices than others.
Along with the government I believe that Canada is going through a transition period and I hope to witness in 1955 the levelling-off of a situation which at times, in the last few months, has caused great concern to the people. Some of our bank presidents, in their annual speeches, remain optimistic about the future. According to yesterday's papers, the president of the Banque Canadien-ne Nationale, Mr. Charles St. Pierre, in his address to the directors on the occasion of the 80th annual meeting, made the following statement which is worth quoting:
The levelling off which was experienced last year was not unexpected. It is easy to realize that Canada cannot advance by leaps and bounds indefinitely without interruption. Periods of readjustment are indispensable to assure a sound economic development. The year 1954 was one of those stabilization periods. When it is looked at in its proper perspective, it will doubtless appear as a milestone in the expansion of our country.
Canada is a new country, a country in full growth, and, however great are its riches and however brilliant its future, it cannot escape the impact of the world's economic fluctuations. All the less so because, being a great exporting country, its prosperity is linked up with foreign markets. The business trend in the United States, the slowing down of which has had repercussions on our own economy, has again improved during the last months of the year. There is therefore reason to believe that our trade with our chief market will recover the lost ground.
However, Canada must also reckon with the other countries. Now the development of production in the world as a whole and the resumption of inter-50433-10
Unemployment Insurance Act national competition resulting therefrom indicate that the post-war period is at an end. Already there are signs that the return to a more normal order of things is giving rise to problems which demand efforts at readaptation. The necessary readjustments which have already begun will have to be pursued in several fields, and we are justified in hoping that they will be successfully achieved in the near future.
If a survey of the present situation may incline one to be prudent, none the less a sober optimism is justified at the beginning of this new year.
I have faith in my country, with its boundless resources and its promising future; it is far from having attained the maximum development. And the responsibility of this government, the duty of this parliament is to find the best way to make our Canadian homes safe from unemployment and insecurity.
The government intends to bring down more elaborate amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Personally I would have preferred the supplementary benefits to be paid from December 15 to April 1, instead of from January 1 to April 15. If the supplementary benefits were paid in December those entitled to them would get them during the Christmas season. That, to my mind, would make the act more humane still at a time when, for a lot of people, the end of the year is not so much a halt as a hope of better days.
And I have another suggestion to put before the government. I think the Unemployment Insurance Act could be amended so that the women who get married may recover the amount they have paid into the unemployment insurance fund. Such amount could be paid to them in a lump sum upon proof of marriage; should they seek employment later on, they would have to qualify again in order to be entitled to the benefits.
My county has three unemployment insurance offices. I want to pay a tribute to the personnel of those offices, to the way they receive the public and help them. They perform a task which is often thankless and always ticklish. They serve their country, they are the distributors of the wealth of a community during the all too numerous periods of hardship, and they are also the administrators of a great act which, 15 years after it was put in our statutes, proves how farsighted was the party to which we are indebted for it. The Unemployment Insurance Act has proven indispensable. If ever health insurance is added to unemployment insurance, the two words most dreaded by those who have to toil and moil every day of their life, unemployment and sickness, will make way for security. Security means peace for those who strive.

Unemployment Insurance Act
(Text):


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, as has been said by earlier speakers, this bill does two things; it increases the rate of supplementary benefits and it increases the minimum number of days from 18 to 60. As the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) has said, our party has no fault to find in regard to these details. For several years we have been urging the government to do this sort of thing, and we are now glad to see that they have made it a reality. However, the bill specifies that the supplementary benefits can be paid only during the period January 1 to April 15. I contend that these benefits should be paid during other periods as well, and that is what I want to speak about this afternoon.
This bill is designed to alleviate hardship which would otherwise be experienced by people whose unemployment insurance credits have expired during the winter months. The government has learned at long last, after it has been pointed out to it during the past two or three years by the opposition, that people cannot live on 80 per cent of their unemployment insurance benefits. We are very glad to see that they have learned at last that-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: They cannot live even on 100 per cent.


George Harris Hees: As the hon. member for Hamilton West says, they cannot live on even 100 per cent. I think that is so true. In refusing to pay these supplementary benefits until January 1, the government is assuming that people whose credits have expired before that date can in some miraculous fashion go into hibernation until the first of the year, and that they and their families are not going to require food, clothing and shelter until that time.
If it is necessary, and it most certainly is necessary, to increase these supplementary benefits from 80 per cent to 100 per cent of the regular benefits, then how much more necessary it is to increase the supplementary benefits from zero to 100 per cent during the months, say, of October, November and December! Hunger and hardship just do not understand this government's timetable. You can be just as cold, just as hungry and just as sick during the month of November as you can in the month of February.
If a man or woman is willing and anxious to work, and through no fault of his or her own cannot find work during the months preceding the first of the year, then somebody


must assume responsibility for that person and his family. The municipalities have no funds to do it; the provinces have no funds to do it. For some years past it has been the overwhelming opinion of all people who have made studies of this problem that this is a federal responsibility. They have urged the federal government to assume its responsibility in this matter. However, despite this overwhelming body of opinion, this government has continued to duck its responsibility, and I believe that by so doing it is showing a shocking lack of concern for the people for whom it has a primary responsibility.
This matter must be faced up to, and I think the time is long overdue for the government to come to grips with the problem and tell the Canadian people what it is going to do. For two or three years past I have asked the minister to tell the country what his views are on this problem, and the minister on behalf of the government has refused. I am going to ask him again today. I hope he will give us an answer, because the country is waiting for that answer.
I would like to cite a few opinions expressed on this matter by bodies set up by the government. First of all we have the Sirois report, which contains these two major points:
(a)	Responsibility for all unemployed employables rests with the federal government;
(b)	Responsibility for all other persons requiring public assistance rests with the provincial and municipal governments.
On page 42 of book II of the recommendations, the report states:
Unemployment relief should be a dominion function and provincial responsibility for other welfare services should continue . . .
As I stated on Tuesday, the late Prime Minister Mackenzie King, at the dominion-provincial conference of 1941, expressed his opinion forcibly, and because they are short I will repeat his remarks today because I think they are vitally important. They may be found at page 12 of the report:
The transfer to the federal government of the whole cost of relief for the employable unemployed and their dependents is the logical outcome of the experience of the past. It would prevent a repetition of the confusion, the inefficiency, the waste, the delay and the inequalities that have admittedly prevailed in relief since 1930 . . .
Another important opinion on this problem may be found at page 49 of the Marsh report prepared in 1943 at the request of this government. The report has this to say:
The logical location for the service ... is the dominion employment service, or some branch of it. The service that the local offices-

That is the offices of the unemployment insurance commission.
-would have to perform would be:
(1)	To register those applying for unemployment assistance.
(2)	To decide . . . whether a person should receive assistance; in what amounts; and for how long a period; and,
(3)	To issue the cheques or vouchers.
At the dominion-provincial conference of 1945, convened by this government, the following proposals were put forward by the government, and are found at pages 42 and 43:
As a part of the general arrangement with the provincial governments, the dominion government now proposes to establish a practicable and comprehensive system of assistance to able-bodied unemployed persons as soon as possible, rather than waiting until the need for it actually arises.
I would emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that these views were expressed nine years ago. The report continues:
Such a plan must fit into and make the maximum use of the structure and machinery of the existing unemployment insurance system. It would not be sensible to set up a different system requiring a different kind of administrative machinery. The plan proposes acceptance of dominion responsibility for unemployed employables, and provincial and local responsibility for unemployables.
Those were the suggestions put forward by the present government, and we are still waiting for their implementation. I would like to cite one more opinion, namely that expressed by the association of Canadian mayors and reeves. This important body meets annually, and on November 26 they submitted a brief to the dominion government in which they set forth the following:
The provision of financial assistance to a growing number of unemployed employable persons can constitute a severe drain on the fiscal resources of an urban community. Moreover, as the experience of the depression of the thirties indicates, an adequate program of unemployment assistance is beyond the capacity of a municipality to provide. In a federal country the responsibility for developing such a program must necessarily be assigned to the federal authority. Indeed, studies of this problem have consistently recommended that the federal government should assume responsibility for an adequate relief program for the employable unemployed.
This body comprises people who come in close contact with the problem of unemployment, and who look after the provision of funds to provide assistance. They are the ones who know most about it, and for years they have been urging the federal government to accept its responsibility, as in 1941 and in 1945 it agreed it would. The association of mayors and reeves is simply saying to this federal government, "Carry out the pledge you gave at two dominion-provincial conferences. You should accept your responsibility, and now is the time to do it".
50433-10J	[DOT]
Unemployment Insurance Act
The association has made its plea on four grounds: First, that the economy of the country is guided to a large extent by the fiscal policies of the federal government, and they in turn have an important bearing on employment as a whole. Second, they have pointed out that the municipalities simply do not have the sources of revenue necessary to meet the financial drain entailed. When this problem arises in a community it must be met. If the funds are not available it cannot be met. Third, the federal government is the only level of government capable of financing such a program. In this connection I would like to remind the house that the unemployment insurance fund amounts to nearly $1 billion and continues to grow each day. The fourth reason they have put forward is that the federal government is the only level of government which has the machinery necessary to administer such a program.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think any logical and fair-minded person would agree that the reasons advanced by the mayors and reeves of this country are cogent and worthy of consideration. Their plea has been put forward on logical grounds, and I believe every hon. member, no matter in what part of the house he sits, would agree that something should be done to assist those who are suffering because of lack of funds with which to buy food and clothing. That can best be done by the government now accepting its responsibility. The acceptance of that responsibility is long overdue, and the government should now get on with the job.
Today at a later stage of the bill I am going to ask the minister once again if he will please tell this house what the attitude of this government is towards this problem. Do they agree with the opinions of the government in 1941 and 1945, or do they disagree? Let us have it one way or the other. Let us get down to cases. Let us know where we stand. Let us stop this shadow boxing, this shilly-shallying. Let us come out in the open and declare our hand. Let us get down to cases and try to solve this extremely important problem.


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Before the debate is closed there are one or two remarks I should like to make. As I understand it-and I know the minister will correct me if I am wrong in this regard-when a plant is strike-bound and the strike is settled, some of the employees are not called back for days in some cases and for weeks in others. When these men apply for unemployment insurance, because of the fact that the plant has been strike-bound they find they

Unemployment Insurance Act are not entitled to it and consequently And themselves in rather serious circumstances. In my riding I have had come to me two or three men who have been out of work for weeks because of slowness in calling the men back, and consequently a serious situation has developed.
I wanted to ask the minister if there are in contemplation any changes that would take that situation into consideration. When he is closing the debate I would ask him if he would just comment on that matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, I did not make any statement on the motion for second reading because the bill is so short that anything I might have said in a general way would have been likely to overlap what I said the day before yesterday. However, I should like to comment on some of the things that have been said during the last few minutes.
As to the remarks of the hon. member for Hamilton West, may I say that the renumbering she spoke of will be mopped up in the larger amendment that is to come forward shortly. In the meantime it will not have any effect.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It is a matter of tidying up.


Milton Fowler Gregg: On the second point, I will admit at once that the amendment of the 80 per cent, when there was an increase in the main benefits and no increase in the supplementary benefits, was nothing short of an oversight. That is something that will, of course, be corrected.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It was a rather serious oversight for the people who are benefiting.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The fact that they did state 80 per cent did not mean that the intention was changed. As I said yesterday, it was the intention that there should not be any increase in the supplementary benefits until we had a chance to see the results of the 1952 amendment.
With regard to her remarks, which were referred to by a number of other members, as to the period over which the supplementary benefits extend, may I say that last year that matter was brought out clearly. I told the house that I was greatly concerned about it, as were other hon. members. We did not do anything about it at the time, but as the result of the serious situation last winter we carried out a careful investigation at the time and afterward. As will be

recalled, there were rather severe climatic conditions last spring, and work did not start very early. It will also be remembered that there were a large number in receipt of supplementary benefits in the middle of April when these formally ceased.
The unemployment insurance commission undertook and carried out a special survey of those who were drawing supplementary benefits in the week of April 15. They found that by the end of May more than half had either left the labour market or were working full time or part time, and that the proportions were something like this: working full or part time, 42 per cent of those who had been on supplementary benefits; retired or keeping house-the latter would apply mostly to women-15 per cent; and unemployed, 43 per cent.
That is a large percentage. But they took that 43 per cent, and they found that about 88 per cent of that 43 per cent had not kept alive their registration for work at the commission's local offices, and that only 3 per cent reported that they needed to get some outside assistance from other agencies. I am not at all understating the importance of that 3 per cent, but I am stating that by retaining the cut-off date at April 15 it is enabling us, under these amendments, to make that amount of money that will be spent effective in the cold, hard part of the winter rather than in the days when we always expect it to be warmer.
The hon. member for Kindersley referred to coal in his province.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Bow River.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am not touching on the employment situation today. I shall defer that discussion, because it applies also to the eastern part of the country. With him and with the other members who have said it, I will admit that this bill is not a cure-all for unemployment in any sense of the word. As Minister of Labour I am charged by this house and by parliament with certain responsibilities. I will admit at once that the responsibilities I have the honour to carry out in the Department of Labour are mainly defensive rather than offensive, such as conciliation and trying to keep peace in the industrial family; and, in administering this act, to try to mop up where unemployment breaks out.
There will be an opportunity later to discuss this matter of unemployment. The hon. member for Broadview has made a speech on it, and I suppose he will make one on the speech from the throne, based on the lack of confidence motion of his party. But I say

that the bringing about of improvement with respect to this problem of unemployment- something which we all want so much-is not going to be effected by some minister waving a wand and passing one single piece of legislation. It is not going to be done in that way at all. It is going to be done by means of a great many things carried out conscientiously and effectively not only by this government but in relation to other levels of government. While the hon. member for Broadview quoted quite correctly the representations that were made to us by the association of municipalities, nevertheless I am sure he would be the first to admit that this government should not go over the head of the minister of municipal affairs in the province of Ontario-his own province-in order to do things in the municipalities without approval, co-operation and plans that should be worked out jointly between those two levels of government.
With regard to the comments made by my friend the hon. member for Terrebonne, may I say this. He also said that this bill was no cure-all and in turn expressed the wish that, instead of there being extension at the other end of the period, there be extension at this end, namely in the period before Christmas. In reality we do not get a great deal of abnormal seasonal unemployment before the Christmas holidays begin. While in some sections of the country it might be preferable to have more time at the beginning and perhaps less time at the end, on the whole we feel, from our experience up to the moment, that the present period is about right considering our limitations on money.


Mr. Brooks:: Is it not a fact that there was considerable unemployment this year in the lumbering industry, for instance, because of wet weather?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is true, Mr. Chairman; there was. Again I say that was because of wet weather, and you cannot very well provide for that in a cross-country plan.
The hon. member also spoke about women in this connection. I hope that problem might be deferred until we come to the larger bill.
The hon. member for Middlesex East asked me to define more clearly the awarding of benefits in strike-bound plants. If it is not a matter that is of urgency today, rather than give an off the cuff definition of that I should like, because it is so delicate a subject, to give him a thoughtfully worked out memorandum on the question. It is something that is very important in his province now. I should be glad to do that.
The other day I promised the hon. member for Macleod that I would give the pertinent
Unemployment Insurance Act figures concerning the total supplementary benefits paid, and I think this will answer his purpose. From the fiscal year which ended March 31, 1950, to the fiscal year ended March 31, 1954, the total paid in supplementary benefits was $29,763,819.57. So that my hon. friend might have a point of comparison I will give alongside that the grand total of all benefits paid during that same period, from 1941 to 1954. The total, including the supplementary benefits, was $754,159,070.53. For the remaining period from April 1 to November 1, 1954, the total supplementary benefits paid amounted to $4,844,867.62, and the grand total of the regular benefits and supplementary benefits for that same period was $129,547,428.73. I hope that answers the question.


Mr. Knowles:: While the minister is giving these figures, I wonder if the sheet he has in front of him would indicate the amount that has been paid into the fund in respect of supplementary benefits since 1950? I have in mind the fact that the rates of contribution were increased slightly at the time supplementary benefits were established.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Would
the hon. member like me to give those figures divided as between employer, employee and the government?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The total.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The way I have them here is for the period 1941 to 1954, employer and employee; if you want to get each one you divide it in two. The grand total up to March 31 last year was $1,241,276,310.43; that is the total of employer-employee. The government contribution for the same period was $248,262,043.87.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am afraid I did not make myself clear. I was asking not for the grand total paid into the fund but rather for the amount paid in respect of supplementary benefits. The minister will recall that in 1950, when supplementary benefits were established, the rate of contribution was increased slightly to cover the cost of paying supplementary benefits. I should like a figure to set against the $29 million that has been paid out in supplementary benefits in the four years.


Milton Fowler Gregg: In that regard I should like to tell my hon. friend that I have it from 1941 up to November 30, 1953*. I think he is probably only interested in the total. For the period from 1941 to November 30, 1953*, there was paid in under this special one cent increase that was introduced in 1950 when the act was amended, a total of $59,456,034 earmarked especially for supplementary benefits.
*See correction of year on page 144, column 1.

Unemployment Insurance Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does that mean that the fund has $30 million left out of that?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I was going to give the benefits paid out of that during the same period, which was $34,608,762, leaving a balance, if you look upon that as a special fund-we keep the records separately, but we do not keep it as a separate fund-of $24,847,272. It would be from that, of course, that what I estimated the other day as the $12 million additional cost arising out of this legislation would come.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister allow one question in order to complete the picture? What was the cost of administration each year during those four years?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am sorry I have not that in detail for my hon. friend, but you can take the figures I have quoted and it works out in an interesting fashion in this way. If you take the amount paid by employers, the amount paid by employees and the amount paid into the fund which I have already given and add to it the cost of administration, it works out to roughly 33J per cent each. I believe before the committee rises I could get that figure.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister say the cost of administration is approximately one-third?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No; the cost of administration plus the amount which the federal government puts into the fund is approximately one-third.


John George Diefenbaker: Can the minister give the figures before we get to third reading?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I shall try to do so. There was one other point of which I made a note.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the minister leaves these figures would he clear up one point that is bothering some of us down here? As I understood it, when he answered the hon. member for Macleod he said the total amount paid out in supplementary benefits for the four-year period was some $29 million. Then when I asked him for the amount paid in as a result of the one cent increase he said the figure was $59 million, out of which $34 million was paid. If I have the figures correct as the minister gave them, can he reconcile the figure of $29 million which he gave the hon. member for Macleod and the figure of $34 million which he gave to me? After all, I would not claim to be worth $5 million more than the hon. member for Macleod.


Milton Fowler Gregg: My second set of figures went only to November 30, 1953*, whereas my figures to the hon. member for Macleod went


to March 31, 1954.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is even worse.


Milton Fowler Gregg: No.


Mr. Rowe:: This sounds like funny money.


Mr. Hansell:: Figures are very confusing when they are given in this way. I think perhaps we might ask the minister at some future date a very definite question in respect to these figures, or perhaps I could place it on the order paper.
When I spoke the other day I was particularly interested in the actuarial soundness of the fund, and what I really wanted was not merely the information as to how much had been paid into the fund and how much paid out of it. Rather I wanted comparative figures from year to year to discover whether or not, if there should be an extended period of unemployment, the fund would be depleted so that over a long period of years it would not be actuarially sound. The only indication we can get is by comparative figures from year to year.
I am not insisting upon getting the information at the moment. If it will help the minister I shall place a definite question on the order paper setting out what I want.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I thank the hon. member. And if he does not wish to put his question on the order paper, I am sure he will find those figures readily available when we come to the larger amendments. But I can assure him, as a member of the original committee, that the actuarial officials of the unemployment insurance branch have studied this matter in relation to the larger measure which is to come, with the intention of making sure that it is actuarially sound.
While I am getting the other figures sorted out I should like to refer to the question raised first, I believe, by the hon. member for Hamilton West, as to , the difference between the amount payable in supplementary benefits to single persons as compared with the amounts payable to workers with dependents, in the low wage categories. Our records indicate that 80 per cent of all the claims are in the class of $21 to $24, and that the rest are mostly unmarried persons. An effort will be made to make sure that it is relatively fair to all concerned, in working out the scale under the new legislation. And I think it will be understood that in the lowest scale of wages there are not very many workers with dependents.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, in answering me, the minister gave, I think, one of the most fantastic explanations I have heard, even for this government, when he tried to explain
*See correction of year on jmge 144, column 1.

why this government is ducking its responsibility with respect to looking after the unemployed employables in Ontario. He said that the government had some reticence about stepping on the toes of the Ontario minister of municipal affairs.
I want to assure him that there is nothing to be feared in that regard. The Frost government is very, very anxious for this government to assume its full responsibilities, as it said it would do in 1941 and 1945. So I would suggest to the minister that he climb out from behind that shield, because it is full of holes. I would advise him just to forget that explanation completely.
Now I would like to ask the minister if he would tell me plainly and simply what is the attitude of the government toward people whose unemployment insurance credits expired months prior to January 1. What is the government's attitude towards those people? Can the minister give me the government's answer?


Milton Fowler Gregg: As Minister of Labour my attitude toward them is to see to it that any of the facilities and the assistance we can provide is made available to them, and to see that the assistance given by this parliament is carried out, by way of finding jobs and making available to them any insurance to which they are entitled.


George Harris Hees: If your department, your unemployment insurance officers, cannot find that man or woman work, and he or she is anxious and willing to take work, and their unemployment insurance credits have expired, then what is this government going to do with regard to those people? Is it going to abandon them for those months until the 1st of January, or what is it going to do? That is a very simple question, and I would ask the minister on behalf of the government to give a simple answer.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I cannot accept the word "abandon" as it is used by my hon. friend. It is the wrong word entirely. We shall continue to do anything for which the federal government has authority.


George Harris Hees: Well, the federal government can extend the period, just as it is making a change now in the Unemployment Insurance Act. The federal government can extend this measure to include other months as well. I say you can become just as cold, just as hungry and just as sick in October, November and December as you can in January, February, March and the first two weeks in April. It is within the government's power to do something. Is the government willing to do it, or is it willing to abandon these people and expect them to go into some kind
Unemployment Insurance Act of hibernation where they can do without the necessary things of life? If not, what does the government expect them to do?
There is no use in the minister saying the government is doing everything it can. I say that everything you can do is not being done. You are trying to find them jobs, but you cannot find them jobs. A man finds himself without credits and without a job. He has a family and he has to eat, and so does his family. What are you going to do for him? I want to know that.


The Chairman:: Shall the clause carry?


George Harris Hees: No. Then I assume, if the minister persists in remaining in his seat and not answering, that this government-


An hon. Member:: He answered.


George Harris Hees: He did not answer the last question. The Minister of Labour, by sitting and not answering, is giving tacit approval to the government being quite willing to see people go without the necessities of life during the months prior to January 1, because it is unwilling to take any steps to provide for them, as it agreed to do in 1941 and 1945.
The minister still sits there and says nothing. Therefore he is agreeing with what I am saying when I charge the government with being callous and cold, and with being far more interested in balance sheets than it is in human beings. All this talk about its great interest in human welfare is a lot of nonsense. There is no human welfare when there is not enough clothing and shelter, when you are out of work and have not enough to live on. This government is quite willing to allow people to continue in that state until some mysterious date-January 1-when, in its great wisdom, it says to all the unemployed to come out of hibernation. "Now you can come out; now you can warm up and start living again." Let us not have so much talk on platforms-


An hon. Member:: May I ask a question?


George Harris Hees: No question at all. You can make your speech after. Is this the same Liberal government which does things for the people and cares for the people? I say that, by the minister sitting there and being afraid to stand up and say on behalf of the government what it is going to do, it proves that it is not interested in human beings.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do hope that when my hon. friend gets back from his third trip across Canada he will bring to this house a greater tolerance and a greater recognition of the fact that his fellow members also are concerned about the welfare of their fellow Canadians. He knows as well as I do that the

Unemployment Insurance Act question he has posed on this bill is an impossible one to answer at this time. I deny outright his statement that the minister, or this government, are not concerned about the welfare of their fellow Canadians. Furthermore, rather than have him stand in his place and direct generalities at this government or at the Minister of Labour, I would be much more impressed if he were prepared to place before me instances in his own city of men and women, unemployed employables, who are seeking unemployment relief this day, January 13, 1955.
He has made these statements here. I have been in my office ever since this house opened and not on one occasion, either by letter or personally, has he indicated to me that this problem in his province is greater than his province is able to meet.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. Perhaps I should
indicate at this time that we are discussing clause 1 of a bill respecting supplementary benefits. I assure the hon. member for Broadview that I could not allow him to answer the questions which were posed by the Minister of Labour.


Mr. Mclvor:: I rise because I think the
statement was out of order when the hon. member said the Minister of Labour was afraid to stand up, a man who has received the Victoria Cross. That statement should be taken back.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, I can now make myself an honest man with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It is nice to be able to blame mistakes on typographical errors, and in this case it is so on the sheet I have in my hand. When I said so carefully, "the 30th day of November, 1953", it should have been the 30th day of November, 1954. That makes it right.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Perhaps the discussion which has just taken place has carried us a little off the track. Since the hon. member for Broadview was permitted to continue with his remarks, I think he merited an answer from the minister. With that remark I am going to be satisfied. If the remarks were out of order, the Chair should have called him to order in the first place. We are all interested in that particular phase, and we can discuss it at great length when the other bill comes down to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
With regard to the amount of benefits paid, it would look very much as though my guess of Tuesday of this week at the resolution stage was pretty close, because I was merely taking the number of people who were insured and multiplying it by the contributions 

which I knew they must have made. I came to a surplus of $7,100,000, on the average, per year for the last four years. The minister's average is a little better than $6 million per year for the four years.
I am also interested in the statement that 80 per cent of the benefits paid were in the $21 to $24 a week class because this, in my opinion, leaves the government in a very peculiar position indeed in regard to the payment of those supplementary benefits. As I mentioned before, the act under which they are operating very clearly sets out 80 per cent, and the $21 to $24 a week class consists of the very persons who were not getting 80 per cent of the benefits at all but were getting 70 per cent.
With regard to the minister's other statement, I shall make some further remarks on clause 2. I wonder just where the department stands with regard to the poor administration of its own act over the last three or four years.


Ernest George Hansell: Before this clause passes I
should like to make a little correction, not of a typographical error in Hansard in the debate the other day but rather of an error I made. I said I was on the committee that originally brought in the bill. I said the bill was brought in before the war. I was trusting to my memory. I was speaking extemporaneously. The bill was brought in in 1940. The correction can be made now.
I should like to comment on one or two of the minister's remarks this afternoon. He indicated that in reality his responsibility was not to provide work for the people of Canada, and I agree with him. I do not think the minister's responsibility is to provide work at all. I do not believe it is actually even the government's responsibility to provide work, but it is the government's responsibility to so formulate policies as to keep industry producing at full capacity, no matter whether it is secondary industry or primary industry. If they are failing there, then they are failing in their over-all policy.
The minister recognizes that, because in another remark he made he said that in considering this whole matter there are a lot of things that must be conscientiously studied and made effective, or words to that effect. Yes, there are a lot of things; but I do want to say to the minister this one thing. While there may be a lot of things, nothing else will operate unless one thing is studied and made to operate effectively; and that is financial policy.
The Minister of Finance is sitting in his seat with his head on one hand as though he is deeply in thought.


Mr. Harris:: Listening to the hon. member.


Ernest George Hansell: Without a proper financial policy of course everything else will fail. That financial policy should be one to keep industry working at full capacity; and when industry has produced goods for the welfare of the people of Canada, then it is the responsibility of government to see that that production is distributed to the people so they may receive the benefit of the work of their own hands.
So far as the government's responsibility to provide work is concerned, we have to do a lot of re-thinking on that. I believe the government is just as interested in this country as we are. I do not agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Broadview a little while ago. Of course we have to excuse him. He has been out on the hustings, and he has got into the habit of talking that way. This is the House of Commons and he has to get over that habit when he is here. Of course we are all interested in human welfare; but we have to do a lot of re-thinking along this line.
The other day the Minister of Transport was asked a question by an hon. member with respect to whether or not the Canadian National Railways was doing anything to keep a certain number of men employed. I have forgotten the exact terms of the question, but the minister rose in his place and said the government was doing everything possible to keep those men employed.
That is where we have to do a little revision of our thinking. We must not assume that we have a railroad for the purpose of employing people. If that is the purpose of the railroad, then let us build a dozen more railroads or let the railroad run a dozen more trains. Whether or not there are passengers does not make any difference so long as it provides work. Railroads are operating to transport people and materials across the country. In the final analysis it is not necessarily a problem of providing work, it is a problem of getting the benefits of industry to the people after they have produced and done their job.
I read a statement the other day by a top ranking atomic energy scientist in the United States, who stated that if President Eisenhower gave the green light to a peacetime atomic energy program it would revolutionize everything overnight, and within five years we would perhaps have more unemployment than we have ever had as well as the greatest production we have ever had. The desert would blossom like the rose and there would be food aplenty for every living soul on the globe. We have to adjust our thinking and adjust our policy to a different age.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Unemployment Insurance Act
On clause 2-Duration of supplementary benefit.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Under clause 2 we have for consideration the period during which the supplementary benefit would be paid. I am sure there are many hon. members of this house other than those on this side who would agree with the hon. member for Broadview, even though they are not outspoken in their agreement, that there are periods of the year other than the period January 1 to April 15 when people suffer because of the expiration of their benefit period. As far as the present season is concerned the period up to December 31 has passed, and we are now in a period during which the supplementary benefit would be paid. We hope that the bill dealing with a further revision of the act which the minister has said he will bring down will be before us before this session is much older, and for that reason I do not propose to word an amendment at this stage to include the period mentioned by the hon. member for Broadview. At the present time I think it would be quite sufficient to deal with the remainder of the current season; therefore I should like to make a few remarks in support of the amendment which I shall offer to extend that period.
Then a word with respect to the minister's figures of those who have benefited in the past. He said that as of April 15 last year it had been found that 42 per cent of those who had benefited by the supplementary benefits had secured work, either full or part time, and that some 15 per cent had retired. He admitted that 43 per cent of them were still unemployed and that 88 per cent of those 43 per cent had not kept their applications alive. I submit that the reason for that was that they lost heart.
Even if all that was left was 12 per cent I am sure that 12 per cent would be composed almost entirely of married men with families who needed every last cent that they could lay their hands on to keep their families alive. It does not matter to me what the volume is of those who would benefit under any extension; the fact that any portion of those insured and eligible for benefits should suffer hardship is quite sufficient. I feel that we cannot wait until spring is upon us to find out whether or not there is any need. Now that we are considering an amendment to this particular section I believe the matter should be settled at this tune at least for this season.
When April 15 comes along each year there is usually an entirely different outlook on the part of the department and even in the press as to the employment situation. Hon. members of this committee who have followed employment statistics year after year will recall

Unemployment Insurance Act that in late April, during May and even into June we begin to get reports that the employment situation is much better because there are fewer applications for benefits. Of course there are fewer applications for benefits after April 15, because those who have been receiving supplementary benefits find that there is no use applying for benefits. They are not going up to the employment offices more than once after April 15; when they have been told they are no longer eligible they just do not go any more.
The fact that they no longer apply is taken as an indication of increasing employment when very often it is nothing of the sort. Their benefits have run out; their supplementary benefits have run out, and because they are no longer eligible for benefits of any sort the news which goes out from the various offices across the country is interpreted by the Department of Labour as an indication of increasing employment. For all of these reasons I now move, seconded by the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne):
That clause 2 be amended by deleting the word "April" in line seven and substituting therefor the word "May".


William Alfred Robinson: After having read the hon. member's amendment, may I indicate some doubt as to whether it is in order, for reasons which I shall be glad to explain. However, if any hon. member has any observations to make on the question of whether or not this amendment is in order I shall be glad to hear him.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I fail to understand what your reason is for considering this amendment to be out of order.


William Alfred Robinson: Hon. members will recall that the resolution which preceded this bill reads as follows:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to raise the rates of supplementary benefit to the present rates of regular benefit and to provide a minimum of sixty days' supplementary benefit to those who qualify.
The bill is apparently a money bill based on that resolution. I would draw the attention of hon. members to May, fifteenth edition, page 678, where the following quotation will be found:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand or recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the crown, not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects and

purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications, expressed in the communication by which the crown has demanded or recommended a charge.
I think this principle is well known to all hon. members, but perhaps I may also cite Beauchesne's third edition. Citation 486 reads as follows:
Reductions can be made in committee on the bill, but no grant can be increased except upon recommendation of the crown.
It seems to me that an amendment which substitutes the word "May" for the word "April" would increase benefits under the bill; would increase the financial obligations of the crown; and therefore would be out of order.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I do not profess to be an expert on parliamentary procedure, but it seems to me that these are scarcely government funds. Contributions to these funds are made by workers and employers.


Walter Edward Harris: And the government.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I might point out that 20 per cent is provided by the government. However, I rose because of two questions I left unanswered.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Dispose of the point.


An hon. Member:: He has.


Milton Fowler Gregg: In reply to the hon. member for Prince Albert I would state that the cost of administration for the unemployment insurance commission up to the year ending March 31, 1954, amounted to $26,096,722. I will carry out my promise to give the hon. member for Middlesex East a reply in full later, but in brief I would state that upon a general resumption of work any man not immediately called back will be paid benefits from the date of the reopening of the plant.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, now that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hamilton West has been ruled out of order, I think we will probably have to approach the matter in another way if we wish to get something done.
I sometimes wonder if hon. members are as confused about the rules of order as they appear. I came into the house with the intention of making a speech almost identical to that made by the hon. member for Broadview, but I was afraid I would be stopped by Mr. Speaker; and having due regard for the propriety.of parliamentary procedure I refrained from making that kind of speech. I think probably the house and the country missed a very good speech.	.
Since it is not competent for a private member to introduce an amendment that would

involve the expenditure of money, that must not be taken to mean that it is against the rules of the house to urge the minister to introduce such an amendment, and quite frankly I see no reason why the minister cannot get one of his colleagues to move that the word "May" be inserted in this paragraph instead of "April".
There is no magic in the date of April 15 as far as the provision of work is concerned. The person who is unemployed on April 15 will very likely find himself still unemployed on April 16, and he has to eat on both days. Unless the government has some alternative means of providing persons referred to as employable unemployed with an income of at least as much as is provided under the Unemployment Insurance Act, it seems to me that this date should be extended.
All parts of the country are not in the same position with regard to the resumption of work disrupted by winter weather. Spring comes much later in some parts of the country than in others. By April 15, particularly in the southern part of my own province, there is a general resumption of work. But I was born in the maritimes, and work there may not commence until very much later. The advance in the season does not even permit the general resumption of agricultural work until later. Therefore persons in the maritime provinces, and this would apply also to a great part of Quebec, will be no better off as far as work is concerned on April 16 than they were on April 15.
I would suggest that the minister give consideration to this matter immediately, and introduce an amendment from April to May. I think it should be changed in any case so that every person who requires and has been receiving supplementary insurance can continue to do so for a minimum of 60 days. If such a person cannot find work, if there is no work for him, and if the government has no other method of providing for him, then his supplementary benefits should be extended until he has found work or for the 60-day period.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I was not going to suggest any amendment to this legislation, but since an amendment has been proposed I find myself in full agreement with it. During my remarks a short time ago I pointed out that as soon as supplementary benefits expire the unemployed will find themselves in a very awkward position. The suggested amendment would go a long way toward relieving that situation by providing them with assistance over a longer period; and our group, I am certain, would support such a measure.
Unemployment Insurance Act


Milton Fowler Gregg: In reply to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway I would say that searching consideration has already been given to his proposal. I would add that if we accepted his suggestion it would mean taking the funds from some other source. That is the long and short of it.
I am going to say this. It does not help the situation very much but it overcomes my hon. friend's question about what he is going to do on the 16th, the 17th and the 18th. In actual practice, of course, it turns out-and that is due to the unavoidable time lag, no matter how effective our local offices may be, in getting the payments out-that the worker whose supplementary benefits expire on April 15 is in receipt of payments fairly well to the end of that month. Of course that means that he has not had them at the beginning.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: According to what the minister has said, there is great concern about keeping the fund sound. That is probably a good idea, but I am more concerned about keeping families sound. Yet you cannot keep families sound when there is no income coming in. This fund has shown that it can carry the burden which has been placed upon it. I sincerely hope that the minister and the government will give some consideration in the near future-much more consideration than they have given in the past-to keeping families sound. The fund can be kept sound with some help from the Minister of Finance.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I should like to add a last word-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I think that is my prerogative.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about that equal rights idea?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: By the minister's own calculation, according to the figures which are available to him there remain on April 15 only about 12 per cent of the supplementary beneficiaries. It would therefore seem to me that his point about the soundness of the fund is a little bit exaggerated. Like the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, now that the amendment itself has been ruled out of order I ask the minister once more if he will not give consideration to making this amendment himself.


Mr. Churchill:: Perhaps I should have permitted the hon. member for Hamilton West to have the last word. However, she will no doubt take advantage of the situation later if I speak out of turn now. I was interested
148	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Insurance Act in what the minister said in answer to a previous question, namely that already careful study had been given to this proposal that the time be extended to May.
The suggestion was made that in view of the fact that private members cannot alter a money bill, the minister might in his turn make the alteration. The minister's reply was one I have heard quite frequently in the House of Commons, yet it is not expanded at all. The ministers frequently say that a matter has been given the most careful consideration, and then we are left at that point. Nothing is said to us as to what points were considered, what arguments were advanced and why they were rejected.
From the minister's remarks I take it that some of those with whom he consulted suggested an extension from April to May. If so, the idea has been in the minds of others. Why was it rejected? Surely not just because of the solvency of the fund. It has just now been pointed out, using the minister's own words, that not many people are affected in that particular period. Will the minister elaborate a little and tell us some of the suggestions that were made or that he himself proposed, and the arguments that were used by others with whom he consulted as to why this bill should not be altered in accordance with the amendment proposed by my colleague?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I should be glad to do so, Mr. Chairman. I hardly think that my hon. friend would want me to go into great detail on this point.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Quite a bit.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I shall be happy to do so when we come to discuss the matter in committee on the larger bill that is coming forward. But I can tell my hon. friend now that a year ago, in March and April, I was just as strong a proponent as he was of the extension of the supplementary period. I would not have gone for the whole four weeks, but I would have gone for two weeks. But after the matter had been carefully considered, resulting in much more detail than I gave a little while ago, I was convinced that the benefits that can be made available by the same amount of money spent in other ways were more valuable than having them tacked on at the end of the supplementary period. Later on I shall be glad to give my hon. friend the reasoning behind that opinion.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I should like to add just a brief word. I think anyone will admit that the Minister of Labour has taken an outstanding interest in the unemployed people in this country. Otherwise he would not have broken in on the debate on the speech from


the throne in order to put through this legislation. He might have been criticized for being in a hurry. My reason for rising was that I was hurt. I am not going to allow anybody to stand up in the House of Commons and say that the Minister of Labour is afraid to stand up and have his say. He is not afraid to do so.


Angus MacInnis: To put the hon. member for Fort William at ease, let me say at once that I am not going to make any attacks on the Minister of Labour. But whether or not he is doing the best that can be done for the unemployed under the circumstances is something that cannot be settled just by the opinion of the hon. member for Fort William. It would be necessary to get the opinion of the unemployed on that matter, because they are the people who are hungry and cold.
It seems to me that when it comes to dealing with the unemployed-and I have felt this way for many years; I am not making an accusation against the Minister of Labour- we deal with the matter in a very uncivilized way. If there were as many people unemployed in April as there are in January or February, we would extend unemployment insurance in order to take care of them. The way we have looked after the unemployed in this country for years has always depended on how many were unemployed. If there were 10,000, 15,000, 20,000 or some number like that unemployed and hungry, they could starve. No one would take notice of them. But if we had 500,000 unemployed something would then be done about it, because it would be dangerous to have that many unemployed and going hungry. For our own safety we would do something for them. That is an unChristian and uncivilized way of dealing with a problem of this kind.
I suggest that we cannot think of the unemployed merely as a statistic, as I have heard them considered here in the House of Commons where it has been said, "Oh, yes; there are so many unemployed, but think of the number who are employed". The number who are employed are of no benefit to those who are unemployed unless they are getting something because others are employed.
Let us think of this question as it affects the individual and the family. When men are unemployed it does not mean that just those men alone are affected. It also means that wives and children are affected. Let us not be quite so smug about the matter and say that it is important to keep the fund sound. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North said, it is much easier to make sound a fund1 that has become unsound than it is

to make a family sound after it has become unsound through trials and tribulations beyond its ability to bear.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Milton Fowler Gregg: the third reading of the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We do not object to the bill being read the third time today, Mr. Speaker, so that the benefits contained therein can be on the statute books just as soon as possible. However, I think the government should realize from the debate that has taken place today that, although we approve of the bill as far as it goes, we are not satisfied with the extent to which it goes. We appeal to the minister to consider, when he prepares the larger bill he is going to introduce, the points in relation to supplementary benefits that have been raised, particularly the points that have been stressed by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough), the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis), the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) and others.
We want him to realize that, so far as we are concerned, the passing of this bill does not mean we are finally satisfied with the supplementary benefit aspect of it, let alone the other shortcomings of the government in so far as the unemployment situation is concerned. We urge him to introduce that other bill at the earliest possible date. I can tell him, as I can tell the leader of the house, that the names of the members of our group who will serve on the committee on industrial relations have already been handed to the chief government whip. We are prepared to go to work on the larger bill at the earliest possible date.
We are serving notice on him, too, that we feel that even that larger bill, along with this one, must not be regarded by the government as a sufficient answer in this session to the serious problem of unemployment. We are prepared to let this bill have third reading today, but we want further and more effective action at the earliest possible date.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I, too, wish to say just a word before the third reading of the bill. I am surprised and disappointed that the appeals that have been heard this afternoon for an extension of time to May 15 in clause 2 of the bill have not been considered any more carefully than they have been. I believe, Mr. Speaker, there is great merit in them, but that is not what I wanted to say at the moment.
Unemployment Insurance Act
I hope the government will not look upon the passing of this bill, if third reading is given today, as any complete treatment of the unemployment problem at this time. The government has to get down to something more fundamental than mere changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act. They have to introduce a policy designed to quickly alleviate the situation for all unemployed, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Maclnnis) has so well said. We have to put this thing on an individual basis. If there is one person unemployed in the country it is a serious thing for his family. That is the outlook we have to have as legislators.
I say again that I hope the government will not consider this is the end of their responsibility towards the unemployed at this time. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I seem to remember that when I first came here- I am sure those who came earlier than I can recall-even though a bill was considered to be in the nature of an emergency measure, very rarely have we been asked to put through third reading on the same day as the committee stage.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps at this moment I might comment on this because the hon. member seems to think that the course I am following is unusual. If he looks at standing order No. 77, he will see that when a bill has passed through committee of the whole and has been reported without amendment, standing order 77 says:
But when a bill is reported without amendment, it is forthwith ordered to be read a third time at such time as may be appointed by the house.
I know that sometimes by mistake I have said, in similar circumstances, "By leave, shall this bill be read a third time?" I was reminded by hon. members of this house, some of whom are well aware of the rules, that I did not need leave, and that is the position. Should the house prefer to have it read at another time, it can always be read at another time. Since there was no expression to the contrary, it is put now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do not forget standing order No. 73.


Mr. Speaker:: Its provisions were waived.


Walter Edward Harris: I think it would be the desire of the house to give it third reading, although we recognize the objections in connection with certain matters. There is an urgency in the matter and if it could pass through both houses of parliament quickly I think all members would like to have that done.


Solon Earl Low: I did not have a chance to finish what I started to say with regard to third reading. I was not objecting to having third reading today. I merely wanted the house
150	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fleming to be aware of the fact that we are, as a practice, resorting more and more to third readings on the same day as the other stages of the bill. I felt that under the circumstances we should draw attention to the fact, so we would not get into the habit of doing that on all occasions.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I should like to express my very sincere thanks to all members of the house for giving this bill the priority it has received. I can assure hon. members that all points that have been made in this excellent discussion today and on Tuesday will be given careful study. If it is possible for the other place to deal with this bill immediately and for royal assent to be received before tomorrow night, it will be possible for all of the unemployment insurance offices across Canada to begin payments under the amendment as from last Monday.
The new and larger bill will be brought in at an early date. I hope to have it on the order paper at the latest by February, and we will welcome the utmost study of that bill at all stages. I want to thank all hon. members for their co-operation at this time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, January 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Yves Ledue (Verdun) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Donald Methuen Fleming: It is an
agreeable duty, Mr. Speaker, to undertake some review of the speech from the throne and make certain comments on the problems laid squarely before the house by the amendments which have been introduced.
Realism is a desirable quality in a speech from the throne. If one is to judge by what this speech from the throne has to say about the nature of unemployment in Canada, it is a document hopelessly lacking in realism. We read this sentence in it:
Some unemployment of a regional and seasonal nature is being experienced.
What a monstrous understatement, Mr. Speaker! It is no wonder that what the speech from the throne proposes in the way of legislative and other remedies is very fragmentary and of the nature that it is, 

based upon an approach so hopelessly lacking in realism to a national problem. I should like to hear some hon. members opposite comment freely and candidly on that statement as applied to the unemployment situation in Canada. I should like to hear the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), for example, make his comments upon it. I should like to hear some other hon. members in the house who sit opposite, who apparently are closer to the unemployment conditions than are those who wrote this speech from the throne. I should like to hear their comments upon a description of that kind.
There have been some remarks from the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) concerning the business of the house and the way it is to be transacted at this session. I am glad to see an indication that more of the government business is appearing on the order paper at this stage of the session, so much earlier than has been the practice in the past.
For my part, and I speak as an individual, I am glad to know from the Prime Minister's remarks that he has acceded to the suggestion I have made for some time that we should experiment with the appointment of a committee on estimates. I wish the Prime Minister would indicate what are the five or six departments whose estimates he proposes to have referred to that committee. It would be of assistance to us in this part of the house, and I think of interest to all members in the house, to know what those departments are to be. I would ask, for instance, whether the Department of National Defence is to be one of those departments. Is the Department of Defence Production one of the departments the estimates of which are to be referred to that committee on estimates?
I hope that at an early date steps will be taken to set up the special committee to review the activities and finances and the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. At the last session of parliament when this question was raised the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) indicated that the government would be favourable to the appointment of such a committee at this present session; and I hope steps will be taken to have that committee appointed and launched on its labours at an early date.
Something has been said about the length of the amendment introduced on behalf of the official opposition by the acting leader. We have no apology to make for the length of that amendment or for the number of problems we have found it our duty to lay before the house in the terms of the amendment.
What is the great variety of subjects raised there? There is the fact that our trade has

fallen, that the government has failed so badly in the marketing of our wheat surplus, that unemployment has grown to the point where it is a serious and urgent problem, that taxes are very high, that high costs are pricing many Canadian products out of the market, that waste and extravagance do exist in the government service and that the government has shown no willingness to grapple with them, that there is much need of greater processing of the natural resources of this country within Canada in order to provide more employment for Canadian workmen, and then there is the paragraph dealing with the provision of health and hospital services in Canada for those who need them.
Mr. Speaker, if the government had not neglected and ignored so many urgent Canadian problems it would not be necessary for us of the official opposition to introduce so lengthy an amendment in condemnation of the government for its failure to take resolute measures to cope with these problems. We have not catalogued all the government's failures in the amendment, but we have catalogued some of them. But these do offer basic considerations, and they are our conception of what is needed immediately by way of a government program. And to that extent they are an expression of our want of confidence in this government.
Sir, the first of the subjects dealt with in our amendment relates to trade. As we point out in the amendment, there has been a serious failure in that respect on the part of the government, and we express our regret that His Excellency's advisers-
-have failed to take or to recommend the necessary measures:
(a) to retain and expand Canada's markets abroad for our production, particularly of wheat and other products.
Canada's international transactions on current account resulted in the year 1953 in a deficit of $439 million, as compared with a surplus on current transactions in 1952 amounting to $164 million. The figures are not yet complete for 1954, but the deficit on current transactions for the first ten months of the calendar year 1954 was $330 million. This therefore is a serious problem, and must engage the attention of all hon. members.
In the first place, sir, there has been a serious decline in our commodity trade. Taking the first ten months of 1954-because the figures are complete only to October 31, 1954-our imports as compared with the same ten months in 1953 showed a reduction of 8 per cent. Our imports from the United States were down by 11 per cent, and from the United Kingdom 9 per cent.
Now let us look at the export figures. For those same ten months, as compared with
The Address-Mr. Fleming the corresponding ten months of 1953, our total Canadian exports showed a reduction of 8-2 per cent. Our exports to the United States were down 5-5 per cent, our exports to the United Kingdom were down 10 per cent and those to other countries of the commonwealth were down 20 per cent.
The main factor in the over-all decline in our exports has been the decrease in our exports of wheat, wheat flour and other grains. The decline in our trade is serious. The decline in these ten months followed a similar decline which has been going on now for some two years, and it is serious enough both in dollar figures and in volume figures to demand the attention of the government.
There is another serious factor in our trading position-and we do not raise it now for the first time. It is the extent to which our trading eggs have been disproportionately and dangerously placed in one basket. In these ten months of which we are speaking, namely the first ten months of 1954, our exports to the United States were 60-4 per cent of our total exports. And if you will look at the corresponding figures for the first ten months of 1953 you will find a similar situation. Indeed, looking at our total trade with the United States, both export and import, we will see that the proportion or percentage has remained constant. In the first ten months of 1953 and the first ten months of 1954, alike 67 per cent of our total trade, both import and export, was done with the United States.
Again we draw the attention of the government to this dangerous situation-not that we want to curtail exports to the United States, but we want to see much more energetic and aggressive measures used to expand our exports elsewhere. And, above all, we want the government to come to grips with the essence of the Canadian trade problem, which has been featured by a decline in Canadian trade with the United Kingdom.
Sir, this must be said about our trade with the United States, that our exports to that country are largely of Canadian raw materials, materials drawn from our soil, and which in very substantial measure are sent abroad to be processed in the United States. We in Canada should be seeking more effective methods of processing more of our raw materials at home. One of the best examples of what has been accomplished in that regard is to be found in the pulp and paper industry. Had it not been for the firm action of some provincial governments, notably that of Ontario, led by the Hon. George Drew, and others-and the province of Quebec is also a very good example-we would still be exporting our forest products in their original
152	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fleming form. Cutting regulations of the provincial governments have assisted greatly in the development of this industry here at home, and it has provided needed employment for Canadians.
But, sir, lest any think that this pattern or picture of decline in Canadian trade is part of a world-wide pattern, let us take a corrective look at the figures. The figures I now give the house are figures of world trade drawn from international monetary fund publications. They are figures of total world trade, that is to say of the non-communist world. These figures have all been placed on a common basis and are expressed in United States dollars. Necessary adjustments are made in these statistics for purposes of reaching a common basis; and Canadian trade figures, like those of other countries, have been converted for that purpose. When I speak about quarterly statistics, it will be understood that these figures are designed to express the annual rate as the inference may be drawn from the quarterly figures.
What has been the trend in world trade in the last two years? Sir, these figures show unmistakably that the world trade trend has been upward in this period while Canadian trade has been going downward. In 1953 the total annual volume of world trade, both export and import, expressed in figures for the first quarter, amounted to $146 billion. The figure for the corresponding first quarter of 1954 was $148 billion, indicating an increase of $2 billion. In the second quarter of 1954 the increase was from the annual rate of $153 billion of world trade in the second quarter of 1953 to $158-7 billion. Unmistakably, Mr. Speaker, the volume and the dollar value of world trade have both been rising. Against that, Canada's figures show a decline.
Canada's percentage of the total of world trade is likewise declining. In 1953, Canada's percentage of the total world trade, both export and import, was 6 [DOT] 2 per cent. In the first half of 1954, which takes us to the last date for which figures are available, it has dropped to something like 5 * 5 per cent. It is a significant decrease, one that should command attention and concern.
But, sir, let us look further at the figures of British trade, and our trade with the United Kingdom. In his speech on Monday, even in its most soothing tones, there was a gloomy, an unmistakably gloomy, note in the Prime Minister's remarks when he came to the subject of our trade with the United Kingdom. It was indeed the gloomiest and most futile part of his entire speech. While Canada's trade has been going back, the trade


of the United Kingdom has been increasing. British exports in 1953-these are again expressed in terms of United States dollars- aggregated $7,525,000,000 United States dollars. The figures are not complete for 1954 but they indicate-those figures that were available up to the end of the third quarter of 1954-that British export trade will probably rise to $8 billion United States dollars, an increase over 1953 of about 7 per cent in value.
We are perhaps more concerned with British imports, especially our proportion of Britain's imports from abroad. In 1953, Britain's imports totalled $9,366,000,000 United States dollars. The figures are complete only to the end of the third quarter of 1954, but they indicate that we may expect they will aggregate about $9,500,000,000. There is an increase of something like 2 per cent in British imports in 1954 over 1953. But what about Canada's proportion of this increased British trade, this trade that we so badly need, this British market that has been our traditional market, our best market, our most stable and most dependable market, particularly for the large agricultural surpluses of this country? What do the figures show about our proportion of the British trade? Here is the proportion of British exports to Canada: In 1938, 4-4 per cent; in 1953, 6 per cent; in 1954, for the first eleven months, our proportion has dropped to 4-9 per cent. A very significant drop from the 6 per cent of 1953! But let us look then at the British imports from Canada. In 1938 British imports from Canada amounted to 8-6 per cent of British total imports. In 1953 they amounted to 9-1 per cent. In 1954, for the first eleven months, that had dropped to 7-8 per cent, a very serious decrease, Mr. Speaker.
I mentioned earlier that much of the drop in our trade, particularly export trade, has been traceable to the substantial reduction in our export of wheat, wheat flour and grain. Why has this special significance? The reasons are twofold, sir. In the first place, wheat is a government monopoly as to its marketing and export; but there is another reason. Wheat plays an almost unique part in the health and strength of the Canadian economy. What has been this country's record in the export of wheat? Well, for the crop year that ended on July 31, 1953, we exported a total of 385-5 million bushels. For the crop year ended July 31, 1954, that figure had dropped to 255 [DOT] 1 million bushels, a drop, sir, of 35 per cent. For the crop year ended July 31, 1953, our exports of wheat and wheat flour to the United Kingdom aggregated 122-9 million bushels. In the crop year ended July

31, 1954, that export total had dropped to 82 million bushels, a drop of one-third, sir, as compared with the previous year. Is it any wonder, sir, that we draw the attention of the house, with a very urgent degree of concern, to this lamentable drop in Canadian wheat exports?
If you look further, sir, at the drop in the income of the farmers of Canada and consider that farm income in Canada has now dropped to the lowest point in seven years, that for the past several years we have witnessed year by year a drop that has averaged about 11 or 12 per cent as compared with the previous year, you begin to have some appreciation of how serious is the problem confronting the basic element of agriculture in the Canadian economy.
What have we heard from the government? It was a pathetic thing we heard in the speech of the Prime Minister on Monday when, in relation to the export of Canadian wheat, he took comfort out of the fact that our proportion of British imports of wheat had dropped less than the United States but more than the Argentine and Australia. Well, sir, there are only four of these great wheat exporting countries. The other three countries are our competitors. The two that the Prime Minister concedes as having a better record than ours are not countries that have anything like the amount of wheat to export that we have. Why should Canada not be in first place in the proportion of the exports that are going to the United Kingdom market that Canadian exporters enjoyed? Why should we be satisfied with third place, in terms of holding our proportion, as the Prime Minister apparently is? Has the agricultural economy of this country not come to a pretty pass; has the marketing of wheat under the government's monopolistic control not come to a pretty pass in Canada when we have to depend upon adverse climatic conditions to contribute a solution to the problem of the Canadian wheat surplus that this government proved itself incapable of solving? The sigh of relief, the political sigh of relief, from the government opposite when the promising wheat crop of the west turned into a failure last summer could have been heard almost around the world.


William Earl Rowe: They almost prayed for bad weather.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It has been a poor performance on the part of the government in marketing Canadian wheat. They have been far too confident, far too cocksure, far too arrogant, and the pity of it all is, sir, that the burden of all this is going to rest upon
The Address-Mr. Fleming the Canadian farmer. The responsibility rests upon the government but it is the farmer who has to bear the burden.
There is to be a prime ministers' conference in London later this month. That conference, sir, we in this party regard as of very high importance; at least it is a conference which could have very high importance if the government would indicate it is prepared to take it seriously and exploit the opportunities that it offers.
First of all, sir, what of the agenda of that conference? Sir Winston Churchill has said that any subject may be raised there, that any delegation may raise any subject. Mr. Menzies, the Prime Minister of Australia, has indicated that two of the subjects that he proposes to raise are trade and finance.
What country represented at that conference has a greater concern over trade than has Canada? Yet the Prime Minister has not a word to say in this house, even in response to questions, about the agenda of that conference. Where is all the talk about Canadian sovereignty? We have as much right to raise questions at that conference and to say what should be the agenda subjects to come before the conference as any other nation of the commonwealth. Trade should be given a place of first importance in the discussions of the prime ministers at that conference. But, no. I asked the Prime Minister the day before yesterday if he could say anything about the agenda of the conference, and what did we get in return? We had just the lame statement that nothing could be said on the subject.


Mr. Dupuis:: Blast our way into the markets.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman can go on living in the distant past as long as he wishes. It is about time he and his party came up to date and faced realistically problems that are not 25 years removed but are right on the doorstep of the Canadian people today.
If parliamentary institutions enjoyed here in Ottawa the health that they ought to enjoy, no Canadian prime minister would go to an important commonwealth conference without having first invited a discussion in parliament on the position that he was going to take on behalf of his country in the deliberations of that conference. But such is the treatment that this government metes out to our Canadian parliament, such is the conspiracy of silence of this government on important national issues, such apparently
154	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fleming is the minimum importance that this government attaches to this commonwealth prime ministers' conference, there is not to be a word said in this house even on the subject of the agenda. A fine demonstration of contempt for the parliament of Canada!


William Earl Rowe: He will tell us when he comes back.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We might at least have had a debate on the subject, but apparently we are not going to have, even during the course of this discursive debate on the address, any statement of the position the Prime Minister is going to take in London. During the course of his speech on Monday we heard on this subject nothing but words of amiable futility, remote unconcern and gloomy despondency.
We have not forgotten that when the Prime Minister returned from his commonwealth tour on March 18, 1954, a tour undertaken with the good wishes of all the parties in this house, a tour to which we had attached such high hopes, he did not during the course of his long report say one good word for that important institution, the British commonwealth of nations-not a word.
We in this part of the house think it is about time there was some indication from the government that it attaches not only political but economic importance to this institution, this commonwealth of nations. When Canada is represented at a conference of that kind, if Canada means to make that conference effective, Canada should exploit to the limit the importance of increased trade within the commonwealth.
While I am speaking of conferences I should like to renew the demand that this party has made times without number for a dominion-provincial conference. The need for such a conference is greater today than it was when this subject was last raised during the 1954 session. Since the last session some remarkable things have happened. Last September the Prime Minister girded on his armour and launched a carefully calculated and planned attack on the policies of Quebec. He succeeded in arousing feelings against his own province. It was no contribution to national unity that he made. But let us pass on.
Where is this issue today? Somehow or other on the field of battle, that field of the Prime Minister's choosing, there suddenly descended a lull. The Prime Minister called off the crusade, he broke off the engagement. There were some talks, but following the talks there has been again complete silence. There would have been no necessity or occasion for talks between the Prime Minister


of Canada and the premier of Quebec if the proper policy which we have advocated had been followed before, namely, the calling of a general dominion-provincial conference. This is something of concern to all Canada; it concerns all the provinces of Canada. It is not just an issue between Ottawa and Quebec. It is small wonder then that with this further conspiracy of silence the suspicions of the other provinces have been aroused.
What has happened? Why this silence? Mr. Duplessis has made it known that his proposals were placed in the hands of the federal government many weeks ago and apparently action has been awaited on the part of the government opposite. What are they waiting for? In the name of parliament we demand a report and we demand the calling of a dominion-provincial conference, the place where matters of this kind ought to be discussed.
We have asked in our amendment for some relief for the Canadian taxpayer from the heavy burden of taxation. We have asked for this in the name of the Canadian producer and in the name of the Canadian consumer. We are in an era of competition. Jobs of Canadians are at stake. The health of the Canadian economy is under assault. In the face of the kind of competition which Canadian producers are having to meet today the government must do more than preach the virtues of increasing our imports, as they are apparently content to do, judging from the speeches made during the course of this debate.
We should tell the government, and we should tell the C.C.F. as well, that exports are a good deal more than a mere by-product of imports. The Canadian producers, in facing the kind of competition they are confronted with now, must have material assistance in reducing their costs of production if they are going to meet this competition and continue to provide jobs for Canadian workmen.
This government, which is taking virtually half of the income of every Canadian corporation, which is levying heavy sales and excise taxes, must take this problem seriously and meet its responsibility by reducing this heavy load which is hampering the Canadian producer today and which is costing the jobs of Canadian workmen.
We have asked as well for an end of government waste and extravagance. We have asked that the government dedicate its efforts to increasing efficiency because that efficiency will create economy. But the government continues to be impervious to appeals of this kind. They turn a deaf ear

when appeals come from this side of the house for elimination of waste and extravagance and the reduction of taxation. They have thwarted persistently every effort that has been made in this house to inquire into the degree of efficiency in the government service with a view to improving it. Where reports have been made before on conditions in the government service, exposing inefficiency and other things there, the government has resorted to every stratagem and every resource to prevent the conditions disclosed in such reports from becoming known in this house and to the Canadian people.
It is true that one report did escape outside the government's iron curtain, the Currie report of two years ago, but we may be sure, and we have seen abundant evidence of this, that the government intends that no other fugitive shall escape outside that government iron curtain. Indeed they made the most strenuous and sedulous efforts to round up that fugitive and get him back behind the iron curtain after he escaped.
Throughout the government has shown the most blatant contempt for the institution of parliament. Upon the shoulders of every government supporter in this house rests the unhappy responsibility of bearing whatever part he has played in allowing the government to impose this iron curtain that has denied to parliament and to the Canadian people information that ought to have been laid before them. Yes, government supporters by their docility and submissiveness have assumed their share of the responsibility for what has happened.
When the government is preaching to Canadian producers that they must be efficient and competitive, and eliminate waste and extravagance, let them begin at home and start by cleaning their own house.
In that regard I come now-and I wish I had time to dwell on this subject-to something that has come to light within the past four or five days.
I refer to the decision of the income tax appeal board in the case of No. 227, appellant v. the Minister of National Revenue. This particular appeal was heard by Mr. Commissioner Fisher and his reasons for judgment were, apparently, handed down last Saturday.
I have endeavoured to find out when the case was heard. Today I telephoned the income tax appeal board for that purpose because evidently Mr. Commissioner Fisher heard the case some time ago. I was told that the file is in the hands of the chairman of the board, and instructions have been issued that
The Address-Mr. Fleming no information is to be handed out with reference to this case. I was not asking any improper question. I was not asking the name of the appellant. I was simply asking the date on which the commissioner heard the case.


Mr. McCann:: I can give you that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Will the minister do so?


James Joseph McCann: November.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Last November?


James Joseph McCann: Yes, about November 8 or 10.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then judgment on this case has been reserved for two months. The evidence referred to in the course of the reasons for judgment must have been given at least two months ago, but judgment was not written until-


James Joseph McCann: I did not say written, I said heard.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I said the judgment was only handed down Saturday.


James Joseph McCann: You said the judgment was given two months ago.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I did not. I think we will have to ask the minister to have something done about his hearing. I said this judgment was handed down last Saturday. I asked when the case was heard and the minister said two months ago. He has given us information in that regard that I was not able to obtain. The decision was handed down last Saturday, and I say that now for the third or fourth time.
It will be observed in the reasons for judgment that the case was heard in camera at the request of the appellant. I am not interested today in discussing the merits of the legal question under appeal. The question turned on whether certain expenditures made in the improvement of a property were in their nature capital, or whether the expenditures were allowable as deduction under section 12 of the Income Tax Act as expenditures laid out for the purpose of earning the income of the corporation. We do not know who the appellant was, but I will read a few sentences from the reasons for judgment. Here is one paragraph:
In the year 1951, the appellant company decided that it should purchase a property which could be used for entertainment purposes.
May I point out that it was the income of this company for 1951 that was under consideration. The paragraph continues:
Apparently the appellant was convinced that it was necessary to have a private country residence where officials and officers of the various governmental bodies could be entertained prior to the
156	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Fleming negotiation of government contracts, and a property was found which it was felt would be suitable for this purpose.
Then we are told that the expenditures in that year in improving this property were as follows:
Buildings:
Painting	
Roof	
Plumbing and heating ...
Electric wiring, etc	
Floor cleaning	
Repairs-wood, cement, etc
$6,500.00 .	478.78
947.54 2,389.73 352.00 1,119.91
And then, sir, what about landscaping? Listen to this.
Landscaping
Paving and grading	$ 4,000.00
Trees	 663.00
Lawn	 11,338.06
The total expenditure amounted to $27,789.02. The commissioner, in further reference to this expenditure, states:
These expenditures were made for repairs and improvements to the property, which was used, to some extent at least, for entertainment purposes during the latter months of the year.
That year was 1951, more than three years ago, and there has been no suggestion yet that the building has since been used for any different purpose.
Now, sir, it is evident that this matter was news to the Prime Minister's ears when this decision was handed down. But we have been told in a Canadian Press dispatch something about the nature of this Shangri-La. We have been told that the Canadian Press has learned from reliable sources that the entire property is protected by a formidable fence, the only entrance being a guarded gateway. Visitors had to be vouched for at the main lodge before being admitted. This quotation then follows:
"Accommodation and entertainment is provided on a most lavish scale, with every convenience for the official being romanced. Greenhouses provide fresh flowers in profusion: and the entire establishment is air-conditioned."
Sir, it would need to be air-conditioned because this thing smells to high heaven. The quotation proceeds:
"It is staffed by an impressive array of servants, from butlers to handymen. Not one of them will discuss anything that transpires inside the fence, but stories of some of the parties there have been fabulous."
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are told that this is not very far from Ottawa. It is close enough to Ottawa to make it quite convenient. It is not the officials of some distant municipality or province they are concerned in entertaining or, as the report puts it, romancing. No one wishes to impose a Spartan existence upon federal government officials. But, sir, the people of this country are entitled to feel that those who are 

awarded federal government contracts obtain them strictly on their merits, and not because they have some inside track.


James Joseph McCann: Is this where the Ontario road contractors were entertained?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) should know that the Ontario government has taken firm and resolute measures to deal with the situation the minister mentioned. I think the minister is the person best qualified in this house to supply an answer to this question because this is something that arose within his department, and his officers were acquainted with it two months ago, but apparently the evidence in this case fell on deaf ears.
If th,e minister is looking for Ontario precedents he might well conclude that his responsibility in matters of this kind is such that he ought to consider submitting his resignation to His Excellency over what has happened here.
The walls referred to were there for a purpose. Is it not significant, Mr. Speaker, and is it not as eloquent as anything that has yet happened in this house, that the minister and those who support this government greet this report with laughter and levity? What better example could be found of the utter irresponsibility of this government and those who support it in the face of something that has all the earmarks of a major scandal, and certainly a scandal that deserves investigation? Indeed, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) acknowledged only two days ago that this matter ought to be very carefully investigated.
If it comes to an investigation, we want something better than the kind of investigation we have had in the past; the hole-and-corner investigation, the results of which have never leaked out to the public. But this has leaked out to the public, and in the name of the public we demand that this investigation be made public. If the Prime Minister is not prepared to have the proper public kind of investigation, then we demand that the matter be investigated by a special committee of this house and that we be allowed to subpoena all who are concerned in this case. We intend to make it our business to get to the bottom of the matter and see that the Canadian public is permitted to know everything they should know, and that means everything in relation to the use of this property. What officials used it? For what purpose? Who were entertained? Who did the entertaining? We want to know the answer to those and a thousand more questions. With nothing short of a full, complete and searching investigation of this kind- yes, and a public investigation with the most

complete public disclosure of the contents, with full opportunity in this house to go into this matter and into every detail of it -will we be satisfied in the name of the Canadian people.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring the subject matter for the time being to something else not quite so exciting and perhaps not quite so controversial. I think that a great number of hon. members were as interested as was I when they saw in this morning's Montreal Gazette the report that perhaps a tax rental agreement had been arrived at between the government of Canada and the province of Quebec. I hope that is so. I hope it is so on a fair and equitable basis to all concerned. I should like to see every province within this agreement, believing as I do that when every province is in it, then Canada as a nation will be so much stronger.
We in the C.C.F. want to see this agreement and we hope it will be achieved on the fairest terms to all. We say again, as we have said in the past, that we insist without any qualification on the right of the people of Quebec to their constitutional rights as well as the unwritten ones which are accepted in civilized society, just as we on the other hand ask for reciprocity and insist that we also have rights. But there is this one thing that I must point out. There is one price that we will not pay for Quebec participation and that is the wrecking of the tax agreements. I do not know what the facts are. I do not know whether or not the report was accurate or inaccurate. I therefore intend to leave the situation at that point, hoping that an agreement has been arrived at and hoping that the agreement will be good for Canada. If that is so then certainly we welcome such an agreement.
I want to say a few words about the unemployment situation. The other night my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), speaking in this debate, pointed out the masterly job which either the Liberal apologists or Liberal publicity men had achieved in selling the people of Canada the concept of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) as "Uncle Louie", an appellation which indicates affection. It is perhaps arguable that the Canadian people have no great regard for a paternal society and that therefore their desire is all for an avuncular one. But the pity of it today is that this government, under the present avuncular society, is nevertheless making tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of Canadians cry "uncle". I am talking about those Canadians today who, through no fault of their
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart own, are unemployed, who cannot get work and who want to work. This government is apparently doing nothing about the situation. Last year it was obvious, from looking at the treasury benches, that there was a degree of lethargy and apathy which I thought could not have been increased. But this year it is even worse, with one exception. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) has not yet been contaminated with the lethargy which afflicts the rest of his colleagues and I hope for his sake that such a thing never happens.
I remember reading a description of a British government some years ago. It was described as a government of exhausted volcanoes. Nobody would suggest that this government was a government of exhausted volcanoes because there would be no excuse for such an exaggeration. To describe it as a government of exhausted molehills might be more accurate; and I am convinced that is what a great number of Canadians today think this government is. Not only is it apathetic and lethargic in the face of present social problems but it is self-satisfied. What is even worse, as we have been told by an excellent witness, it is incompetent. I am not advancing my own concept of incompetence. I call upon the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) who knows his colleagues much better than I do. Let me quote from page 40 of Hansard where my leader the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) read this extract from a speech of the Prime Minister:
"We have a country where there should be work for everybody and if we are not smart enough to organize the economy of the nation to provide work for everybody we are incompetent."
Manifestly the government is not smart enough to organize work for everybody. Therefore, by definition, the government is incompetent; and when the Prime Minister himself makes that assertion, who am I to disagree with him?
Not only have we unemployment today but it is increasing and it is going to get worse. There is no plan or project that we have seen except the blasting of Ripple Rock out of the water. What is that going to do from the point of view of unemployment? What help is being given to men whose lives are being squandered in idleness? That is the problem which faces this house and that is what this government must answer for because within a few months there are going to be over a million people close to relief. That is not to say that there will be a million people unemployed but many of
158	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart those who today are unemployed have dependents; they have wives and children and they are going to be close to relief unless the government takes action to help them.
I cannot altogether agree with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) when he regards his position in such a circumscribed way as he did this afternoon. I can perhaps agree that unemployment cannot be cured by legislation. However, unemployment can be greatly alleviated by sensible and reasonable fiscal policies which this government has not yet disclosed to us.
I see this situation in my own city of Winnipeg where we are dependent for our prosperity on the well-being of the farmers. When the farmer's income has been cut, as it has been this year, we in the city are going to suffer. If you cut down the farmer's income, you cut down what he spends in the city. And if you cut down what he spends in the city, you create unemployment or you create short-time employment and you have a demand for lower wages. Do that, and once again we are in the spiral of depression.
I might give the house a case in point. Before I left Winnipeg a couple of weeks ago I was talking to the bargaining committee of a union which has been conducting negotiations with a particular employer. The employer in Winnipeg took this stand: In your last contract your starting wage was $1.22 an hour. It is now going to be $1 and if you do not like it, I can get all the men I want for 85 cents. I do not think he could get all the men he wanted for 85 cents but he certainly could get some. I cite that instance in order to show the dangerous situation which is prevailing where employers are deliberately, as a matter of policy, cutting down purchasing power still further.
It is necessary that the government see that, as far as possible, purchasing power is restored in the widest possible way. But the government says: We have another method; when times get tough, we must go in for economizing. One of the aspects of economizing which they introduce is that teams are apparently sent through each department and a little clerk is hoofed out here and another little clerk is booted out there, and economizing is the word used for that procedure. But there is no economy. There is no economizing going on when there are almost 300,000 people unemployed and human resources are being wasted. It is to that aspect of economy that I should like to see this government devote its time. There is a loss in income which can never be


replaced. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) ought to have some appreciation for this argument because, with unemployment as it is now, there must be a loss in national income per week of at least $12 million, and within a few months' time it is going to be double that amount. Yet we have these hundreds of thousands unemployed, with little hope for them. What would the supporters of free enterprise in this house say if they saw capital being destroyed? I refer to capital either in the shape of finance or capital in the shape of things like machines, implements or buildings. They would be howling murder about it. Yet you are destroying the capital of men when you destroy the time they might be working. A man can never get back the hours which he has lost. A man can never regain the days he was unemployed; his capital is being destroyed.
There is another aspect to it. How are we going to approach this problem of the worker in industry and the owner of industry? Today, by and large, in corporate industry the owner is one who lends his money to industry. He can get that money back whenever he wants through the medium of the stock exchange. The owner lends his money, but the worker gives his life. Who then has the greater claim, morally or any other way, on the proceeds of industry? We in the C.C.F. say without question, the one who has the greater claim is the one who is doing the fundamental job of producing wealth. Yet we have not been able to sell that idea far enough, not only in this house but throughout Canada.
The situation in the future is going to be aggravated. It is going to become much more acute than it has been in the past, and for this reason. There is a new word being coined. It is coming into the English language, and it is called automation. I do not like these new words, but I do not know what other substitute there could be for this situation in which machines are displacing men. This is not new in industrial history. There has been progress because machines displaced men, although it should be noted that the progress was always at the expense of one group in the community, that group which could not protect itself.
Now, machines are displacing men at a rapidly accelerated rate. Automation is occurring far faster than was the case in the past. Let me give you one example, and there are many others which we could find if we were to look at industry. This is a situation which existed at the Chrysler plant in Detroit. There was an operation for the making of rocker arm supports, an operation

which included drilling, reaming and cutting. Five men were employed on two machines in this particular phase of the operation. These five men and two machines were able to produce 38 pieces an hour. Another machine has been brought in, so that one man and one machine can now manufacture 750 pieces an hour. In other words, a bank of the old machines could be rendered useless and 80 men could become unemployed because of this new piece of equipment and a social problem created.
Today we have to find the answer. The situation is more serious in the United States just now than it is here, but it is going to visit us in Canada. We cannot avoid it because there has to be progress. We may perhaps have to consider carefully how rapidly we progress, and in what way. If automation becomes more prevalent than it is today, the unions are going to find themselves in a position where seniority will count for nothing. The unions are going to find that job classification will go out the window because there will be no such thing in a mechanized society. Automation will certainly be here in our own lifetime. If this occurs the older worker, and by that I mean the man of 45 and over, is going to be unemployed. He is not going to be able to find work unless the fiscal policy of the government is such that, in some way or other, work is provided. There are, therefore, startling dangers ahead of us, and they are dangers because our political and economic thinking still lags lamentably behind the technology of the age. This thinking has to be brought up to date.
There may be an answer, perhaps, in the union request for a guaranteed annual wage. I certainly support the idea. I have heard it argued, on the other hand, that the guaranteed annual wage would be most unfair to management because management would be compelled to keep workers on their staff when no work was available. I should like to see management acting as bird dogs for a change. I am not altogether impressed with the quality or calibre of management in Canada. It is time they went out and did some rustling, not only to get orders but to make sure the men who are in the plants are being given employment.
Furthermore, a guaranteed annual wage may at last bring home to industry the responsibility it has to society. It is regarded as right, proper and prudent for industry to create a depreciation reserve for its fixed assets. Why is it not equally proper, prudent and wise to create a depreciation reserve for the human assets who are producing the wealth in the various plants throughout Canada? It is starting. We see signs of it here
The Address-Mr. A. Stewart and there, but not in adequate quantities. Industry has to take a greater social responsibility for the men whom it employs. If the government, through its injurious fiscal policies, creates unemployment the government representing society as a whole has to take responsibility for that.
There should be none of this nonsense of striking a man off unemployment benefits because he has been unemployed too long and there is still no work for him. I am not suggesting the guaranteed annual wage is the complete answer because I do not believe it is. I hope, however, the Department of Labour is considering this problem which is arising, and will meet with the unions and management in this country as soon as possible to try to devise some answer.
There is one other matter about which I want to speak, and one about which every member of the house feels quite as strongly as I. I am not quite certain yet about the members of the cabinet. I am thinking about the plight of the burnt-out veterans. I suppose other members had the same experience I had when I was home in that I was asked on a number of occasions to meet the Canadian Legion and say what I thought of the situation. I may as well say here what I thought. I thought the government's conduct was shoddy and shabby. I said it and I still believe it. I am prepared to withdraw those words when I see the new legislation introduced.
I think the conduct of the Canadian people, also, may have been shoddy and shabby when we consider their responsibility, because these were men who volunteered to fight to keep the skins of the Canadian people intact. We were in danger, so we would pay anything for our safety. Of course, once we became safe, we forgot about our moral obligation to those who had suffered for us. I hope the government is going to turn that moral obligation into hard dollars and cents when the new legislation comes down. All these people are asking for is justice; they are not asking for too much because I have said in the past, and I say again, the briefs of the Canadian Legion have been exemplary in the sense that they have asked for what was fair and nothing more.
Another thing: I hope this legislation will include some provision whereby the burnt-out pensioner is not, in effect, denied the old age pension when he achieves the age of 70. It can be said he is not denied the old age pension, he gets it. He has a right to it, certainly, but his pension is cut down by the amount he gets and his total income is not one iota greater afterwards than before. While technically he gets the old age pension, in

The Address-Mr. Garland effect he sees nothing of it. I hope the government will not be so miserable as to keep that regulation in force.
I should like to read a letter which I received. I have a great number of them, and I picked this one at random out of the file. It expresses very adequately what these old veterans feel. It is from 769 Atlantic avenue, Winnipeg, and reads:
The veterans are making a most justifiable appeal to the government of Canada, to seriously consider their appeal for an increase in their allowance and I am asking you being our member of parliament to give it your full support and consideration.
I most assuredly do.
The amount received is not sufficient for our expenses, having to meet the increased costs on all sides. Also hospitals and doctors if our wives are ill, more or less as the case may be, making a serious demand on the allowance. It is very reasonable that a married man receiving a veteran's allowance should be able to bring his income to $2,000 per year.
That is a most reasonable request. This next sentence is one which has a sting in it for all of us.
This is not too much to ask of a government who now pensions its M.P.'s at $3,000 per year.
The government of Canada recognizes that an income of $2,000 per year is too low for a married man to pay income tax.
I therefore feel that this figure is the lowest reasonable figure to ask as an income for the veteran who is no longer able to perform steady employment.
Your support in this matter is solicited with deep sincerity. Anything you can. do to bring the government recognition of its responsibility to the class of veterans affected will bring you the thanks and appreciation of ail veterans.
I would be very happy to see this appreciation transferred to the shoulders of the government; and it can be easily transferred by bringing in the sort of legislation which has been asked for by veterans and which has been asked for by members on all sides of the house. And if the government is prepared to do it, then I for one, and for a very brief time, am prepared to forgive the government for some of its obvious inadequacies.


Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, rising to participate in this debate, may I forgo the usual custom of long and flowery congratulations to the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick). May I say simply to them and to the other new members introduced on Friday last that it is gratifying to know that the membership of this House of Commons, with its unrivalled opportunity for service, continues to attract Canadians of ability and integrity.
Before dealing directly with the speech from the throne I would like to comment on one piece of government business at our last session. I refer to legislation that made


the lending facilities of our chartered banks available for home construction. I have always taken a keen interest in housing. Being a firm believer in the advantages of home ownership, I was naturally interested in this new legislation.
In our last session I was surprised and disappointed with the opposition in some quarters to this move. Some rather prominent members of the opposition expressed their doubts as to the advisability of having our banks participate in this field, and I seem to recall the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) in particular advising the nation that Canada's banks would not be able to provide funds for home construction and at the same time perform their regular functions. How wrong he was!
An examination of the financial statements of Canada's banks, and recent figures from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, reveal that the banks have made loans in this new field amounting to some $170 million. This is a remarkable performance when one remembers that the legislation was only in effect for a few months of the banks' fiscal year; and, what is more important, more housing units were completed in the year just ended than ever before in our history. Now Canadians will welcome the reference in the throne speech indicating the government's intention to bring into operation, at the beginning of February, those provisions of the National Housing Act in which loans may be made for home improvements. It is evident to most that this proposed legislation will substantially improve housing conditions in this country.
Mr. Speaker, there is another matter of national importance and of special interest to the people I represent and to northern Ontario generally, and that is the trans-Canada highway. A survey of the progress of this important project in northern Ontario is not impressive. I recognize the magnitude of this development and can understand the pressures and needs from the more densely populated areas of southern Ontario for a larger share of the highway dollar. I also recognize the difficulties the Ontario government has been having with their highways department, and I do hope that now, since the premier of our province has apparently found it necessary to intervene personally in this department, we can properly expect more emphasis on construction in northern Ontario. Our people expect and need this fine project completed as soon as possible. The continued development of northern Ontario is dependent on this road.
The further expansion of our tourist industry, the opening up of new areas giving

transportation facilities to new mining and lumbering developments both present and future, point up the need for the early completion of the trans-Canada highway through northern Ontario. May I remind the house that the agreements with the provinces were signed back in April, 1950, and are due to expire December 9, 1956. This leaves less than two years, and it is my sincere wish that every possible priority be given this important project by the government of Ontario and, indeed, all the provinces. After all, the federal treasury is paying 50 per cent of the costs, and the Canadian people expect action. If the necessary co-operation is not immediately forthcoming, I would suggest the federal government taking a firmer attitude with the provinces.
Another matter of concern is the early construction of a natural gas pipe line through northern Ontario. We are pleased to learn from the press recently that Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited now plan a more northern route to serve northern municipalities, with a spur line from North Bay to other important northern Ontario centres. Anything this house does to expedite this matter will be appreciated by northern Ontario.
There is another subject, Mr. Speaker, of direct concern to the people of Nipissing, that needs the attention of our Department of Public Works, and I take advantage of the opportunity afforded members in this debate to discuss local matters. I refer now to the docking facilities at North Bay and Sturgeon Falls. I am not going to remind this house that the district of Nipissing is truly a tourists' paradise-this is already well known. I need scarcely remind hon. members of the excellent facilities throughout our district. The Ontario Northland Boat Lines operate an excellent boat, the Chief Commando., daily during the navigation season, from the North Bay wharf. The rapid expansion of the tourist industry in Nipissing is causing an ever-increasing flow of traffic over the present facilities.
Important mining activities on the islands of lake Nipissing have further increased the flow of traffic. I have been successful in having repairs of a temporary nature done to both docks, and appreciate the co-operation received from the department. However, the time has come for extensive repairs to make sure that these important facilities are adequate for present-day traffic requirements.
It is not my intention to deal with many of the subjects contained in the speech from the throne. Most Canadians will approve the proposed amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act immediately to assist our citizens who, through no fault of their own, may 50433-11
The Address-Mr. Garland be unemployed this winter. And I am pleased this legislation is now under way. Canadians generally will approve the government's intention to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, to raise the basic rates as well as the ceiling on permissible incomes of allowance recipients.
There will be general approval of the government's proposal to lower the age of eligibility and raise the income ceilings of Canada's blind citizens. Canadians will now have the right to expect humanitarian treatment for her disabled citizens. Too long, now, has this been a dark chapter in our program of social welfare.
Located as we are in Nipissing, so close to the gold mining country, and dependent on it for a substantial share of our economic wellbeing, we are anticipating continued support to that important industry through the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. Further, I am sure all those interested in municipal affairs will await with keen interest the proposed amendments to the Municipal Grants Act.
I am not unmindful of Canada's activities and our responsibilities abroad in the fields of diplomacy, co-operative defence and assistance to underprivileged areas, plus a genuine desire and need further to promote freer world trade. Our government is keenly aware of these tremendously important problems and I can see no useful purpose in my discussing them at this time.
During the next several days we will undoubtedly hear much criticism of the speech from the throne, and that is as it should be in a democracy. Our socialist friends will argue that the benefits forecast in the speech are thoroughly inadequate. They will undoubtedly urge the launching of a huge program of public works, as though the benefits come automatically with the spending of public money. This seems to be the socialists' chief answer to current unemployment.
Our Progressive Conservative friends, on the other hand, will, as usual, talk about what it does not contain, and will no doubt take the position that spending of the kind recommended by the socialists will not correct the employment situation, and will only add to the already high prices of goods and services which the Progressive Conservatives claim is the real problem in the Canadian economy.
Sir, as a "middle of the roader", if such an expression is permissible, I suggest the answer, as is so often the case, lies somewhere between these two points of view. The spending of public money on well-planned and urgently needed public projects and services is necessary, and can make an important
162	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Garland contribution to our economy. But I suggest that this parliament approach our problems at this time calmly and confidently. Let us not be pushed into hastily conceived schemes. May I suggest that while this is not a time for complacency, neither is there any justification for gloom-peddling or any artificial pump-priming of our economy, or special preferred attention to a selected few.
In my opinion, our economy withstood the shocks of 1954 in surprisingly good fashion. The market for our staple wheat exports suffered a real slump. The United States experienced a sizeable recession that quite naturally took the edge off our prosperity here. There was a poor wheat crop in the west. These unfavourable circumstances were quite beyond the control of Canadians, yet we find new investment continuing at a high level. Our exports were reduced only by about the equivalent of the drop in wheat sales. Our other exports were just about maintained. In spite of the normal difficulties of Canadian exporters, a more favourable balance between exports and imports was achieved in 1954 than in 1953. This result, in my opinion, makes nonsense of all the clamour we hear that high Canadian costs are pricing us out of world markets.
Perhaps "makes nonsense" is rather strong language. Perhaps I should say that it punches plenty of holes in the sweeping charge that high Canadian costs are pricing us out of world markets. Let us remember that costs are only one factor that go into a sale. Let us remember that there are others. There is the question of availability. There is the question of quality and the question of aggressive sales approach. In the case of appliances and machinery there is the question of a good service organization behind an aggressive sales organization.
I am not suggesting that these factors do not exist, but one should not accept the general statement that high costs are our only problem in trade. Let us not forget that also in the late 1940's and the early 1950's we enjoyed markets that had never been traditionally ours, and it is only natural that since these countries have come back from the devastation of war they are going to be able to supply the products that they normally supplied. While we shall lose some markets, it is true, we are going to gain others and this is particularly true of our forest products in many countries of Europe. It is particularly true of base metals in many countries in Europe. I believe there are figures showing that the exports of these two commodities I have mentioned have increased in some months during the past year


to as high as 30 per cent or 35 per cent over the corresponding months of 1953.
Let us look for just a moment at the future. This Liberal government should seek to improve the already excellent relationship between business and government in Canada, and should continue to offer every possible incentive to new and existing business, as it is only through steady expansion of our free enterprise system that we can continue to improve the living standards of our people.
At the same time, we must recognize that at this halfway mark in the century we have reached the stage of development where those that have must share a part of their good fortune with those less fortunate, so that all of us may have more of the good things of life.
I suggest we have reached this stage in our international thinking as well as at home. Such a policy is reasonable and right, and is bound to find favour with free, fair-minded people everywhere. Such a policy I will continue to support in the firm belief that Canada can move forward to an even brighter future.
This policy of freedom for business, and social security for our people, has been inconsistent with Tory and socialist thinking alike, down through the years. To them, such a policy of co-existence could only be tolerated in cases of extreme emergency. To me, this combination of free enterprise and social welfare is the very cornerstone of the Liberal approach, and that is why the Liberal party continues to enjoy the confidence of fairminded Canadians everywhere.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, January 13, 1955
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 13th January, at 9.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to a certain bill.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative)

The Address-Mr. J. W. Murphy SPEECH FROM THE THRONE	People ask the question: Why should we



CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Yves Leduc (Verdun) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: Mr. Speaker, in spite of all its carefully chosen words and limited demands, the speech from the throne could hardly be expected to suppress the fact that there is mounting unemployment at the present time in Canada. This is an ugly fact that stares us all in the face. It is a condition of our national economy that in my judgment will not be remedied by the building of ferries, the construction of an odd harbour, the removal of Ripple Rock, the building of historic sites and monuments and the like.
I think it is high time that we as members of parliament addressed ourselves seriously to the problems facing Canada with respect to production and trade. As that is going to be a most important subject during this particular session, I would like to go back and review a little bit of historical background relative to trade and tariffs.
The year 1914 closed an era. One world then died and another is still struggling to be born. That old world was dominated by one great country that had coal, limestone, ore and other basic resources close to the seaboard, and these provided the sound basis for an industrial economy which spread itself throughout the agricultural and raw material areas of the world.
The central fact about Britain's industrial economy was that she was first in the field and thus able to develop a tremendous lead over all possible rivals. In fact until the very latter part of the nineteenth century she had no industrial rivals at all. The British made money, therefore, by buying raw materials as cheaply as possible and selling against all comers in free markets, the countries to whom they were selling not having the facilities to manufacture industrial goods.
Today the industrial centres of production cannot be counted on the fingers of one hand. Two-thirds of the population of the world still remains peasant and poor, but in the other third industrial development in most cases has changed and is changing the social pattern of life, and has rescued and is rescuing nations from poverty in constantly widening areas.
50433-lli
have agricultural surpluses when so many are in need of food? The simple answer is that these countries in need of food have not yet been able to organize their resources and their political systems so as to be in a position to buy food. As you know, we do have the Colombo plan.
It is a truism that predominantly agricultural nations are poor. It is almost now a platitude to say that it is research and the industrial improvements that follow that transform our agriculture, our forest and mining industries into enterprises that provide more profitable occupations. Industrial development keeps our economies in a constant state of peaceful revolutionary change, and thereby provides better working conditions and better real incomes for all the individuals and families of our population.
Today we should have a searching look at our Canadian economy. That means we should glance backward and look forward. It is by looking at the wake of a ship that you can best discern the direction in which the ship is going. It is by taking a look at Canada back to the time of confederation that we are able to see the course on which our national economy was set some 85 years ago.
The first prime minister of Canada was Sir
John A. Macdonald. Following confederation there was a brief period of political consolidation, but in 1888 Sir John realized the lonely isolated economic position into which our economy was drifting. We had enjoyed very valuable preferences in agriculture and in shipping in the British market, to which our imber products at that time were making fotn*' contributions. But between 1846 and 1870 Britain had transformed herself into a free market economy and we were on the same basis in that market as all other countries of the world.
The United States had fought the Civil War and thereby swung the southern states into the industrial orbit of the north. Reciprocity which we had enjoyed with them, was abrogated. We were on our own. We had no real chance to develop native industries because of the much superior technological ability to produce possessed by other countries, especially the United States. Difficulties were on the horizon everywhere facing our producers of farm and other raw materials In these circumstances Sir John A. Macdonald moved his now famous resolution in the House of Commons on March 12, 1878, on going into committee of supply, and this I will read:
This house is of the opinion that the welfare of Canada requires the adoption of a national policy which, by a judicious readjustment of the tariff!
184	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. W. Murphy
will benefit and foster the agricultural, the mining, the manufacturing, and other interests of the dominion; that such a policy will retain in Canada thousands of our fellow countrymen who are now obliged to expatriate themselves in search of the employment denied them at home; will restore prosperity to our struggling industries, now so sadly depressed; will prevent Canada from being made a sacrifice market; will encourage and develop an active interprovincial trade; and moving (as it ought to do) in the direction of a reciprocity of tariffs with our neighbours, so far as the varied interests of Canada may demand, will greatly tend to procure for this country, eventually, a reciprocity of trade.
Note the last part of the resolution, which may appear today to have been brave words at the time. Sir John's resolution clearly implied we cannot have reciprocity with the United States until we set our own house in order; until we got into the habit of processing our own industrial and raw materials, and until in time we will be able to meet the United States on some reasonable ground of nearly equal competitive terms.
Thus we had, particularly in these two central provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the beginnings of what are now vast industries that can compete on nearly equal terms with any other country in the world. Most of our long-established industries can produce goods, pay salaries almost as high as anywhere else-I think as high as anywhere else with the possible exception of the United States-and put our goods on the world markets just as efficiently as other industrial countries.
The Conservatives were called upon to quit in 1896 and the Liberals, under the great Sir Wilfrid Laurier, took over until the year 1911. The Liberal party came into power on a trade platform which threatened to sweep away protection in Canada by promising to restore free trade on the model of industrial Britain. But when they came into power they became realists. It is true that they gave a voluntary preference to Britain, but Britain was not the great industrial threat to our native industry. It was the United States. At all events the national policy of Sir John A. Macdonald was so well safeguarded by the Liberals in power that the tariff structure which they left behind them in 1911 remained unchanged through the administrations of Borden and Meighen. There were some special war duties, but they were repealed as soon as the war ended.
If you compare the actual tariff exactions levied during the Laurier regime and the later regimes of Borden and Meighen, you will find that taken as percentage totals of all imports they vary by less than a fraction of one per cent, and generally speaking the same tariff which was accepted by the
IMr. Murphy (Lambton West).]

Laurier government in 1896, maintained by the Borden and Meighen governments from 1911 to 1922, was still good enough to survive the verbal onslaught of the Liberal leader who was prime minister of this country for over 20 years. So the Macdonald policy, in developing industry, became and remained the cornerstone of Canadian economic policy.
Up until the war of 1914 the development of industries and courageous immigration policies in our country and others maintained a healthy demand for primary products, and an especially wholesome demand for farm products. There were no difficulties in finding markets for farm products up until a year or two following world war I. But, of course, inevitably the war geared agricultural production to a point that could not be sustained in the face of the shrinking demand for agricultural products that followed the war.
The United States took swift action to protect its agricultural industry. In the early twenties we had the Fordney-McCumber tariff which disastrously cut the volume of our farm and fish exports. A post-war depression in those days seemed to be taken for granted, and in the middle twenties, after an industrial shakedown and temporary unemployment, Britain returned to the gold standard and the industrial process was again in healthy and rampant stride.
For reasons I do not wish to go into now at length this world economy which was promising so much, particularly to those optimists who were investing in the stock market-and weren't we all-collapsed in 1929. The United States congress again acted promptly. They enacted the Hawley-Smoot tariff which all but obliterated what remained of our farm export market. They followed this in 1932 with a special revenue act putting specific tariff duties against such metals as copper and such other primary products as lumber.
Mr. R. B. Bennett was then prime minister of Canada and, in different and even more difficult circumstances, he faced the same problem as Sir John A. Macdonald.
Canada was refused entry into the United States of her agricultural surpluses and her metals and lumber, and Britain, with the exception of some 100 special and not very high duties imposed during the war and postwar period, was operating on a free trade basis.
Mr. Bennett invited the nations of the commonwealth and empire to a conference in Ottawa. In the meantime Britain was forced off the gold standard and reverted to a substantial tariff structure ranging on industrial products from 10 to 33 and in some cases up to 50 per cent.

Most of the discussion about the empire agreements at that time centred on the secure and sheltered market we were guaranteed for portions of our agricultural products in Britain, but, as I see it now, the great gain that flowed from these agreements was the stimulus it gave to Canadian manufacturing industries.
As I pointed out, the British tariff on manufactured goods ranged from 10 to 33 and even up to 50 per cent, and as a result of the empire agreements our manufactured products were admitted into that country free.
What did this mean? It meant that United States industry selling to Britain would have to pay these rates I have just mentioned, whereas, if they moved their plants into Canada, or established branches in Canada, the products of these plants entered Britain mainly free of duty. You can go through Ontario or elsewhere in Canada today and you will see industry after industry which obtained a footing in this way and as a result of this development are now flourishing and supplying markets at home and abroad.
What we should all try to escape from is the state of academic anaemia in which our discussions on trade policy are conducted. In face of the record I have mentioned, what is the use of discussing free trade as a practical political proposition? All such discussion does not alter the fact that there is no genuine free trade party in Canada and there never was.
Since we have a tariff for protection, why not be fair and reasonable about its application? Why should industries which have entered Canada at the request of the government to supply vitally needed war materials, and which now employ many thousands of Canadian workers at the best prevailing rates of pay, be made the victims of hypocritical trade philosophy? That is the trouble about this double-talk regarding protection for industry.
The industries which can exert effective political pressure on the government are able to break through the sound barrier erected by the alleged free traders. Industries that are anxious to get on with their business and take fair and equitable treatment for granted are sacrificed on the altar set up by the academic free traders.
Because of our recent discoveries in natural resources, including gas and oil, we are in the process of developing a huge chemical empire in this country. This chemical industry has already been highly developed in the United States. Some products of these and other industries are admitted into Canada free from the United States, and similar
The Address-Mr. J. W. Murphy products going from Canada to the United States are subjected to substantial customs tariff rates.
When a given product is produced both in Canada and in the United States, and the government across the border levies customs duties and other imposts much in excess of ours, such a situation should become a matter for adjustment between the two countries. Canada's exports are fettered by foreign tariff regulations while, on the other hand, Canadian industry is exposed to damaging competition.
After the war we had visions of drawing all the nations of the world into various forms of collective action which were to be the sure road to a political world paradise. All nations banded together were to be as happy and peaceful as a basket of kittens. We now know that some of the kittens turned out to have long claws.
Let us not despair in the task of finding real avenues to a restored world order. But let us work with practical means towards practical ends. We are standing by the general agreement on tariffs and trade, while others are not. Our dairy products are subject to quota and our coarse grain products are either placed under quota or subjected to voluntary quota agreements. Devices are found within the terms of the agreements to protect domestic manufacturers. We take no advantage of such, while others do.
The ideological struggle between communism and democracy has led to the popular use of the expression "co-existence". In my opinion Canada should seek a revision of the Geneva trade agreement on the basis of Canadian industrial co-existence. By that I mean that out of an appreciation of a definite national purpose we should look to the recasting of our trade agreements to the degree that Canadian industry is allowed the right to live, even as our trading partners will seek the same right for their industries.
This, in essence, is what I mean by coexistence: the safeguarding and successful existence of Canadian industries which must, of necessity, compete with foreign industries which perhaps have advantages of labour, wage rates, and many other considerations.
We cannot pursue an inflexible policy which stifles industry and denies labour an opportunity of steady employment. Foreign exporters to Canada and Canadian industries cannot expect to sell much to unemployed Canadians.
Our domestic producers pay an excise tax of up to 15 per cent, and on top of that a further sales tax of 10 per cent. The Canadian manufacturer of automobiles pays excise and sales taxes totalling 25 per cent, against
166	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. J. W. Murphy the manufacturers across the line who pay an excise tax of 7 per cent. It is no wonder automobiles are cheaper in the United States.
We have an unemployment problem that will not be cured by public works or by subscribing to some bogus theory of free trade. It will be solved by giving good sound industrial enterprises a chance to compete on fair terms with industries abroad. In other words, an opportunity of co-existence.
A policy which levies excessive taxation on industry prices its products out of the market, adds new burdens to the cost of living, causes unemployment in Canada, and is obviously not good enough.
Japan and Germany are rising out of the ashes of defeat. Their standards of pay are not such as our workers will accept, and we do not want them to accept such standards. India looms across the horizon. What we need urgently now is a reappraisal of our national policy which has been accepted by all political faiths.
The general agreement on tariffs and trade is now up for revision. We are now in a position to make a reappraisal of its benefits and disadvantages to Canada.
Formerly we got on pretty well by making agreements with individual nations. In each case the effects of the agreements could be fairly forecast by the interested parties, by our trade experts, and by those who speak for the consumers at large.
Admittedly, GATT, which represents a general trade device that ties us all to a theory that does not always work out in practice, presents vastly new problems for our experts who advise the government in such matters.
Many members of the house were disturbed by the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) after his return from Geneva. He seemed to think that the end of the world had come, in so far as international trade on a broad scale is concerned.
Let me say at once that we believe that the most earnest efforts should be made by this government to maintain the general structure of tariffs and trade agreements that were worked out in the first instance at Geneva, and which are now generally known as GATT. We, like most other signatories to this agreement, have two objects in mind. We want reasonably legitimate competitive safeguards for industries that are established in this country, and for industries, although now in their initial stages of development, that give real promise of becoming the means for profitable employment in this country. And we want markets for our surplus products.


The United States is now concerned about the problem of assuring itself of an adequate supply of key materials, especially minerals, and these at the lowest possible cost consistent with security factors.
Many of their needed products are produced in abundance in Canada. The United States more and more will become dependent on our imports of copper, lead, zinc, and iron ore. We, in the meantime, are dependent on them for coal and for citrus fruits. The coal problem is somewhat mitigated by the development of our oil and gas resources. We need their cotton. But in this day of substitution, we do not know how long that need, based on United States production, will last. One certain thing is that we were selling them large quantities of iron ore and we were buying from them large quantities of steel in the form of ingots and finished goods. They will continue to rely on us for supplies of nickel, asbestos and tin. Canada has the materials the United States needs. Canada has the basic materials, aluminum, iron ore, uranium, pulp, paper and lumber.
Our location gives us a major advantage in competing with the United States, and from a security point of view we are considered their best source of supply. We enjoy their confidence. Their investments in Canada have been richly rewarded over the years.
With the United States, and more particularly with our sister nations of the commonwealth, and in co-operation with the free nations of the world today, we must seek to re-establish orderly trade. Nationalism is still the most potent force in the world and what we must do is seek the great objectives of world security on the basis of enlightened self-interest. We shall not be true to the trust that is ours if we do not continue to process greater percentages of our base metals in Canada. We cannot be content to be hewers of wood and drawers of water. We can do as others do-and what is today the accepted basis of trade-namely, appraise our strength as a trader and obtain markets for these surpluses-especially in agricultural products-which we cannot use, and admit articles on a basis that does not destroy our standards of wage payments and our standard of living.
Finally, let me say this. We shall be false to our trust, and false to the best interests of Canada, if we continue to invite useful industries into Canada and then, for no good practical reason, have them slaughtered on the altar of an academic free trade policy.
If the dour predictions of the Minister of Trade and Commerce prove to be correct, we

will be on the verge of a jungle war in international trade, and the people of this country will expect the government to work out plans with the commonwealth, with the United States, and with as many of the free nations of the world as possible to regain our lost markets for our surplus products in this country.


Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, there are a few comments that I should like to make at this time because I feel that this debate should play an extremely valuable role since it provides members on all sides of the house with an opportunity of turning the spotlight on what they consider to be the most important issues in their respective constituencies.
After having read carefully the speech from the throne, I fail to see where the government has given consideration to what I believe to be the most pressing problems facing the Canadian people at the present time. The government apparently has chosen to ignore the basic economic problems and is hoping that, by giving a few pieces of worthwhile legislation of a minor character-that is in terms of the whole economic picture- the people of the country will be satisfied. I suggest that in the government's approach to its legislative program this year they have given us no reason to believe that they are going to make any frontal attack on the most important problems which we face at the present time.
I feel a debate of this kind gives members an opportunity of expressing something of their basic philosophy and of their over-all approach to the problems of the government. One or two other members who have spoken in this debate have referred in a brief manner to this important aspect, namely the whole attitude of the government towards the legislation and its whole attitude towards the role of government in society.
There are in this country those who believe that the activities of the government should be restricted to an extremely narrow sphere. There are those who believe that the less the government has to do, in so far as the economy is concerned, the better off the Canadian people are. I find it difficult to understand why those who champion the cause of free enterprise deem it necessary to support such things as the anti-combines legislation and all sorts of government legislation which was placed on the statute books for the particular purpose of defending the people of Canada against the big business interests of this country. Indeed, if the champions of free enterprise were to follow their own belief to a logical conclusion, then I am sure that
The Address-Mr. Ellis the people of this country would find themselves in a much more serious position than that in which they find themselves today. Indeed in a democratic society the people have a right to look to the government not only for protection against economic interests over which they have little or no control, but also to give them some direction, some leadership, in the solution of economic problems. This concept of government is not new. Abraham Lincoln once described the government's role to be one of doing for the people what they were unable to do for themselves. As time goes on and our society becomes more complex, I believe the need for the continued attention of the government is selfevident. If you were to ask a man who is unemployed today, and who has done his level best to find employment, what he thinks of that concept of government, I am quite certain he would say, "I have done all I can for myself and must look to the government for some help to obtain employment". I think that is the logical and sensible way of viewing the activities of government today.
Now, we in this movement believe that in a democratic society the government which represents the people has a duty and responsibility to care for the interests of the people as a whole. The other day some hon. members referred to the credit union movement. I as a member of the co-operative movement, and as a member for some years of a credit union, wholeheartedly agree. There is a case where people, realizing that in our vicious economic system it is necessary to band together for mutual self-protection, are doing just that in a limited manner. What we in this movement argue is that the same principle applies to the economic machinery of this country as a whole. What we want in democratic society is a greater measure of democratic control of the economy.
There is planning in this country. Hon. members talk about the dangers of planning. It would be impossible to carry on a modern government without a great degree of planning. Our whole economic machinery in this country is planning. The big question is not whether or not we are going to have planning; the question is who is going to do the planning and on whose behalf. We argue that whatever planning is done should be done in the interests of the people of this country, not planning by corporations designed to enhance the fortunes of this or that particular group of companies. We know that in this complex society in which we live there has to be planning. We in this movement insist it should be democratic planning by a democratic government in the interests of all the people of the country.
168	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Ellis
Earlier 1 mentioned that in my opinion the government has completely ignored the basic economic difficulties facing the people of this country. I want to refer to just two or three signs of that unwillingness to face up to reality. Coming as I do from a constituency which depends entirely on the prosperity of the surrounding agricultural area, I am very much alarmed by the falling off of our external trade and the serious decline in net farm income. I cannot view with anything but seriousness the fact that in the past year our exports of Canadian wheat and other coarse grains has declined by some 40 per cent. When you translate that fact into its broader implications throughout Canada it is easy to understand why there have been widespread lay-offs in the farm machinery industry, why industrial activity is down, and why we find many industrial workers unemployed.
In addition to the falling off of agricultural exports we know that for the first ten months of last year there was a decline in the value of merchandise exports by approximately 8 per cent. These are signs which the government ought to take into consideration. The government should realize they are danger signs which must be faced if we are to avert an even more serious economic condition in this country. I can recall attending political meetings in my own province where the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and Liberal spokesmen have answered the question of the lost British markets by saying, "Look at our trade position; we are doing wonderfully well." They completely ignored the fact that our trade position was based on the fact we were exporting agricultural commodities to the United States.
Anyone who wanted to view the situation objectively would know that the United States has never been, and will never be, a dependable market for farm products. I believe it was the editor of the Montreal Star who last week, speaking over the air, described the United States market as something like a water tap. If the United States producers were not able to meet the requirements of the domestic market and export trade, the government would turn on the tap and allow our Canadian products to enter the United States. But just as soon as the United States production was sufficient to meet the domestic requirements of that country and to take care of their export requirements, then of course the government would turn off the tap. Anyone who wanted to use a little bit of foresight and plain common sense could have seen that development coming.
Apparently this government, when it lost the British market, said, "Look, we have 

given you markets in the United States." They must have known we could not hope to keep those markets indefinitely. This is not without its serious effects on the economy of this country.
With respect to the falling net farm income we find that 1954 was the third successive year in which there has been a substantial drop in net farm income. During that period net farm income dropped from $2,115 million to $1,200 million, a drop of some 44 per cent. One cannot stress too strongly the seriousness of this disastrous drop in income, because the farmer plays a unique role in our economy. The farmer is not merely a producer of consumer goods, he is also the owner and operator of a relatively highly capitalized small business. In that dual role he is purchasing farm machinery and other capital goods. No survey has been made in this country to reveal the extent to which that is carried on, but research surveys have been made in the United States which indicate that the average farmer will purchase 2-4 times as much per capita as the consumer in the city.
Thus we find this disastrous drop in net farm income has a very serious effect on employment in the industrial areas of Canada. One cannot stress too strongly the interdependence of those who work the soil and those who work in our factories, offices and other places of employment.
This brings me to the third aspect, and one with which I should like to deal in a little more detail, the question of unemployment in Canada. One of the most discouraging features of the speech from the throne is the refusal to face up to the unemployment problem as it exists. The government tries to create the impression that unemployment does not exist in Canada. When they are placed in the position of having to defend themselves they say there is a little unemployment but it is only seasonal or only regional. They will try to pass it off as being of little consequence. Perhaps as supporters of the free enterprise system they believe a little unemployment is inevitable. Perhaps they take the attitude of some businessmen that not only is a certain percentage of unemployment inevitable under our system but that it is desirable. I do not know whether that is the thinking of the members of the government, but at any rate they do not seem to pay very much attention to the fact that some 500,000 or more-this year likely closer to 600,000-Canadians will be out of work.
The government does not consider that serious enough. Just how serious does the unemployment situation have to become

before the government recognizes it exists? Are they going to wait until there are
800.000	unemployed, one million unemployed or 1-5 million? Just where are they going to draw the line between concern and lack of concern? They have argued that unemployment is regional, that it is seasonal. We know that according to the national employment service last winter there were some
569.000	Canadians out of work. Last fall the Canadian Congress of Labour estimated that this winter there would be in excess of
600.000	persons in Canada out of employment. Yet the government feels that this is not serious enough to give closer attention to in its legislative program this year. We know that this unemployment is not concentrated in any one particular area, because we find unemployment in all parts of Canada. I have talked to members of the House of Commons from all parts of the country and I have heard the same story- "Unemployment is bad in my city"; "Unemployment is bad in our part of the country."
I say that some of the members on the government side of the house who get up and pat the government on the back ought to ask themselves the question as to how serious unemployment is in their own community. I would like to know how many government supporters are prepared to get up and say that there is no unemployment in their constituencies. I doubt if one of them can get up in this House of Commons and say that the unemployment situation is not serious in his area.
I would welcome the assurance to the house by the government supporters on this unemployment question, but we do know this, that we have the facts regarding unemployment. We know that unemployment has increased in the following industries: non-ferrous metal products, mining, shipbuilding, machinery, aircraft and parts, sawmills, construction, logging, clothing, railroad equipment, automobiles and parts, iron and steel, textiles and farm machinery. These are the basic industries of this country-particularly the steel industry.
As I say, these are the basic industries of Canada. There is mounting unemployment in these industries; yet the government feels that it is not important enough to make a frontal attack on the problem. With respect to the farm machinery industry, which is a striking example, there has been such a fall in net farm income that the farmers cannot buy new machinery. The result is that we find widespread unemployment in the farm machinery industry. We know that since 50433-12
The Address-Mr. Ellis 1952 there has been a reduction in farm machinery production to the extent of some 34 per cent.
Once again, the attitude of the government seems difficult to understand-this willingness on their part to ignore the seriousness of unemployment in this country. And with respect to the argument that unemployment is regional, as I have already pointed out, if anyone will make a survey of the country he will find unemployment right across Canada.
Just look at the records of the employment offices and they will indicate that unemployment is widespread from one part of Canada to the other.
And then, in connection with seasonal employment: of course we have always had seasonal employment in this country. And yet it is only in the last couple of years that we have had such great numbers of unemployed as we now have in the winter months.
Then, of course, just because a man gets a few months' work in the summer months is not an answer to the employment problem. I am sure that those men who are looking for employment want year-round employment. They want some measure of job security with decent working conditions and good wages. The government cannot take satisfaction from the fact that the unemployment figures might be a little higher in the winter than they are in the summer. What we want is employment all the year round; and in those areas where such employment is not available there should be other employment made available so that those who are doing seasonal work can take on other work in the off-season.
These are questions to which the government must give serious consideration. Then, with regard to the government's attitude concerning unemployment, I wonder why they refuse to admit the seriousness of the problem. I suggest the reason the government is not willing to face up to the unemployment problem is the simple fact that they have no plan or no solution for the problem; and they hope that by ignoring it they can muddle through, and that something will come along to pull them out of the economic swamp in which they find themselves at the present time.
Now, with respect to the official opposition, it was quite interesting last Monday to hear the speech of the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) and to remember that he alone, among the present members of his party in the House of Commons, was a cabinet minister in the government of the late R. B. Bennett. I do not think our memories are so short that we cannot cast
170	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Ellis our minds back over that period, during which time we had a Conservative government in this country. I believe the late Mr. Bennett went out to seek election and in a public meeting in Regina promised to end unemployment in 60 days, I believe it was, or 90 days-some such time, anyway.


An hon. Member:: Ninety days.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Ninety days, was it? Well, he was going to end unemployment in ninety days.


An hon. Member:: And he did.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Someone in the official opposition says that Mr. Bennett did end unemployment in 90 days. Well, I do not know whether he thinks that the relief camps were a solution to the unemployment problem of that time. But we do know that apparently that was the Conservative party's answer to unemployment: "Let us herd all the single unemployed into relief camps and get them out of the way, into the bush country. Let us remove them from their homes and put them in relief camps, in enforced idleness."
That was regimentation, if there ever was regimentation in this country. Hon. members who talk about regimentation in society must know that we had -the greatest regimentation during the time of the relief camps under the government of the late R. B. Bennett.
Then we had a change of government in 1935 when the Liberals took office. Well, they muddled along in 1936, 1937 and 1938, and nothing was done about the unemployment problem. It is true that they did away with the relief camps, but in place of those relief camps the young men were hounded about the country, driven from one city to another, kept one jump ahead of the vagrancy laws. Those who were fortunate enough to get direct relief got 50 cents a day, out of which they were supposed to house, feed and clothe themselves-all on 50 cents a day relief. And that was the Liberal party's answer to unemployment at that time.
Then the war came along, and apparently -that granted a reprieve. The great development in the industrial machinery of this country in connection with the prosecution of the war brought about a period for which they now take credit, and describe as a great period of prosperity. And then after the war, when the leading economists, when the spokesmen for the chambers of commerce and the various banks, along with members of the C.C.F., predicted that when the war ended and a transformation from a wartime to a peacetime economy had taken place we would be faced with a recession, and an


inevitable depression, the evil hour was put off. This was done first of all by the repairing of the ravages of war, indirectly by exports in connection with the Marshall plan, and so on, and then later through the development of the cold war followed by the great rearmament program and then Korea. All of these were artificial stimulants to the economy which managed to maintain a relatively high level of employment in this country.
But now, in spite of all that, in spite of the tremendous defence program, we are now faced with the fact that we have over half a million unemployed in Canada. And the government chooses to do nothing about it.
Now, with respect to the government's attitude toward the unemployed-


An hon. Member:: Take care of the Socreds now.


Alfred Claude Ellis: Someone says to take care of the Socreds. I have not mentioned them because, by their own choice, they have aligned themselves with our friends across the chamber, and with our Progressive Conservative friends to the right. They are the most vociferous element of free enterprise, and consequently have completely removed any possibility of attaining anything so far as reform is concerned.
I believe during the time that the late Mr. Bennett and the late Mr. Mackenzie King were wrestling with the unemployment problem in the thirties, in their own hearts they desired to see the end of unemployment. But they failed because their parties were committed to maintain the free enterprise system. And because they were tied to that system they found themselves powerless to grapple with the forces produced by it.
I hear some interruptions to my right, Mr. Speaker, but I have not been able to hear them clearly. I wish I could, and I would answer.
I suggest the reason the government has not been able to grapple with the problem today is that they are committed to the defence of the free enterprise system. We know that the Prime Minister quite rightly reminded the Acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Rowe) that they too were committed to a defence of the free enterprise system; and therefore offered no alternative. Concerning the economic problems faced by the people of this country, the failure of the government to deal with them would be matched by the failure of the official opposition to deal with them and the failure of the Socreds to deal with them, because any party which commits itself to a defence of free enterprise finds itself unable to deal with the problems facing the country at the present time.

Sir William Beveridge, in a study of the post-war situation in Great Britain, came to roughly the same conclusion, that within the narrow framework of free enterprise no solution was possible to our major economic difficulties. We in our group believe the health and the prosperity of the people of Canada to be more important than a slavish adherence to an outworn economic system. Because we believe that, we are in a position to offer policies that.will tackle and overcome the problems facing' Canada at the present time.
I realize it would be too much to expect the government to adopt our policies. That is too much to expect. I realize that after we have championed a cause for some considerable length of time and it grows in popularity with the Canadian people, when it reaches a certain stage then they are quite apt to reach out and embrace our program and our policies. We have even gone one step further. We have got to the stage where even the Conservatives are willing to reach out and embrace our policies. I believe the most interesting feature of the amendment offered by the Acting Leader of the Opposition was the fact that they now appear to be in favour of health insurance.


Mr. Blair:: We have been for years.


Alfred Claude Ellis: The Address-Mr. Ellis
One of my colleagues mentioned also the South Saskatchewan dam. I can think of no better example of a type of project that should be commenced at the present time than the South Saskatchewan river dam. I mentioned a moment ago that in a public works project only a small percentage in some instances of the actual money involved goes into the area in which the construction project is taking place. In any great construction project there is a great leakage; that is, in the purchase of machinery, the capital goods that are required to carry out the project. A great deal of the money spent on that project will be spent in buying machinery, in buying supplies in all parts of Canada.
With respect to the South Saskatchewan river dam, there are those who feel that the benefits of that would accrue only to the people of Saskatchewan. Such an idea of course completely flouts economic facts. In order to build that dam it will be necessary to purchase a great deal of heavy machinery. Where would that machinery come from? It will come from the industrial areas of Ontario and Quebec. Certainly that is going to be of great assistance to the industrial workers in those parts of the country. There are going to be all sorts of raw materials that will come from various parts of the country. Admittedly some of these raw materials will be purchased in the United States and perhaps in other countries, but the bulk of these purchases will be made in Canada, and the amount of money spent on that dam will be spread throughout the country to the benefit of the entire dominion, not of one particular area of the country.
Apart from the South Saskatchewan dam, there are many other projects that could be carried on at the present time. Someone in the official opposition said something about highways. I think we realize that in the United States all the main highways have been built by the federal government. Today we in Canada have a situation where highways are of national importance, and yet the contribution the federal government has seen fit to make to the construction of highways is its share of the trans-Canada highway, which is very inadequate. What the federal government should do is to undertake to be responsible for building the main highways across Canada, the main international and interprovincial highways in this country, thus relieving the provinces of great financial burdens in building and maintaining highways, particularly in those parts of Canada that are sparsely settled.
Then of course there is the question of railway level crossings. That is a matter

that should certainly receive the attention of the government. I know in my own city there is quite a number of extremely dangerous railway crossings and particularly along the main line of the railroad where there are double tracks.
These are some of the things which the government could be doing, but apparently they are prepared to sit back and do nothing and allow the situation to become progressively worse. My suggestion is that it is easier to deal with a problem now than a year hence or two years hence. What is needed now is a little bit of constructive planning, a little foresight which the government up to the present time has not shown. There are many others that could be suggested. Surely the government is in a position to know what the needs are in regard to public works projects across the country.
They could for example provide employment for a great many by the production of low rental housing units in various parts of Canada where the housing situation is most serious. There are many other worthwhile projects which could be undertaken by the government at this time if they were prepared to admit the seriousness of the unemployment problem. If they are not prepared to admit the problem exists, then it means that we in the opposition have to keep insisting that the government realizes the extent and the seriousness of the problem.
My closing suggestion to the government is once again that they offer some hope and assurance to the people of Canada that they are prepared to face up to the economic problems confronting the country at this time through a system of forward pricing, by some effort to provide parity prices for our farm commodities and by seeking through the means of public works projects to alleviate the immediate problem of unemployment where it exists in Canada.
The main thing is to agree now to assume responsibility for the employable unemployed in this country. No one province in this country is in a position to effectively tackle the problem on its own. Unemployment is a national problem. Indeed, one might argue that it is an international problem. Certainly it can be argued that it is an international problem in countries whose economies are as closely related as are those of the United States and Canada.
It is a national problem which must be met at the national level. I hope the government will not resort to its time-honoured strategy of passing the buck to the provinces and saying, "We will get together with the provinces and talk it over." They have talked

The Address-Mr. Shaw
it over for a couple of years and in the meantime a great many Canadians are in want, without employment and unable to maintain a decent standard of living.
Once again I suggest that the federal government must take upon its own shoulders responsibility for the condition in which we find ourselves today. Before the last election they were running around the country saying, "You have never had it so good. What a beneficent government we have down at Ottawa." You have never had it so good. Try telling one of the 600,000 unemployed that he has never had it so good. Try telling the farmers of this country who have been losing their markets that they have never had it so good. I am sure you will come in for a very rude awakening if you do.
In closing, I simply want to impress upon the government the necessity for immediate attention to these most serious problems. The people of Canada will await with a great deal of anticipation the activities of the government in this respect.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, frankly I was intrigued although amazed at certain statements made by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Ellis) during his address. He told us, by inference at least, that Abraham Lincoln was a socialist. It is rather surprising and amazing that it takes but one short speech to completely alter the facts of history.
I listened with a great deal of amusement while he was damning the Liberals and Conservatives and assuring the house and the country that they offered no hope and in the same breath asserting that they had stolen practically all that was good in the C.C.F. program. We are personally convinced that by virtue of that theft, if for no other reason, they offer little hope.
The speech of the hon. member reminded me of one that was delivered yesterday by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Regier), who took us into New Brunswick, then into Quebec and then back to British Columbia. Then in his spare time he commented on other things. I was reminded while listening to the hon. member's speech, and wanting to believe some of it, of last July when I was in Vancouver sitting in my car with the radio on. I had noted there was to be a program "Town Meeting in Canada" on the air, the subject to be discussed being co-existence, which of course embraced the general theme of whether it is possible for us to live in peace in the same world with the communists. During that program I heard the hon. member say that one of the Social Credit leaders in Ottawa had stated, I assume
in this house, that he wanted war. Remembering that, I could not take him seriously yesterday, nor could I believe very much of what he said.
I hope in my approach to current issues at this time I may be realistic, objective and fair. At least that is my desire. An examination of the speech from the throne does indicate certain bright spots. There is no question about that, and I would be the first to admit it. Reference was made to the Disabled Persons Act having been proclaimed to go into effect on January 1 of this year. We welcomed that act last spring and were glad to see it proclaimed. We are pleased to note that all the provinces of Canada have agreed to enter into agreements with the federal government.
However, I am extremely disappointed in one respect. I have been compelled to conclude that when the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) made so certain last spring that he would give only the minimum of information to the house, there was a reason for it. We questioned him -I did myself-with respect to the regulations which might be passed. Once again, I did not secure very much information. I find now that the regulations are so narrow and restrictive in character that were the government in my own province to drop its own act and operate only under the joint act 50 per cent of the people now receiving disability pensions in Alberta would be dropped completely from the rolls. That indicates how much more restrictive this new act is than the one which we have had in operation in Alberta for more than a year and a half. I regret that very much, because I had personal reasons to believe that in some respects our own provincial act was too restrictive in character.
The speech from the throne referred also to something with which we have dealt already, namely, certain amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I am not going to talk about them, since we have already expressed our views.
One thing that does concern us is that the government has taken the position that unemployment is only seasonal and regional in character. Is it the intention of the government to broaden its public works program only in those areas where the condition is known to be extremely serious? I trust that that will not be their approach to this problem.
For years we have pressed, as have the Legion, for amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act. We are pleased to note that this act is to be amended, that the rates are to be increased, and that the amount of
174	HOUSE OF COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Shaw
permissive income will also be increased. However, I think I should serve notice now that it is going to be extremely difficult for us to be satisfied with anything less than the recommendations submitted by the Canadian Legion, because there is every reason to believe that their recommendations are realistic and are designed to meet current conditions.
We are also interested in noting that there are to be amendments to the Blind Persons Act. We understand the object of the amendments will be to lower the age of eligibility and raise the allowable income ceiling. We are in favour of this contemplated action, though I would not suggest at the moment that we are going to commit ourselves with respect to all the aspects of the amendments which the government may at a later date bring down. However, we approve of them in general.
We note that a joint committee is to be set up for the purpose of studying the Municipal Grants Act. Personally I am quite dissatisfied with the act as it now stands. Altogether too many deserving communities have been left out in the cold, and we trust that the committee may see fit to recommend a broadening of the base of this act so that it may go far beyond its present scope. In fact, I think good arguments could be advanced in support of the contention that it should cut completely across the board and cover all federal government installations within municipalities. I might well be asked whether I believe in the same thing from a provincial point of view; personally I do.
Those are not all the bright spots in the speech from the throne, but they are the only ones to which I will refer for the moment. Yesterday the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Murphy) made a plea for an extension of loans under the Canadian Farm Loan Act. He asked for a broadening of the regulations so that the act might apply within the province of New Brunswick. I have had some experience with the application of that act throughout Canada generally, and I believe there are certain very serious weaknesses. One is that the government, or the board charged with the operation of the act, in making its assessment of a farmer's land and chattels, seems to work on the theory that some time hence there is going to be a serious depression and that values will therefore be at a low level. Therefore, in assessing a farmer's property today for the purpose of determining whether they should authorize a loan they apply this fantastically low level of values. I am not blaming the persons who administer the act, because they are governed by the terms of the act itself and

its resulting regulations. But I have looked over certain applications and I am utterly amazed to see the low values being placed on land and chattels, the result being that hundreds if not thousands of Canadians are prevented from securing assistance under this act.
In fact, I have been compelled to come to the conclusion that the act was not designed to assist people who really require help, because in most of the cases I have examined I have come to the conclusion that those who should qualify could have got along very nicely without any assistance whatsoever. I mention that only in passing because, while I do not know anything about the New Brunswick situation, and I am not referring to that situation in particular, the hon. member's reference to this matter brought my own experiences to mind. 1 might add that the limited number of loans that have been made, and the small amount which has been made available through various loans, would indicate that there seems to be something seriously wrong with the operations of the act.
I wish to come back now to the question of unemployment. In the speech from the throne the government contended that it is seasonal and regional. As far as I am concerned I believe that that is the master understatement of the year. There is a certain amount of seasonal unemployment, it is true, and there is a certain amount of regional unemployment. There is some which one might designate as transitional unemployment, but there are strong indications that over and above this we are faced with a situation where altogether too many Canadians are unemployed and many of them see no hope in the foreseeable future.
The government has stated that there are approximately 300,000 registered unemployed in this country. But it has been pointed out more than once in this house that there are also probably an equal number who, for some reason or other, have never registered at all, and reliable statistics seem to bear that out. There are indications at the present time, and I shall elaborate upon this in a moment, that certain of our important industries have either collapsed or are in the process of so doing. I believe the coal mining industry is a pertinent example, and I will also refer to that later on.
In this regard I would refer to the very noticeable, marked decline in net farm income. I think it was my leader, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), who referred to this as the price cost squeeze. He was referring on the one hand to higher operation costs, and lower returns on the

other. This has caused a very uneasy feeling among the farmers of western Canada, and I am sure among farmers in other provinces as well. We also have a feeling of uneasiness resulting from the continuation of the unreasonably heavy burden of taxation which is certainly aggravating the situation.
The people of my constituency read with a good deal of interest the reported remarks of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) with respect to this matter. I cannot quote his words exactly but he did indicate that he was experiencing some concern on this matter, especially with that aspect of it dealing with sales and excise taxes.
In my part of western Canada we faced a rather difficult period last year, and as far as agriculture is concerned it was possibly a bit more difficult than is normally the case. These difficulties, in major parts, resulted from matters over which we have no control. For example, we had extremely wet weather, unusually heavy hail, and frost which struck the crops down prior to harvesting. But even worse, the frost came before the crops had ripened. Fortunately, while the picture looked extremely bleak around early October, the weather later changed and we were able to acquire the feed which is such an extremely important commodity in our mixed farming areas. The losses which have resulted have once again brought our farmers into direct conflict, if I may use the word in that sense, with our Prairie Farm Assistance Act.
A year or two ago I took a full 40 minutes to point out what I considered to be the existing weaknesses in the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, particularly as it applies to the non-drought areas of western Canada. That act is just not realistic in any sense at all. It fails utterly to do the job which I think it should be designed to do in that area. As I said before, I cannot think of one single, solitary thing that has caused more bitter comment with respect to this government than has that same Prairie Farm Assistance Act. Before many more months go by I hope that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) may see fit to refer this act to the committee on agriculture with one important idea in mind, namely that of making it apply with some sense and reason to non-drought areas. I know that act must be a headache to all the men who try to administer it. I offer no criticism whatsoever of those men. I know many of them. They are trying desperately to do a good job, but they are trying desperately to do the impossible; and how frustrating that attempt must become. I say again to the Minister of Agriculture: For goodness' sake refer that act to the committee on agriculture and try to straighten out certain of those things.
The Address-Mr. Shaw
Speaking of unemployment and speaking of the collapse of industry, I am compelled to make reference to one rather tragic happening in my own constituency. Located about 120 miles west of Red Deer is a town called Nordegg; and located at Nordegg are the great Brazeau collieries, one of the most modern mines in western Canada. Following a disastrous fire about five years ago the above-ground installations were completely modernized and one of the finest briquetting plants was installed. It cannot be said by anyone that the mine has not operated efficiently either as a consequence of poor management or as a consequence of failure to modernize. It is modern and it has been managed well. In that community have lived more than 1,000 people. The coal produced in that area was a weather-resistant coal used for domestic heating, railway fuel and steam-raising in general. I do not know whether or not I have already mentioned this fact, but the capital value of the installation there is about $1,500,000.
This mine supplied fuel for the Canadian National Railways. Later it was reduced merely to providing station coal. In April of 1954, 200 men were laid off. Newspaper reports indicate that next Sunday the mine will close down, with another 150 miners becoming unemployed. As I say, you cannot blame the operators. Over the past year production there has been declining by
20,000	tons per month. Whether or not the mine will be opened again will naturally depend upon a number of things. With those miners laid off at Nordegg and with the closing of that mine, it looks as though a ghost town is going to develop. It is true that there is a certain amount of logging and lumbering in that area but it is not an industry of sufficient size to maintain that town. Not only is it a tragedy from the standpoint of miners and their dependents but personally I think it is a tragedy from the standpoint of the national welfare and safety. Within the last four years about 2,000 miners have lost their jobs out there as a consequence of mines closing.
Mr. Speaker, I approach this subject not with the idea of criticizing anybody but with the idea of trying to point out the necessity of speeding up our efforts to keep this industry alive. We know what have been the causes for the deterioration in that industry in Canada. There has been the loss of markets because of competitive fuels. There has been the replacement of railway locomotives by diesel units and conversion of coal-burning locomotives to oil burners. We know that oil and gas progressively have eliminated coal from our local and our industrial markets.
176	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Shaw We also know that excessive transportation costs have made almost impossible the capture and the retention of eastern Canadian markets for Alberta coal. We know also that the heavy importation of United States coal into central Canada has had a disastrous effect. More United States coal is imported into central and eastern Canada than is produced in western Canada. Production in 1953 alone in our Canadian coal industry was 1| million tons less than it was during the previous year, and recent statistics indicate further substantial decreases. If we are satisfied to let our coal industry fall into decay, all well and good; we are doing the right thing. But if we as Canadians believe that the future may demand an adequate coal supply-and certainly that is what I believe-we should keep our miners where they can continue in the only work which they are used to. If it is our desire to do that, then certainly we cannot allow that industry to fall apart.
We know that we have the dominion coal board. We know of the objectives which they set up in 1947; and those were good objectives. They were going to maintain an adequate supply of coal for all of our national requirements. Of course, it may be said that we have sufficient for our national requirements. They were going to support a sound and healthy coal-producing industry in Canada. Of course we have not just accomplished that objective. One of their purposes was the development of a steady and adequate market for the output of Canadian mines. We have not been able to do that. There was to be provision for fair wages and reasonably full employment for Canadian miners. Of course when we have had 2,000 of them become permanently unemployed out there, I believe, as far as miners are concerned, within the last four years, certainly we have not been able to maintain reasonably full employment. Then of course the board had as another objective, I believe, the extension of our markets for Canadian coal with the resultant saving of foreign exchange. Of course, instead of our finding extended markets for our western Canadian coal, we are losing markets. I am not blaming the dominion coal board at all. I am just trying to point out for our own benefit that while in 1947 we had five good objectives, with the exception of one we have just missed our mark completely. Personally I feel that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Prudham) is concerned about this matter. He is an Albertan. This matter falls within his department. I know that his department, in co-operation with the Alberta government, has been doing certain things. The federal government has its subvention program. The


Alberta government, for example, has its fund for the rehabilitation of these men, among other things. We understand that the two are co-operating from a scientific point of view in an effort to find new uses, and consequently new markets, for this product. I have read the minister's statement, and I read all the debate which took place last June. I know from the statement of the minister that he feels, so he has said, that with a population of approximately 22 million at some future date, this country is going to need every source of fuel-I believe he said even firewood.
Anyone who understands the coal mining industry must realize that you cannot close these mines for long periods of time without serious deterioration, and in some cases they may become completely valueless and useless. If these experienced miners are to be removed and re-established in other lines of activity, it is highly possible that they will never go back to mining. Certainly, there is not very much chance of their sons ever taking up mining. Therefore, if what the minister states is true, that some time hence we will undoubtedly require all this fuel, it is going to be a very bleak picture if our mines cannot be put into operation because of deterioration and if we have to start to train miners, which is a long and hard process.
Now, when the gold mining industry in Canada showed some signs of deterioration and when the members from those areas spoke of the ghost towns that would develop, there was no hesitation on the part of this parliament in granting subsidies of $80 million, I believe. The united mine workers out there I believe asked the federal government to consider this question. They asked also that the federal government consider the question of restricting coal imports from the United States. I understand from a press report that a commission is presumably studying these two aspects of the problem.
I should like to know what developments have taken place up to date. Are there likely to be subsidies? Is the government likely to restrict the importation of coal from the United States? I understand also that a conference was held here last fall. I believe the miners themselves were represented, the operators were represented, the provincial government and the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. I understand this whole matter was gone into rather thoroughly, and I should like to know what has resulted from that conference. I should like to know what has been done as a consequence of that conference. Let me repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I am not trying to place the blame. I know

the provincial government has a responsibility in this field. I know that the federal government has a responsibility in this field. I am not trying to place the responsibility. I am trying to emphasize the urgency of preserving this industry and of preserving the way of life of so many of these miners and their dependents. As I say, they have been added to this unemployment roll.
We have had some question raised as to whose responsibility the employable unemployed are. If someone were to ask me whose responsibility the employable unemployed are, I would give my answer. I would not find it difficult to agree with the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) who, in one of his columns which appeared in the Red Deer Advocate of December 1, 1954, had this to say:
It seems to me that there is one point on which nobody in Canada should quibble. The federal government is primarily responsible for full employment or non-full employment.
It is the federal authority, and only the federal authority, which has the necessary control over exports and imports, as well as over interprovincial trade. It is the federal authority alone which has the necessary power over taxes, money and credit.
Then he goes on:
Nobody in any political party has challenged the above principle for at least 20 or 25 years past.
Then he adds this:
It is a disgrace in this day and age that any decent citizen of Canada should be forced to choose between a soup kitchen and starvation.
Vancouver and other great cities of Canada have every right to demand that the federal government should stand behind them when it is necessary to give financial assistance to unemployed not eligible for unemployment insurance.
Now, I hope that the hon. member for Vancouver South will be able to sell this to all of his colleagues on the other side of the house. I find no cause to disagree with him, although I would probably be a bit more realistic and say I do believe the provinces and municipalities bear some responsibility too. We should not be so concerned about trying to pin down responsibility as we should be about getting all to assume full responsibility and to bring a solution to a problem that is certainly most serious.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as one who is firmly convinced that all speeches should be cut to about 30 minutes, possibly I should set a fairly reasonable example.
(Translation):


Mr. Arthur Masse (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of each term, I usually speak thus to the students of Laval
The Address-Mr. Masse University: Whilst you are duty-bound by the university to attend my lectures, it is my duty to teach to the best of my ability, to be of service to you and the community at large.
Today, I find myself in the same position as far as my electors are concerned, because they have entrusted me with the task of making their feelings of loyalty known to the government of Canada. It is also my duty to bring their requests, their aspirations and their wishes to the attention of the government.
I must also congratulate the mover (Mr. Leduc) and the seconder (Mr. Carrick) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, because they have been a credit to the electoral districts they represent and I am happy to offer them my sincere congratulations. They have faithfully served their respective constituencies.
Mr. Speaker, in the exercise of my profession, I have made it a point to examine loyally and dispassionately all situations and resolved never to form an opinion before giving the matter full consideration. I have been well served by this practice in the exercise of my profession, and I am happy to say that I have endeavoured to follow the same tactics in the discharge of my political duties. I might have been late to embark upon a political career. Yet, I feel happy about it, because I was thus enabled to acquire an experience of facts and deeds of which I would have been otherwise deprived and of which I may now avail myself in numerous circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, I will not delay any longer than necessary the hon. members, because I intend, during my speech, to discuss agriculture in particular, which is, with lumbering, the main industry in the county of Kamouraska. Besides, when speaking about agriculture in lower Quebec, it is logical to associate it to the lumbering industry.
It is becoming, at the outset of a new year, to a good head of family or a good company accountant, to review the developments, good or bad, that occurred during the past year, in order to be able to alter one's stand, if need be. The government's achievements, during the year, have been relatively satisfactory. I well realize, however, that it is difficult for any government to satisfy each and every citizen of this country but I am confident that the government of Canada, during this past year, have acted in no
178	HOUSE OF
The Address-Mr. Masse partisan fashion, that they have not attempted to serve one man, one province, one municipality or one party, but have tried to stabilize the economy of the nation as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, the year began auspiciously with the Prime Minister's trip around the world.
It is important that a country like Canada be able to communicate to such distant areas the feelings it nurses for those who cannot have the same ideas or the same mentality, but who are all filled with the same spirit of mutual co-operation, for the purpose of promoting their own interests.
I was somewhat surprised by the statements made on the other side of the house yesterday and today. If account is taken of the ten by-elections held since the last general elections, in which by-elections the Liberal party carried six seats, the Progressive Conservative party three, and the C.C.F. party one only, the statements made by some prophets are somewhat surprising and there is no doubt that the Liberal party still has the confidence of the public.
In the course of the same year, the disabled persons of Canada were fully satisfied with the attitude taken by the government of the country in its endeavours to help these less fortunate ones. Consequently, it is my opinion that the Canadian government served the country very well.
I had intended at the beginning of my remarks to speak mainly of agriculture, and I must confine myself to that subject since agriculture is the main industry in Kamour-aska county.
There is no doubt that revenues were not as large last year as they had been during the preceding four years. But our Quebec farmers do not lose hope. They are not unduly optimistic but, on the other hand, they do not lean to pessimism, which no brave soul should feel.
Weather conditions were bad from early spring to the fall; farmers had a hard time seeding their fields and taking in their crop. In certain areas the crops were very good but they were not so good in other areas, and I am afraid that in some parts of my county seed grain will be less plentiful next season.
However, as lumbering is the essential complement of agriculture in my constituency, I was glad to note the good will shown by the


right hon. the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in connection with wooded lots. For many years, I have insisted on the establishment of wooded lots on illustration stations, particularly at the Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere experimental station, for the benefit of the farmers visiting that district. I am glad today to congratulate and thank the hon. minister for this project is being implemented.
To realize how much our forests contribute to agriculture in the lower Quebec area, one need only read publication No. 890 of the federal Department of Agriculture. This pamphlet deals with wooded lots on Ontario farms and, at page 22, it is indicated that on the 162 farms which were thoroughly investigated, production reached a total value of $516 per farm.
That is indisputable proof that lumbering plays a capital role together with agriculture in regions such as ours, where forests cover about 75 per cent of the land, only 22 per cent being suitable for cultivation.
Those experiments have been conducted in the province of Ontario with the co-operation of the federal Department of Agriculture and of the Ontario government. I hope similar experiments will be undertaken in my province to show how necessary it is to complement farming through the use of a wooded lot in most regions.
On behalf of the farmers of my county and a number of co-operative societies, namely the U.C.C., I ask the Minister of Agriculture to maintain in operation the Agricultural Prices Support Act, especially with respect to butter. The average farm in our province covers from 80 to 100 "arpents" and earned for its owner, last year, from $1,400 to $1,500. However, after the farmer has paid his municipal taxes, amounting to around $100, provided for the maintenance of his buildings, valued at some $8,000 or $10,000, and for a family of five or six children, his income is practically all spent. I therefore believe it is in the government's interest to maintain the stand it has taken regarding the support of farm prices.
Mr. Speaker, I had intended to say a few words on the problem of unemployment, but I am rather pleased with the government's stand on the matter. In the past there was no unemployment among our Quebec farmers, but today modern ideas have somewhat changed the attitude or thinking of our young
men.

I think it is time for all workers, whether they be on farms or elsewhere, to contribute to and enjoy unemployment insurance benefits in order that in circumstances which are entirely beyond their control they may be in a position to meet the situation.
I have a suggestion to make to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill). As it happens my remarks have been misinterpreted in this house, so much so that I am believed to be opposed to immigration, which is not the case. As regards my own constituency more particularly, I believe that the available space is rather restricted. Would it not be possible to restrict immigration during the winter months, that is from November to March, taking into account the rigours of our climate and the situation with which the new Canadian is faced on his arrival? I believe that that would help to make the future home of newcomers more pleasant.
(Text):
On motion of Mr. Masse the debate was adjourned.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
The Royal Assent
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
An act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.

Walter Edward Harris: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Tomorrow we will take up the resolutions under government notices of motions, dealing with the resolution having to do with the appointment of a rules committee and the resolution having to do with the appointment of the Criminal Code committee. I understand that there will be some discussion on these but probably not a prolonged debate. We will then come back to this present debate.


Solon Earl Low: May I ask the house leader if it is the intention to sit tomorrow night?


Walter Edward Harris: It did not occur to anyone on this side as far as I know not to sit tomorrow night.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I ask if it is the intention to call the two resolutions in that order, the one dealing with the rules committee first?


Walter Edward Harris: The first motion is the one having to do with NATO which is going to stand. The second in order is the one having to do with the rules committee.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.10 p.m.

Friday, January 14, 1955