STANDING COMMITTEES


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. Dupuis be substituted for that of Mr. Dussault on the standing committee on public accounts.

Bank oj Canada
That the name of Mr. Bertrand (Laurier) be substituted for that of Mr. Blais on the standing committee on public accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table the annual report to the Minister of Finance and the statements of accounts of the Bank of Canada for the year ended December 31, 1938. In order to give the opportunity, to which I referred previously, of officers of the bank appearing before a committee, I move:
That the annual report of the Bank of Canada be referred to the committee on banking and commerce.
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: I suppose the reference to the standing committee will not prevent allusions to or discussions of that report when we consider the budget?


Mr. DUNNING:: I have not given consideration to the point raised by the hon. member, as to whether or not the reference of the report to a standing committee of the house might preclude a discussion of Bank of Canada affairs in the debate on the budget. I realize the point is an important one, I do not know what the rules are in that regard, but certainly it was not my intention to shut off discussion in the house by referring the report to a committee. The reference is solely for the purpose of enabling the House of Commons, through one of its important committees, to have before it the officers of the bank, so that information may be extracted in reference to all matters of governmental finance and the general economy of the country. I certainly would not like this reference to a committee to be taken as limiting discussion in the house.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think all hon. members approve the motives of the Minister of Finance in making the reference, but I suggest there should be a clear understanding that, the reference being made, we shall not be precluded from discussing other financial issues arising to a certain extent out of the report which is being referred.
7M92-70


Charles Avery Dunning: Right; that is understood.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 26, to amend.the criminal code.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. MacNEIL:: Mr. Speaker, the purpose
of this bill is to amend section 87 of the criminal code so as to provide that an assembly of members of labour unions doing peaceful picketing shall not be deemed an unlawful assembly, as defined in the section. It provides also for an amendment to section 501 of the criminal code, to make the subsection dealing with peaceful picketing clearer and! more comprehensive.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



LOAN COMPANIES ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 27, to amend the Loan Companies Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Charles Avery Dunning: This is a minor amendment affecting the powers of companies created under the act to institute pension funds for their employees.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TRUST COMPANIES ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister-of Finance) moved for leave to introduce-Bill No. 28, to amend the Trust Companies. Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Charles Avery Dunning: The explanation in connection with this bill is identical with that given for the previous one. In order to avoid the confusion which is illustrated by questions

Wheat Board-Operations

which have been directed to me by hon. members, perhaps I should mention that the Loan Companies Act to which amendment is proposed by the previous bill has nothing to do with small loan legislation. That is a different thing entirely.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition) :: I should like to direct a question
to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe). Is it true, as has been reported in a number of newspapers, that James Y. Murdoch has resigned from the directorate of the Canadian National Railways, and, if so, what are the reasons given for his resignation?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: Mr, Murdoch's resignation was handed in a few days ago. The reason given was his failure to agree with his fellow directors on a matter of internal management. I shall be glad to table at the next sitting the correspondence which was exchanged.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler). In view of the very important statement made on Thursday last by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), in which he said that the Canadian wheat -board had a loss of $48,000,000, would the minister make a statement to this house in the near future with respect to the board's operations and their selling policy? Will the minister table as early as possible the weekly reports as required by section 8, subsection (e) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act from August 1, 1938, to February 17, 1939, and all subsequent reports as they come forward? Would the minister also table the final report of the Canadian wheat board on the holdings acquired-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. Questions such as these should be put on the order paper, and an opportunity given to the government to answer.
	.


Ernest Edward Perley: I am just asking the minister if he will table these reports, to which we are entitled.


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I am afraid I am not equal to the task of remembering all the questions asked, so as to make a categorical reply to my hon. friend. In fact I am under the impression that some of the questions he has asked are contained in his notice of motion, which will come up in a few minutes. However, I shall take note of what appears on Hansard and endeavour to meet his wishes so far as may be possible and advisable.


Ernest Edward Perley: If I may just conclude the last part of my question; I was asking the minister to table the final report of the operations of the wheat board and the disposition of the wheat taken over from Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited.


William Daum Euler: That is already in the hon. member's notice of motion, and I shall answer it in a moment.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, in order that the record may be correct. The hon. member in his question intimates that I stated that the loss would be $48,000,000. My statement was that if the amount of wheat handled up to date was to be taken into consideration, and an estimate made of the amount of money which will go to the farmers on a basis of 20 cents per bushel, then the total which goes to the farmers will amount to $48,000,000. But as to what the loss will be, that will be impossible to declare until the wheat has all been dealt with.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this morning the Canadian press carried a rather curious news item, about which I should like to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). Apparently this item emanates from the attorney general of Ontario. The article reads in part:
Establishment in Ontario of a powerful, mobile anti-sabotage organization, to be built from the provincial and municipal police, cooperating with the royal Canadian mounted, and equipped for immediate operation in the event of war or some other dire emergency is now well under way.

Questions
The gentleman who is said to be in charge of this organization is "reporting not only to his immediate superior, Attorney General Conant, but indirectly to a secret committee which has been formed at Ottawa under the Department of National Defence." I should like to ask three questions: (a) Is the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under the direction of the Department of National Defence?
(b)	What is this secret committee which is under the Department of National Defence?
(c)	Under what authority is this powerful, mobile anti-sabotage organization operating?


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Like my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler), I am afraid my memory is not good enough to enable me to remember all the points contained in my hon. friend's query. All I can say is that the mounted police are still under the control of the Minister of Justice. As far as the rest of his question is concerned, the only thing I can make public is that there is the fullest cooperation, and I am glad of it, between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the provincial forces in all the provinces of Canada, to maintain order in any case of emergency. All precautions are and will be taken for that purpose. I hope it will never be necessary to use the measures of precaution which have been taken, but I think it is a good thing to take these precautions.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the minister what is this secret committee which is said to be operating under the Department of National Defence and to which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police report?


Ernest Lapointe: There does not seem to be much secrecy about the committee if my hon friend knows about it. I repeat that there is cooperation between the departments of the government for the maintenance of order.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. QUELCH:: 1.	What was the total cost of the Bartman dam, built under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act?
71492-70J
2.	What was the percentage of local labour used in the construction of this dam in 1937 and 1938 respectively?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	$34,503.58.
2. 1937-Seventy-five per cent; 1938- Seventy-five per cent.
^SASKATCHEWAN OATS DEAL


Ernest Edward Perley: Did the federal government pay all or any portion of the loss sustained in the Saskatchewan oats deal which was investigated by Mr, Justice Turgeon?


William Daum Euler: No.


ONTARIO FARM SETTLEMENT SCHEME
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	Is the government aware that the Minister of Public Welfare and Municipal Affairs of Ontario has announced a new farm settlement scheme to rehabilitate families on relief?
2.	If so, what share of the cost of such plan will be borne by: (a) the dominion; (b) the province; (c) the municipalities?
3.	What is the nature and extent of the scheme proposed?


Mr. ROGERS:: Order in council P.C. 306, dated February 9, 1939, authorizes that the Minister of Labour on behalf of the dominion enter into an agreement with the province of Ontario in respect to the rehabilitation upon farms within the said province of certain unemployed persons for the period of January 1, 1939, to March 31, 1939, inclusive. The order in council referred to and the draft agreement authorized thereby were tabled in the House of Commons on February 15, 1939.


MIGRATION OF CANADIANS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. HYNDMAN:: What was the average number of Canadians who migrated to the United States during the years from 1921 to 1930, and what number so migrated each year during the years 1931 to 1938?


Mr. CRERAR:: There are no records kept in the immigration branch that would give the information desired by the hon. member, so that the question cannot be answered.


VEGETABLE OIL IMPORTS
Mr. HYNDMAN:: 1.	How much crude vegetable oil was imported into Canada during the years 1936, 1937, and 1938?
2.	How much oil for domestic consumption was imported into Canada during the sama years?
Questions


Mr. EULER:: 1.	and 2.
Oils, vegetable, for foodimports for Consumption
Calendar Years
Cotton seed oil, refined, edible, for canning
fish	
Cotton seed oil, n.o.p., edible	
Olive oil, n.o.p., edible	
Peanut oil, n.o.p., edible	
Soya bean oil, n.o.p., edible	
Oils, vegetable, not food-
Cocoanut oil, not edible, for manufacture of
soap	;
Cocoanut oil, not edible, for manufacture of
refined cocoanut oil	
Cotton seed and crude cotton seed oil for the manufacture of refined cotton seed oil and
meal	, *
Essential oil, n.o.p., including bay oil and
otto of limes	
Eucalyptus oil	;	
Flaxseed or linseed oil, raw or boiled.. . Foots, being the refuse of the cotton seed or olives after the oil has been pressed out.. Olive oil for manufacturing soap or tobacco or for canning fish or for use in the processing of textile fibres, including the finishing of fabrics	
Oiticica oil	;	 [DOT]
Palm and palm kernel oil, unbleachei bleached, not edible and shea butter; palm
Peanut oil, crude, for refining for edible purposes	* [DOT]
Peanut oil for the manufacture of soap or for
canning fish	
Peppermint oil	_	
Perilla oil, when for use in Canadian manufactures	
Rape seed oil, crude or refined	
Rape seed oil, blown, for manufacti
purposes	
Rosin oil	
Sesame seed oil	
Soya bean oil for manufacturing soap..


OTTAWA PUBLIC BUILDINGS-STEEL INSPECTION IN COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION
Mr. HYNDMAN:: 1.	Was any company appointed in connection w'ith steel inspection of fabrication and erection of the new post office building and the new supreme court building?
2.	If so, what company or companies were awarded such contract?
3.	What are the business addresses of such company or companies?
4.	What are the home addresses of the inspectors who performed such inspection work?


Mr. CARDIN:: The inspection of fabrication and erection of steel in the construction of the new post office and new supreme court building is under the control of the architects engaged for the preparation of plans and supervision of these works.

1936	1937	1938Gal.	43,244	31,578	33,212Gal.	153,594	154,979	128,500Gal.	33,563	12,787	10,869Gal.	238.985	253.549	346,099Gal.	46,786	55,591	66,778Gal.	103,075	54,382	96,877Gal.	229,169	251,778	213,852Cwt.	54,785	73,888	43,682Gal.	2,376,758	3,516,094	2,388,047Gal.	1,292,026	1,499,586	1,438,163Cwt.	190,702	190,167	140,419Lb.	647,113	650,985	601,614Lb.	25,168	20,190	17.621Cwt.	29,203	42,482	13,753Cwt. >	30,172	45,443	37,745Gal.	140,391	60,470	54,764Lb.	28,766	L Cwt.	486,456	652,197	703,601Cwt.	600,109	668,739	935,133Gal.	478,353	1,170,589	941.278Lb.	39,821	31,075	37,511Lb.	1,578,933	5,208,564	5,685,104Gal.	30,416	89,908	72,735, Gal.	17,895	91	Gal.	84,778	167,222	89,268. Gal.	34.845	938	2,916, Gal.	107.020	264.169	71.972Gal.	223,027	233,785	203,290PORT CREDIT, ONT., Mr. GRAYDON:	,-HARBOUR	FACILITIES1.	What work, if any, was done by way of improving harbour facilities at Port Credit, Ontario, during the year 1938?2.	What was the total cost of said work?3.	Will the government consider doing further harbour improvement work at Port Credit during the year 1939?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	None.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Matter will have consideration.


Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	Did the conical buoy situated near the entrance to the harbour at Port Credit, Ontario, suffer any damage during the year 1938?
2.	If so, what damage was sustained?

Questions
3.	Has the said buoy been repaired, and, if so, what has been the cost of such repairs?
4.	If the said buoy has not been repaired, when will such repairs be completed?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Broke from its moorings and was washed ashore.
2,	3, and 4: Damage, if any, not yet determined awaiting examination of the buoy on the opening of navigation 1939, when, if warranted, any repairs necessary will be made.


WOMEN IN CANADIAN INDUSTRY
Mr. HYNDMAN:: 1.	How many women were employed in industry in Canada during the years 1929, 1935 and 1938?
2.	What percentage would this number of women be of the total number of persons employed in industry?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Number of women employed in the manufacturing industries of Canada:
No.
1929	 144.032
1935		 126,661
1936		 132,973
2.	Percentage of female employees to total employees in the manufacturing industries of Canada:
p.c.
1929	 21-6
1935		 22-8
1936		 22-4
Note.-Figures for 1937 will not be available for a few weeks yet.


BREN CUN CONTRACT INQUIRY
Mr. HOMUTH:: 1.	On what date did the Prime Minister receive the report of Mr. Justice Davis on the Bren gun enquiry?
2.	On what date was that report sent to the king's printer for printing?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	December 30, 1938.
2.	January 6, 1939.


QUEBEC CITY MAIL COLLECTION
Mr. HEON:: 1.	What is the name of the person or firm who holds the contract for the collection of mail in Quebec city?
2.	What is the amount of the contract?
3.	What is the date of such contract?
4.	What person or persons held the contract previous to the present contractor?
5.	Did the previous contractor fulfill his contract? If not, why?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	Alphonse Drolet.
2.	$10,213.57 per annum.
3.	From September 1, 1937, to August 31, 1941.
4.	U. Ste. Marie.
5.	No-His contract was cancelled on account of unsatisfactory service.


INSURANCE PREMIUMS
Mr. FLEMING:: Has the government any knowledge, through the Department of Finance, that the insurance companies doing business in Canada have raised, or are contemplating raising, the premiums on new insurance?


Charles Avery Dunning: In connection with this question one would require a better definition in regard to the type of insurance dealt with. There are very many types of insurance. Perhaps my hon. friend would allow the question to stand with a view to redrafting it.
Question stands.


TRAVEL BUREAU SERVICE-BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. BARBER:: 1.	What amount of vote to Canadian travel bureau service has been expended in British Columbia during the years 1938 and 1939?
2.	Has any contribution been made during the same periods in the nature of grant, or travelling or other expenses, to any tourist organization, hotel or person in British Columbia?
3.	If so, to whom, and what amounts?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	The appropriation of the Canadian Travel Bureau is not expended in or upon any particular province, but is devoted to an extensive program of newspaper and magazine advertising designed to place the scenic and other tourist attractions of the dominion before the public of other countries, especially the people of the United States and Great Britain, also to make the people of the various Canadian provinces better acquainted with the vacation possibilities of sister provinces. In this advertising and publicity the province of British Columbia receives due prominence and the Canadian Travel Bureau works in close co-operation with provincial and local travel bureaus.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


DOMINION GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MaeINNIS:
1. What was the total number of persons in the employ of the dominion government as at 31st March, 1938:	(a) permanent; (b) temporary ?
[Stage Direction]
Questions as Orders jor Returns
2.	How many of such (1) permanent, and (2) temporary employees are receiving: (a) less than $500 per year; (b) $500 but less than $1,000; (c) $1,000 but less than $1,500; (d) $1,500 but less than $2,000; (e) $2,000 but less than $3,000; (f) $3,000 but less than $4,000; (g) $4,000 but less than $5,000; (h) $5,000 but less than $6,000; (i) $6,000 but less than $7,000; (j) $7,000 but less than $9,000; (k) $9,000 but less than $12,000; (1) $12,000 but less than $15,000; (m) $15,000 and over?
3.	How many of these persons are employed for only part of the year?
Mr. MacINNIS:: It has been drawn to my attention that to answer the question as it appears on the order paper would involve a great deal of work in compiling information in which I am not particularly interested. I should like the question withdrawn or dropped in order that I may redraft it.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. HYNDMAN:: 1.	What are the hours worked by stationary engineers and firemen engaged in connection with the heating of buildings under: (a) Department of Agriculture; (b) fuel research laboratories; (c) Justice department, including penitentiaries, etc.; (d) Mines and Resources department; (e) the royal mint; (f) National Defence department; (g) Pensions and National Health department; (h) Post Office Department, including all buildings under its supervision; (i) Public Printing and Stationery *department; (j) Royal Canadian Mounted Police; (k) the Department of Transport; (1) the Bank of Canada; (m) government house; (n) other government buildings where heating is done under the control or supervision of engineers and firemen?
2.	What wages are paid such men, and is the scale graded according to horse-power or size of plant or according to the class of certificate of engineers or firemen?
3.	Is there a zoning as to hours or rate of pay? If so, in what districts?
4.	Is there a fair wage scale set for this class of employee? If so, what are the details?
5.	What is the civil service commission rate, grading and hours for such employees?
6.	Is order in council P.C. 670 observed in each case with regard to such civil servants?
7.	Is order in council P.C. 1537 being observed in regard to Sunday observance or a day off during the week for such employees?


IMPORTS OF COAL
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	How many tons of bituminous coal were imported into Canada in each of the following years, 1936, 1937 and 1938?
2.	What was the cost of such coal?
_ 3. How many tons of anthracite coal were imported into Canada in the following years, 1936, 1937 and 1938?
4.	What was the value of such coal?
IMr. Maclnnis.l
5.	How many tons of coal were purchased
by the Canadian government for the same years:	(a) bituminous; (b) anthracite?
6.	How many tons of coal were purchased by the Canadian National Railways during the years 1936, 1937 and 1938?
7.	Of the quantity so purchased, how much was imported from the United States or outside the dominion?


FEDERAL GRANTS IN AID
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	What was the total amount of money voted as grants in aid by the government in 1936, 1937 and 1938?
2.	What was the amount paid to each of the provinces during the same years?



INVESTIGATIONS IN ALBERTA TJNDEB THE INQUIRIES ACT

Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	What inquiries were held under the Inquiries Act (R.S.C. 1927, chap. 99) in the years 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938, in the province of Alberta?
2.	What were the names of the commissioners appointed by the governor in council to hold such inquiries, their places of residence, and occupations?
3.	What salaries were paid to each of these commissioners ?



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

Mr. HEON:: How much money has the dominion government paid to each of the provinces in connection with the Trans-Canada highway project, since 1930?



CANADIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE-COST OF GREAT WAR

Mr. HEON:: 1.	What was the total number of enlistments in the Canadian expeditionary forces during the years 1914 to 1918 inclusively?
2.	How many Canadians died on the field of honour?
3.	How many died from injuries?
4.	How many were wounded?
5.	How many veterans of the great war are paid a pension by the government?
6.	What is the total amount paid in pensions to veterans from the end of the war to date?
7.	What is the total cost to date, capital and interest, of Canada's participation in the great war, including pensions?



PUBLIC AND RAILWAY INDEBTEDNESS

Mr. HEAPS:: 1.	What was the debt of the Dominion of Canada in 1914?
2.	What was the debt of the Dominion of Canada in 1920, and in each year to 1938?
3.	What were the annual interest charges in the same years?
4.	What percentage of the debt of Canada is held in the dominion and abroad?
5.	What was the debt of the Canadian National Railways: (a) in 1923; (b) in 1938?

Motions jor Papers
6.	What were the interest charges for these same years?
7.	What percentage of this debt is held in Canada and abroad?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
1935-1936 WHEAT CROP
Ernest Edward Perley: For a return showing,- (a) complete details of that portion of the 1935-36 wheat crop disposed of by the Canadian wheat board between July 31, 1936 and July 31, 1938; (b) complete details of the disposal by the Canadian wheat board of wheat acquired from the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers, Limited, from July 31, 1936, to July 31, 1938.


William Daum Euler: There is no disposition on the part of the government to withhold any information with regard to the operations of the wheat board concerning any year in which the transactions are completed. That is the situation in regard to the years mentioned in this motion. I would merely say, however, that when the hon. member asks for complete details this might be construed to involve a tremendous amount of work, which probably my hon. friend does not intend. I think all the information he wants is contained in the annual statements of the board, which will be submitted to him.
Mr. PERLEY; I think the last report we had was on January 6, 1938, and I just wanted a final report similar to that one.


William Daum Euler: I want to assure my hon. friend that any report available now dealing with those years will be gladly supplied.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-1938-39 WHEAT CROP

Ernest Edward Perley: For a return showing,- (a) the amount of wheat acquired by the Canadian Wheat Board during the months of August, September, October, November and December, 1938;	(b)
the amount of wheat disposed of by the board during the same period; (c) the amount of wheat held by the board in terminal elevators at Fort William, Port Arthur and eastern terminals, as well as in interior terminals, mills, and elevators, private and public; (d) the rate of storage paid on grain held by the board in such storage.


William Daum Euler: As I intimated a moment
ago, we are quite ready to give all the information available with regard to completed business in any one year, having to do with purchases and sales of wheat, but this motion deals with the current crop year, in connection with which the sales have not been completed. In the past it has not been the practice of the government to give that information, because the wheat board believes, and the
government agrees, that it is not in the public interest to disclose this information during the crop year.	*


Ernest Edward Perley: Then will the minister table the weekly reports that are required under the wheat board act? That has been done in the past; we got them last year.


William Daum Euler: It has not been the practice to make public the weekly reports as submitted by the auditors, and it is not regarded as desirable in the interests of the wheat board and of the country.



FORT OSBORNE BARRACKS-FIREMEN

Mr. MAYBANK:: For a copy of any report made by the deputy minister of Defence to the Minister of Defence on or about the 2nd day of February, 1939, with reference to the employment of civilian firemen and hours of labour of same at Fort Osborne barracks.
votes 13 and 219, 1937-38


Charles Grant MacNeil: For a copy of all orders in council, correspondence, telegrams, reports and other documents relating to the query of the auditor general, respecting votes 13 and 219 for 1937-38, and as referred to on page 307, volume 1, in the report of the auditor general, for the year ending March 31, 1938.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE declaration of need for institution of a



NATIONAL CONTRIBUTORY SYSTEM

Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni) moved:: 
Charles Avery Dunning: I hope the hon. gentleman has better luck in that regard than I usually have.


Alan Webster Neill: I am trusting to the authority of Mr. Speaker and the good sense of the house. This is the only day that this resolution can be brought up; it is an important matter, and a number of hon. members want to speak on it.
Little time need be spent in demonstrating the need for unemployment insurance. Nearly all the important countries of Europe have such a scheme. Britain has had it since 1911. New Zealand, Australia and South Africa have it; and I shall presently refer to the enormous progress in connection with this matter which has been made of recent months in the United States. In Canada it has a Hong history. I have not gone back beyond 1919, when a committee sat and recommended iit favourably but rather vaguely. A committee sat again in 1928, ten years later, and again in 1929, and again they endorsed it, but they pointed out the fact that it was a matter of provincial jurisdiction. Between 1928 and 1934 I brought the matter up six times in the house. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) has also brought it up from time to time.
In 1935 the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett introduced a dominion-wide scheme, which passed the house but was thrown out, on reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, as being ultra vires, but we know that there was a division of four judges against two, and in the minority was to be found Chief Justice Duff, who is reckoned to be one of the ablest constitutional lawyers in Canada.
This measure was strongly endorsed by the government in the speech from the throne, not this year but last year. They expressed their determination to try to get the provinces to agree upon an amendment of the British North America Act, and they hoped it might be possible to bring down legislation last session. The correspondence between the dominion government and the provinces shows that a very genuine attempt was made to

secure that cooperation, but that three provinces refused to extend it; and the government appeared to stop there, apparently hoping that they might induce the provinces to give way.
Since last session a good deal of encouragement has been given to the idea. The Conservative party in their convention endorsed it; I think the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party did the same, and we know that support is not lacking for it in the Social Credit group. The only discordant note that I have heard comes from the Canadian Manufacturers Association, an attitude which is proverbial on their part; they are noted for taking a narrow view of any matter which comes before them and for being unable to see what is really ultimately for the benefit of their members. Associated with them are a few scattered reactionaries throughout Canada who believe that labour is an enemy of capital, and vice versa, and that any improvement obtained by labour comes from the pocket of the employer. This theory was exploded many years ago, but it is still lovingly held by a few people-reactionaries, I call them-who would like to live in the traditions and customs of the early part of the last century.
To these reactionaries' I would address myself, and ask them this question:	Let
them look at the alternative schemes and see how they would like them. Take the Townsend scheme, which proposed a pension to everyone, rich or poor, at the age of sixty, of $200 per month. It has been calculated by experts, taking the United States as a good illustration, that that would involve the payment of half the national income to eight per cent of the population. Just think of that! The prices of ordinary articles of consumption would have to be raised at least seventy-five per cent. The low wage worker would have his income cut from one-third to three-sevenths. Yet that scheme got a large vote in the United States.
Or let them take, if they prefer it, the Lundeen scheme which was put forward in the congress of the United States by people who frankly called themselves communists, although they went further than the scheme put forward in Russia. In these people's plan there would be no contributory payment, no cessation of drawing the allowance. Anyone would be allowed to come under it-farmers, domestic servants, and self-employed people such as lawyers and doctors and others who work for themselves. How they would arrive at a determination of when they were unemployed is not stated. More than that, the compensation to be paid would come to more

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Neill
than the average small earner earns, so that it would form a premium on losing a job and not a premium on getting one. More than that, the funds were to be administered not by the government of the day but by a committee closely resembling the soviet committees of which we used to hear when Russia first started on sovietism and of which we hear very little now. That scheme needs only to be stated as I have done to appreciate the foolishness of it, and yet it got fifty votes in the congress at Washington a year or two ago.
Or they could try the Sheridan Downey plan. I do not know whether he originated it, but certainly he ran on it in California last summer. The proposal was to give $30 every Thursday to everyone after the age of fifty. It was an initiated scheme, propounded by the initiative, but it was defeated, although Downey, who put it forward, was elected by a large majority as senator, and a man named Olson was elected as governor on that ticket.
I mention these schemes for this reason. I ask the house to look at them; I ask people who do not approve of unemployment insurance to consider the vote which these schemes got, and the extent to which, although they were utterly wild and impossible to enforce, they would result in the economic ruin of the people, and be not less injurious to those in whose name and for whose benefit they were put forward, bringing the whole economic structure down about our heads. Do they prefer one of those wild-eyed schemes to a moderate, actuarially sound scheme of unemployment insurance? What if the people, discontented with the feeling that no party is going to do anything for them, should suddenly take it into their heads to vote for one of these inchoate schemes which would get us nowhere?
We have pictured a nation-wide need which requires a nation-wide remedy. In Canada apparently all parties in the house believe in the principle of unemployment insurance. If that is so, why not get together and pass it now and make it unanimous? I know.that we shall immediately be confronted with the bugbear of provincial autonomy. Well, in my humble opinion there is a good deal too much attention paid to the claims of the provinces to be self-governing bodies. I think it largely arises from an exaggerated idea of their own importance held by certain local politicians, and was never intended by the British North America Act.
Only two ways appear to present themselves, ordinarily speaking, of meeting the situation. One is to try to persuade the three provinces to join with the rest of us in a petition to the
parliament of the United Kingdom to amend the British North America Act. In view of the Quebec speech from the throne the other day, and other utterances, that way out is apparently beyond hope; at least there is very little to be hoped for. The other way would be to go ahead without the consent of these provinces and pass a resolution in this house by a majority vote asking the British government to change the British North America Act. There is precedent for that, because it has been done before. I know of one occasion on which similar action was taken against the violently expressed objections of one of the provinces. But I submit that there is a third way that might present a reasonable solution of the matter without asking the provinces to do something that we know they will not do, and without trying to force them to do something which we know we cannot make them do.
In the United States the same relation obtains between the federal government and the states as obtains in Canada between the dominion government and the provinces. In both cases the federal authority are unable to pass constitutional unemployment insurance legislation and they are equally unable to force the states or the provinces, as the case may be, to do so either. I suggest that we follow the clever manner in which the Washington government got around the difficulty and, by introducing perfectly legal legislation, brought about, without compulsion, state legislation on unemployment insurance. I referred to this matter in 1934. It was brought up in Washington at that time by a man named Wagner as a private member, but since then the government has taken it up. In January, 1935, the government of the United States introduced what is known as the Social Security Act, a copy of which can be obtained in our library. That act covered many phases of social security such as old age, maternity cases, children, unemployment insurance and so on. Each was dealt with in a separate chapter, but I propose to deal only with the unemployment insurance phase.
There were three objections fatal to the federal legislation, and equally so as regards the dominion. One was that the federal authority could not pass unemployment insurance; the second was that they could not compel the states to do so; and the third, which was the most important one, was that if two or three states did pass such legislation, the cost, which would undoubtedly come out of the payroll in whole or part, would have to be added to the cost of the manufactured article, and those states that followed that course would be handicapped in
1106	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Neill
selling their goods or produce as against other states who had not seen fit to adopt such a policy.
The Social Security Act met all these difficulties. It did not pass unemployment insurance by itself; it did not compel the states to do anything; but it did protect those states that would pass such legislation, and

it produced unemployment insurance. All it did was to produce a desire on the part of the states to pass such legislation, but there was no compulsion, as we shall see. The preamble of the act declared that it was proposed to legislate for the general welfare by doing such and so, and to help the administration-only the administration-of their unemployment compensation laws of the various states. The word "compensation" was used instead of insurance. Nothing is said about unemployment insurance, but merely that they are willing to help to pay the administration costs of unemployment insurance where it exists. Of course, it is obvious that you could not pay the administration costs in those places where they did not have an act of that kind.
Section 303 of the act lays down a few simple conditions that hardly require anything at all except that the state shall have such a scheme, and shall pay money to unemployed people. That is really all. Subsection 4 of section 303 provides that all funds collected by the state under any state scheme shall be paid into a central fund held by the federal authorities, and each state can take out of the fund whenever it likes everything it has put into it, and no more, provided the money is used for the payment of unemployment insurance. But they do not pay for the administration cost because the federal authorities pay that. In other words, the state starts a system of insurance, practically in any form it likes, and collects the cost in the shape of taxes, then pays them into the central fund and draws it all out to pay insurance but not the management, the federal authority paying all costs of administration. The states know, therefore, that if they start such a scheme the federal authorities will pay the costs of administration but there is no compulsion and therefore no interference with jurisdiction.
The matter has been tested and found absolutely legal. It might be held that the cost of administration, although very considerable, did not represent a sufficient inducement to the states to introduce unemployment insurance. Well, there is another section of the act to which I will refer. It is not compulsory. They so arrange it that the legislatures of the states feel impelled, not compelled, to adopt such legislation. Section 901 of the 
act imposed an excise tax-that is the word used-on all employers of labour throughout the whole of the United States, employing more than eight persons. It began with one per cent, but it is now three per cent of the payroll. That is paid over to the federal authorities. It is not earmarked in any way to be used for any particular purpose but is simply paid into the national revenue just as if we paid similar sums into the consolidated revenue fund. It is an absolutely legal excise tax imposed for a national purpose, but that purpose is nowhere indicated; unemployment insurance is not mentioned from beginning to end.
But-and here is the crux of the whole situation-section 902 provides that anyone paying this sum, which of course he has to pay, can deduct ninety per cent of it if a similar sum has been paid under the terms of a state unemployment insurance scheme. Suppose a company had a payroll of $50,000 a year. That company would have to pay SI,500 to the federal authorities, and they would have to pay that amount in any event, and they would get no obvious return for it. But if there was a local state scheme, any sum which the company paid towards that state scheme could be deducted from the contribution paid to the federal authorities. The situation then is this: Business men, who are the biggest taxpayers as a rule, say to themselves, to their friends, and to the legislators, "We have to pay three per cent on our payroll of $50,000, and we shall never see it again. But if we had a state unemployment insurance scheme the money would be all spent in the state. It would save our relief bills, make labour more satisfied and reduce the labour turnover. The alternatives are to pay it all to Washington or to have it spent within the state." And so they bring pressure to bear on their legislators to get a state law passed. I maintain that the same thing would happen in the provinces of Canada.
The outstanding objection I have mentioned, that two or three states who did adopt the scheme would be handicapped in the sale of their products, inasmuch as they would have to pay this money directly or indirectly, whereas other states would not, has been met and done away with. For the man has to pay three per cent in any case, and if he has a state unemployment insurance scheme to contribute to the money is devoted to that purpose. In any event he is bound to pay $1,500, in the case I have given by way of illustration, and if it does not go to support a state scheme it all goes to Washington. The only choice he has is this: Will he pay it all to Washington and get no immediate, visible benefit from it, or will he pay it into the

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Neill
state scheme and get the benefits I have mentioned-reduced relief bills, greater labour satisfaction and so on? That is the situation in a nutshell, and that is the whole case I advocate to-day.
The federal authorities in Washington give a wide latitude to the states in their acts. They are practically free to draw up any kind of act they like provided it is of that character. They can raise money as they like; it need not be three per cent on their payroll. They can make employees contribute if they think fit, or they can pay part out of general taxation. It is practically left to every state to do exactly as it likes. And it is noteworthy that while this bill was introduced by the Democrats in Washington it was supported by the Republicans and passed unanimously.
We have before us, then, this entirely voluntary system, newly introduced and until then untried. Let us look at the results. That bill was passed finally in August, 1935. By the middle of 1937 every state and territory in the United States of America had passed an unemployment insurance law. They did not have to, there was no compulsion; and it is noteworthy, almost miraculous, that every last one passed such a law within that period. Some 21,000,000 people were covered. That is an achievement to be proud of, bringing the benefits of unemployment insurance to 21,000,000 people. More than that, all but two of those states are now paying the unemployment insurance benefit, although there was generally a two year interval; but now they are all paying except two states, I think, Illinois and Montana, which will be paying by July of this year. While each state had an absolutely free hand it is remarkable to see how comparatively similar was the legislation they passed. The cost has been calculated at an average of about 2-7 per cent of the payroll; in five or six states it runs to a little more, and in six states the employees have to contribute as well. That is entirely optional. None of the states pay anything towards it from general taxation; either the employer pays or the employer and employee jointly. In every case the administration costs are paid by the federal authorities.
This year in the speech from the throne the government were able to say no more than that they hoped to get further cooperation from the provinces in connection with such a scheme, and that they were still of the opinion-and so on. But in view of what took place in Quebec, and in view of utterances from some other provinces, it seems hopeless to look for any action in that regard. And supposing it were possible, we
should have to wait for the Rowell commission to report; then we have the visit of their majesties, and there might be an election. Certainly there would have to be a conference between tie dominion and the provinces, and then assuming what is very unlikely, that the provinces did agree, we would have to meet again here and pass a petition asking the British government to take action. The British government would then have to pass legislation, which would take another year; then it would come back here and we would have to go through the various stages of the necessary legislation. With the two year waiting period we would be lucky if we got any action in less than six or eight years, with no certainty of anything except a very undesirable scrap with some of the provinces.
The system I have presented is not some ephemeral scheme thought up by myself; it is one which is in actual effect under conditions very much like ours. We have the object lesson of how it was done and the experience of applying it to 21,000,000 people. Surely among that 21,000,000 we can find conditions similar to our own here. If we adopt this scheme we might be paying benefits inside of two years, with no long dispute with two or more provinces and all the bitterness that interprovincial enmity provokes.
I suggest that delay in this matter is unnecessary and might well be dangerous. People are in a sensitive mood, and if they get the idea that nothing is going to be done for them they will get bitter. If a man quarrels and you can reason with him you can abate his anger, but if he gets in a sullen mood you can do nothing with him. There is nothing more hopeless than a body of people who have arrived at the condition of hopelessness and helplessness, and who believe in nothing and nobody; they are ready to bite at any ridiculous promise, and might by pressure pass legislation which would be disastrous to themselves and equally disastrous to other people.
There is no need to make this a political football; let us get together, not on the basis of party but as reasonable men determined to find a fair solution of a difficult problem, and one that gets more difficult the longer action is delayed. Unemployment insurance is not a cure-all; nobody suggests that it is. It will not do away with unemployment, but it will cushion the disaster and injury that unemployment produces to the whole body politic; for it extends beyond the particular wmrking man concerned-it affects us all. I suggest that unemployment insurance is a measure of justice that has been too long delayed. It is a too-long delayed necessity.
1108	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Martin
What I am asking now is action, demanded not by political considerations, not by the pressure of people, but simply by a cold analysis of what the facts and conditions as we know them require.


Mr. PAUL MARTIN (Essex East):: The resolution introduced by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) embraces a problem which I am sure engages the sincere attention and interest of every man and woman in this house; a problem which even the most bitter critics of the government will agree has engaged the government's attention, and particularly that of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). I am particularly interested in this problem, not only as a citizen of this country but because I represent in this house a constituency in which on its urban side thousands of men engaged in an important secondary industry find themselves for a period often as long as five months in the year without work and compelled to resort to the state for relief, with all the demoralising social consequences that result from such an interval of unemployment. Therefore I am convinced that the resolution introduced by the hon. member is one that should receive our immediate attention.
I do not agree with him that every hon. member of this house supports the principle of unemployment insurance. I have talked to a good number and 1 find that we are not all agreed on the principle of unemployment insurance and the advantages which it offers. For this reason I propose to examine, dispassionately, I hope, some of the economic implications of the resolution. I propose to be as realistic as possible in my treatment of the question. I do not propose to assume, as my hon. friends immediately opposite would assume, that the form of economic society under which we operate is one that should be done away with. I prefer to recognize that in Canada there is not much likelihood that this system of free competition will cease to exist, in our immediate time. We have to approach the problem as legislators with this assumption ever in mind.
Under our competitive and acquisitive system unemployment is inevitable; we might as well recognize this. That is exactly what a great economist, and one of the greatest authorities on this subject, meant when he wrote:
So long as the industrial world is split up into separate groups of producers, each group with a life of its own and growing or decaying in ceaseless attrition upon its neighbours, there must be insecurity of employment. It is probable that at least one of the most striking specific factors in the problem, namely, cyclical fluctuation of trade, may be traced ultimately to the same source. Unemployment in other 
words is to some extent at least part of the price of industrial competition, part of the waste without which there could be no competition at all.
So that if we are inevitably to have a constant measure of unemployment in this country we have to find some method whereby those who are engaged in our factories, men and women, will be afforded, in so far as the annual income for their work is concerned. This unemployment inevitably is due in Canada, I suggest, to at least five circumstances-seasonal fluctuations, cyclical depressions, technological developments, the decay and merging of industries, and industrial disputes. I have not the time to analyse each of these, except to say that operations in the automobile industry in my own constituency, the city of Windsor, an industry which at the present time means so much to the economy of Canada, but nevertheless an industry based upon the principle of mass production, in the face of technological developments have resulted in the displacement of human effort by the machine. And to suggest that this substitution is wrong or that we must get away from mass production is not facing the facts.
This civilization of ours is a machine civilization. There is no more chance of getting back to the handicrafts or to barter methods than there is of our having utopia to-morrow. We might as well recognize this. One of- the machines in the automobile industry, a special machine for the manufacture of pressed steel frames, operated by one man, produces six springs per minute, 3,600 in ten hours

an output which by hand methods would require 175 men. This simple illustration indicates the relation of the technological developments which have taken place in industry in respect of what I call the inevitable circumstance of unemployment, under our system of free competition and production.
Then, another circumstance: Twenty years ago the automobile and truck industry afforded great opportunity for the industrial development of Canada. The moving picture and radio industries a few years ago offered similar opportunities. But I ask hon. members this question: Looking at the character of the world to-day, particularly on the industrial side, is there any likelihood of an emergence of a new industry or a new group of industries which will be able for the time being spontaneously and completely to take care of the working classes of this or any other country? That is another reason why we have to be prepared to do what normally would seem to be economically unsound, in order to cushion, as the hon. member for Comox-
FEERUARY 20, 1939	1109
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Martin
Alberni has said, the great economic as well as the great social waste which attends the unemployment problem.
ll believe that a proper way to approach this whole question is to consider some of the methods which have been frequently suggested, not for the removal but for the mitigating of unemployment. An examination of these will show that, with all its limitations, the proposal of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni offers the most advantages and better results in the solution of the problem to which we in Canada must address ourselves.
First of all there is the proposal of industrial stabilization, the proposal advocated by Mr. Owen D. Young and other so-called business statesmen of the world. This industrial stabilization program is one which, by rationalization and coordination of industry, seeks to take care, in industry itself, of the unemployment problem. I think it is too much to expect that any well-directed corporation in Canada or elsewhere is prepared to introduce a stabilization program at a financial sacrifice. Obviously the only form of stabilization program which will operate, within our system, is one which is both practical and economic-one which occasions profit. I am not trying to suggest that our business men are not socially minded. But I do suggest that the profit motive in industry is not going to encourage industries in any part of the world to resort to purely humanitarian practices in the absence of profit. No business can function on pure philanthropy. Consequently I believe that the proposal of industrial stabilization cannot and will not satisfy the test.
Then there is the proposal that, since we are to maintain this system of production within a free and competitive society, we should sit around and develop, sit around and plan our whole economic and social problems. It is suggested that by a system of planning we might avoid the problem of unemployment. I suggest that the very idea of competition itself is opposed to planning, and that consequently one will get oneself into all sorts of difficulties by trying to find a solution through this agency.
Then there is the suggestion that was made by one of the great proponents of a scheme of unemployment insurance in the United States-namely the share-the-work movement. There is the suggestion that by a cutting down of the period of employment-let us say a week, for the individual employee-and giving the remaining portion of the normal period of employment to another workman it would be possible to eliminate unemployment. I have no hesitation in saying that
in my judgment the acceptance of that proposal would result in one of the most inequitable and oppressive taxes ever levied upon the working classes of any country, because it seeks to relieve industry of its share in this great burden, and places the entire responsibility upon the working group.
There may be others who say that the proper method of curing the problem is through an expansion of foreign markets. Again realism must compel us to realize that in order to have any strength in its economy a nation must sell as well as buy from other countries. It must constantly increase its markets abroad. This government has proceeded on that assumption. However praiseworthy may be our recent treaty with the United States, or the treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom, I am sure no one in the house will for a moment conclude that under our present form of society the most strengthened trade treaty relations are calculated fully to cope with unemployment. But the proposal that we should eliminate or at least restrain child labour, that we should cut down on the pension period in order to improve the labour market, thereby encouraging a more successful operation of a system of unemployment insurance, is one which deserves much attention and, in my judgment, has great merit.
Therefore complementary to a system of contributory compulsory unemployment insurance I would be in favour-always admitting, in this instance, the constitutional difficulty-of further strengthening child labour restrictions, raising the working age of children, and lowering the age for pension requirements. I believe a comprehensive scheme of unemployment insurance with this supplementary program in mind would have the result of restricting the labour market and, in so far as the possibility of governmental intervention is concerned, making the solution of the problem more successful than it otherwise would be.


Mr. LANDERYOU:: Does not the hon. member think it is as much a question of un-impayment as it is of unemployment?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of what?


John Charles Landeryou: Of unimpayment as much as unemployment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am going to come to that if I am just allowed to proceed. I have tried not to confuse myself with theories about which I know very little, and about which I am sure very few hon. members have any knowledge. I say that not unkindly, but I
1110	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Martin
would prefer to confine myself to something which I believe is reasonably comprehensive.
A system of unemployment insurance such as that suggested by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni would, if put into effect in Canada, necessitate a change in the manner in which our employment exchanges and employment offices are now operated. They are now largely uncoordinated because of divided jurisdiction. If we adopt an unemployment insurance scheme we shall have to do what they have done in the United Kingdom, that is, have a carefully selected and properly organized system of employment exchanges, all operating under the same policy and administered from the centre instead of from the various spokes of the wheel.
The suggestion often made in this house that unemployment insurance will add to the burdens of generations to come is sometimes counter-balanced by the proposal that unemployment could best be taken care of by a public works program. I suggest that the attempt to place men at work by means of public works, a system old as the pyramids themselves, cannot hope to achieve what might be achieved by a system of unemployment insurance. George Bielschowsky, an economist who has devoted most of his attention to the economic aspect of public works programs, has this to say:
The public works program is not the road to plenty; it is not even a first rate device for reducing business fluctuation; it must rather be conceived of as the last finishing touch which a highly competent government may put upon a smoothly working business economy.
I do not wish to detract from the usefulness of such a program, but I take it that the hon. gentleman who introduced this resolution has in mind some measure which will require assistance from the national exchequer, perhaps to a greater degree in times of prolonged depression. I suggest that a system of public works, palliative as it is in form, will not by itself achieve what I think would be achieved by a system of unemployment insurance. In passing may I say to the Minister of Labour, with whom I have discussed this matter, as I did with the Postmaster General (Mr. McLarty) before he assumed ministerial rank, that I do not want him to understand that Windsor does not still want a new city hall. I do not want him to understand that we are not prepared to accept a new railway station or to have the Blue Water highway extended or to accept further waterfront development in our community. I simply mean that taking the long 
view we are temporizing with the problem by merely seeking to spend public money in great amounts on public works.
Unemployment insurance is often contrasted with the scheme of unemployment reserves. But before discussing this, I should like to make certain fundamental assumptions, one of which I have made already. I repeat that I recognize that unemployment cannot be abolished without giving up our system of production. I recognize that Canadians are not seriously considering giving up the present social order. Consequently, our responsibility is to discover the best method, within this competitive system of production, of alleviating the social and economic consequences of unemployment.
Having made these assumptions, what then is to be said in favour of unemployment insurance? As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has said, it is in effect in thirteen countries of the world and protects approximately 42,000,000 workers at the present time. The English system was inaugurated with the act of 1911 and the legislation has continued in modified form up to the unemployment act of 1934. Allowing for all the abuses that have occurred and the weaknesses that have been found in the English experiment, eminent economists have admitted that if it were not for the system of unemployment insurance the unemployment problem in England, particularly during the past decade, would have been seriously aggravated.


Mr. HEAPS:: Would the hon. member be in favour of including all persons in an unemployment insurance scheme, as is done in Great Britain?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am coming to that. The hon. member means seasonal groups, and so on?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I was going beyond that. I did not want to interrupt my hon. friend at this point, but he must know that when the unemployment insurance scheme was introduced in Great Britain it embraced almost every person in industry. If we are to introduce a similar scheme here in Canada, is the hon. member in favour of embracing all persons who could be employed?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My own view is that that is exactly what would have to be done, and obviously that would defeat the actuarial principle. Because of the emergenfcy that exists, we would have to do what has been done in England. We would have to abandon in part the actuarial principle, having in mind the necessity of providing social security. If I am permitted to continue I think I will cover that point more fully in a moment.

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Martin
I was discussing the question of unemployment reserves as opposed to an insurance scheme. The Wisconsin plan of unemployment reserves seems to be the most successful, but relatively it has been very unsuccessful. That plan shows the weaknesses of an unemployment reserve system as opposed to an unemployment insurance scheme. There are at least two weaknesses in the Wisconsin plan of unemployment reserves. First, it fails to provide for governmental contributions, and, second, it neglects to take advantage of another basic principle of social insurance, namely, the distribution of the burden on all elements of society. I think it is sheer nonsense to argue whether or not unemployment is an incurable risk. That is a metaphysical question which I do not think lawyers or parliamentarians, let alone philosophers, can possibly answer. The real concern of social insurance is security rather thant the upholding of actuarial principles which must govern in private insurance. I am prepared to admit that on a purely actuarial basis a complete system of unemployment insurance in Canada is not possible. That being so, there must be a constant demand on the national exchequer to bolster up a subsidized fund.
Unemployment insurance was the logical evolution of the experience of the trade unions. Many trade unions inaugurated a voluntary plan of insurance. While not altogether successful, while the objective in mind was not reached completely, these voluntary insurance schemes advanced to a point where there were a number of fairly comprehensive systems. The trade union voluntary insurance schemes were based largely upon the principle employed in certain municipal insurance schemes, such as the famous Ghent system, that put into force by the city of Dijon and other cities in France. The limitations of the trade union unemployment insurance schemes were the same as those of the municipal schemes. They did not reach a substantial portion of the working public. They were confined essentially to the members of the trade unions. Because they were operated on a voluntary basis, they took in only a small number of the trade union members. Nevertheless the trade union experience, particularly after the government provided subsidies, has been of great value, in that-and I think this is important-it demonstrated the feasibility and practicability of mutual insurance against unemployment. It demonstrated also that governmental subsidies stimulate this protection; for all voluntary plans expanded greatly after the government began to subsidize them. In the
third place, whatever gain was achieved was due to the factor of compulsion; for it soon became evident that if adequate protection against unemployment was to be extended to the majority of wage earners a national system of compulsory insurance for all workers, with the burden distributed among all groups of society and not on one or two, was the only way out.
This experience of the trade unions, and the experience of other countries where compulsory unemployment insurance is now in vogue, reveal a preference over all other schemes of insurance or unemployment assistance, stabilization fund, or share-the-work movement, in the following particulars.
First, a scheme of contributory unemployment insurance on a nation-wide basis, not for any one province but for the whole nation, would assure the widest possible distribution of the risk. Second, by levying contributions on employers, employees and the state, the burden is equitably distributed. Third, by having such participation in the contributions, as in England, the government can shift a considerable share of the burden to the richer classes through graduated income and inheritance taxes. I suggest that these three principles must ever be at the base of what we adopt in Canada; and while those are the three principles I think the main thing to enunciate in this house is that the scheme must be one not for Ontario, not for Quebec but for every part of the country, for economic reasons which I propose to develop.
Everyone is familiar in a general way with the English experience. Suggestions have been made that great weaknesses have crept in, that great abuse has resulted, and so on. I wish to place on Hansard an important quotation from the final report of the royal commission on unemployment insurance in the United Kingdom, issued in November, 1932:
In industry as a whole there are general changes from activity to depression, exaggerated since the war, which involve the idleness for months at a time of a considerable proportion of fit and efficient workers. In the interests of more economic efficiency, even if no other values were brought into account, it is important to preserve the economic capacity of these workers during their unemployment. A system of unemployment insurance and relief maintains the efficiency of the working population during unemployment and tends to check the accentuation of unemployment in periods of general trade depression.
And note further:
Since 1929 unemployment in this country-
That is to say, the United Kingdom.
-although worse has not increased to the extent and in the degree that it has in the United States and other countries. This difference may in part be due to the mainten-
1112	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Martin
ance of working class spending by unemployment relief, when spending generally was contracting and investment in new enterprises drying up. . . . One of the advantages of a self-supporting insurance scheme is that if properly controlled-
That was what I meant when I referred to an organized system of employment exchange offices.
-it accumulates reserves when spending is active and employment is good, to disburse them automatically at the time when trade is depressed, and spending needs to be stimulated in order to give employment. . . .
The economic facts of the unemployment situation must be considered in relation to the social benefits of unemployment insurance and its extension which have outweighed any economic objections.
This was the conviction of a group of competent men who, at the instance of His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, examined the operation of unemployment insurance in that country. This was the result of their examination. The truth is that English statesmen and leaders of business for the time being having dispensed with many of the social implications of the classical economists, and are prepared to look at the situation not in the light of theory as it was known in the days of Adam Smith but in the light of the system under which we are operating, with all its difficulties. They saw to it that a minimum of mass purchasing power would be available to the working groups of England; and as a result of unemployment insurance Great Britain has been returning annually about one and a third billion dollars to the unemployed, the sick, the injured, the aged, the widows and the orphans. This has enhanced the internal purchasing power, on the basis of population, to nearly four billion dollars, and as a result English wage rates have been kept in hand, thus ensuring purchasing power to those who continued to work. I submit that the same can be done for Canada.
I realize the difficulties facing the Minister of Labour in his attempt to deal with this problem. I would suggest to him that if we resort to a scheme it must be on a nationwide basis. Otherwise the following burdens and difficulties would result:	First, workpeople who move constantly from one province to another would present a difficulty when one worker would move from an uninsured to an insured province, or vice versa. Second, it would be unfair that the taxpayers of an uninsured province should contribute equally with the taxpayers of an insured province. Third, the producers of the insured province would be saddled with a substantial item of cost which would not be borne by their competitors in uninsured provinces.
IMr. Martin.]
The answer to all these difficulties, we are told, is a constitutional one. We are told that we all want a system of unemployment insurance in Canada, but that because of the judgments of the judicial committee this is not possible. Well, of course, we have to recognize the findings of the judicial committee, and nothing will be gained by disagreeing with those decisions. At this point, however, I believe I should say that this parliament clearly would have the power, without resorting to the provinces, to bring about an amendment to our constitution in order to clearly and unmistakably endow this parliament with the authority now lacking. I realize that to adopt this method of bringing about the desired end might occasion throughout the country a great deal of dissent and possibly further conflict and lack of harmony. I suggest, just as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has suggested, that we might face the emergency; we might realize the difficulty of implementing this legislation and, on the basis of the old age pension scheme, pass a national act making it optional in the case of the provinces. I venture to suggest that public opinion in all these provinces, including my own, would resist any attempt on the part of provincial politicians to interfere with the national interest. Moreover, our financial arrangements with the provinces could be so dealt with as to make it financially worth while in respect of other contractual obligations for any province to accede readily to the opportunities offered by a national scheme.
We are told that the great difficulty lies in the province of Quebec. Seemingly Ontario has signified its willingness to accept a scheme of unemployment insurance, if we can accept the obiter dicta of some of its politicians. But public opinion in the province of Quebec will not support the premier of that province in his opposition to the scheme, even in the form I have now discussed. I quote from a recent statement of Mr. Charpentier, who was and is president of La Confederation des Travailleurs Catholiques dans la province de Quebec:
However, the Canadian Federation of Catholic Workers would not object to the federal government amending the constitution this very-winter, in order to establish a tripartite system of unemployment insurance in this country without any further delay.
There is the observation of the leader of one of the most powerful labour groups in the province of Quebec. They are not willing that opposition to an amendment of the constitution shall interfere with what I believe, with all its limitations, represents in the light

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. MacNicol.
of past experience the only way within our form of society whereby working people can be given a measure of security during periods of unemployment.
In my own city of Windsor-and I know that the Postmaster General will support my statement-one of the most disheartening things-I say this non-politically and I hope *dispassionately-is that healthy men and women, particularly men working in our automobile factories, receive a wage which in the light of its daily amount seems adequate, but in the light of an annual income is insufficient to maintain properly a home in this country on the standards of living we have set up for ourselves. These men are out of work four and five months in the year. I go into their homes, and often am unable to suggest any satisfactory solution. I am convinced that this problem, particularly in respect to secondary industry in our thickly populated industrial centres, would be relieved by the application of a system of unemployment insurance. The Minister of Labour knows as well as I do, if not much better, the economic and social implications of this problem. I am not trying to pit my humble approach against his. He sees it, I am sure, in its national aspects. But I do say to him, speaking for a constituency where the problem is acute, that public opinion will back up this government and this parliament if it assumes in the way indicated the authority which I think it should assume, and that it will condemn politicians in any part of Canada who seem prepared to place the interests of provincial autonomy ahead of what I regard to be the proper treatment of the most disastrous and dangerous problem which confronts Canada and the world at the present time.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: I am happy to rise to second the motion introduced by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). It is not the first time such a resolution has been introduced in this house. I believe that during the nine years I have been here it has been proposed several times, and I remember having read before I came here that it was introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps). It has often been debated here; and after many years of debate, in due course an unemployment insurance act was passed. I am not going to speak about it at the moment, but later I shall have something to say with regard to it.
For myself, I have been long associated [DOT]with many thousands of workmen; I know- I should know-their problems; I have been
with them on occasions of joy and at times of sorrow, and I know of no occasion on which I felt more grief for the average worker than I did when he was told that his services were no longer required. From long contact with workmen I am a convinced advocate of contributory unemployment insurance. My conviction arises not only through contact with them but from a very exhaustive inquiry into the subject and from observation of unemployment insurance laws in operation in several Europeon countries, particularly in Great Britain, and a thorough study of the acts which have been referred to as operative in the United States.
In former years, and perhaps at the time the hon. member for Winnipeg North first introduced his unemployment insurance resolution. it was necessary to put up an argument for the principle of the measure. This is no longer necessary. As someone said earlier in the debate, the principle is now recognized everywhere. I believe that all reasonable, thinking men are in favour of unemployment insurance. To read the debates which took place in the British House of Commons in 1911 and immediately prior to the adoption in Great Britain of the first unemployment insurance act in the world, would be an interesting occupation for any hon. member who has not done so. To-day everyone who thinks is in favour of unemployment insurance.


An hon. MEMBER:: Contributory.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What attracts me most to it is the tragedy of the situation here in Canada. In 1935, after as exhaustive an inquiry into the subject as any government has made, the Bennett government enacted unemployment insurance. I supported it as vigorously as I could. I am sorry that it was not placed in operation. I am convinced that had the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett been returned to power in 1935 it would have been put in operation without any reference to the privy council. It might have been contested later on in the courts, but it would then have been operating for at least some time, during which the people of Canada, and particularly the working man-and it is of his interests I am thinking-would have become interested in and familiar with the operation of unemployment insurance.


Mr. HAYHURST:: It was contributory unemployment insurance, was it not?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Absolutely. That is what I am in favour of. I have not heard any other form of insurance debated in this chamber. I did not hear the beginning of
1114	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. MacNicol.
the speech of the hon. member who introduced the motion, but I am satisfied that any scheme he would advocate would be contributory.


Robert James Manion: It so states in the- resolution.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In reference to the act passed by the preceding government, and in view of the unemployment which again grew to large proportions in the early months of 1938, I wish to read from an editorial in the Toronto Telegram of January 24, which describes the situation as fittingly and truly as it has ever been depicted:
It was a grave misfortune for Canada that the unemployment insurance act passed by parliament in 1935 should have fallen a victim, first, to political jealousy, and later to an adverse court decision upon its constitutionality, because it is in times of increasing industrial activity and employment such as occurred in the last two years-
That is in 1936 and 1937.
-that a strong fund must be collected to meet the calls which arise when depressions strike and workmen lose their jobs.
That editorial tells the true picture. The reason that an unemployment insurance act is not in operation in this country to-day is, I am convinced, political jealousy. The result is that we are back to-day to where we were around 1928 or 1929 when the hon. member for Winnipeg North introduced his first unemployment insurance resolution.
Let me give a brief history of the origin of unemployment insurance. There is nothing new about it, because for decades prior to 1911, in fact in the early part of the nineteenth century, the great labour organizations first began to provide for what was known at that time as unemployment benefits, and from that day they gradually improved upon the principle of providing unemployment benefits. At the same time many great manufacturing concerns began to take up the question, and eventually they themselves adopted a system of out-of-work or unemployment benefits. I have read the story of the great F. I. A. T., works in Italy, the Sandvick steel works in Sweden, the Zeiss works in Germany and the Phillips works in Holland. All these companies had, for years prior to the operation of unemployment insurance proper, their own out-of-work benefit plans that worked satisfactorily. But in 1911 the British government got right down to business and in enacting an unemployment insurance law they had all the experience of the great labour organizations, the large business concerns and the out-of-work benefit societies that had been operating prior to that time. The quantity of data and material that had been accumulated in

those previous years was of great assistance to the British government in enacting the first unemployment insurance scheme adopted by any government.
I am going to touch upon the British unemployment insurance act later on, but I might say at this stage that a number of other nations followed in the wake of what the British government had done. The British government are usually first in all these matters, and in 1911 they passed their act. Austria passed theirs in 1920, Queensland, Australia, in 1922, and Russia in 1922, although I do not believe it is operating now. Italy passed an act in 1923, Poland in 1924, seventeen of the twenty-seven or twenty-eight cantons of Switzerland in 1924, Bulgaria in 1925, and Germany in 1927. All these acts were contributory and compulsory. A number of other nations adopted non-compulsory acts, but as that is not in the line of my argument I will not take up time enumerating the nations that passed such acts.
There are two different governmental situations to consider in the adoption of an unemployment insurance act. First of all there is the state like Great Britain in which there is only one government for the entire country. That applies also to France, Belgium and a number of other European states. Then there is the federal state, illustrated by Germany, Switzerland, Canada and the United States. It is quite obvious that states with single governments, such as Great Britain, can approach a subject of this kind more quickly and effectively than a federal government can, and it is very largely for that reason, I suppose, that Switzerland and Germany, that adopted unemployment insurance, though perhaps not to the same extent as Great Britain, were later than Great Britain in passing legislation. The United States, where the situation is pretty much as it is in Canada, the individual states being largely sovereign, as the provinces are in this dominion, was still later in adopting an unemployment insurance act; and Canada has not yet passed a measure other than the one which w.as thrown out by the privy council.
I have made a thorough investigation into the operations of the unemployment insurance act in the old land. In London there are forty unemployment offices. There are two main unemployment offices, one in what is known as "the city" and the other at Penton-ville in the northeast end of the city. It was to the latter, I believe, that I went when I was last in London. I wish to describe what I saw there. In the old land the employment office and the unemployment office are operated from the same centre, and it should be the

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. MacNicol.
same in this country. I must first of all remark on the courtesy and sympathy shown by the officials in the various unemployment insurance offices, in which I spent a considerable length of time. I cannot say that I received the same service or was shown the-same sympathy in the unemployment offices I visited in Canada. On more than one occasion I telephoned to an unemployment office and the conversation at the other end was more or less discourteous until I told who I was, and then, to my surprise, the voice became more or less courteous. I should like, however, to compliment the officials in the old country on their courtesy and on the manner in which they treated the men. They addressed them as Jack, or Tom, or Fred, and when I asked how they knew these men, the answer was that over the period of years they have been operating since 1911, naturally many men have visited the various unemployment offices a number of times.
When an unemployed worker enters an office in London he first hands in his card on which are a number of stamps. Perhaps the hon. member for Comox-Alberni described it. Every worker has a card with his name on it and a certain number of stamps are necessary for him to obtain unemployment insurance, and are pasted on that card. He hands his card in and then directs his attention to three boards on the office walls, one after the other. To these offices comes information by teletype from every one of the forty offices and the main offices. That report comes in every fifteen minutes and it indicates any positions that are filled or vacancies that occur. Almost as soon as the report is teletyped it is taken off the machine and placed on a board and the workers quickly gather round that board to find out what opportunities are offering. As promptly thereafter as possible the officials list all these positions on a larger board, and finally they have them typewritten and placed where the workers can see them. If a position becomes vacant they write out a card and give it to the worker. If he obtains employment it is reported at once and his record is so noted and the position that had been tabulated as vacant is also erased.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my friend will permit, that system recognizes the inseparable nature of the two things, unemployment insurance and the means of finding employment.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, I explained at the beginning that I was strongly in favour of the system that combines the two.


Charles Avery Dunning: The same authority must govern both in order that it may work.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, the one office takes care of both, and I found it working very satisfactorily. The fact is that in 1936, the year previous to my last visit to the old country, the officials told me in London they had placed men in one million jobs, odd jobs of one kind and another, but some of them permanent. In fact the day I was in the Pentonville office a teletype came in asking for eight squads of boilermakers. I asked what they meant by eight squads, and was told that four men made a squad. There was the boilermaker himself, the man who held the rivet up, the boy who tossed the rivet, and I suppose tthe riveter made the fourth. So that thirty-two men were called for in that request. I was tremendously thrilled with the way in which the whole unemployment situation is taken care of.
It is interesting also to see the men coming in to obtain their insurance. The waiting period in Great Britain has now been reduced to three days; formerly it was six. The men receive their pay during four hours a day. They are dealt with expeditiously; an effort is made not to keep them waiting but to send them on as happily as they can. They report on three days-Monday, Wednesday and Friday, in order also to look over the boards and try to obtain a position.
I am not saying that it is possible at the moment to adopt an unemployment insurance scheme in Canada. The government would have to look into that very carefully; it may or may not be possible. The conditions of the country are so serious at the moment that at least a considerable waiting period would probably have to intervene in order to accumulate the necessary fund.
Something was said by a previous speaker in reference to the financial position of the unemployment insurance fund in the old country. I studied that very carefully with the labour office-they gave me all the available information-and it appeared to me that it was in a most satisfactory position and most successful. This is largely due to the fact that never before have there been so many mechanics employed as there are at present in the old land. In 1936 in England the employer contributed 20 cents a week for each employee, the employee 20 cents a week and the government 20 cents a week, and the receipts from those contributions in 1936 amounted to $322,860,000. Adding to that an amount of $995,000 in interest on the rest that they have already laid up makes total receipts of $323,855,000. Out of that they paid in unemployment benefits $220,027,000. The cost of administration was $20,250,000, and other expenses-I suppose printing, etc.,
1116	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. MacNicol.
and perhaps inspectors-$1,467,000; total expenses $266,744,000, including a return of $25,000,000 to the fund which formerly was known as the dole to pay off the debt that accumulated following the war when conditions' were unprecedented and when what was known as the dole amounted I believe to $515,000,000. In the last three or four years they have paid off over $100,000,000 and in addition have laid up a rest of $225,000,000 to $250,000,000. The fund is now on a solvent basis.
When I asked the chief of the department at Whitehall what will happen when all these hundreds of thousands of men now engaged in munition work are laid off, perhaps because of sufficiency of munitions, he said: "Oh, we are now in a position to take care of that almost indefinitely." In the old land, therefore, they have fully demonstrated that their system is a sound one, and from my observation it is of tremendous benefit to the worker. To assure myself of its benefit to the worker I visited many plants and many employers and employees, but I shall tell of only three, widely different.
I went to a great steel plant employing 36,000 men. I talked to the foreman in front of the Bessemer furnace, where there was also a squad of four men. I asked him what he thought of unemployment insurance. He was a Scotsman. He replied, "Man, it is marvellous; it is wonderful. I have a wife and six children; I have not been out of work during the last three years and therefore have not required any unemployment benefit, but if I were out of work I would receive for myself $4.14 a week, for my wife S2.19, and for the children 49 cents each, plus 25 per cent." That would make for that man $11.95 a week, and he would receive it almost indefinitely; because for a man who has been on for that length of time the benefits continue for well on to a hundred weeks. In this country when a man is laid off he receives nothing; he either goes on charity or goes to the relief office to get something to exist on. It is a strange travesty that such a situation should exist in a land like ours, flowing as it is with milk and honey.
Then I went to a restaurant. In the British act they have not the restrictions on the number of employees that are imposed in the United States act, to which I shall refer later. The waiter at the restaurant told me he was married and had three children, and that if he were laid off he would receive within three days' time S9.75 a week. In London a man can live on $9.75 a week if he is not too extravagant. Then I went to a corner grocery, operated by a man and his wife and two employees. The man and his wife were
[Mr. MacNicol.!
working in the store; one employee was drawing a sick benefit of 17 shillings a week, together with medical attention and medicines, and the other young man, who was off because of unemployment, received $5.17 a week. Unemployment insurance in Great Britain is so all-embracing that over 18,000,000 out of the 20,000,000 employed are protected by the benefits of the unemployment insurance law. I often say to myself that when times are good in Canada again and we want more immigration-and we shall, because I am convinced we must have immigration to keep this country on an even keel-we shall have great difficulty in getting Britishers to come out They will say, "Why should we go out there? At home we have health insurance and unemployment insurance, whereas in Canada you have neither." The result will be that we shall have great difficulty in convincing immigrants qualified to render efficient service in Canada to leave the dear old land and come to this country-despite the fact that we have a land which does flow with milk and honey.


Mr. NEEDHAM:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Ritchie MacNicol: If it does not take too
long to answer it.


Joseph Needham: Did the hon. member
visit any farms in Great Britain? Could he tell us about the activities on the farms?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I did not visit any farms, but I know that farm employees are now operating under the benefits of the unemployment. insurance scheme.
In Great Britain there is the widest possible extension of the benefits of unemployment insurance. As a matter of fact, I intended to refer to the classes receiving it when I discussed the United States system at a later point in my observations.
The German system, while a very good one, is not at all equal to that of Great Britain. But it does include three things, the first of which is accident insurance. If a worker is injured through an accident he will receive accident compensation. Their system includes invalidity insurance and unemployment insurance. The three are grouped together and, to that extent, in my judgment it is beneficial. The rates are however, much higher in Germany than in Great Britain, and the return is much lower. It is a federal-state system, and I assume they have not been able to adjust the operation as accurately and efficiently, on account of its being a federal-state system, as is the situation in the old land. The benefits in Germany do not range nearly as high. A married man with no

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. MacNicol.
dependents would receive from SI 50 to S4.92 a week. If he had dependents he would receive from S3.12 to S8.40 a week. The general application of the system in Germany is, in my opinion, not at all comparable with the application of the system in the old land.
Before I proceed to a discussion of unemployment insurance in the United States, it might be well to place before hon. members the scope of the British system. As I said a moment ago, in Great Britain the scope covers approximately 18,000,000 workers out of a possible 20,000,000. Contributions are at the rate of 20 eents a week by the employer, 20 cents by the employee and 20 cents by the state. The conditions stipulate that an employee must have made 30 contributions in a period of two years, and that fact is demonstrated by his presenting at the office an unemployment insurance card bearing 30 stamps. The waiting period is set at three days, and as benefits a man receives 17 shillings a week, a wife 9 shillings, and each child 3 shillings plus 25 per cent. The duration ordinarily runs from 26 to 52 weeks.
In cases where an employee has worked a considerable length of time without drawing anything from the unemployment insurance scheme, that period is considerably extended. In my judgment the system in operation in Great Britain is the best in the world.
Perhaps before proceeding to the situation in the United States, I should refer to the former Canadian legislation, which covered about 1,700,000 workers in Canada. Contributions were as follows: 25 cents from the employer, 25 cents from the employee and 10 cents plus costs from the state. In Great Britain the fund pays all costs. The legislation in Canada provided for 40 contributions in a period of two years. The waiting period was set at six days, and the benefits for a husband $6 a week, for a wife $2.70 and for a child 90 cents. The duration was set at from 78 to 100 days.
I now come to a discussion of what has been done in the United States in connection with unemployment insurance. For a long time an ardent and diligent study of the problem was made in that country. I have visited many of the separate states, and made a particular study in the state of Wisconsin where the scheme was first in operation. The states had some data to work on, compiled by some of their larger companies, which had in operation private unemployment insurance schemes. In this connection I would mention the General Electric Company, the American Radiator Company, Proctor and Gamble, and some others. In addition they had the benefit of the investigations made by many out-of-work benefit societies. Several
of the governors in eastern, central and western states, in their desire to bring about an unemployment insurance scheme, made a thorough survey in the respective sections.
The United States chamber of commerce made a most exhaustive survey which covered a period of about two years. All the information gathered was submitted to the government at Washington, at which time governmental officials began to realize what they were up against. They were faced with a problem similar to that in Canada, namely the sovereignty of the states. They realized the difficulty they would have in persuading each state of the union to adopt an unemployment insurance scheme.
The final contribution in each state amounts to three per cent of the wage-roll of companies employing eight or more employees. The amount has not, however, always been that much. It started at a lower figure. In one year it stood at 2-7 per cent. After the two-year intervening waiting period has expired the amount in all of the states will be three per cent. The act in the United States does not cover anything like the percentage covered in Great Britain. In the United States agricultural workers are not covered, whereas in Great Britain they are. Of those gainfully employed only 45-6 per cent would be receiving unemployment insurance in the country to the south of us.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Percentage of what?


John Ritchie MacNicol: The percentage of the number employed. For instance, there are 40,832,000 workers in factories, and in industrial pursuits, and there are 38,000,000 agricultural workers of one kind or another.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The British act is thirty years old.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, I said it came into force in 1911. I will refer to that in a minute.


Norman McLeod Rogers: In the beginning a smaller number were included.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Under the legislation in the United States about 45-6 per cent of the workers would receive the benefits. I have no doubt, however, that as the United States gains experience in the operation of the legislation, it may reach the high point of operation which has been attained in Great Britain As a rule the people in our neighbouring country like to excel, and I have no doubt, when their act has been in operation as long as the British act, it will be a first-class piece of legislation, too.
As a matter of fact, in 1911, at the time of the commencement of the operation of the act in Great Britain, only 2,500,000 workers were
1118	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. MacNicol.
covered. After, however, a series of amendments through the years it has arrived at a stage wherein it covers 18,000,000 workers.
When the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) speaks, I should like him, if he has the information available, to tell the house if it is possible to adopt in Canada a measure anything like that adopted in the United States. Over there they have placed a tax on all companies employing eight or more men, although that regulation does not apply to all the states. I have not time to deal with the practice in all the separate states, but I know that in some there is reference to only four employees and, in others, to only five. Generally, however, I believe over half of the states make the provision for eight or more employees. In some states the employee makes a contribution, I believe of one per cent, but in the great majority of cases the contribution is made by the employer. I understand this contribution is three per cent of the wage-roll.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is administered by the state.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes. As I understand it, the federal government-the minister will correct me if I am wrong-collect the three percent. They then say to the state, "We have prepared a sample unemployment insurance act; if your state adopts this act, or one similar to it to conform to your own conditions, we will return to you ninety per cent of the contribution." I believe that is the percentage.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The federal government tell the state that they will pay the cost of administration. If a state does not accept that proposition, the money collected is used for public works or unemployment relief within the state. That might not be possible under our system of government. Every state in the American union has adopted an unemployment insurance act, and I believe they will all be in operation within another one or two years. Within two years at least every one of the forty-eight states and the District of Columbia will have systems of unemployment insurance in operation.
I do hope something can be done in this country. Industry is paying a heavy toll to-day. More factories are closing up than are opening. What can be done, I do not know, but the government should not delay. The need is greater than ever. The savings of the people have been exhausted. I know many of these people intimately, and I have been told their trials and troubles, their 
sorrows and joys. The stories are heartbreaking. Many of them have lost their little homes, and many others are in no state to combat present day conditions. We must be thankful that the depression has not lowered the moral standards of our people, but their physical standards have been decreased. Many men could not take the positions to-day that they could have taken a few years ago. In my judgment there are several reasons why we should have unemployment insurance.
The first is the fact that many men lose their employment because of age. Two weeks ago last Saturday when I was home a man came to see me who had worked eighteen years for a large company on Dufferin street and had finally been let out. That was a substantial length of time for a man to render service to a company. To have held his job that long he must have been an efficient workman. If he had not been honest and capable he would have been discharged long ago. After eighteen years this company said to him, "your services are no longer required." I saw him last Saturday and he told me that in an effort to save what he could, he had sacrificed his small home at such a reduction that all his life savings, barring a few hundred dollars, had disappeared. This man is about sixty years of age and I ask: What hope is there for him? I contend that there should be some arrangement, either governmental or otherwise, to take care of a man who had rendered eighteen years' efficient service.
We take care of our civic employees who subscribe to a fund. We take care of our civil servants. We have perhaps one of the best civil services in the world and they deserve all credit for their ability, but this government contributes toward their retirement. These people are taken care of, but not the poor chap who has no government or any other person to come to his defence when he loses his job. It does not seem right to me. Much of the unrest in Canada to-day is a result of the fact that no provision is made for these men. It might be said, "Why did not that man save something during his eighteen years of work?" I doubt if that man made more than $15 per week, and 1 defy anyone to save much on that salary when supporting a wife and family. He did save something, but when a man making $10,000 a year cannot save, we cannot expect the poor fellow getting $15 a week to do very much. I could relate other cases with which I am personally familiar, but I shall not at this time.

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Maclnnis
The next reason is invalidity. I shall review one or two cases in this connection, as my time will soon be up. I know one man who worked in front of a cupola. I have done it myself and I know something about the work. The other day we heard from a moulder from Vancouver who is also a lawyer. He delivered a fine speech in this house, and perhaps, if I were a lawyer, I could also deliver a good speech. But I come back to this poor fellow. He worked in front of that cupola for fourteen years, putting up with the heat in summer and the cold in winter. His health finally became undermined; he could not carry on with his work, and the company told him his services were no longer required. That is not fair treatment. If this government will introduce some legislation for a contributory scheme of unemployment insurance, one that will take care of the poor fellows who are now employed but who may soon be in the same boat as the chaps I have mentioned, they will be rendering a great service to this country.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to rise and say a few words in support of the motion introduced by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). The subject matter of his resolution is one which the group to which I belong have had at heart for a long time. Before, however, I proceed with what I have to say, I should like to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) who has just taken his seat. The hon. member said that almost everyone in the community is protected except the poor working man, that he did not have anyone to protect him or plead his case. He asked why that was so. He gave the answer himself. The reason he is not protected is that he has had no one to plead his case in the forums where such questions are discussed and decided. When he was speaking on the address the leader of the .opposition (Mr. Manion) made the statement that Canada was far behind all other British dominion's in the matter of social legislation. He asked why that should be. The reason for that is equally clear. Canada is behind the other dominions in the matter of labour organization, both industrial and political. It is the pressure by labour organizations on the industrial field and in parliament that gets results for the working classes.
I wish to commend the hon. member for Comox-Alberni for the brevity and conciseness of his motion. I do not think he has put in it a word that was not necessary or left
one out that was required. For the purposes of discussion his motion may be divided into four parts. First, he points out the urgent need in this country for unemployment insurance. Second, he contends that this need is so urgent that it should receive the immediate attention of the government. Third, he suggests that the plan of social insurance should be contributory in character and, fourth, that it should be national in scope.
I shall try to discuss these points in the order in which I have stated them. First, as to the pressing need for unemployment insurance; I think we are all agreed, and when I say there is a pressing need for unemployment insurance I have in mind that there is a need for a better method of distributing income to the worker, when, through no fault on his part, he is unemployed, than that which prevails to-day. One of the desirable features of an unemployment insurance plan is that those-who come under it, after complying with certain conditions known beforehand, will automatically participate in the benefits without having to go through the degrading process they must go through at present before obtaining unemployment relief. I think I am correct in saying that everyone in Canada who has given thought to this matter or who has given consideration to social conditions is in favour of a better method for the distribution of income. Of course I do not contend that unemployment insurance is a perfect method, but I do think it is a decided improvement over the system we follow at present.
The second point in the resolution is that the need for unemployment insurance is so urgent that it should be put into operation without delay. I believe there is very little difference of opinion on that point. We have had unemployment on a large scale for the past ten years, and there is no indication that we are nearing the end of our difficulties in that regard. Indeed, every indication is to the contrary, and I believe it is generally accepted that unemployment conditions of the past few years will be permanent as long as our present system of production and distribution continues. Such being the case, the government should act in this matter with the least possible delay. There has been, indeed, an insistent and widespread demand in Canada for a very long time for unemployment insurance. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) says for the last thirty years. I am not sure if it is that long, but it is at least twenty years. In looking over the records of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada recently, I found that in 1921 this organization went on
1120	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Maclnnis
record as being in favour of unemployment insurance. Whether or not there was an earlier discussion of the matter I do not know. The Trades and Labour Congress of Canada represents the largest number of organized workers in Canada, and I think every year since 1921, in their submissions to the federal cabinet, unemployment insurance has been advocated. The All-Canadian Congress of Labour, in their interviews with the government during the last few years, have also advocated unemployment insurance. The Federation of Catholic Workers and the Canadian Federation of Labour, for the last two years at least, have stressed the need for this kind of social insurance.
In 1919 a royal commission under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice L. G. Mathers was appointed to investigate industrial relations within the Dominion of Canada. After many hearings, and after visiting every industrial centre from Victoria to Sydney, the commissioners stated that fear of unemployment'was the chief cause of industrial unrest, and submitted a definite finding as part of their report. There are three short paragraphs in that report, which, I think, are worth reading to the house. The report can be found as an appendix to the report of the national industrial conference of 1919, and the sections to which I refer are on page 8:
34.	But supplying the unemployed man with suitable work for the present will not entirely solve the problem. Before the labourer can be made contented the haunting fear of unemployment must be removed from his mind.
35.	This is something which affects all wage-earners, but more especially the casual labourer. He can never be sure just when his employment will terminate and he will be left without the means of subsistence.
36.	Unemployment may arise from other [DOT]causes than the loss of his job. He may be
incapacitated by sickness, invalidity or old age. Very few labourers are able, out of their earnings, to make provision for these contingencies. We recommend to your government the question of making some provision by a system of state social insurance for those who through no fault of their own are unable to work, whether the inability arises from lack of opportunity, sickness, invalidity or old age. Such insurance would remove the spectre of fear which now haunts the wage earner, and make him a more contented and better citizen.
I submit that if the worker had been strongly represented in this parliament since 1919, unemployment insurance would have been on the statute books before now.


Alan Webster Neill: Might I ask the date of that report?


Angus MacInnis: This was the Mathers commission, which sat in 1919.
I really do not think it necessary to elaborate on the need for unemployment in-

surance. I am convinced that there is so much unanimity on the subject that opposition to the principle is no longer an obstacle to the enactment of legislation. I am therefore in agreement with the mover of this motion, that the need is so urgent that it should receive the immediate attention of the government.
This brings me to the third point in the motion, that the insurance scheme or plan should be contributory in character. By that I understand the hon. member for Comox-Alberni to advocate a system of unemployment insurance under which the insured worker would make weekly or monthly contributions when employed. I am accepting that feature of the motion also. That is as far as I am called upon to go at this time. If we were discussing a bill instead of a resolution I might have something further to say on that point.
As far as I am able to learn, in all countries, with the possible exception of Russia, in which they have unemployment insurance it is on a contributory basis. The representatives of organized labour have gone on record as approving the contributory principle. If, as I said, we were discussing a bill, serious consideration would have to be given to workers in the low wage class, and exemptions might have to be made from the contributory principle. But I need not discuss that, because it is not before us. The fact, however, must be kept in mind that, with the very low wages prevailing in Canada at the present time, we might not be serving any useful purpose in taking money from people, who are not getting sufficient to maintain a decent standard of living or enough to keep them in normal health, in order to provide for a future contingency.
I think we should also try to get it clearly in our minds that insurance is not a solution for the problem of unemployment. It will not meet the needs of all the unemployed and much less will it prevent unemployment. We must face the fact that the kind of unemployment insurance we have in mind when discussing this resolution will not touch thousands of those who are unemployed to-day. There is, however, a turn-over in employment -if that is the correct term to use. That is, many workers are employed part of the time, and part of the time are out of work. Such workers would benefit under a plan such as we have in mind. How many workers would be covered by a scheme I do not know, possibly about a million and three quarters. On the other hand, thousands of those contributing would never draw financial benefits. That, however, is a condition inseparable from almost any kind of insurance.

Unemployment Insurance-
-Mr. Maclnnis
But as it is conceded that such a scheme would have a stabilizing effect on employment, benefits would accrue to all although it would be difficult to compute them in dollars and cents.
I agree with the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) that unemployment insurance means the sharing of the hazards of industrial employment; it is a realization of the fact that under our present economic arrangement a certain amount of unemployment is inevitable and that financial provision should be made to meet it.
In this connection I should like to give a very few statistics from the British Labour Gazette. This quotation appears in the January issue of the Canadian Congress Journal.
According to recent statistics published in the Labour Gazette, official organ of the British ministry of labour, 1,679,000 insured persons between the ages of sixteen and sixty-four out of a total number covered by the unemployment insurance plan of 12,250,000 were registered as unemployed at the employment exchanges in Great Britain on November 14, 1938.
The report says:
It is interesting to note that of this number 1.084,187, had been on the register less than three months, and approximately 825,000 persons, or 49-1 per cent of the total number of applicants, had been on the register for less than six weeks.
There were 165,690 persons, or 9*9 per cent of the total, who had been on the register f<pr more than three months but less than six months; 86,911 persons, or 5-2 per cent of the total, who had been on the register for more than six months but less than nine months; 64,636 persons, or 3-8 per cent of the total, who had been on the register for more than nine months but less than twelve months; leaving only 278,387 persons, or 16-6 per cent of the total who had been registered as unemployed continuously for more than a year.
I believe it is a tendency of our industrial set-up that those who work have more continuity of employment, while those who are out of work are out of work nearly all the time.
I must say again that I am not supporting or proposing unemployment insurance as a cure for unemployment. It has not accomplished that anywhere. But I know of no country that has put unemployment insurance on its statute books which has repealed that law. That is an indication that the law is meeting a social need and that the sooner we get it on the statute books of Canada, the better.
The fourth point in the motion is that unemployment insurance should be national in scope. I am also in full agreement with the mover of the motion in that regard. I believe that any attempt to legislate in this matter on a provincial basis would be 71492-71
fraught with considerable danger. It is not necessary at the moment to go into the many factors which would make it very difficult to administer a provincial scheme. There is also the fact that the majority of the provinces are not in a position financially to carry unemployment insurance; for one or two to embark on the scheme would only increase our difficulties, create more friction between the provinces and the dominion, and add to the factors which make for national disunity. I have the greatest regard for my own province of British Columbia, but I am a Canadian first and a British Columbian second. I am anxious in every way possible. to serve my people and add to th :r security and wellbeing, and I am satisfied I can do that to the best advantage by giving power to the federal authority to deal for the whole of Canada with those questions which, because of changed economic conditions, have become national in scope. I am thoroughly convinced that much of the talk we hear to-day about the sacredness of provincial rights and the determination in some quarters to maintain those rights at all costs has nothing more substantial behind it than the desire for power on the part of certain individuals whom accident or chance has thrown into positions of authority, and who, having become intoxicated with a little power, seek to hold on to it at no matter what cost to the whole of the country. I will go further and say that those leaders who are opposed to giving the federal authority the power to deal with matters of this kind are not expressing the desires of the people of their provinces. The people are looking for economic security and social well-being, and are not concerned with maintaining constitutional relations which were just and proper in their time but which to-day have become a fetter on social progress. Insistence on the maintenance of provincial rights to the point where that insistence retards national progress becomes, in my opinion, provincial stupidity.
Unemployment insurance is of the utmost importance to Canada to-day. Even though it will not meet the needs of many of the unemployed, it is no small thing to put thousands of workers now employed in a position where when they become unemployed they can maintain themselves and their families without having to submit to the degrading experience of those unfortunates who to-day must apply for unemployment relief. I believe that the federal government should go directly to the people of those provinces whose governments are retarding the enactment of this much-needed legislation and tell the people

1122	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Maclnnis
clearly and in language that cannot be misunderstood what they are anxious to do and what is keeping them from doing it.
The people of Canada are demanding unemployment insurance as they demanded old age pensions a little more than a decade ago. In that regard I should like to quote a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the session of 1926 when the old age pensions legislation was being debated. I am not sure whether this discussion was on the resolution or on the bill, but I rather think it was on the bill. The present leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), then a member of the house, was showing by the reading of letters that had passed between the dominion government and the provinces that the provincial governments were opposed to old age pensions. The Prime Minister said, as reported in Hansard of 1926, volume III, page 2487:
In reference to the answers from the nine provinces, which the hon. gentleman has just read, I might say that those very replies convinced the government of the futility of ever having an old age pension scheme enacted by correspondence with the provinces. We concluded that the best way would be to enact concrete legislation. We thought that was the only way to get anywhere.
I commend the Prime Minister for his determination on that occasion, and I think that if he were to show the same kind of determination now, ways and means could be found to put unemployment insurance on the statute books in spite of the provinces, and that the people of the provinces would compel their governments to take advantage of it in the same way as they compelled them to take advantage of the benefits of the Old Age Pensions Act. For the past eight years the international labour office at Geneva has issued a year book in which is reviewed, among other things concerning labour, the progress and extension of social insurance all over the world. At the conclusion of the review in the 1938 year book they refer to social insurance. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) mentioned that in the old country unemployment insurance now covers agricultural as well as industrial workers, and in the year book this statement appears with reference to agricultural workers:
Social insurance has another very important task to perform, namely, the extension of its protection to rural as well as to urban workers. This extension, which necessitates the adaptation of methods to rural conditions, is perfectly feasible, as is proved by the experience of many countries which have developed agricultural insurance schemes resolutely and methodically.

Agriculture is becoming more and more industrialized, and this process calls for new

forms of social protection. A large field of activity is being thrown open to social insurance in the agricultural countries, and the considerable experience already gained in this field should permit them to adapt themselves rapidly to the requirements of their task.
Social insurance of independent -workers.- Another important aspect of the recent development of social insurance is its extension to independent workers. In many countries craftsmen, traders, small farmers, professional workers and other independent workers with limited incomes are calling for measures to give them security in their old gae. Though formerly violently opposed to every kind of collective protection, they have come to realize the material and moral value of insurance and desire to benefit from it in their turn.
* * #
Social insurance can neither heal nor prevent all ills. Its resources and practical possibilities, though considerable, are limited, and its action must be kept within measured hounds. Whenever the necessity of such action is recognized, however, it should be effective and adequate. The effort of organization and social solidarity represented by social insurance needs to he continued and, in many cases, intensified. A lasting civilization is unthinkable except on the basis of a new economic and social order in which workers will enjoy, not only a higher standard of living, but also the absolute guarantee of complete economic security.
I do not suggest that unemployment insurance on the scale on which it could be adopted in this country at the moment could give that adequate and complete guarantee, but I do insist that it is a step towards that desirable end. To what I have just read I should like to add this as my own considered opinion. I believe it is now generally admitted that further progress in the material sphere cannot be achieved without a system of social security that makes provision for a more equitable distribution of the national income than now prevails and that will protect workers and their families from many of the vicissitudes of life.
Any program of economic recovery and prosperity runs the risk of failure if it does not include a soundly conceived social plan. The world's productive capacity in labour and material has for the past hundred and fifty years been kept busy building a capital structure, that is, producing equipment for the production of wealth. In the opinion of many that work is now finished. If, then, we are to keep busy the machines which were built with much labour and privation we must find ways of financing consumption. I must have borrowed that phrase unconsciously from the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer), but in this case it is a good phrase. Social insurance is one of the ways in which this can be, at least partly, done. I am not arguing that it is the best way, but it is the way most universally accepted.

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Reid
We cannot move much faster than we have public opinion with us, without some danger to the stability of the social structure. But we cannot stand still. Move we must or perish. The need for social insurance is being universally recognized. The principle	of
social protection is winning the day against the anarchy of individualism. The work of social organization, however, is only beginning; it must be vigorously pushed forward; for in our changing world that is the price of lasting progress. The premium paid for social insurance is small compared with the risks that confront humanity if it refuses or is unable to master the forces of production at its disposal and distribute the product fairly.
In concluding these few remarks, I think we should take a vote on this question and make it clear beyond the possibility of doubt that this house stands solidly behind the government in support of a plan of unemployment insurance national in scope. The unanimous endorsation by this house of the principle expressed in this resolution would do much to strengthen the hands and, I hope, the determination of the government to press forward with unemployment insurance with all speed. At the very root of the friction and bickerings which menace the unity and progress of our country lies the fear engendered by poverty and insecurity When the people of this dominion are linked together, not by a legal constitution but by common economic and social ties, when they begin to look to the federal government as the seat of authority and the centre from which they can expect guidance in solving those problems which face all the people, they will quickly begin to acquire that attitude and outlook so essential to national unity and nationhood.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Reid
a mere statistical view of our present economic situation. After all, statistics do not always reveal the actual situation.
Great Britain was the first nation to take a long term realistic view of her internal affairs and so saved that country from internal disorders if not from actual revolution itself. Recognizing that insecurity is inherent in the modern industrial business structure, Great Britain provided economic security for her people through an elaborate social system. As a result Great Britain spent for social insurance, including payments to the unemployed, the sick, the injured, the aged and the widows and children, a total of SI,369,000,000 in 1933. By this means Great Britain has preserved and is preserving the British democratic form of government, thereby giving renewed faith and inspiration to the British people in their own system of democratic government, something which I fear we might be in some danger of losing in Canada to-day.
Unfortunately the blind greed and stupidity of our business leaders and some of their political allies fail to recognize the growing storm of discontent gradually creeping over Canada to-day.
Relief, it is true, is being provided on a scale hitherto unknown in this country, but in the giving of relief even under the most favourable conditions and even though essentials of life are provided it should not be forgotten that relief violates man's most valued possession-his self-esteem.
The question of social security to my mind does not and should rest not entirely on economic grounds but on humanitarian grounds as well. What great value should be attached to any economic system if it cannot adequately meet the needs of all her people.
The system adopted by that great and wise nation Great Britain, one of progressive taxation and an adequate system of social security, is one of real merit and one well worth while considering and adopting. Our system, although somewhat progressive, has brought about no re-apportionment of our wealth; in fact, it has put and is to-day putting more wealth in the hands of the wealthy and making the poor even poorer.
The insecurity of our people to-day in the face of the hazards of modem life, with unemployment the chief hazard, menaces more than mere national prosperity. It endangers the very existence of our social order.
In closing, I would express my belief that if a plan such as I have outlined were put into effect, not only would it provide for greater employment of our young people, by removing persons of sixty and sixty-five from the labour market, but it would help to give 
a greater sense of security to our people and remove from our midst many of the disquieting fears which now confront us.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I shall not take very much of the time of the house on this question. I rise merely to put myself in the position of supporting the resolution. The whole matter has been very thoroughly discussed here this afternoon by various speakers. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), who moved the resolution, and the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), who seconded it, dealt with it in detail. Others have also discussed the whole subject very fully. The hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Reid) covered a little wider ground, by taking in old age pensions and social security in general; but whatever he does, the hon. gentleman has two qualifications which I rather like; one is industry and the other is the burr in his voice. One does not need to hear the skirl of the bagpipes when the hon. gentleman is speaking, because one knows at once whence he came and the kind of food on which he was brought up- porridge, mostly, I mean.
As the resolution is brief and covers the ground very fully, and since a good many other matters have been touched upon by various speakers in the course of the debate, I will take the liberty of reading it:
That in the opinion of this house, a national system of contributory unemployment insurance for Canada is a pressing need at the present time and should receive immediate attention.
I think it deserves the support of us all; and to show that our party is in good faith in supporting it I can adduce two very good proofs. One is the act which we put in force when this party was in power, in 1935, although the act was later pronounced ultra vires; the other is the resolution of the National Conservative convention held last July; it is brief, so I will read it:
To encourage and support throughout Canada a plan of national unemployment and retirement insurance.
That is a plank of our party's platform. The legislation we put into effect, and which was assented to on June 28, 1935, was, to quote the title:
An act to establish an employment and social insurance commission, to provide for a national employment service, for insurance against unemployment, for aid to unemployed persons, and for other forms of social insurance and security, and for purposes related thereto.
It is chapter 38 of the statutes of Canada, 1935, 25-26 George V. That legislation covered other ground than unemployment insurance.

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Manion
For example, section 7 points out that the commission which was to be appointed shall, in addition to its powers and duties as otherwise provided by this act-

as soon as practicable after appointment, undertake investigations for the purpose of making proposals to the governor general in council for-
-various other matters, such as:
-providing unemployment insurance for the employments excepted from the operation of part III of the act.
And so on. On the next page provision is included for training of the unemployed- something which has been taken up by this government to a certain extent in recent times. In part II an employment service was proposed. I will read section 10:
The commission shall organize an employment service for the Dominion of Canada, in manner hereinafter provided, and shall be responsible for the constitution and management of such employment service and the direction, maintenance and control of all employment offices established as hereinafter provided.
That is very much what was proposed, I believe, by the Purvis commission, although not carried out by the government.
This resolution is in accord with the act as we passed it, because it makes insurance contributory. Section 17 states:
(1) The funds required for providing unemployment benefit and for making any other payments which under this act are to be made out of the unemployment insurance fund, established under this part of this act, shall be derived partly from moneys provided by parliament, partly from contributions by employed persons and partly from contributions by the employers of those persons, which contributions shall be paid by means of revenue stamps as hereinafter provided, or otherwise as may be prescribed by the commission.
That is all I shall quote from the act, which is a very complete one. Quite frankly, at the time of its passing I was not as familiar with it as I might have been. It was handled through the Department of Labour, then under Hon. W. A. Gordon, and at that time I was minister of railways. Nevertheless I well remember long discussions in council, prolonged disputes about certain industries which insisted upon being exempted from the provisions of the act. At the same time the whole act is so complete that when this government finally decides to bring into effect legislation along the lines of the resolution, it might well be based upon the act of 1935, with, possibly, modifications to meet some changed conditions.
I do believe that had the act as passed been put into effect, leaving a private individual to bring it before the courts, it would still 71492-72
be in force. If, instead of being submitted to the courts for decision, that act had been placed in operation, it might still be operating to-day. When something is a jait accompli, it is rare that action is taken against it unless it is distinctly injurious, and this is not an injurious measure. I believe unemployment insurance will have to be brought into operation in the near future, whether this government institutes it or whether the successor to this government takes the initiative. I say that because to my mind legislation such as is in force in so many other countries-England, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States more recently, to mention a few-is recognized everywhere as necessary under modern conditions of employment or unemployment as you will, and it must be so recognized in Canada also.
I believe I have made the criticism in this house, as I have done elsewhere, that the trouble with the Canadian people is that we are less advanced than the people of almost any of the modern countries. The most advanced country, as was said by the Iron, member who has just taken his seat, is probably Great Britain. I myself have made that statement on many platforms, and I believe that if we were more ready to copy Great Britain in her advanced legislation, as so often we are prepared to copy her in other matters, we should be showing a progressive spirit and putting into effect ideas appropriate to this great country.
We must do whatever we can to bring about security for our people. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) the other day, in offering some criticism of myself, said that I do not propose much that is constructive. On one occasion before the Canadian club in Ottawa-it was a year ago last month-when his leader the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was present, and when the minister himself, I believe, was in attendance, I did suggest unemployment insurance. That was one of the constructive ideas I put forward at that time, and I offered many other suggestions of a progressive sort on that occasion-so many, in fact, that the present leader of the government came up to me and remarked that I had made the best Liberal speech he had heard. Well, theoretically it was a Liberal speech. The trouble is that this Liberal government is progressive only in theory. Unfortunately it does not go ahead in practice and do what it promises in theory.
The point I wish to make now is that in this democratic British country we must cure the conditions from which we are suffering to-day. If what I have described as the great defect of democracy, unemployment, is

1130	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Manion
not remedied, then I am afraid that the system under which we live will not last very long. For saying that on a number of occasions in speeches that were more or less political, though I have said the same thing in other speeches, before Canadian clubs and elsewhere, I have been accused of being too radical. I repeat, however, that if we do not bring into effect measures which will cure unemployment, measures which will take care of those who are out of work through no fault of their own, I sincerely believe that this democratic system will not continue. In a country such as this, rich in resources, with a sparse population and a huge area, people will not continue indefinitely to put up with conditions such as those under which they live in Canada to-day, with 800,000 people on relief and practically half a million unemployed. And, personally I do not think that they should.
If the British democratic system, not only in Canada, but in the United States, in Great Britain and in France cannot solve the problems that face these countries to-day, then I do not think it is worth saving. I do not believe in the socialism suggested by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. I believe in the present capitalist system properly improved to meet the difficulties that exist under it. As I say, I do not believe in socialism. Rather, I want to see the present economic system, the present British democratic system with its parliamentary and other liberties maintained. But I do not think that this system can be maintained unless we cure the evils which exist under it. To me that is a particularly strong argument for something being done about the condition which we are now discussing.
I know that the attitude the government takes is that the trouble lies with the British North America Act; the trouble is in getting that act changed. Well, I do not think that is necessary. Action could be taken by cooperation with the provinces. Mr. Duplessis, the Premier of Quebec, is one of those who have been quoted as opposing any change in the British North America Act, as is his right, but even he, in the last paragraph of his letter dated December 30, 1937, makes a suggestion to the Prime Minister. In the earlier paragraphs of the letter he opposes any change in the act, but in the concluding paragraph he states:
In conclusion, again I state that the province of . Quebec is willing to cooperate heartily in the establishment of a sound and fair system of unemployment insurance, which could be established on a national scope, without infringing upon the rights and autonomy . of the provinces.
fMr. Manion.}
I assume the Minister of Labour will deal with that. I admit that it might not be as satisfactory as a national system which could be put into effect if a change were made in the British North America Act; but under the circumstances, with certain provinces refusing to consent to any change in the act, I see no reason why unemployment insurance could not be put into effect along the lines suggested by Mr. Duplessis.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Is the hon. gentleman aware that in August, 1934, I believe, the government of which he was a member did invite the provinces to attend a conference to consider, among other things, the transfer of jurisdiction over unemployment insurance to the dominion parliament? That conference was never held. The government of which he was a member appropriated in a sense the authority over unemployment insurance. In other words, there was an assertion on the part of the government that the power to enact an unemployment insurance scheme lay with the dominion parliament, and it was against that view that the privy council ultimately gave its decision.


Robert James Manion: I have no quarrel with that. I do not remember the incident, but the hon. gentleman is Minister of Labour and I was minister of railways at the time, so that I am not as familiar with that aspect as he might be. But I do not see that his statement changes the facts. Men like Mr. Bennett, who was a constitutional lawyer, Mr. Guthrie, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart), the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), who have all studied the problem in its constitutional aspects, apparently came to the conclusion-a conclusion to which naturally I could take no exception, not being a lawyer-that it was within our jurisdiction; and we thought it was; for we put into effect the legislation from which I have quoted. Incidentally, two judges, Chief Justice Duff and Mr. Justice Davis, both gave judgment in favour of it. They are two of the outstanding judges of the Supreme Court of Canada. Be that as it may, it was declared ultra vires by the supreme court, and that decision was upheld by the privy council. That being so, without quarrelling about the question of jurisdiction, I say, let us in fairness and honesty, instead of merely expressing so many theoretical and pious platitudes, put the legislation into effect as suggested by Mr. Duplessis. Let us put it into effect, leaving the right to the provinces to join and participate in its benefits. I venture to say that if that were done, all the provinces would in the near future join and cooperate, for the

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Rogers
reason that otherwise they would be contributing and receiving none of the benefits. That, it seems to me, is the way to cut the Gordian knot. I do not want to be critical of the government; this is a question which has been largely acceptable to the house; a great many hon. members from all parties have accepted it. Yet the rather inane-I say that not offensively-reference in the speech from the throne regarding it is not very encouraging. About unemployment insurance the speech contained one little sentence:
The government have not altered their view that a national unemployment insurance scheme is essential to a permanent policy of meeting the problem of unemployment.
But that does not help the poor fellow who does not have the insurance. That is merely a pious expression of opinion, with which I do not quarrel, but it does no good to the people who want to see unemployment insurance in force. I think the government might well put it into effect, and wait for the provinces to cooperate with them. That is the way it appeals to me. We tried it the other way and our method was ruled ultra [DOT] vires. Let us accept that decision for the time being and try the other method. That is the only suggestion I make. To bring into effect such legislation as suggested in this resolution of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, would show a real desire on the part of the government to live up to the protestations it has put forth.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour):	I should like to begin by congratulating the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) upon his unique success with this resolution. It has produced the most harmonious debate we have had thus far in the present session. So far I believe the resolution has received the support of everyone who has taken part in the discussion. I am pleased indeed to be able to give it my support in equal measure; not only that, but I share the hope expressed this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) that the reception accorded to this resolution from representatives of all groups in this house may have its due effect in those provinces which thus far have not seen fit to consent to the enactment of a national system of unemployment insurance.
The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) referred a moment ago to the events leading up to the present position with respect to unemployment insurance in this country. He alluded particularly, and quite properly from his point of view, to the Employment and Social Insurance Act of 1935. I hope he will acquit me of any desire to recriminate
71492-72$
if I refer briefly, as he has done, to the circumstances surrounding the enactment of that act. I interrupted him when I did-he kindly permitted the interruption-simply to make it clear that the administration of which he was a member did not do, when it had the power, what he himself now suggests ought to be done by this administration.


Robert James Manion: We did what we thought
we had the power to do.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It was equally open to
his government to enact unemployment insurance in a manner similar to the old age pensions legislation, and in that way avoid anjt possible question of invalidity of that legislation. It was in August, 1934, that Mr. Bennett, then Prime Minister, sent an invitation to all the provinces asking them to come to Ottawa some time later in the year in order to consider a number of specific questions, including unemployment insurance, minimum wages, hours of labour, and also the employment services to which my hon. friend has referred. The very form of that invitation, the very fact of it, made it clear beyond peradventure that it was the view of the government of that day that the jurisdiction over all these related matters belonged to the provinces. The very purpose of the conference was to induce the provinces to transfer their jurisdiction over these matters to the dominion in order that the dominion might thereafter introduce legislation which would not be declared invalid by the courts.
This matter has come before the house on other occasions. I remember putting the question directly to Mr. Bennett last year as to when and why he changed his mind as to the proper jurisdiction over these questions. Immediately after sending that letter to the provinces Mr. Bennett went to Geneva to attend the assembly of the League of Nations. While he was away, there took place in this country what has become known as the little general election. There were five by-elections, and it happened that they all went against the then government. My hon. friend's colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) was also extremely active at that time and was making a special appeal to the wage-earning population of this country. Whatever the reasons may have been, we all know, and my hon. friend will recall, that shortly after Mr. Bennett's return the country was startled by a series of radio addresses, in which there was a complete volte-face on the part of the government with respect to its previous views as to where jurisdiction over these industrial matters properly lay.
Following those radio addresses we had introduced in the session of 1935 a series of
1132	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Rogers
enactments with respect to matters which prior to that time had always been regarded as falling properly under provincial jurisdiction. I have said that I want to deal with this question without recrimination; but I think it is only fair that when we consider the present position with respect to unemployment insurance we should realize that actually in 1935 there was an unwarranted appropriation of provincial authority by this parliament, and that appropriation of authority undoubtedly set up in the provinces repercussions which even until this time have had their effect in producing what, in my opinion, is an over-emphasis upon what is generally termed provincial autonomy. The provinces had some grounds for feeling that the dominion parliament in that 1935 program of legislation had without justification appropriated authority which, by practice, precedent and judicial decision, had always been regarded as belonging to the provincial legislatures. In other words, the Employment and Social Insurance Act of 1935 fell because it was not built upon the rock of constitutional validity. It fell-and I suggest this not unkindly-because it was built upon the sands of political expediency.
When the 1935 legislation came before this house it received in principle, as far as unemployment insurance was concerned, the complete support of every group. The Liberal opposition of that day took the ground that before we entered upon unemployment insurance, and set up an elaborate organization for the administration thereof across the entire country, the validity of the legislation should be determined beyond any question. So, although the legislation, as I say, was accepted in principle, due notice was given on behalf of the Liberal opposition that if there should be a change of government, the question of the validity of the Employment and Social Insurance Act and the other statutes to which I have referred should be submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada and subsequently on appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That course was followed.
I suggest to the house that everything that happened subsequently confirmed the wisdom of that decision. I put this to hon. members, and I do so sharing fully the views which have been expressed here this afternoon in support of unemployment insurance: Would it have been wise; would it have taken us far forward if we had set up an elaborate administrative organization to deal with unemployment insurance throughout this country, requiring industry in every province to gear
{Mr. Rogers.]
itself to that new legislation, and then discover a year or two or three later that the entire structure was a house of cards?


Abraham Albert Heaps: You said that about old age pensions, at first.


Norman McLeod Rogers: So far as old age pensions
are concerned, the hon. member is aware that an entirely different principle is involved.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But the principle of the
provinces coming under the act was also declared at that time by certain lawyers to be entirely wrong and unconstitutional.


Norman McLeod Rogers: So far as unemployment
insurance was concerned, there was a direct assertion of dominion authority. The hon. member surely will not quarrel with my statement when I remind him that what had previously been assumed was later confirmed, not merely by the judicial committee of the privy council at Westminster, but also by the Supreme Court of Canada.


Robert James Manion: With two dissenting votes.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Very well; the court
divided four to two against validity of that legislation. Surely it is clear that upon the facts as we know them to-day, it would have been folly for this country to have proceeded with unemployment insurance, as suggested by the hon. member, without having the question of validity determined beyond any possibility of question or dispute.
To determine first the question of validity was the policy of this government, and I submit that policy has been fully confirmed by subsequent events. Once the supreme court had given its decision, a decision which was confirmed on appeal to the judicial committee of the privy council, we were confronted with a new situation. May I remind the house that the judicial committee of the privy council went very far in its refusal to admit federal authority over unemployment insurance. The hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) is not in his seat to-night, but hon. members will recall that from that decision he has drawn the conclusion that this parliament cannot lawfully even vote funds to the provinces for their assistance in the distribution of unemployment relief. That is simply an indication of the extent to which the judicial committee of the privy council refused to admit that the dominion parliament had legislative authority to deal with unemployment insurance and related questions.
With that decision before it, as I have said, the government might have followed one of three courses. We might have said, "The

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Rogers
highest court of appeal has declared that the jurisdiction over unemployment insurance belongs to the provinces." That being so, we might have said, "Let the provinces exercise their authority." The second course was this:	We might have encouraged the provinces to exercise their authority to deal with unemployment insurance by offering to subsidize provincial schemes of unemployment insurance. The third course was this:	Of
our own motion we could request the cooperation of the provinces in securing a constitutional amendment which would rectify the defect of the previous legislation, and give to this parliament exclusive authority to deal with unemployment insurance.
The course we followed was the last one. I have indicated, and I believe, that in adopting this policy, the policy of seeking the cooperation of the provinces to secure a constitutional amendment which would enable us to bring in a national scheme of unemployment insurance, we had not only the support of all groups in parliament but the support generally of the people of this country.
I am going to indicate first of all the nature of the invitation sent to the provinces in order to secure their cooperation. On November 5, 1937, a letter was sent by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), which at this time I should like to place on record. I do so because I may have occasion to refer to it later. A letter in identical terms was sent to all the provinces at the same time:
Ottawa, November 5, 1937.
My dear Premier:
My colleagues and I are convinced that a national system of unemployment insurance would contribute materially to individual security and industrial stability throughout Canada, and would assist in mitigating the distress incident to any recurrence of widespread unemployment. A strong recommendation with respect to national control of employment offices, based upon a full investigation of the unemployment situation thorughout the dominion, has been submitted to the government by the national employment commission. We share the opinion that a national employment service within federal jurisdiction is a necessary complement of any plan of national unemployment insurance.
We believe it is most desirable that legislation establishing a national system of unemployment insurance and of public employment offices should be enacted. _ Should it be possible to obtain the cooperation of the governments of the several provinces toward this end we are prepared, at the next session of parliament-
That was the last session.
-to introduce the necessary measures.
You will recall that on January 28, of this year, the judicial committee of the privy council gave a negative opinion upon a reference as
to whether the parliament of Canada had jurisdiction to enact the Employment and Social Insurance Act, 1935. Close attention has since been given, by officials of the dominion government, to the resulting situation. We have also had the benefit of the counsel and advice of a member of the staff of the international labour office, who is familiar with existing systems of unemployment insurance, and who has been placed at the disposal of the government for purposes of consultation by the international labour office.
It appears to be the general concensus of view that unemployment insurance, if it is to be effectively carried out, should be national, in scope. In view, however, of the limited jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, an amendment to the constitution would seem to. be a necessary preliminary to the establishment of a national system.
In these circumstances I am writing to the premiers of the several provinces to inquire whether their governments would be agreeable to an amendment being made to the British North America Act empowering the federal parliament to enact unemployment insurance legislation. I shall be obliged if, at your early convenience, you would kindly advise me of the views of the government of-
And so on.
That letter went out in the late autumn of 1937 in order that with the cooperation of the governments of the provinces the necessary legislation might be introduced at the forthcoming session. I shall not quote in detail the replies received from the several provinces to that request for cooperation, but I believe I might summarize the situation briefly.
Six provinces, namely, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, gave their full consent to a constitutional amendment in the terms indicated in the letter I have just read.
Three provinces, namely, Alberta, New Brunswick and Quebec, declined for various reasons to give that consent. Again, without quoting from the letters received from the provinces, I think I shall not be misinterpreting their position if I say that Alberta took the view that no constitutional amendment was necessary to authorize the dominion parliament to introduce a national scheme of unemployment insurance. Certain extraneous questions were also introduced in the letter from Mr. Aberhart in connection with the financing of the scheme, but I shall not enter upon that subject to-night.
New Brunswick took the view then and later that the transfer of jurisdiction over unemployment insurance from the provinces to the dominion parliament might take place more appropriately in connection with such general readjustments of constitutional relations as might follow the report of the royal commission on dominion provincial relations.
1134	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Rogers
I come now to Quebec. The leader of the opposition has quoted from the letter received from Premier Dulplessis. He is quite right in saying that in his letter of December 30, 1937, Mr. Duplessis expressed in very general terms his willingness to cooperate in what he described as a sound and fair system of unemployment insurance, which could be established on a national scope, without infringing upon the rights and autonomy of the provinces. But that was not the only reference made by Premier Duplessis to the request made by the dominion government for the cooperation of the provinces in this matter. Broadly speaking, Mr. Duplessis took the ground, very soon after that letter was sent, that the request made by the dominion government was an encroachment upon provincial autonomy.
This whole question has been discussed today in a spirit of moderation, and I do not propose to depart from that in what I am now going to say. At the same time, surely it is preposterous to suggest that a courteous request for cooperation for the national good is an encroachment upon provincial autonomy.


Robert James Manion: Would the minister mind telling us where Mr. Duplessis took that attitude?


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my hon. friend will permit me I shall do so. I have a number of clippings before me, but I shall select only two. I shall quote from a report of a delegation representing large bodies of workers in the province of Quebec which met Premier Duplessis. This was a delegation from the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, and the report reads:
Premier Duplessis reiterated his stand against any constitutional amendment to set up the insurance plan.
He declared the Quebec government was "ready to cooperate with Ottawa" to establish insurance but would forsake "none of its rights to do so."
"We are not going to be assimilated by the federal government, and while I am premier that will not be done through any sacrifice of provincial rights," the premier asserted.


Robert James Manion: That is not any contradiction of his letter. I think in justice to Mr. Duplessis, his whole letter should be placed on Hansard. After all, it is the official correspondence.


Norman McLeod Rogers: With the consent of the house, I am quite ready to have the letter from Mr. Duplessis placed on Hansard. The letter reads:

Quebec, December 30, 1937. Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,



P.C., LL.D., K.C.,

[Stage Direction]
Prime Minister of Canada,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
My dear Premier:
Your answer to my letter dated November 22nd was handed to me on the day of your departure for your recent holidays and I preferred to await your return before replying.
In your second letter, you repeat the views you expressed in your first one, adding that you are convinced that enabling or concurring legislation would be uncertain and unstable.
Old age pensions-one of the many similar instances-which you enacted and enforced and which was approved and amended by your successors in office, a few years later, is based on enabling legislation.
Moreover, as stated previously, there are also other ways of realizing unemployment insurance which would safeguard provincial autonomy. If enabling legislation, as you declare, is uncertain and unstable, what do you think of the stability and certainty of a federal legislation on unemployment insurance which could essentially be changed or modified, every year, by the federal parliament?
The government of the province of Quebec considers that the best elements of stability and certainty are within the British North America Act and that it is much safer to preserve the stability of the constitution.
In conclusion, again I state that the province of Quebec is willing to cooperate heartily in the establishment of a sound and fair system of unemployment insurance, which could be established ou a national scope, without infringing upon the rights and autonomy of the provinces.
Yours very truly,
M. L. Duplessis.
My point is that this matter was subsequently brought before Mr. Duplessis by a delegation of workers in the province of Quebec. Mr. Duplessis and others have referred to it in the course of political addresses, and I do not think I am misinterpreting the situation when I say that there has been a definite attempt to interpret this request on the part of the' dominion government as an encroachment upon provincial autonomy. It has been my point, and I press it again, that there has been no coercion. There has been merely a courteous request which was addressed in identical terms to all the provinces to bring about legislation which we believe would be for the general good and which, after all, was designed not to impose a further burden upon the provinces, but rather to relieve the provinces of burdens which they now have to bear. That was the actual situation.
It is true that Premier Duplessis has taken the ground that the province of Quebec would be willing to cooperate in some scheme in which provincial administration would be retained intact, but there has been no development of that idea to the extent which would

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Rogers
permit the dominion government to assume that a nation-wide system of unemployment insurance could be established on the basis proposed by Mr. Duplessis.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the minister assume that the dominion government must be blocked indefinitely because of the attitude of one group in one province?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am not sure how my time is passing, but I think I shall have an opportunity to answer that before I have finished. I mention Quebec at this point because it is one of the great industrial provinces of the dominion, and naturally its views are of particular importance at this time. I find it difficult to understand why Premier Duplessis, speaking for his government of course, should take a position of opposition to a national scheme of unemployment insurance. He is not speaking for the workers of the province of Quebec when he takes that position. For three years in succession the confederation of Catholic workers have urged the Quebec government to give their consent to a constitutional amendment which would permit the enactment of a national scheme of unemployment insurance. The Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, through its affiliated organizations in the province of Quebec, have made representations along precisely the same lines. Nor has Mr. Duplessis in opposing a national scheme of unemployment insurance been expressing the views of any royal commission set up in his province to consider the interests of the people of Quebec in relation to unemployment insurance. To my knowledge the only commission set up in the province of Quebec to deal with this question was one established in 1933 under the chairmanship of Professor Edouard Montpetit. In addition to this distinguished chairman, there were as members of that commission a number of men outstanding in the industrial and cultural life of the province. I am going to put a list of them on Hansard because I believe the views they expressed are those which lie in the hearts of the majority of the people of the province of Quebec in connection with this question. The members of the commission were:
The Right Reverend Georges Courchesne, D.D. (Rome) -
Bishop of Saint-Germain-de-Rimouski; emeritus professor in the faculty of arts of Laval university.
The Venerable Frederick George Scott, C.M.G., D.S.O., M.A. D.C.L. (Bishop's), D.D., LL.D., F.R.S.6.-
Archdeacon of Quebec; rector of St. Matthew's church, Quebec.
John T. Foster-
President of the trades and labour council of Montreal; member of the trades and labour congress of Canada; managing editor of the Canadian Congress Journal.
Gerard Tremblay-
Deputy Minister of Labour, province of Quebec; late secretary general of the national Catholic labour unions.
Alphonse Lessard, M.D., officier de l'instruction publique-
Provincial director of charities and director of the provincial bureau of health; professor of sanitary legislation in the faculty of medicine of Laval university. Georges-Arthur Savoy-
President of the Dominion Blank Book Company, Limited, St. Johns, Quebec; president of the Quebec division, Canadian Manufacturers' Association.
That was the commission on social insurance which made its report in 1933. The conclusions of the commission are very brief, and I shall place them on Hansard. They were.
1.	The social insurance commission believes that unemployment is a problem above all national and international in character, with respect both to its causes and the remedies which it demands.
2.	Unemployment insurance, although, according to the law, it falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces, and although in theory it is applicable within the provincial administration, cannot, for the reasons offered in this report, be efficiently organized except in a nation-wide manner.
That represents the considered views of a royal commission set up in the province of Quebec to consider this question. May I remind the house that so far as I am aware the chairman of that commission which gave that opinion has not in any way given any public expression of alteration of that opinion. Quite recently he was chosen, by Premier Duplessis as the chairman of a taxation commission within that province. It is quite evident that that previous commission was not and could not be regarded as being in the nature of a partisan commission.


Mr. WERMENLINGER:: What was his name?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Professor Edouard Montpetit of the university of Montreal.
May I say this further, again because I find it difficult to understand the basic reasons for this alleged opposition of the province of Quebec to a nation-wide scheme of unemployment insurance: There are those who in one breath say, and are saying, that unemployment is a national problem, and who in the next breath are ready to refuse to give the dominion power to deal with unemployment by the method of insurance. It is extremely difficult to understand the consistency of those two points of view expressed, as I have said, in the province of Quebec.
1136	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Rogers
Before I pass on may I make this clear. I have suggested that in this matter surely no real question of provincial autonomy is at stake in Quebec more than in any other-province of Canada. I have the greatest respect for the rights which attach to minorities in this country. Those rights had their ancient origin in the capitulations of the treaty of Paris, in the proclamation of 1763 and later in the Quebec Act of 1774. They have been confirmed time and again in this country, and I feel that there has never been any real question as to their being regarded as fundamental guarantees. But this question of the transfer of jurisdiction over unemployment insurance from the province to the dominion surely does not touch even remotely the question of the rights of minorities in the province of Quebec.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The rights of majorities.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Time alone will tell as to that point. For these reasons I am not persuaded that, in those provinces which thus far have not consented to give their approval to a national scheme of unemployment insurance, that view will continue to prevail. I believe the views expressed from all sides of this house to-day and possibly the unanimous acceptance of this resolution will have their effect in the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick and Alberta.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the minister answer the question as to what the government proposes to do under the circumstances?


Ernest Lapointe: Let him tell it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am coming to that. In
the course of this debate, Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that in the present circumstances it would be sound policy to depart from the position which we believe was soundly taken a year ago and retreat to a position which even my hon. friend would agree is not as good for the defence of the working classes of Canada. I will develop that in a moment. It is suggested that we should give up all efforts to enact a national scheme of unemployment insurance, accept the proposals of the three provinces which thus far have declined to give us their cooperation, and subsidize by federal grants-in-aid separate provincial schemes of unemployment insurance, which every expert to my knowledge who has studied this question has condemned as being so much worse than the other system as to justify us in waiting if necessary, even though we are impatient-and who could be more impatient than a minister of labour in

the face of the present situation-in order that public opinion in this country may have its ultimate effect in bringing about that degree of understanding of the real purpose and value of unemployment insurance which will enable us to proceed with a national scheme.
I have not time, I am sorry to say, to indicate all the disadvantages of the separate provincial systems, but I am going to indicate a few, and some were given by the provinces themselves. In the factum of the province of Ontario before the Supreme Court of Canada, for example, a number of cogent reasons were given against the adoption of provincial schemes of unemployment insurance. I am going to take them from the factum of the attorney-general of Ontario in the hearing before the Supreme Court of Canada, at page 5. This is from a provincial standpoint too:
1.	The whole scheme of unemployment insurance has a pronounced national aspect.
2.	Legislation of this character affects international and interprovincial trade and the maintenance of equitable relations between provinces.
3.	If various provincial schemes are adopted instead of a national scheme, it would disturb the equilibrium of industrial relations in the various provinces; labour would naturally be inclined to go to the province where such legislation was on the statute books, and on the other hand, it is possible that employers would prefer provinces where they would not be forced to contribute to such a scheme.
4.	It is undesirable that there should be attempts to attract capital to one province rather than another by saying there is unemployment insurance in this province, but in that province there is not.
The scheme is to have one measure in the national interest so that there may be freedom of trade, uncontrolled as far as legislation is concerned. The purpose of the legislation is the necessity of having it extend to every part of the dominion; the necessity of having uniform legislation so that benefits of the same character may be conferred alike upon all the people of the dominion in all the provinces, making for uniformity of law for the common good. The living and working conditions of the people of Canada are of national concern. Those, I submit, are cogent reasons against a retreat to provincial schemes of unemployment insurance while there is yet ground for hope that we may be able to achieve a national scheme; and I have that hope.
I should now like to deal with the United States. Some members of this house will be familiar with the name of Doctor Bryce Stewart, who was at one time a member of the Canadian civil service attached to the Department of Labour. In recent years he

* Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Rogers
has been director of research for the industrial relations counsellors of New York, and has taken an active part in building up the New York administration under the Social Security Act of the United States. In a book published by him a very few weeks ago there is an excellent summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the United States scheme of federal subsidies to state systems of unemployment insurance. I have simply taken from that summary a number of his objections to the United States system, which I believed had special application to our situation in Canada. Those objections are:
The federal-state system-
Mind you, that is what has been impressed upon us as a government to-night by some speakers as an alternative to the method we are seeking to follow:
-offers no solution for the difficult problem of the proper compensation of employees who move from state to state.
The federal-state system will probably preclude the establishment of a satisfactory central system of records; it will not yield uniform national statistics of the insured unemployed and will tend to retard labour mobility between the states.
The Social Security Act does not take into sufficient account the calibre of the personnel in states without civil service. The federal policy no matter how well planned will be difficult of application through the state agencies, since they are only indirectly responsible to federal authority. Many of them operate under the patronage system and pay salaries inadequate to attract and retain a sufficient number of executives and technical assistants of the quality required.
An elaborate, inflexible and costly unemployment compensation organization has been established, consisting of fifty-one separate administrations and overheads in the different states, territories, and the District of Columbia, and superimposed on these systems, a federal organization at Washington and twelve regional offices.
That, I submit, is a most formidable indictment of the present set-up of unemployment insurance in the United States.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Was it not a case of accepting it in this form or nothing at all?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am not so sure as to that. My hon. friend may have greater gifts of clairvoyance than I have.
I should like to come to the final objection written by Doctor Stewart:
The most serious defects of the American plan of unemployment compensation are inherent in the federal-state system and in the tax-offset method, and-
I point this out to my hon. friend.
-until these give way to a national system supported by federal taxes, as they inevitably must, injustices, irregularities and confusion will persist.
I should like to carry the argument a point further. It seems to be assumed that the
other provinces of Canada which have consented to the dominion assuming jurisdiction over unemployment insurance would themselves be ready with federal assistance to set up separate provincial schemes of unemployment insurance. There is no warrant whatever for that assumption. The six provinces that gave consent to a national scheme of unemployment insurance did so with the understanding that thereby the dominion was taking over from them a considerable portion of the unemployment burden. But under any scheme of federal subsidies to provincial systems of unemployment insurance I suggest that, at the very least, the costs of administration and of state contribution would have to be divided. Those provinces could not reasonably expect that this dominion would finance entirely the provincial schemes of unemployment insurance. Therefore I think we are justified in saying that there is no warrant whatever for the belief that if we were not able to proceed at this time with a national scheme of unemployment insurance, the alternative suggested by other hon. members, in imitation of the United States Social Security Act, would actually be feasible in this country.
So far as the future is concerned-and I speak now of the immediate future-I have already expressed my hope that a greater understanding of the necessity of unemployment insurance as a part of our equipment to deal with economic insecurity will lead those provinces that until now have declined to give us their cooperation, to alter their view and give us that cooperation which will permit us to go forward as we have been ready to do since more than a year ago.
Premier Duplessis-I regret to say-suggested to a labour delegation a few days ago that the federal government was not sincere in this matter. I should like to say from my place in this house that we have been sincere; that from the moment the decision was taken to seek the cooperation of the provinces the whole record proves our sincerity. We brought from Geneva an expert on unemployment insurance to assist us in drafting a bill, and the bill has now been drafted-


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Norman McLeod Rogers: -and can be introduced into this house as soon as we have received from Westminster the power to introduce that legislation and have it declared valid in the courts.


Alan Webster Neill: Might I ask the nature of that bill? Is it a bill to present to the British parliament, or is it a bill directly-?
1138	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Rogers


Norman McLeod Rogers: No, it is really a bill providing for a national scheme of unemployment insurance. It was drafted, more than a year ago. I should like to say in all kindness, if I may, from this place to the premier of Quebec that if at any time he has doubted our sincerity it has been within his power to test it.	.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Edgard Jules Wermenlinger: Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Certainly.


Edgard Jules Wermenlinger: From the documents, the correspondence which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) may have in his possession, could he tell this house on what grounds the premier of Quebec is objecting to the passing of a law whereby there would be unemployment insurance in Canada?


Mr. MICHAUD:: He has already taken thirty minutes to answer that.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I may have failed partly in what I have tried to do, if my hon. friend is not aware of the reasons given, but I have placed on Hansard the letter sent by Premier Duplessis to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in response to the original invitation.


Edgard Jules Wermenlinger: The labour
union?


Norman McLeod Rogers: No, the letter sent by Premier Duplessis to the Prime Minister of the dominion government following the original invitation. As for other statements made by Premier Duplessis, my hon. friend will, I am sure, find numerous intimations if he will read carefully the press of his own province during recent months.


Edgard Jules Wermenlinger: No, but I was referring to the last words of the Minister of Labour, that the objection came mainly from the province of Quebec.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes. Well, I have tried to make it clear to the house. I spoke particularly of the objections which have come from the province of Quebec, because unemployment insurance deals with industry, and Quebec and Ontario between them represent roughly about eighty per cent of industrial employment in this country. That is why I have thought it wise to deal particularly with the reasons which it seemed to me supported the view that Quebec should in these critical times march with other provinces in this cooperative method to bring about a national scheme of unemployment insurance.


Edgard Jules Wermenlinger: I admit that. But if the minister would allow me-


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


Edgard Jules Wermenlinger: If he does not allow me I will sit down.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Certainly I will permit a question.


Edgard Jules Wermenlinger: I have been interested in the last few minutes of the minister's speech to learn that it was mainly from the province of Quebec that the objections came to amending the constitution.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Correct. That is so.


Edgard Jules Wermenlinger: Then there must be in possession of the Minister of Labour some documents, some writings, some correspondence, to the effect that Quebec as a whole is objecting to unemployment insurance. I ask for the details.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am not sure when my hon. friend took his seat this evening. He may not have been here during the earlier part of my speech to-night; but I am placing on Hansard a letter sent from Premier Duplessis to the Prime Minister of Canada in response to the original invitation, and my hon. friend will have an opportunity to read that to-morrow. So far as other statements made by the premier of Quebec are concerned, they have been widely circulated in the public press. I should like to make this point quite clear to the mind of my hon. friend. Three provinces have thus far declined to give their support: Alberta, New Brunswick and Quebec. I spoke particularly of Quebec for the one reason I have indicated, namely that it is one of the great industrial provinces of our country, and also it is the one province which has raised specifically this question of provincial autonomy; and I have found it difficult to understand why, if provincial autonomy were involved, the same objection could not be raised in every province.


Charles Grant MacNeil: May I ask if the government has pursued further negotiations with the province of Quebec in order to clarify the situation and remove their objection?


Norman McLeod Rogers: The situation, I think, has been clarified from time to time since the original letter was sent. As a matter of fact, the whole correspondence has been laid on the table of the house, and I have had myself certain conversations with representatives of some of the provinces with a view to removing any objections which were put forward by them in their original correspondence. But it did seem to me that, after all, this is the proper place in which we might discuss the questions at issue with regard to this great matter of unemployment insurance; and I would thank the hon. member for Comox-

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Kennedy
Alberni (Mr. Neill), for the form of his resolution, for the admirable manner in which he has presented it, and for the interesting and profitable debate which has ensued from it.


Mr. GREEN:: May I ask the minister a question? Would he explain what differences he considers there are between the difficulties that have been overcome in setting up the present dominion-provincial old age pensions scheme and the difficulties there would be in setting up a model unemployment insurance act under which the dominion would pay those provinces which passed similar acts the whole or, at any rate, a substantial part of the cost? What would be the difference in the difficulties?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am not sure whether my hon. friend or the house would desire me to make another speech on the question. Just now there is pressure on all sides for reduction of governmental expense and there are protests against duplication of services. With unemployment insurance on a provincial basis you would have to set up, assuming that all the provinces came in, which is not a necessary conclusion, nine separate commissions dealing with unemployment insurance, nine sets of actuaries, nine complete organizations of inspectors. I suggest that on the question of economy alone, apart from efficiency, the arguments on the side of the national scheme are overwhelming.


Mr. WALSH:: May I ask a question?


Walter Edward Foster: The house is not in committee.


William Allen Walsh: Has the minister thoroughly explored the possibility-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Allen Walsh: -of enabling legislation from the provinces?


Ernest Lapointe: I suggest that we ought to proceed with the debate.


Mr. O. A. KENNEDY (Edmonton East):: It is interesting to note that the minister has been congratulating hon. members on the harmony of the debate, but not one representing the three provinces opposed to unemployment insurance has so far been able to speak. It is now 9.45 p.m., and several members of the Social Credit party who are interested in the debate will find it impossible to speak before the house adjourns.
May I congratulate the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) upon the brevity of his address. I cannot agree, however, with the majority of other speakers in what has been said in regard to the wording of the resolution. There seems to be a difference of opinion with reference to the words "contributory insurance." There is a little inconsistency in the phrase, because I would interpret "contributory insurance" to mean a direct contribution from the insured; and yet every hon. member who has spoken today has touched on all other phases of the subject but not on the question of the direct contribution from the insured. Hon. members have mentioned several other schemes in which contributions are to be raised in other ways. If the words "contributory insurance" are to be used, those who have spoken should have touched upon them and expressed their opinion whether they are in favour of a contributory insurance scheme.
I agree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that the government should not wait but should undertake as quickly as possible the introduction of some scheme in an effort to help the unemployed in various parts of Canada.
It is with some hesitancy that we speak on unemployment insurance at this time, because to my knowledge the government has not notified the provinces of its plans. We have heard from the minister to-night that a plan has been drafted, but it has not yet been presented either to the house or to the provinces. I suggest to the minister that he send a copy of the bill to the provinces that are not agreeable to the introduction of unemployment insurance at this time, so that they may see exactly what it provides. The government are asking the provinces for permission to amend the British North America Act, and yet they are not telling the provinces for what reasons that act will be amended or what are the details of the unemployment insurance scheme which they wish to introduce.
I suggest that the problem of unemployment is certainly a responsibility of the federal government, but under this resolution as worded it is being taken off the shoulders of the government and put upon the consumers, the vast majority of whom are men and women of the working class. There is no doubt about it that unemployment results from conditions that are beyond the control of any province or municipality, and until the present economic system i& reformed the only solution is for the dominion to assume full responsibility for unemployment relief, making such arrangements with the provinces as may be necessary for the proper carrying out of such a plan. Under a contributory plan this would not be the case. The main burden would rest on the working people.
Let me illustrate-and this is a supposition, because we have no information as to any details of the plan. Usually an unemployment insurance plan falls along this line:
1140	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Kennedy
The employee pays one-third; the employer, one-third; and the government, one-third. Let us see what would happen under such a plan. The employee's contribution comes directly out of his wages, thereby reducing his purchasing power and at the same time reducing his standard of living. The employer's contribution must be raised out of his business, and he must add it to the cost of his goods or include it in overhead charges. In other words, he is faced with two alternatives. He must make a profit if he is to remain in business. He must therefore either raise prices, thus reducing the standard of living of the consumers, or reduce his overhead charges, which means a further reduction in the salaries of his employees. The contribution by the government, especially the present one, would in all probability take the form of increased taxation, and this would result in lowering the standard of living generally.
These are some of the results of a contributory insurance scheme which are opposed to the aims and objects of good government. It should be the object of good government to seek to improve conditions in the country. Surely it is evident to all that the average wage-earner cannot stand any further reduction in wages. It has already been pointed out that 98 per cent of the wage-earners receive less than $664 per annum. They cannot afford to have these wages further reduced. They are not receiving enough to-day to enable them to enjoy more than a bare existence.
Let me make myself clear. Neither am I nor are the members of my party opposed to any scheme that will improve conditions for the working people of Canada. We are, however, convinced that a system of contributory unemployment insurance cannot help the working man. Unemployment insurance, introduced by governments who have claimed a cure for unemployment, is merely an admission of defeat. It is merely a shifting of the burden over on to the people and the drawing of a red herring across the trail to divert their attention from the real issue. The people of Canada desire security and freedom; yet under unemployment insurance we are asked to render everyone less secure. Taxpayers and workers are to have their security reduced by a reduction in their income to meet the costs of the insurance. The unemployed are to be regimented, controlled and as a body kept in a condition of permanent indigence, presumably in return for the privilege of being permitted to live in this condition in a country capable of supplying them with all their wants. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the idea is monstrous and is a

violation of the democratic right of every citizen of our land to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in this economic environment of plenty. It is not unemployment insurance that the people of Canada want; it is employment assurance.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), in discussing unemployment, suggests that we should encourage industry to take up the lag as far as possible. Others follow the argument that was used by the London Times on October 27, 1936, which said, "He is a public benefactor who can provide employment for two men where only one was employed before." Once again let me point out that the cost of industry goes into the price of the product of industry; therefore, if the cost of industry is to be increased by more salaries having to be paid, then the price of the product of industry must be raised. The result is another increase in the cost of living, which means reduction of purchasing power, which means less goods sold, the stagnation of industry and more unemployment, and again we have completed the vicious circle and are back where we started but in a worse economic condition than when we started. The sole justification of any industrial system can only be personal consumption. The true function of factories or industry is to produce goods, not make work. If it is the policy of the Minister of Labour to encourage private industry, as far as possible to take up the lag in employment, that is not consistent with the introduction of contributory unemployment insurance. I contend that the introduction of contributory unemployment insurance would defeat that aim. Employers who will be forced to pay part, of the insurance premium for each and every one of their employees *will endeavour to work with as few employees as possible; thus the introduction of contributory unemployment insurance will tend to greater unemployment.
Another point is that the introduction of a contributory system of unemployment insurance will also have the effect to some extent of taking away from workers their privilege of association to safeguard their own rights. For example, let us suppose that a railway company, a factory or some other industry lowers wages or lengthens working hours. The employees, feeling the treatment to be unfair or unjust, protest to the employer. Nothing is done. The men in an effort to obtain better conditions, threaten to strike. Is it not possible for them to be intimidated into accepting these unfair conditions by the threat of losing their contributions to unemployment insurance? Governments have never moved to better the conditions of the people until the people themselves have turned pressure upon them by effective demand.

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Kennedy
Let us for a moment examine the effects of unemployment insurance, or the findings of committees on unemployment insurance in other countries. Several speakers to-day have mentioned the plan in Great Britain. Let us look at the other side for a moment. The theory of the British plan is probably familiar to most Canadians, but here are a few figures which prove that it has not worked out just as was planned. It was launched on something less than its present scale in 1911, on the basis of equal contributions by workers, employers and the state. By the end of March of the fiscal year 1931 it was found that of a total of 8493,000,000, employers had paid 15-6 per cent, workers 13-6 per cent and the state 70-8 per cent. That is getting down to being almost non-contributory. It is evident to all that conditions in England, because of dense population, would make the administration easier than would be possible in Canada. Yet we find that in England the cost of administration was from 11 per cent to 13 per cent of the net income of the fund. That means that about SI 3 out of every 8100 paid in went in administration cost rather than to the assured. It is estimated that it takes one official administering the scheme to every 100 unemployed who enjoy its advantages. It is safe to predict that in Canada the cost would be much greater.
In the United States, before the Social Security Act was passed in 1936, they had an investigation inaugurated under ex-President Hoover into unemployment and unemployment insurance. I should like to read two or three paragraphs from the report as presented in 1933:
. . . Whatever its merits for titling wage earners over slack seasons and moderate cyclical depressions, it cannot provide for those who are out of work for long periods. An extension of old age pensions to care for such victims of progress may bulk large in future discussions.
The committee is aware of the numerous objections urged against these schemes of social insurance and of the heavy costs which they impose upon society; but it also is impressed with the inarticulate misery of hundreds of thousands or millions of bread-winners who are deprived of their livelihood through no fault of their own.
To put the cost of unemployment squarely upon those who remain at work, upon employers, and upon the public purse, makes everyone conscious of the difficulty, and focuses attention upon the need of devising more constructive methods of dealing with it.
Time does not permit me to go any further into that.
Let us now turn to the commonwealth which is the nearest to the Dominion of Canada, namely Australia. We find there that in December last the introduction of national insurance precipitated a national crisis in the government. The government was deluged
with letters from all parts of the commonwealth asking that the imposition of national insurance be postponed at least until the electors were first consulted. I have here a sample of the letters which the people sent to their representatives. Apparently the government of that commonwealth were doing exactly what the government of Canada are doing to-day, that is withholding the details of the plan until they are ready to spring it on the people. The first line in the letter following suggests that:
Dear Sir:
Having at long last learned the details of the National Health and Pension Insurance Act, I have arrived at the definite conclusion that this act will mean a drastic lowering of the already low standard'of living of the majority of the people of Australia by the very fact of reducing their weekly income.
I am therefore taking this opportunity of telling you, as my representative in parliament, that I resent having this imposed upon me without the electors first being consulted by referendum; and I am determined that if you, as my representative, fail to do your utmost to have this undemocratic measure repealed, I will do all in my power to cause you to be replaced at the next election by a representative who will truly represent the wishes of his electors.
Over 300,000 of those letters were sent to the representatives of the people of the Commonwealth of Australia, and as I said it precipitated a national crisis in December which almost overthrew the government.
Unemployment is the greatest problem facing us in Canada to-day. All speakers this session have emphasized this fact; yet we find that the government apparently refuse to go to the root cause of this problem, but content themselves with attempting to bring in palliatives or temporary relief measures. Surely it is evident to all that contributory unemployment insurance is not a cure, but simply a shifting of a responsibility of the government over to the working people. Housing schemes on borrowed money are, in relation to unemployment, not a cure, but just a temporary relief. Work and wages programs on borrowed money are not a cure, but temporary relief, which only aggravates the situation and makes for more serious conditions later on. There are only two reasons for unemployment:	First, when we have
reached the peak of our production, that is when there is no room for further development, and our source of supply is entirely exhausted; and, second, when all the needs of all our people are supplied.
Unemployment insurance will not assist tci correct unemployment in Canada. Surely all hon. members will agree that there is much room for great development in this dominion. There are roads to be built, wealthy areas
1142	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Kennedy
to be developed; housing schemes; rehabilitation ; rivers to be dredged; parks to be developed; mining areas to be opened up; reforestation; scientific research; and a thousand and one much needed developments; yet we have unemployment. Have we no materials to do this work? Canada is one of the richest countries in the world. Unemployment insurance, by imposing more taxes, cannot help this. We have not begun to scratch the surface of our wealth.
Again, hon. members will surely agree with me that the Canadian people have not all they need to make them a happy and contented nation. Not one hon. member can say that every one of his constituents has everything need'ed to make him even comfortable. What is the matter? Are there not enough goods to go around? Surely there are. Then why not distribute them? How can the government correlate the fact that our clothing factories are not producing to full capacity, are not employing all that they could, and that we have all kinds of clothing available, yet the vast majority of people in Canada need clothes? How can the government correlate the fact that Canadians need houses? Many people in Canada live in shacks, yet they live literally in the midst of great forests. How can the government correlate the fact that we are curtailing production of foodstuffs and destroying vast quantities of them in Canada to-day, while thousands of people have insufficient food? I repeat, it is not sufficient to bring in temporary measures of relief, palliatives, unemployment insurance, or any other schemes to relieve the situation for a short time. We must drive right into the root or cause and apply the remedy there. It is indisputable that the reason why so many people are unemployed and poverty stricken to-day is simply that our present inadequate financial system has failed to keep up with the progress of the last two generations. Science has progressed in recent years, and so developed the productive system or machine that it is possible to produce with ease all that is needed to supply the wants of the people of Canada. The system of finance or money, upon which the responsibility of distribution falls, has proven itself old-fashioned, a system adapted to the age of scarcity, utterly incapable of the task, and has miserably failed. It needs modernizing, overhauling and rejuvenating. This is definitely the responsibility of the federal government.
A few days ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) suggested that unemployment was not alone the responsibility of the federal government. I am surprised that he should take this attitude. It is the duty of

this government either to remodel the money system so that it will distribute the goods that the people of Canada need, or to take care of the people of this country without imposing any greater penalty by way of more taxes.
I am rather frightened by the implications in the speeches in reply to the speech from the throne, which would indicate that the government is going to force its way through with unemployment insurance. I was worried when the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), when speaking on unemployment insurance, intimated that the government must go ahead or blast its way through. What do these statements mean? Do they mean forcing upon the provinces something they do not want, or do they suggest blasting their way through to the pockets of the working people? I submit that is just what contributory unemployment insurance will do.
Again, I am rather surprised at the argument used by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr Gardiner) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) when they say that we must secure foreign markets in order to cure unemployment in Canada. I wonder just what attitude other countries will take to this. If it is necessary for Canada to export goods in order to cure her unemployment problem, is this not just as necessary for other countries to cure their unemployment problem?
Australia, for instance, has an unemployment problem somewhat similar to that of Canada. Ten per cent of her population are unemployed or on relief. Yet Canada has a favourable balance of trade of almost $24,000,000 with Australia. How can Australia cure her unemployment, if that is the argument? Will she not have to find foreign markets for her goods? What will happen when the saturation point of all countries has been reached? Do our ministers suggest that when that time comes we shall need a war or some other disastrous method of creating markets, or do they think they can discover some new country or civilization to which they can export, so as to cure our unemployment problem?
Another question in the minds of many people when unemployment insurance is being discussed is this: How are the hundreds and thousands of those Canadian people already unemployed to be provided for? Unemployment insurance, and especially contributory unemployment insurance, is for those who are now employed. I might add that it will benefit only those who are permanently employed. It would bring only temporary assistance to those of our people who are only temporarily employed. Approximately ten per cent of our Canadian people are on relief.

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Leduc
and many thousands more are on the border line, receiving only temporary or seasonal employment. What steps is the government going to take to guarantee economic security for those people?
We come now to another point. Many classes of our workers are not usually included in unemployment insurance schemes. Agriculturists, fishermen, lumbermen, those employed in domestic service, nurses, teachers and many others are usually excluded from the benefits of unemployment insurance. Those people, because of increased prices, increased taxes and the higher cost of living, will be obliged to pay their share of a contributory unemployment insurance scheme, just the same as the rest.
Agriculturists constitute one glaring example. About fifty per cent of our people are on farms. Those citizens, if they are excluded, will have to pay their share of the cost; yet they will not be able to participate in the benefits.
In conclusion, if a plan is to be introduced which will really assist our Canadian people, it must be one which will assist all classes. It must be a plan which will better the living conditions of the people of Canada, rather than make them poorer. Because the wording of the resolution does not make it quite plain that such a scheme should be available to all classes, and because the word "contributory" will make it ultra vires of the constitution and will give the government an excuse for not going ahead with any scheme. I propose the following amendment to the resolution, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Elliott):
That the resolution be amended as follows: That the words "contributory unemployment insurance for" be struck out and the following be substituted "non-contributory unemployment insurance available to all classes in."


Mr. RODOLPHE LEDUC (Wright) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) on having placed on the order paper the following resolution:
That in the opinion of this house, a national system of contributory unemployment insurance for Canada is a pressing need at the present time and should reeeive immediate attention.
He has thus provided many hon. members with an opportunity to express their views on a question of such great present-day interest as unemployment insurance.
It is impossible to discuss this question without at the same time discussing the question of amending the British North America Act, for the dominion government cannot establish compulsory unemployment insurance on a national basis in this country without amending the Canadian constitution.
I shall deal first with unemployment insurance itself and then with the necessity of amending the Canadian constitution in order to permit the establishment of unemployment insurance on a national basis.
Unemployment insurance is a form of protection given to the worker who has been employed during a certain number of months of the year and who has contributed to the unemployment insurance fund. It allows him when unemployed to draw benefits from the common fund to which he has contributed.
In other words, unemployment insurance means compulsory saving. It is well known that a large proportion of workers spend their wages from day to day, making no provision for periods of sickness or unemployment.
The proposed system of compulsory and contributory unemployment insurance involves a common fund made up of contributions by the wage-earner, the employer and, in many instances, the State, out of which fund the former draws benefits during periods of forced idleness.
It is recognized by our sociologists and economists that not only is legislation of that kind praiseworthy, but that it is important to put it into force as soon as possible in order partially to solve the problem of unemployment and particularly of direct relief.
Time does not permit me to describe the operation of the various systems of unemployment insurance applied in different countries. I shall simply say that I am convinced of the necessity and urgency of establishing a system of unemployment insurance in Canada, and that I deem it the government's duty to take all means necessary to obtain the consent of the provinces to a constitutional amendment on that point. Indeed, such an amendment is essential if the dominion government is to establish in Canada a nation-wide system of contributory unemployment insurance.
The British North America Act is not a contract, but an Imperial act which can be amended only by the Imperial Parliament.
Our federal system differs from the American one in that the Fathers of the Canadian Confederation insisted on a powerful central authority, while the American federation strengthens the powers of the States. Therefore, in the United States all undistributed powers belong to the parts that make up the whole. In Canada they belong to the federal parliament.
Lord Carnarvon stated in the House of Lords when introducing the British North America Act:
The object in view is to confer on the central government its high functions and almost sovereign powers, enabling it to establish general

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Leduc
principles and uniform laws on questions of equal concern to all the provinces, while leaving to each province sufficient municipal liberty and self-government to allow it to exercise certain local powers to the general advantage.
Lord Sankey expresed a similar view when he gave judgment in favour of the Dominion in the aeronautical case:
The main object of the Act, he said, is to establish a system of government on essentially federal principles.
The distribution of legislative powers is given in sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act. Consequently, the dominion parliament cannot assume the right to legislate on any subject mentioned in section 92, even on the frequently invoked ground that the matter is an economic one of pressing and national importance, such as unemployment insurance, for in these matters the provinces are sovereign.
We have frequently been told of late that Confederation could survive only on condition that its basic pact remain untouched. To respect provincial rights; to agree with the provinces on a method of amending the constitution, and above all to hold sacred its clauses concerning the right of the minority of their language, their religion and their privileges, that is understood; but to say that the federative agreement, that obsolete instrument, must not be touched at all, is a different matter.
Is it not proper to seek the right to amend the constitution in order to give to the unemployed of the different provinces rights to which they are entitled but which they do not now enjoy? The country is on the brink of ruin while the house discusses the question of the constitutional handicaps which we should nevertheless acknowledge and which it is probably essential to consider and to determine.
Confederation was not made without us. Why are we always endeavouring' to isolate ourselves in the province of Quebec as in an Indian reserve? During the economic dis-< location to which we must submit, the entire machinery is immobilised in consequence of the ill-will of those who try to establish a state within the state. We know some of the evils affecting the body politic. The healing of a great part of those economic sores depends on the action of the provinces. The federal power will provide some remedies, but, in any case, it is essential to conform our constitution to present conditions and to insure, in the social and economic fields, a greater measure of cooperation between the dominion and the provinces. Our constitution is full of vague statements, difficulties and contradictions, and, for that reason, we move backward instead of forward. fMr. Leduc.]
It is time to put a stop to the differences of opinions existing between the dominion and the provinces on the question of jurisdiction. It is time that our governments stop passing the buck.
The minister of justice (Mr. Lapointe), who is considered as the greatest Canadian authority on constitutional law, recently said in a speech that an amendment to our constitution is possible, in order to give the federal government the necessary power to establish unemployment insurance and at the same time to provide better safeguards for the rights of minorities, under a system according to which no change respecting the language, the religion or the political rights of a minority could be made without the unanimous consent of all the provinces,-safeguards that the present constitution does not provide.
I say without hesitation that, to my mind, it is absolutely essential to change our constitution in order to solve social problems and insure suvival of our democratic institutions. I have no hesitation in stating that in those words I am giving expression not only to my personal views, but to those of my constituents and also the great majority of the people of the province of Quebec.
Canadian unity is endangered by the lack of legal cohesion, by our antiquated constitution which does not meet our present needs. Without anticipating a future discussion, I hope the Sirois commission will show us a way of giving life to the federative agreement. The irresistible evolution of men and things, the progress of modern times and of civilization have rendered imperative a remoulding of constitutions.	Obsolete monarchies are oul
of date. Empires shake on their foundations. The abuses of democracy have engendered dictatorships. The entire world craves for innovations, which it sometimes seeks in the unfortunate aberrations of totalitarian systems. But, no matter! The failure of old govern' mental ideas has created, in certain nations, a taste for adventure. Let us hope, sir, that, in the general panic, our people will keep cool. Changes to be made in our constitution will have to be to the advantage of our people, who want to be freed from that strait-jacket in order that they may fulfil their destiny. It is impossible to place unemployment insurance on our statute books without the consent of the provinces. Let us wish also that a really national spirit will replace that sulkiness which was responsible for a lack of cooperation shown in certain quarters towards the Sirois commission. Let us hope that Canadian ideals will inspire our legislators so that the great wind of progress may fill the sails of our

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Heaps
Canadian ship. Such unity of inspiration is the necessary foundation of our prosperity and our economic development.
On behalf of the youth of the country who envisage the future with dismay, on behalf of those who believe that all is not yet lost, and on behalf of those who have kept at the bottom of their soul a glimmer of hope, I ask the legislators of my country to make the final effort which will bring our beloved Canada to the fulfilment of its glorious destinies.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity of saying a few words in support of the motion before this house and at the same time speak to so many empty chairs. The reception accorded to this motion to-day is quite different from the reception given in 1927 to a motion of this kind introduced by myself. When I introduced a motion in 1927 to approve a policy of unemployment insurance, it received a rather hostile reception, and I am glad to note the great change that has come over this house in a period of twelve 3'ears. At this late hour it is not my intention to speak at any particular length; I wish to say Just a few words in general support of the motion.
I am surprised to find an amendment moved at this late hour by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Kennedy), speaking on behalf of his group. I have a great deal of sympathy with the proposal to introduce a scheme of non-contributory unemployment insurance, but if the government is not prepared to accept such a scheme I am quite prepared to accept a contributory scheme of unemployment insurance. I believe that once we adopt the principle, as years go along we shall add to the measure, in exactly the same way as has been done in Great Britain. I was surprised at the emphatic rejection by my hon. friends to my left of the principles enunciated in the proposal of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill).
I speak with a little knowledge and understanding of the labour movement in Canada. So far as I know, every labour organization in this country, whether represented by the international unions, the national unions, or the Catholic unions in the province of Quebec, has gone on record as being in favour of a contributory system of unemployment insurance. Now, lo and behold, we find a new spokesman for labour rising in his place and telling us that they do not want this system of contributory unemployment insurance.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Who was that?


Abraham Albert Heaps: The hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Kennedy). Why do I say that if I cannot get one form of insurance I am prepared to accept the other? I do so because of my experience with the working people, among whom I have worked and with whom I have lived for so many years, both here, and, as a young man, in Great Britain. If there is one thing I would try to retain in this day it is the manhood and self-respect of the great mass of people now on relief. I know how difficult it is for the average worker who finds himself unemployed to go to a relief office and for the first time become the recipient of public relief. Sometimes it requires nerves of steel for a man to undertake such a task. I have known men to undergo the greatest hardships and to have their families suffer the utmost misery before they could force themselves to become the recipients of public relief. So I say that if we had a system of unemployment insurance under which the state, the employer and the employee would contribute, at least when a man became unemployed he would receive his cheque at the end of the week or the end of the month, and to a certain extent this would help him retain that manhood to which I think every man in Canada has a right.
Some statements were made this evening by the minister with respect to the system in the United States. After all, we must regard what is being done there under the Social Security Act as more or less of an experiment, but if my understanding of the situation in the United States is correct, this was about the only way by which they could circumvent the constitution. There they have a completely different problem from the one we have in Canada; for the simple reason that there they have forty-eight states with which to contend, whereas here we have only nine provinces. Sometimes we think nine are too many; and if some day events should move in such a direction that we could reduce the number of our provinces to five, I think it would be so much the better for this dominion. That experiment in the United States is something worth while, and I think out of their trials and experiences ultimately they will arrive at a much better method of dealing with unemployment insurance than they have at present. But there, in order to overcome the constitution, they took action, and that is the important thing. Whether the action is right or wrong we cannot say. I remember quite well thirteen years ago, when in this chamber we undertook to bring in a scheme
1146	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Heaps
of old age pensions, we found the same difficulties that we are experiencing to-day in connection with unemployment insurance.
What have I to complain about now? Well, I do complain when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) rises in his place to-night and practically says we are going to do nothing until such time as all the provinces combine to make a united move in a certain direction. I do not think that is expressing a desire or even an intention that within a reasonable time the people of this country may expect a national system of unemployment insurance. I am anxious that something be done. I am disappointed beyond words at the attitude of some of the provincial premiers. I disapprove the attitude of the premier of Alberta and the attitude of the premier of Quebec on this question; for I believe that by bringing in a scheme of unemployment insurance we really would be doing a good thing for the provinces concerned. Sometimes when I hear these two premiers speak about the unity of Canada, I think they could do nothing better at this time to promote unity than to give their consent to the inauguration of a national system of unemployment insurance.
Let it be stated at once that, as far as I am concerned, I do not believe for one moment that any scheme of unemployment insurance we might introduce here would wholly solve the problem of unemployment. Rather than support unemployment insurance I would far sooner have the government embark upon a scheme which would provide employment assurance, something which has been promised both within and without this chamber so often in the past. But if we cannot have a system which will give our people a certain amount of economic security by providing them with work, then I think it is up to the government to see that we have a comprehensive and all-embracing system of unemployment insurance which at least will give our working people a certain measure of economic security which they do not possess at the present time.
If, as the government say, they have pigeonholed away somewhere a scheme that they hope to introduce into this chamber at some time in the future, I hope that scheme will be as wide and as all-embracing as the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) suggested this afternoon. We have advanced so far since unemployment insurance was first introduced that to-day the problem is entirely different from that which existed in 1911 when this system was first introduced in Great Britain. If my memory serves me correctly, at that time the unemployed in Great Britain, according to trade union statistics, would average somewhere in the neighbourhood of seven

per cent. Our unemployed to-day probably would run in the neighbourhood of 25 per cent, or at the very least, 20 per cent. So I think we shall have great difficulty, bearing in mind the vast amount of unemployment with which we have to contend at the present time, in drafting a scheme sufficiently allembracing to take care of the 400,000 people who are at present unemployed.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that if we are going to give hope to these people who are, let us say, partly unemployed and who expect some day to be in the ranks of the unemployed, we ought to give them some idea of what an unemployment scheme is going to do. When the minister told us the government had a measure ready to deal with this question, I was disappointed in that he did not at least tell us the scope of the measure or what were the immediate plans of the government. That is my main disappointment as far as his speech is concerned, because with the rest of it I entirely agree. I do not complain with regard to what the minister said; my complaint is rather with regard to what he omitted to say.
What is the immediate policy of the government as far as unemployment insurance is concerned? Must we wait now until all the provinces say they are prepared to come under a federal scheme and then have the constitution changed? Is that the present suggestion? If it is, I would far rather have the government come forward with an alternative proposal. I would far rather have the government say, "Well, we will introduce a measure and make it permissive, so that all the provinces wishing to do so may come under the scheme." I am quite sure I suggested proposals along these lines in this chamber in 1929. At that time the excuse of the government was that they could not introduce such a measure because the provinces did not want it. If I had to introduce a measure of this kind into this chamber, I would make it a condition that it should not become operative until at least five or six of the provinces signified their intention of coming under its scope. If that were done, I believe in a very short period all the provinces would come under the scheme, provided the government would make it sufficiently attractive.
I want to resume my seat because there are other hon. members who wish to speak this evening; but before I do so, let me add that, in order to induce the provinces to adopt the scheme, I would have more than one-third of the cost assumed by the federal government. If the federal authority assumed, say fifty per cent of the entire cost, they would not lose anything. We should over-

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Stewart
come the constitutional difficulty; in a very short period probably all the nine provinces would adopt the scheme because they would be relieved by the federal government of a greater part of their responsibilities; the federal government would also benefit by a reduction in the amount of unemployment relief which they are paying at the present time. I feel sure that with the incentive of a fairly large contribution from the federal exchequer, even though this government brought in permissive legislation it would not be long before it would be accepted by the nine provinces of the dominion.


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: At this
stage of the debate I shall be very brief in any remarks that I have to make. The question of unemployment insurance has been on many occasions before this house. If I recall correctly, the platform of the Liberal party in 1919 contained a plank which pledged that party to the introduction and establishment of a scheme of unemployment insurance. That party came into power in 1921, and the question slept from 1921 until 1930, although during that time industry was prosperous and conditions were favourable to the establishment of a contributory scheme of unemployment insurance.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I point out to my hon. friend that we had a committee of the house considering this matter in 1928-29.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, but so far as the
then government was concerned no action was taken. That is the point I want to make. I think the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) will admit that from 1930 until the present the conditions of industry have not been favourable for the establishment of a scheme of this kind-not as favourable as they were between 1921 and 1930.
The question has always been beset by difficulties arising from the divided jurisdiction of the provinces and the dominion. As I understand it, the minister would like to introduce a scheme which might be adopted on a firm basis, on a basis that would be free from controversy as to jurisdiction, and he thinks it would be preferable to have it as a national scheme under the control of the dominion parliament. He said that Mr. Bennett on his return from Geneva changed his position. I think he made use of an expression which questioned the motives of that right hon. gentleman. I believe he said he changed his tactics, and that it was a case of the shifting sands of political expediency. I do not think that was quite worthy of the minister. I want to point out to him that if
he looks up the record of that government he will find very little in its .actions, very little in Mr. Bennett's policy, that was based on what he calls "the shifting, sinking sands of political expediency." No government in the history of Canada had less regard for the political consequences of its acts.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Will my hon. friend permit a question on that point? He may recall that last year when this matter was discussed, Mr. Bennett stated that the reason he changed his view was the decisions given in the radio case and the aviation case. Now the radio case and the aviation case were both decided, if I remember correctly, some years before; and in the second place they had no application whatever to the Employment Insurance Act; they had to the wages bill and to the hours bill, but they had no relation whatsoever to the Employment Insurance Act.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That may be true in
part, but what did the minister say? He said that Mr. Bennett after his return from Geneva changed his position, and that has great significance, because I am going to read for him now the preamble of this statute of 1935.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have it here.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, but I am going to
read it:	.
Whereas the Dominion of Canada was a signatory, as part of the British empire, to the treaty of peace made between the allied and associated powers and Germany, signed at Versailles, on the 28th day of June, 1919; and whereas the said treaty of peace was confirmed by The Treaties of Peace Act 1919; and whereas, by article 23 of the said treaty, each of the signatories thereto agreed that they would endeavour to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour for men, women and children, both in their own countries and in all countries to which their commercial and industrial relations extend, and by article 427 of the said treaty declared that the wellbeing, physical, moral and intellectual, of industrial wage-earners is of supreme international importance; and whereas it is desirable to discharge the obligations to Canadian labour assumed under the provisions of the said treaty; and whereas it is essential for the peace, order and good government of Canada to provide for a national employment service and insurance against unemployment, and for other forms of social insurance and for the purpose of maintaining on equitable terms, interprovincial and international trade, and to authorize the creation of a national fund out of which benefits to unemployed persons throughout Canada will be payable and to provide for levying contributions from employers and workers for the maintaining of the said fund and for contributions thereto by the dominion: Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and con-
1148	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Stewart
sent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:-
Then follows the statute. I want to know if there is any firmer basis upon which the dominion could assume to act than the fulfilment of a treaty obligation. I find in that, Mr. Speaker-


Norman McLeod Rogers: It was rejected by the court, completely.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -an attempt to put this act upon grounds that, had it been maintained by the privy council, would have placed the jurisdiction of this parliament beyond question. That was the objective.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It was rejected by the court, completely.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Quite so. Not "completely"; a divided court.


Norman McLeod Rogers: On that point, rejected by the court.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Oh, yes, it was rejected. But I say there was the attempt not to play politics and to place the jurisdiction of this parliament upon what looked to be a firm, sound basis, beyond question, where there would be no controversy between the provinces and the dominion in this field. The minister says that it was an attempt to play politics with the matter. Let me remind him of the action of the opposition of that day. Why, they criticized the act on the same ground that the minister is taking tonight, the one of jurisdiction, and questioned its validity. The present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) took that position; and although they professed to believe that the act was not sound, that it could not be maintained, each and every one of them voted for that act-for political expediency.


Norman McLeod Rogers: They supported the prin.
ciple.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Was that action based on the "shifting, sinking sands of political expediency"? Why did they not take their courage in their hands and oppose that act?
The act went to the courts. It was declared invalid. Nothing has been done since except to communicate with the provinces and to ask for an approval of an amendment to the British North America Act.


Norman McLeod Rogers: What would my hon. friend have done?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Under the circumstances I think I would have devised some scheme of unemployment insurance along the lines suggested here, giving the provinces the option of taking advantage of it. It would be better
than doing nothing, which this government has been guilty of. Nothing has been done. This has been an effective way of getting delay and setting up the opposition or lack of cooperation of the provinces as an excuse for inaction. Let us see the position of Mr. Duplessis. He has been pictured as one opposing the adoption of some scheme of unemployment insurance. I have here a copy of his letter dated December 30, 1937, addressed to the Prime Minister of Canada. It reads:'
My dear Premier:
Your answer to my letter dated November 22nd was handed to me on the day of your departure for your recent holidays and 1 preferred to await your return before replying.
In your second letter, you repeat the views you expressed in your first one, adding that you are convinced that enabling or concurring legislation would be uncertain and unstable.
Old age pensions-one of the many similar instances-which you enacted and enforced and which was approved and amended by your successors in office, a few years later, is based on enabling legislation.
Moreover, as stated previously, there are also other ways of realizing unemployment insurance * which would safeguard provincial autonomy. If enabling legislation, as you declare, is uncertain and unstable, what do you think of the stability and certainty of a federal legislation on unemployment insurance which could essentially be changed or modified, every year, by the federal parliament?
The government of the province of Quebec considers that the best elements of stability and certainty are within the British North America Act and that it is much safer to preserve the stability of the constitution.
In conclusion, again I state that the province of Quebec is willing to cooperate heartily in the establishment of a sound and fair system of unemployment insurance, which could be established on a national scope, without infringing upon the rights and autonomy of the provinces.
There, I submit, is an offer for cooperation on a basis that could be worked out just the same as old age pensions. The minister says it would mean additional expense and overlapping if that system were adopted. Perhaps it might, but it seems to me that it is better than doing nothing at all, and that we could work out a scheme if the government really desired it.
The government say they have a draft bill. I think they have a pretty good draft bill in the one that was submitted to the court. That contains the skeleton and it was worked out with great care. A basis for action is found there, and I do urge the government, in view of their pledges and promises, and the fact that it is a plank in their platform, that they take some action to show that they are in earnest, that they really want to do something about unemployment insurance in Canada, and that they are not really just taking

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Jaques
advantage of every opportunity to invoke delay as an excuse for failure to take any action at all.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: We all realize that the mover of the resolution (Mr. Neill) desires nothing but the improvement of the employer and employee's condition and that of the working people of Canada, and if we in this group do not agree with his precise plan, I can only hope that he will credit us with a similar desire.
In the few minutes left at my disposal I have not time to go into our case; but, shortly, our objection to unemployment insurance is that it causes, like all other saving of money, a shortage of purchasing power and therefore aggravates the conditions which it is supposed to help. Furthermore, unemployment insurance differs from any other insurance in that it insures acts of men, whereas of course ordinary insurance is an insurance against acts of God. That is a fundamental difference; and as my colleague says, it would leave those who are insured open to tyranny from threats if they were to strike for better conditions.
I represent an agricultural constituency, and so far as my people are concerned, we should get little or no benefit but should have to pay our share of the bill, because the government would have to recoup itself for its share through taxation, and the employer would have to put his share into prices. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) was kind enough to say the other night that we in this group know less about money and economics than any other people on God's green earth. That, of course, may be a matter of opinion, but I do not think anyone can accuse us of any reluctance to learn something about money and to discuss it. We have open minds at any rate; and if I may say so, after three years of fairly attentive listening in this house, I have come to the conclusion, so far as I have been able to hear and understand, that not only is this house ignorant of money but that it has no desire to learn anything about it. It does not even want to discuss money, so far as I have been able to find out while I have been sitting here listening. That being the case, I should like to quote from someone who is an authority not only on money but also on insurance.
I have here a pamphlet called Banking and Industry. It is not a social credit pamphlet, nor is it written by a social crediter, but is by an insurance actuary. It is a paper that was read before the Actuarial Society of Great Britain. I would say that the opinions of an insurance actuary given before the Actuarial Society of Great Britain are certainly worthy
of the respect of this house. Dealing with savings he says this:
In conclusion it might be pointed out how important it is that assurance companies should study the economic effects of saving.
In this connection it will be remembered that in a recent discussion by the society relating to the Cohen report it was pointed out that the officers expected to receive a pat on the back for their services in inculcating thrift; instead of which they were told that it was doubtful whether it was a good thing that money should be dragged out of the pockets of the working man for assurance when it could be better employed in feeding and clothing the man and his family while he was alive. Furthermore if, as has been indicated earlier, every penny saved causes a dislocation of industry, the good rendered to the community by saving is not so apparent. Assurance companies, therefore, if only to safeguard their own position, should look with favour on any plan which will have the effect ... of counteracting the evil which results at the present time from savings reducing effective demand for the products of industry.
Those are not the words of anybody in this group, or even of social crediters; they are the words of an insurance actuary. It has been pointed out that while this is not, and is not intended to be, a cure for unemployment, it is proposed as a help to the misery caused by unemployment. But before we prescribe anything to alleviate the pain of a disease, we surely should be certain that we are not going to make that disease worse. If, as we believe and as a growing number of people, including some of the ablest economists and financiers in the world believe, the really fundamental cause, or the main cause, of unemployment, is a shortage of purchasing power, surely we should do well to make certain that in prescribing a palliative for it we are not going to make the disease worse. If it is the case, and I believe it is, that we are suffering from a lack of purchasing power, it would be like saying to a man who is suffering from anaemia: You have the beginnings of anaemia, and since you are probably going to be worse in time to come we are going to extract a pint or a quart of your blood and keep it, so that if and when you do get worse you will have some blood to fall back on. But as we see it, by the extraction of that blood you immediately make the man seriously ill. What he wants is not blood taken from him but some blood pumped into him, then he will not have anaemia at all but will be up and doing. We believe that if by any means we could put sufficient blood into the economic body of Canada, it would do away with this anaemia which is the cause of Unemployment, and instead of having half a million people on relief, every able-bodied man who wanted work would be able to find it. That seems to me to be a reasonable attitude.
1150	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Jaques
I notice that the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) seemed to think that we in Alberta, and of this group, were against any help to the working man, simply because we see that in helping him in this way we would probably make his condition worse than it now is. I think my colleague the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Kennedy) made a good point when he mentioned the power that would be conferred on the state by such a scheme as this, because a man who has paid for unemployment insurance for a number of years would hesitate to do anything which might endanger his benefits. He would think twice before he agitated or struck for better conditions. That would be giving the state a great power over the working man. Already power is much too concentrated. That is a danger not only in Europe where, with the exception of two countries, and they not seeming very anxious to get away from it, dictatorship is a fact; but it is on its way here, and therefore we in this group are against anything that tends to concentrate power either in the dominion
government or in this house. We think the power is too much centralized now.


Mr. LAWSON:: How would going on strike interfere with a man's benefits under unemployment insurance?


Norman Jaques: I am afraid that under the system the insured would give a hostage to those who control the system. They could be told, "All right, strike, but you lose your unemployment benefits."


James Earl Lawson: How could he be told that? The statute has its provisions. Any unemployment insurance act would contain provisions as to the conditions under which a man drew benefits, and any reasonable act would have in it the provision that there would be a hiatus or something for the period of a strike.


Norman Jaques: I am not saying that it would, but I say it could and probably would. For these reasons I cannot subscribe to the resolution.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.