Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table of the house copies in English and French of correspondence with the premiers of the provinces of Quebec, New Brunswick and Alberta on the subject of the proposed amendment to the British North America Act which will give the federal parliament the necessary authority to enact legislation to establish unemployment insurance. Previous correspondence on this subject has been tabled. It may be of some convenience to hon. members to have all the correspondence appear together in the votes and proceedings. If this course is acceptable to hon. members I shall be pleased to ask the clerk to arrange accordingly. These are interesting and historic documents. I feel it would be well to have them in printed form in some of the records of parliament.

Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved:

Whereas the Employment and Social Insurance Act, 1935, a statute of the parliament of

Unemployment Insurance

Canada which, in substance, provided for a system of compulsory unemployment insurance throughout Canada, has been held by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to be ultra vires of the parliament of Canada;

And whereas, if a uniform and effective system of compulsory unemployment insurance is to be adopted throughout Canada, it will be necessary to amend the British North America Act, 1867, to enable the parliament of Canada to enact the necessary legislation;

A humble Address be presented to His Majesty the King, in the following words:

To the King's Most Excellent Majesty:

Most Gracious Sovereign:

We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, humbly approach your majesty praying that you may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom to amend the British North America Act, 1867, and that such measure be expressed as follows:

An act to amend the British North America Act, 1867, relating to unemployment insurance.

Whereas the Senate and Commons of Canada in parliament assembled have submitted an address to His Majesty praying that his majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom for the enactment of the provisions hereinafter set forth:

Be it therefore enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and censent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

1. Section ninety-one of the British North America Act, 1867, is amended by adding thereto as class 2A the following:

''2A. Unemployment insurance." and inserting such class in the enumeration of the classes of Subjects set forth in section ninety-one aforesaid, immediately after class two.

2. This act may be cited as the British North America Act, 1940, and the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1930, the British North America Act, 1907, and this act may be cited together as the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1940.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I need not refer to the desirability or even necessity of any scheme of unemployment insurance being national in its scope, because this parliament in 1935 recognized that fact by enacting legislation providing for a system of compulsory unemployment insurance. Since then many provinces and public bodies have signified their views in this matter, and more particularly before the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations, where in their briefs the provinces of Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan and British Columbia specially mentioned the subject.

Various other public bodies such as the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers Association, the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and similar associations have signified not only that they favoured such an insurance scheme but that in order to be effective it should be national in scope.

The privy council has ruled that this parliament at present does not possess the necessary jurisdiction to enact a national unemployment insurance scheme. I shall read only the concluding words of the decision of the privy council on their reference to it of the unemployment insurance act which passed this parliament in 1935:

If on the true view of the legislation it is found that in reality in pith and substance the legislation invades civil rights within the province or in respect of other classes of subjects otherwise encroaches upon the provincial field, the legislation will be invalid. To hold otherwise would afford the dominion an easy passage into the provincial domain. In the present case their lordships agree with the majority of the supreme court in holding that in pith and substance this act is an insurance act affecting the civil rights of employers and employed in each province, and as such is invalid.

I have referred to the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations. In its report the commission says, at page 39:

It is not surprising, therefore, that it has been generally recognized that if unemployment insurance is to be successful in Canada it must be on a national basis. The national employment commission emphasized that "there are great, indeed decisive, advantages in a national, in contrast to a provincial, system" of unemployment insurance. The Commission des Assurances Sociales de Quebec, as early as 1933, pointed out that, although it is possible for member states in a federation to have schemes of their own, "nevertheless elementary prudence urges us to give a federal character to insurance against unemployment." In a memorandum submitted to the executive council of the province of Quebec in February, 1939, by the Confederation des Travailleurs Catholiques du Canada, Inc., the following paragraph appears: "La C.T.C.C. tient 4 redire au gou-vernement federal qu'elle est en faveur d'un systeme d'assurance-chomage 4 base contribu-toire. . .notamment, en faveur d'une assurance-ehomage contributoire, etablie sur le plan national, suivant les recommandations de la Commission des Assurances sociales."

After careful examination we are convinced that a system of unemployment insurance can be established which will in no way interfere with the provisions of the Quebec civil code concerning labour contracts and contracts of hiring. In our public hearings representations from most provinces and from many public bodies supported the view that unemployment insurance should be within the jurisdiction of the dominion parliament. We have no hesitation in so recommending.

Unemployment Insurance

Ever since the decision of the privy council it has been the intention that parliament should acquire the necessary power to enact a bill of the kind which will be introduced when the address is voted in this parliament and the necessary amendment made at Westminster to the British North America Act. Always we have tried to get the approval of the several provinces to an amendment of this kind, but it is only recently that unanimity has been signified in the matter. The objection which was raised by certain provinces, and more particularly in my own province by the then premier, was that it would be possible to establish unemployment insurance by concurrent or enabling legislation of the provinces as well as of the dominion. Needless to say we should have been very glad to accept that view had we thought that such a course was feasible, but the views of the officers of the crown have always been that this could not be done. When it is said, for instance, that old age pensions have been established by way of concurrent legislation, I would point out that there is all the difference in the world because we merely contribute to the amount which is spent by the various provinces for old age pensions; we contribute as much as seventy-five per cent, but there is no provision for contributions by employers and employees, and there is not the same necessity for our invading the provincial jurisdiction as there would be in establishing a scheme of unemployment insurance. The two cases are altogether different. Indeed if, as has often been suggested and even recommended by labour unions, the old age pensions scheme should be made a contributory one, the British North America Act would have to be amended to provide for a national contributory scheme.

As to the methods of cooperation in the legislative field which we have considered one after the other, the first that suggests itself is for the provinces to delegate to parliament their powers in relation to unemployment insurance. But there are several objections to that. It is extremely doubtful that such delegation would be legally effective, because by such action parliament cannot acquire jurisdiction. Lord Watson is reported to have observed during the argument of Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Notre-Dame de Bon Secours, (1899) A.C. 367:

I think we must get rid of the idea that either one or other (parliament or the provincial legislature) can enlarge the jurisdiction of the other or surrender jurisdiction.

In the case of the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Acts, this method of delegation was resorted to and the courts have held the cooperative scheme to be unconstitutional.

The provincial legislature may delegate its legislative powers, as has recently been held by the privy council in the case of Shannon v. Lower Mainland Dairy, and, conceivably, some central body, say the dominion commission, could be vested with legislative power by each of the nine provinces. But I think, first, that most of the provinces would strongly object to delegating such a power to a body not responsible to them.

Secondly, there is the objection that at any time any province may withdraw the power that she has delegated. A third objection is that the sum total of provincial powers is probably insufficient, constitutionally, to establish a national system. For instance, can Quebec raise money by a levy which may be used to pay benefits outside of Quebec? If Quebec cannot do so then its delegate on the federal commission, as I have mentioned, could not, merely by reason of the fact that it is the delegate also of eight other provinces.

Other recognized methods of cooperation are known as legislation by reference, conjoint legislation and conditional legislation.

The first two are almost identical. The first is a method whereby parliament enacts a statute which is then adopted by the provinces by reference. By the second mode of procedure both parliament and the legislature would enact the same act in the same terms. These two methods have been resorted to when doubt exists as to which legislature, the central or the local, has authority. The danger of this reasoning lies in the possibility that both statutes may be invalid because each exceeds the power of the enacting legislature. The example I have given of Quebec having no right to levy taxes within the province to be used to pay expenditure in the rest of Canada applies here. Such a taxing provision would be unconstitutional, just as a dominion act to impose taxation on Quebec citizens to be spent in Quebec would be invalid. Another objection is that in the enforcement of the law a difficulty would arise as to which one of the two statutes should be used and we might select the one which the court would declare unconstitutional. Then again, in the case of legislation by reference the provincial act would be bad if the dominion act was bad, since the latter was a nullity and the provincial act based on it would also be a nullity.

Conditional legislation is another mode of procedure, whereby legislation of a legislature operates upon the fulfilment of a condition. For instance, if all the nine provinces were enacting a similar insurance scheme in identical terms which would become operative as the

Unemployment Insurance

result of some dominion action, namely by parliament or by the governor in council, the " condition " would be the dominion action. The insurance conditions and the levy would be provided for by the provincial legislatures, while the dominion, in addition to bringing the nine provincial statutes into force on a given date, would establish a central commission and would provide funds for administrative expenses. All the objections which I have submitted to the other modes of operation apply also to this one; and I am afraid, and it is also the view of the officers of the crown, that there would be danger in respect of constitutionality which would not justify the parliament of Canada in entering, before being sure of its validity, upon a big undertaking which would cost millions of money.

I have spoken only of the legal side. There are also practical objections which I desire to mention.

1. You would have to get the concurrence of nine legislatures each of which will, quite properly, have its own ideas, influenced by local requirements, as to the proper provisions of an unemployment insurance act.

2. You must hold this concurrence through the difficult first years of the application of the act, when, by practice and experience, amendments will be found desirable; and then you would have to have in each case the consent of every one of the nine legislatures before proposing these amendments.

3. You must persuade nine provinces to submit to administration by a body which is not responsible to them.

4. The necessary levy to provide insurance benefits must be imposed on the clear understanding that the funds raised thereby and turned over to the commission are to be utilized to pay benefits throughout Canada. The result might be, for example, that Quebec contributions would, in certain circumstances, be utilized to pay benefits outside Quebec.

The final and the most important objection of all is that there is nothing to prevent one or two or three provinces from withdrawing from the scheme and then the whole undertaking would be compromised.

I believe I have sufficiently shown that we cannot proceed to introduce a bill to establish unemployment insurance in Canada without resorting to the application for an amendment, which is a very simple one, to the British North America Act, and to which now fortunately all the provinces agree, so that this parliament shall be invested with full power; then the bill will be introduced.

Hon. R. B. HANSON (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of unemployment insurance is one which has engaged, more or less spasmodically, the attention of this house since I first entered it. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on more than one occasion since 1921 and 1930 promised this legislation. There was always, of course, the constitutional difficulty. In 1930, when the government of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett came into power, it was so obsessed with the necessity of keeping this country on an even keel economically that, while we believed in the principle of unemployment insurance, it was not possible to proceed with the legislation at the beginning of that parliament. I have always thought that it was a great pity, from the standpoint of the wage earners of this country, to whom such an act would have been applicable in those bad years of our history, that such a measure was not put on the statute book by the Prime Minister when he first made his pronouncement in the twenties in regard thereto.

However, whatever may have been the reasons which prevented him from acting upon his undertaking to the country, he did not proceed with any such legislation, and this country and the wage earners of the country were without the benefits of unemployment insurance through the most trying period in our economic history. That is why I said not long ago that we were many years too late with respect to this social legislation.

In 1934-35 the government of the day did introduce legislation looking towards national unemployment insurance, and it was enacted into law, but not without the most vociferous opposition from gentlemen opposite, at that time sitting here, that I have ever experienced, on the plea that we had not the authority to do it. That bill was based on the theory of the treaty-making power under the British North America Act, and it was also based on the further powers that are recited in the preamble to the bill. I recall having had something to do with the preparation of that preamble, and I have always thought that if the legislation had been attacked, not by way of a stated case or reference, as was done by the government of my right hon. friend, but in a concrete case raising specifically the question involved in the reference, the result might have been different. I have no doubt in the world that if you want to get a correct solution of the problem of constitutionality the least likely method of obtaining a proper decision is that followed by hon. gentlemen opposite. However, the government of the day was defeated and went out of office, and in accordance with pledges made to the people

Unemployment Insurance

the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) referred the matter to the courts. I refer to it to-day only in order to keep the record straight.

This party is pledged to the principle of unemployment insurance. We endeavoured to implement that pledge to the best of our ability, having regard to all the circumstances of the time; and the act might have been allowed to go into force and effect, as it could have been at least until it was attacked and set aside, because nearly all the machinery had been set up and one of the most capable men in Canada had been installed as the head of the scheme. May I suggest to the Prime Minister that he probably could not do better to-day, when he comes to establish his scheme, if, as and when he does establish it, than by making use of the services of the gentleman to whom I have referred. That however is merely in passing.

The act was attacked by way of reference to the Supreme Court of Canada and subsequently went to the privy council, and, as the Minister of Justice has correctly stated, the decision of that august body was that the pith and substance of the legislation was an invasion of property and civil rights. With that decision we must be content. Perhaps the Minister of Justice at a later stage will inform us whether any representations were made in opposition to the proposal and to the principle involved. Personally I have heard of none, although I do know that recently proposals have been suggested from other quarters looking to another form of insurance. So far as I am aware they are still in the nebulous stage; nothing concrete has reached me at any rate. The legislation passed by the government of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was declared ultra vires in 1936. The decision was rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada on January 28, 1937, and the decision of the privy council, delivered by Lord Atkin, was to the effect that in reality, in pith and substance, the legislation was an invasion of civil rights. The effect of that has been that we have lost five years at least in which we might have built up the reserve fund which is so essential to the successful operation of this social scheme. However, the Prime Minister and his government must take the responsibility for that.

The scheme is now being put forward one further step. I agree with the method adopted by the government having regard to the legal decisions. I know that the question of concurrent jurisdiction, and the other methods to which the Minister of Justice has referred, have been explored on various occasions, and there is objection, from the point of view of the legal decisions to which he has alluded and to which it is not necessary that I should refer

further. The method adopted is that of amendment to our constitution, and I know of no surer means of giving powers to this federal parliament than by that method. I am not in favour of the attempt to delegate powers or to hoist ourselves by our bootstraps by assuming powers delegated from another jurisdiction'-I will not say an inferior jurisdiction, because that might give offence in certain quarters. I have been attacked already on more than one occasion for having asserted the principle that we should have a strong central government. This motion, this address, is just another argument sustaining my position, that we ought to have a strong central government, because I cannot conceive of nine different systems of unemployment insurance in Canada. There must be a national system if we are to go that far, and I am further of the opinion that the passing of concurrent legislation would not be satisfactory. The passing of delegated authority would not be satisfactory, nor would the other methods to which the Minister of Justice has referred.

I am just wondering whether the Prime Minister will be able to give us any assurance that this address will be adopted and the legislation enacted at Westminster in time to make possible the enactment of a measure during the present session. I know this is a war session. I have the feeling that it is the intention of the government to get rid of parliament just as quickly as possible. I may be wrong in that; I may be doing hon. gentlemen opposite an injustice by even suggesting it. But it is understandable. Can the Prime Minister give us any assurance that the British parliament will give precedence to this measure? I am expressing no opinion; I have no opinion on that point.

This party is committed to the principle of unemployment insurance. Indeed if it had not been for hon. gentlemen opposite this country would have had it years ago; let there be no mistake about that.

I believe the Minister of Justice has adopted the proper method of attaining the end which the government now have in view. As far as we are concerned I promise the cooperation of this party in passing this address, and when the legislation itself comes down I promise him that we will examine the bill with the greatest care, will endeavour to strengthen it so far as may be necessary or desirable, and will in no way obstruct the principle of what is in my opinion very necessary social legislation for Canada.

Mr. M. J. COLD WELL (Rosetown-Biggar):

This resolution I think does not require very long discussion. Following the suggestion of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson), we hope that the government, when the resolu-

tion is carried and other necessary steps have been taken, will'proceed to communicate with the British government with a view to obtaining the authority to enact this legislation immediately. The proper time to_ put a measure of this kind into effect is when industry is on the upturn and employment is increasing. It is not unlikely that when the war ends unemployment insurance will be as great a necessity as something of the kind was following the last great war.

This proposal to obtain power for the enactment of an unemployment insurance plan is one with which we are entirely in accord. Our predecessors in the house, labour and progressive members, ever since 1921 have been urging such an enactment, and although other groups in the country sometimes referred to schemes of this description as pernicious doles and so on, we believe that unemployment insurance should have been put into effect in the years immediately following the enactment of similar legislation in Great Britain. As has already been pointed out, it was promised by the leader of the Liberal party in 1919, twenty-one years ago, so that the proposal reaches its majority just now. I suppose that because of such majority hon. gentlemen have the feeling that they ought to enact it. I hope that some other promised legislation will not be delayed such a long time.

The time has arrived when, in agreement with the provinces, this dominion should have the right to amend its own constitution. I do not like this method of appealing to some other body across the sea. If we have reached the status of a self-governing dominion we ought to be in a position to exercise the power that should lie within this country itself. It ought not to be necessary to pass resolutions of this kind in order to amend our constitution.

One other criticism that I would make is that in our opinion the powers sought are not sufficiently wide. We do not propose to attempt to-day to amend the resolution in any way, but I regret that when the government are seeking power to enact social legislation of this kind they do not seek the wider power to enact social legislation generally, not restricting it merely to unemployment insurance. I know, of course, that the Sirois report has something to say in that connection. I should like to turn to it for a moment. At page 24 this is said:

The experience of the past decade is conclusive evidence that unemployment relief should be a dominion function. By unemployment relief we mean relief or aid for unemployed employables as distinct from unemployables. Provincial responsibility for other welfare services should continue and the provinces should be enabled financially to perform these services adequately. Provincial responsibility for social welfare should be deemed basic and general. Dominion responsibility on the other hand should be 95826-71

Unemployment Insurance

deemed an exception to the general rule and as such should be strictly defined. But the dominion should be given adequate jurisdiction to perform efficiently whatever responsibilities are entrusted to it.

The power we are requesting, of course, will make it possible for the dominion to be given adequate jurisdiction to perform efficiently this particular service. The report goes on to say:

The assumption of responsibility by the dominion for relief or aid of unemployed employables would entail: (1) complete financial responsibility; (2) full control of administration.

To-day it is essential that we shall assume a greater responsibility in these matters than we have in the past. Our cities, our municipalities and our provinces are entirely unable to cope with the tremendous problem of unemployment and relief which has faced us during recent years. An unemployment insurance bill will not take care of all those responsibilities, because always there will be a large number of unemployed employables who will not come within the scope of the measure. Consequently it seems to us that the dominion ought to assume a greater measure of responsibility in regard to these matters.

The assumption by the dominion of responsibility for other types of social legislation becomes more pressing as the days go by. I have in mind old age pensions as another social responsibility which this parliament now shares with the provinces. The Minister of Justice a few moments ago explained why the old age pension scheme was undertaken in the way it was. But it seems to us that when asking for the power to deal with unemployment insurance we might have gone further and asked for the power to deal with other necessary and similar social legislation. Old age pensions is undoubtedly one of the national social schemes which will have to be developed to a greater extent than we have so far developed it in Canada. In Great Britain under war conditions they have recently increased the benefits under old age pensions, and have a contributory scheme as well. In the Sirois report there is a recommendation to that effect at page 43. Under the heading " Jurisdiction in Social Insurance -Conclusions " I find this:

We have concluded that two types of social insurance-unemployment insurance and contributory old age pensions-are inherently of a national character. . . .

Then, a little later:

The simplest method would appear to be to provide for concurrent jurisdiction in social insurance.

That is, social insurance of other types. Old age pensions and unemployment insurance

Unemployment Insurance

are of national importance and therefore should be national responsibilities. So that while we commend this resolution and are supporting it because we agree with the object in view, we regret that when seeking this power from the imperial parliament the government did not go one step further and ask at least for power to enact social legislation of the types recommended in the Sirois report.

This legislation is long overdue. Canada remains one of the few modem countries-[DOT] that is, modern in the sense of being industrialized-without legislation of this kind on its statute books. I was glad when the Bennett administration enacted its social legislation in 1934. I agree with the leader of the opposition that if that legislation had remained on the statute book and gone into effect, in all probability the decision later rendered by the supreme court might have been different. However, that is past history. We want to see this power obtained; we want to see the legislation enacted, because after all there is another aspect of social insurance of this description that we sometimes overlook, the aspect which caused it to be put in effect in many countries after the great war- the fact that it is insurance against social upheaval. It tends to give the working people a certain measure of social security, and to that extent prevents the rise of discontent and the consequent threat to the entire social and economic structure. Following a war, measures of this description have been found necessary, and now that we are entering upon a period which, if we fulfil our obligations to our allies as I anticipate we shall, will be a period of expanding employment, with fewer unemployed employables in our midst, this is the time to enact an unemployment insurance measure, not a year from now. We are glad, therefore, to support the resolution, though we should have liked to see wider powers asked for than are envisaged in the present resolution.

Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):

Mr. Speaker, there has been no enthusiasm in this group for unemployment insurance of the type now proposed. The chief reason for that is that we have recognized that unemployment insurance of the kind proposed simply is not the solution. It is characteristic of human beings to keep chasing after glittering baubles and then to discover that after all they are only baubles.

Oh, oh!

Mr. BLACKMORE:

Of course my remark excites merriment, but the day will come when all members of this house will recognize that what I am saying is correct The solution

[Mr. Coldwell.l

of our problems lies far deeper than unemployment insurance. For just one reason I really wish the pious desire of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) could have been fulfilled, and that we could have tried this thing out four or five years ago. That reason is this. If we had tried it out four years ago we now should have realized that it is of very little value and that we must go to work to find a real solution.

The problem which confronts this generation is the problem of distribution. I think practically everyone realizes that we are in an age of abundance. Five years ago, when this group began to make that declaration in this house, smiles of patronizing good nature and indulgence were to be seen on the faces of hon. members, much like those we saw a few moments ago. The number of hon. members who seemed to doubt that we were in an age of abundance was very considerable. But five years of bumping our heads against the hard stones of reality have pretty well convinced everyone of the truth of that statement. Now our problem is to distribute that abundance.

Mr. THORSON:

Where is the abundance in Saskatchewan, for example?

Mr. BLACKMORE:

To-day the people of Saskatchewan are wondering where they are going to sell their wheat.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

So is this government.

Mr. BLACKMORE:

Let the people of Saskatchewan and the people of Canada as a whole have their productive capacity liberated by a sane financial and credit system and there will be such a superabundance of virtually everything you could name that this country can produce that people will be at their wits' end to know where to market their goods, which indicates beyond any shadow of doubt that we are in an age and a land of abundance.

The national credit of this country can be used to distribute this abundance, but unemployment insurance is not one of the methods for carrying out that distribution. It is therefore only a palliative and will be found to be a disappointment. People will begin to realize the seriousness of that disappointment just when there is the greatest need for something of real value.

If we face things realistically we all recognize that to-day our greatest need is more purchasing power in the hands of the people. We need that extra purchasing power right now, first of all to raise the standard of living of our people from one coast to the other. Everyone recognizes that the standard of living is shamefully low. That is abundant evidence that we need more purchasing power

Unemployment Insurance

in the hands of the people. If we could get that purchasing power into their hands so they could buy more, we would immediately encourage the production of butter, cream, milk and every other commodity which we can produce so generously in this country. If w'e could so increase our production, unquestionably we would increase our national income; for production is the thing that makes real wealth. If we could increase our national income, beyond question we could increase our national revenue; for you get national revenue from national income and you get national income from production and you do not encourage production by taxing it or by limiting the purchasing power in the hands of the people.

This measure proposes nothing more or less than a new tax on top of the painful ones imposed yesterday. I say " painful " without committing myself either to approval or disapproval of the budget. In the last analysis we are not going to tax all the people because all the people are not employed. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said, we can never possibly reach all the people. We will be least likely to reach those who are suffering the most. Consequently this proposal is exactly the opposite to what we ought to have.

We need not unemployment insurance but employment insurance. Employment insurance could be obtained by giving the people work. People would be able to obtain work once there was an abundance of production. Therefore, we should be devising ways and means of increasing production in this country. Then employment would take care of itself and so would unemployment insurance. How to increase production is the problem we should be wrestling with in this house. If we could manage to extend credit in such a way that the producers could produce freely and expand purchasing power so that the people could buy that production freely, then there would be immediate employment. I submit that it is along these lines that the real solution lies.

May I turn for a moment or two to the question of centralized control. Parrot cries have been heard from one end of the country to the other, apparently actuated by some inspirer behind the scenes, all clamouring for centralized control. The idea seems to be that if you take five, six or seven families, any one of which cannot make a living by itself, and put them all tightly together so that some one can control their every movement, you are going to have every family succeed. Such is not the case and such will not prove to be the case in Canada. We do 95826-71J

not need a strong centralized government. Do hon. members wonder why we never heard anything about this need for a strong centralized government until the last ten or fifteen years? Why was it that this country got along very well for many decades? There was no disagreement between the central government and the provincial governments until the depression came along.

Mr. MARTIN:

There are different kinds of provincial governments now.

Mr. BLACKMORE:

Does that indicate that the principle of federation as it has been followed during the past decades is wrong, or does it indicate that we are faced with a new set of conditions? We are not going to be able to solve the problem caused by overproduction or abundant production and small employment by clamping on a strong centralized government which can force the people to stand the misery they are suffering and which will give them no chance to solve their own problems locally. If we govern this country in the right way there will be no need of a strong central government. Every province desires to be a member of a strong British union in Canada, but every province feels that it has a right to a decent standard of living. The thing this house should be considering is how to enable the provinces to have a decent standard of living. We would then have no need for strong central governments.

My group is going to support this unemployment insurance scheme. We have but little faith in it, but we want to see the people who believe in it convinced. A tremendous number of people can convince themselves only by bumping their heads against stone walls. Probably the best thing that could happen is to let the people bump their heads. They will soon find that unemployment insurance is only a bauble, is only a glittering make-believe that will lead but to disappointment and perhaps to despair.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, the hon.

leader of the opposition (Mr. Hanson) and other hon. members who have spoken for particular groups have each referred to their own attitude and that of their respective followings towards an unemployment insurance act. The hon. leader of the opposition outlined the steps taken by the Conservative party during a previous administration to have an unemployment insurance act placed upon the statutes and put into force. The acting leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Coldwell) has referred to the frequent intimations which his group had given

Unemployment Insurance

of their desire to see an unemployment insurance act placed upon the statutes. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) described the attitude of his group with respect to this particular measure. His description, if I recollect aright, was of its being a sort of stone-wall attitude. He is quite agreeable to support the measure, and I want to thank him for his support, but in doing so may I say that I hope the result will not prove as disastrous as he seems to think it will.

I might perhaps be permitted to say a word or two concerning the attitude of the Liberal party towards unemployment insurance. In so doing I should like to go as far back as the time when I had the honour of being chosen the leader of my party. I refer to the national Liberal convention which was held in 1919. At that convention a resolution was passed endorsing social legislation as part of the Liberal policy.