March 12, 1935

UFA

William Irvine

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. IRVINE:

I was paired with the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Simpson) Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH AN UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL INSURANCE COMMISSION
Permalink
LIB

Hermas Deslauriers

Liberal

Mr. DESLAURIERS (Translation):

I was paired with the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Tetreault); had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH AN UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL INSURANCE COMMISSION
Permalink
LIB

Joseph-Fernand Fafard

Liberal

Mr. FAFARD (Translation):

I was paired with the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Fortin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH AN UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL INSURANCE COMMISSION
Permalink
LIB

Eugène Fiset

Liberal

Sir EUGENE FISET (Translation):

I was paired with the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH AN UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL INSURANCE COMMISSION
Permalink
LIB

Maurice Brasset

Liberal

Mr. BRASSET (Translation):

I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH AN UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL INSURANCE COMMISSION
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Jean

Liberal

Mr. JEAN (Translation):

I was paired with the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Thompson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH AN UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL INSURANCE COMMISSION
Permalink
CON

Charles-Philippe Beaubien

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BEAUBIEN (Translation):

I was paired with the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Baribeau). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH AN UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL INSURANCE COMMISSION
Permalink
CON

Onésime Gagnon

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GAGNON (Translation):

I was paired with the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH AN UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL INSURANCE COMMISSION
Permalink
UFA

Edward Joseph Garland

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):

Before the bill is voted on for the last occasion I think it my duty, in view of certain statements I made in committee and certain motions I then proposed, to discuss it once more on third reading. I do not propose to take any more of the time of the house in the matter than is absolutely necessary. The report of the dominion child and family welfare office for December last states:

With all that there is of encouragement in a picture that, for four years, has stood in almost unrelieved darkness, there are still certain incontrovertible challenges-

I ask hon. members to listen to these figures: -at least 200,000 heads of families, probably more, are still receiving unemployment relief, and over 20,000 able bodied, employable men are in relief camps, with perhaps 25,000 to

30,000 men temporarily engaged in relief works. There are probably 25,000 more single or homeless men idle in their own communities. There are an unascertained number, at least not lees than 200,000 youths and girls from, say, sixteen to twenty-four or twenty-five years of age, who are idle, unemployed, and receiving relief either in their homes, or as "single persons."

The agency believes that the cost in cold dollars amounts to something over $1,250,000 a week, and that it continues to exceed the railway deficit. That is an interesting comparison.

Ontario's costs alone exceed $2,250,000 monthly, and the city of Montreal is spending at the rate of $1,400,000 per month. The cost in character and morale cannot be measured.

That was in December. According to that report there were some signs of hope, but when we come to the report published on February 27, we find this:

Though up to early December, 1934, relief totals contrasted encouragingly with those of 1933, since about the third week of December there have been indications of a sharp upward movement continuing in volume until at the end of January some of the largest Canadian cities seem to be in danger of equalling their extreme peak load of February-March, 1934.

Unemployment Insurance

It would seem a safe premise that there are not less than 500,000 to 525,000 persons now unemployed, and in receipt of relief, making with their dependents a total of not less than

1.350.000 recipients of public unemployment relief, quite apart from the great load of dependency from all other causes. For example: Old age pensioners, of whom 90,000 received aid, mothers' allowances going to

14.000 mothers and to 40,000 children.

This number will be almost entirely

unaffected by unemployment insurance provisions for at least the next two years.

To anticipate any benefits under the bill the employee must not have any further opportunity for the use of his talents, and in addition he must also be in a position to contribute to the insurance fund for the minimum period before he can take any advantage provided in the measure. The welfare bureau points out, further:

The proposed measure excludes, in its present stage, the seasonal and casual employments subject to heavy lay-offs-an estimated number of 860,000 wage-workers. In addition, however, to this group and the 1,700,000 eligible for insurance, it should be recalled that Canada has roughly 1,350,000 more persons gainfully occupied-employers, merchants, workers on their own in industry, agriculture, business and the professions, not at all contemplated as insurable. Of these, 728,000 are farmers,. Thus 1,700,000 of the gainfully occupied population will be eligible for insurance, and a total of 2,260,000 not covered by any such measure.

That, Mr. Speaker, constitutes one of the chief objections to the measure. But there are many others. We are told that this bill is the keystone of the arch of the great social reform program, and that without this measure the rest must fall. This is bo be the supreme measure, indicating the extent to which this government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister is prepared to go to change the conditions, to reform the conditions, ini Canada and thereby curtail the present conditions of misery and poverty in the midst of plenty about which the Prime Minister spoke in his radio speeches.

We are told that this bill is based on the British bill. I say that if it is, then it is based on a bill twenty-five years old. It is a quarter of a century behind, as a matter of fact, in most of its provisions. At this point' may I state, in comparison, that the bill before the house provides for nine waiting days before any unemployed benefits may be drawn by unemployed persons. The British bill requires only six waiting days. Then, the British bill supplies unemployment insurance benefits to a widely extended field of people engaged in seasonal occupation. This bill does not apply to any seasonal occupations.

The original British bill sought only twenty-six contributions from the employees, and the present British bill, in spite of extensions which have been made, seeks only thirty contributions. On the other hand the Canadian bill requires forty contributions. One would assume that having this difference, namely the British bill asking for thirty contributions and the Canadian bill for forty contributions, the benefits under the Canadian legislation would be greater and extend over a longer period. But such is not the case. Not only does the Canadian employee coming within the ambit of the bill have to make forty contributions, or ten more than are made in Great Britain, but when such person 'becomes unemployed he receives only seventy-eight days or thirteen weeks unemployment benefits. On the other hand, the British legislation provides for benefits for one hundred and fifty-six days. That would seem to indicate a very wide difference between the two measures.

Then there is a further point. As I pointed out in committee of the whole the British bill provides that persons who for at least two years have been in receipt of disability pensions for disablements contracted during the late war, and who by reason of such disablements fail to satisfy the statutory conditions requiring thirty contributions, need only prove payments of ten contributions. Under those circumstances they are brought within the operations of the measure. I asked this government to make a provision in the present bill whereby disabled ex-service men might be in a position to qualify with something less than the full number of contributions required from other persons. In other words, I asked the government to carry into this legislation those privileges which have already been recognized in many other fields of parliamentary legislation both here and in the provinces respecting ex-seTvice men. The government has not seen fit to do so. Again I must say I am sorry; I wish they had come part way towards meeting us along some of these lines.

In short, the Canadian bill is limited in its application. It is so inadequate in its benefits, and so rigid in its restriction that it would be the height of absurdity to describe it as a reform measure. There is no element of reform within it. Before I have concluded my observations I believe I shall have proved my statement, and I indicate further that the bill does not provide benefits for the unemployed

Unemployment Insurance

equivalent to the relief which in most cases they now receive, and without any contributions.

I believe I have shown that workers employed intermittently will not benefit; disabled pensioners will not benefit, and a vast host of occupations are not even included under the operations of the act. For example, seamen, airmen, longshoremen, bankers and insurance clerks, domestic and civil servants, teachers, policemen, fishermen-

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH AN UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL INSURANCE COMMISSION
Permalink
PRO

Agnes Campbell Macphail

Progressive

Miss MACPHAIL:

Nurses.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH AN UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL INSURANCE COMMISSION
Permalink
UFA

Edward Joseph Garland

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

Yes, as the hon. member for Southeast Grey has suggested, nurses-all these are not included.

An unemployment insurance bill to-day does not meet the problem; it cannot even approach it. As a matter of fact an unemployment insurance bill-this present one for example-will have and can have no effect unless we rise out of this present collapse, then enter another period of employment only to collapse again. That is the only circumstance under which an unemployment insurance bill can bring any real benefit to the great masses of the workers throughout the country.

Then, there is no definite provision in the bill against sickness and invalidity. Every hon. member knows that both of these disabilities are reasons for unemployment; indeed, they are important sources of unemployment. These, under the bill, are left to the provinces. Yet, if the contention as to the validity of this measure be correct, there is no valid reason why provision should not have been made in the bill for extending unemployed benefits to those people who are unemployed as a result of invalidity or*sickness. Probably more in normal than in any other times unemployment results from these two causes. As was pointed out by one of the official labour organs only recently, physical incapacity is doubly penalized, because under the bill periods of unemployment due to sickness of the employed person are not counted as part of his unemployed time. They will not be entered up as part of the forty weeks qualifying period. As I said earlier, even the Lloyd George bill of years ago went farther than this measure, did mare and charged less.

Where the bill refers to an employee being discharged for "misconduct," and an employee is so discharged, he is disqualified from coming under the benefits of the bill, and I submit that in the absence of a definition, and a very rigid definition, of the term "misconduct" that provision can and will be abused by unscrupulous persons. I can imagine a bullying foreman or a ruthless employer very readily

discharging a man and charging that he was guilty of "misconduct" when actually all he had been guilty of was attempting to organize the workers in that particular industry. It is not the first time that men have been fired for that, and it will not be the last time under the present system. Therefore there is in this bill itself in that phase, as well as in others, a wide field for abuse.

I am not going to deal to-day with the position in which my friends to my right find themselves. I have a good deal of sympathy for their viewpoint, but I do find it difficult to understand why, after having proved utterly and absolutely and completely to their own satisfaction that this measure is unconstitutional, that it is not within the legislative powers of this parliament to enact, they propose to support the measure. That is beyond me. But that of course is their business, and I am not quarrelling with them for their attitude because I assume that they are just as sincere as we are in the matter.

I now come to this point, Mr. Speaker. If the benefits under the bill are to be no more than the benefits nouT procurable as the result of a definite right on the part of the unemployed to relief, then of course this bill falls by the wayside so far as any advantage is concerned. The maximum benefits procurable under this bill for an adult employee who is the head of a family with a dependent wife and three children amount to S45.60 per month. That is the maximum that can be drawn, and that is after the employee has made forty contributions spread over a period of two years, and after he has complied in every way with the regulations.

Now I turn to the present scale of relief in Canada, the relief that is provided for the unemployed as a matter of right by the cities of Canada, with the aid of the province and of the dominion. The city of West-mount, Quebec, pays $46.29 per month for a family of five. That is more than the benefits provided under this bill. The city of Oshawa, Ontario, pays $45.48 per month; the city of Kitchener, Ontario, $49.37; Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, $47.85; Brandon, Manitoba, $47; Calgary, Alberta, $53.70; Toronto, Ontario, $54; Winnipeg, Manitoba, $50.99; Edmonton, Alberta, $53.70; Regina, Saskatchewan, $47.50. Those are hurriedly selected. They cover the chief cities of Ontario, one city in Quebec, and the rest are in western Canada, and in all these cases the present relief allowance is greater without any contribution on the part of anybody, than the maximum benefits provided under this bill. Cannot you see the ridiculousness of proposing a measure like

Unemployment Insurance

this as a reform measure, as even a measure of relief? I submit to you, sir, that the effect of this measure will be to tend to reduce the amount of relief now being paid in cities to the unemployed, especially in the case of families. It will be used as a lever by which to drag down the scale of relief rather than to help it. That will probably be the chief objectionable feature of the enactment itself.

There is another matter. I have already brought it to the attention of the committee, but I must bring it to the attention of the house now on third reading in order to complete my case.

There are many industries in this country, and some of them coming under this bill, which have now reached the very bedrock limit of unemployment in the industry; in other words, they cannot continue operating with less men than they have now. The depression during the last five years has brought them to that point. In those industries the prospect of unemployment is at its minimum. I was discussing this matter some time ago in regard to one particular industry, which happens to be in the city of Toronto. At the present time its staff consists of thirty employed men. The employer in this case stated that in his opinion he did not think the normal expectancy of unemployment would be more than two at most.

Mr. MacN'ICOlL: Would the hon. gentleman please give the name of the company?

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH AN UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL INSURANCE COMMISSION
Permalink
UFA

Edward Joseph Garland

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. GARJLAND (Bow River):

No, for

obvious reasons I have been asked not to do so. The normal expectancy of unemployment in that industry is two at the most. Now I give the figures in that case, and by the way the same results will follow in many of the smaller and more stable industries, especially in the case of industries that are not particularly subject to great fluctuating periods of unemployment. In this particular case the employer's contribution for each employee will in the forty weeks amount to 810; the employees' to $10 apiece; the government's to $4 for each employee, or a total of $24. Multiply that by the number of the men, 30, and you have the sum of $720. That is the amount paid into the commission's trust fund. Now if two of the employees become unemployed, it will be iwo years, or at least eighteen months, before they will be eligible for the benefits. We will assume that two years from now is heTe, and that the two men have become unemployed. They may draw maximum benefits only for seventy-eight days, or thirteen weeks. That amounts to 13 multiplied by 6 multiplied by 2, or $156. That is the maximum they can

draw, but there has been contributed $720. That leaves a surplus in the fund of $564. Now there are many industries in that position.

But that is not all. Hon. members should remember that during that seventy-eight day period when these two men were drawing relief, the other twenty-eight men and the employer and the state were continuing to make their weekly contributions so that at the end of that period of benefit these two men were now definitely out of unemployment benefits and on "relief," as it is called, of the city because they are no longer eligible to the benefits. You will find that in the meantime the sum contributed has been increased by $218 during that seventy-eight days, so that at the end of that seventy-eight day period1 there is in the fund as a result of that single industry's contributions a total of $782, and only $156 has been paid out. Of course the plan may be actuarially sound. I have no doubt whatever that it is after giving those figures, but it is actuarially sound in the same way as life insurance companies and other insurance companies are, and in my opinion most of the insurance game on this continent is a grievous racket at the expense of the great mass of policyholders, and some day that will be admitted by this house too. It is even being admitted to-day in places where there is perhaps not so much prejudice in the matter.

Further, Mr. Speaker, since the unemployment benefits under this bill are not as great as the scale of relief now provided in the chief cities of the country and wherever labour is organized, and since it is admitted that the scale of relief now granted is still so low that adequate cultural development is impossible under it, therefore adequate cultural development is impossible under the provisions of this insurance measure. Not long ago I quoted to this house a statement of Ramsay MacDonald's in which he pointed out that in 'Great Britain and throughout the world there would be millions of workers who would never be employed again, and he called them "human scrap." That is the position in which these people will be even under the operation of this act; they will still be human scrap.

There is occurring throughout this continent and in other countries a new form of sickness which is coming more and more to be recognized by medical men. Some call it "depression shock" and others have different names for it. I gave to the house when in committee a quotation from the report of one of the medical doctors on social work in England, and I was glad to find that his opinion and mine in this regard had been

Unemployment Insurance

corroborated toy the findings of the child and family welfare body of Canada. Let me quote from a recent speech by Miss Charlotte Whitton:

In the field of child health, it is very difficult to form any accurate conclusions because undoubtedly the effects of deprivation and mal-nourishment are retarded some months or even years in their evidence, beyond the actual time of the occurrence of those conditions which cause them. For instance, some of the most obvious costs of the health aspects of the food blockades during the war became fully apparent only with the adolescence of the children, who as infants, and in the pre-school age, were exposed to the resultant lack of many of the essential foods.

And yet this measure provides for a benefit allowance that will not amount to much more than five cents a meal.

Canadian public health authorities appear unanimous in fearing an accumulation of the deficiency diseases, especially tuberculosis, and in fearing also that these results will only manifest themselves too late for argument, as to the need of careful health and' dietary considerations in the calculation of our relief budgets. Many of the health authorities express the belief that malnutrition and similar deficiency diseases exist now and are increasing. ... As the depression has continued, certain trends are developing that will undoubtedly prejudicially affect the health and wellbeing of the child and family. Hospitalization services on a pay or semi-pay basis are being less utilized, while free hospitalization is facing increasing demands. The same process is taking place in the use of medical and nursing services.

This next passage I direct particularly to the attention of thie house with all the emphasis I can because it is an extremely serious feature:

Undoubtedly, however, the gravest effects of present conditions are round in their gnawing corrosion on the structure of home and family life. Probably never before has there been, over a short period of time, such a general lowering in the standards of living throughout the dominion. No home has been immune, and from the wealthiest to the humblest in the land there has been a forced adjustment to meet decreased income. In one, it may have been four instead of five new motor cars a year, and in another the elimination of the quart of milk a day for the children, but a shifting and adjustment have been universal, throwing hundreds of thousands of families and of children on that verge of destitution, fear and insecurity where, we must remember, a portion of our families always cling precariously in the best of times. . . . One of the subtle but quite definite costs of such conditions, especially to a democracy, seems to have been overlooked-the rebuff to courage and initiative and the stunning of independence and resourcefulness involved in a prolonged period of complete reliance on social aid, and complete submission to administrative control over the minutest details of life, during that time. "Pauperization" it has been glibly called in description of

some aspects of its results; "loss of morale" in another. Devitalization would not seem too strong a term to apply to a gradual process through which nearly ten to fifteen per cent of the Canadian people receive each week from the public authorities or private charities, minute instructions as to what they are to eat, with the food prescribed in exact rations for fixed periods; just where they are to live and at what cost and under conditions in the arrangement of which they barely enter;

' whether they are to have wood, coal, gas or electricity; dress and undress in darkness or in light; have new or renovated clothing, and when, where and how much; go to a doctor or clinic for sickness or take some prescribed drug of general value. This entire subversion of a large part of a free and independent people, notable for their energy, courage and resourcefulness, to almost complete regimentation on a basis of mass treatment is to my mind the most serious, the most pernicious, likely the most permanent, but presently the least perceived of all the unfortunate effects of continued unemployment upon Canadian character in the future.

Some lion, members may say, "You are defeating your own case, because here you are seeking to justify an increase in benefits under an unemployment insurance scheme by disousing a condition which has arisen as the result of charity or direct relief." As a matter of fact I am using it to support my claims, because under this bill the measure of benefit will be so low that there will have to be continued the system of rigid regimentation of the unfortunate unemployed so that they may get the largest amount of sustenance possible out of the meager allowances provided them.

Before I conclude I will propose an amendment, because in my opinion no contribution should be sought from the employee until the worker in this country is receiving an average wage at least amounting to the equivalent of the health and decency budget set out by the labour bureau of Canada. That budget surely is low enough in itself, providing as it does for health and decency and not for any luxuries, and it stands at SI ,339. Therefore no one earning less than $1,339 should be expected or asked to contribute to any unemployment insurance scheme, whether he is insurable or not. My reasons for that contention have already been given the house. The earnings of all wage earners in Canada are, for males, S927 and for females S560. Think of it. In 1935, in the Dominion of Canada, those are the earnings paid our workers in face of the vast wealth the country has produced and can still produce, with our tremendous resources of material, plant and equipment and our gigantic power reserves. We have the equivalent of 73,000,000 men in electrical power alone, ready to produce goods for the Canadian people; at the pulling of a

Unemployment Insurance

lever or the pressing of a button, this power is ready to go to work ceaselessly in the production of goods. Yet the average earnings of all men gainfully employed in Canada is only $927. A condition of that kind is a disgrace to any system and to any country. Frankly, the measure as it now stands requiring employees and employers to contribute, means simply, as I have already stated, a general decrease in the immediate volume ' of purchasing power, lessening to the extent that it extracts contributions, at least for the time being the amount available for the purchase of goods. It takes the funds in the case of the employee directly from the very person who will consume and needs to consume at once.

The principle of noncontributory insurance is being more widely recognized, and it is not the anomaly that some hon. gentlemen would try to make it appear; after all it depends on the extent to which the non-contributory feature is extended and how the funds are to be raised. My proposal to the government is this, that in connection with financing an unemployment insurance scheme and all the rest of this social legislation that is called reform, and which can be reform and of value only to the extent that it increases the mass purchasing power of the people, they should finance the scheme by an issue of currency directly backed by the national wealth of Canada. If they do that, they will succeed in increasing the volume of purchasing power without increasing debt or taxes and without reducing in any sphere the amount available for investment or for the consumption of goods that will be produced.

The United States have been considering this problem for some time, and it may be of interest to the house to know that unemployment insurance in that country without the requirement of any employee contribution was recommended to the president's committee on economic security by its advisory council in a report published on December 16 last. Since that time this proposal has been made part of the president's program. A joint state and federal unemployment insurance scheme without employee contribution is now. as a result of the advice of the advisory council, part of the program of the President of the United States. But I continue the report

The survey advocates a federal-state unemployment insurance program, with the imposition of a three per cent tax on payrolls, beginning in 1936. . . . The advisory council rejected a plan providing that employers and employees each contribute to the insurance fund, and by a nine to seven majority accepted the three per cent tax on payrolls on the ground that it would be passed on to consumers

and the beneficiary would pay his share on the tax that would be attached to the article he purchases.

And so forth. The unemployed ex-service men of Canada have written to me under date of January 22 as follows:

Dear Sir:

At the regular general meeting of this association held on Thursday, January 17, I was instructed to request that when the question of unemployment insurance comes before the house, you will press for this form of insurance to be non-contributory, and that you will solicit all possible support from your colleagues.

I now turn to Great Britain. In 1932 a royal commission on unemployment insurance was appointed in Great Britain and there appeared before that commission the trades union congress general council. In this discussion many references have been made to the trades unions of Great Britain; they have been used as an excuse for certain parts of the bill and they have been used as justification for it. They cannot be used as justification for the contributory feature because the trades union congress general council said this to the royal commision:

Unemployment is a national and international problem resulting from the industrial system under which we live. The workers are not the authors of the system but the victims of it and, unless the community so organizes its resources, as to provide work for every willing worker, the unemployed, as the reserves of industry, are entitled to maintenance. There is no real difference in principle between unemployed workers who are equally available for and capable of work.

Note this.

It has not been found possible to operate a system of unemployment benefit on an insurance basis.

That is the considered opinion of the trades union congress general council in Great Britain and they so stated it to the royal commission. Their view was:

The cost of maintenance of the unemployed should' become a direct charge on the exchequer.

Just as I am contending.

The workers' and employers' contributions should be abolished and they should not, except as taxpayers, be burdened with the cost of unemployment.

That makes it clear that the British trades union congress stand for the noncontributory feature. I therefore move:

That Bill No. 8 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it by striking out the words ''every employed person and" in subsection. 2 of section 17 of the bill.

Unemployment Insurance

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH AN UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL INSURANCE COMMISSION
Permalink
CON

Robert James Manion (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):

If I understand aright the amendment and also the speech of the hon. member, the effect of the amendment is to make the insurance noncontributory, and for that reason I rise to a point of order on two different grounds. Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, paragraph 813, states:

When a bill comes up for third reading a member may move that it be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the [DOT]committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it in any particular.

This is not amending it in any particular; it is amending the whole principle of the bill, the principle of the bill being contributory unemployment insurance. That is the first ground on which I oppose the amendment.

Then paragraph 551 of Beauchesne states, and this is a well known rule in this house:

It is a fundamental principle that no resolution or amendment to increase a charge upon the people can be moved with the Speaker in the chair; it must be initiated in committee by a minister acting on behalf of the crown.

If this is noncontributory insurance; in other words, if those insured do not contribute, then the government will thereby have to contribute to a greater extent than is provided under the present bill, and therefore it would be a charge upon the crown and cannot be proposed by a private member. On those two grounds I submit that the amendment is totally out of order.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH AN UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL INSURANCE COMMISSION
Permalink
UFA

Edward Joseph Garland

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

On the point of order, it does seem strange to me that this very amendment in these very terms was already moved by me in committee of the whole, and it was not then ruled out of order but was voted upon. The government had a majority of only five on that occasion, and I wonder whether this action is taken because they are afraid of their majority on this occasion.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH AN UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL INSURANCE COMMISSION
Permalink
CON

Robert James Manion (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MANION:

The hon. gentleman should stick to the point of order.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH AN UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL INSURANCE COMMISSION
Permalink
UFA

Edward Joseph Garland

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

My point is that since the amendment was allowed to stand as being in Older in committee of the .whole, I fail to understand why it is not in order now on third reading.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH AN UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL INSURANCE COMMISSION
Permalink
CON

Robert James Manion (Minister of Railways and Canals)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MANION:

It was not questioned then.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH AN UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL INSURANCE COMMISSION
Permalink
CON

George Halsey Perley (Minister Without Portfolio)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE PERLEY:

It seems to me

that the argument of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) is rather extraordinary. If he did move the amendment in committee and nothing was said about it, that does not make it in order according to the rules. Perhaps someone was not listening, or

there was a lot of noise in the house at the time, and therefore it was not considered. I support my colleague for both of the reasons given. I claim that this amendment really negatives the whole bill. Paragraph 400 of Beauehesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms distinctly prevents such an amendment being moved. Then in the second place, it is quite evident that the amendment involves a charge on the exchequer of the country. The hon. gentleman himself has said that the government ought to pay a larger amount and the employee should not pay anything; if that does not mean a further charge on the exchequer-

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH AN UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL INSURANCE COMMISSION
Permalink
UFA

Edward Joseph Garland

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

No, that is not what I said.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH AN UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL INSURANCE COMMISSION
Permalink
CON

George Halsey Perley (Minister Without Portfolio)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir GEORGE PERLEY:

I understood the hon. gentleman to say so, and in fact his amendment is such that the employee would not have to pay.

Topic:   UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH AN UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL INSURANCE COMMISSION
Permalink

March 12, 1935