Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

I have

seen that report to-day for the first time, and I understand that it contains twenty-eight different recommendations. Is it possible that the government intends to give effect to only one recommendation out of the whole twenty-eight? Is it intended to let the rest stand? Or what is the position?

Mr. ILSLEY:

The present intention is not to go any further during war time, or at least

within the near future, with the recommendations of that committee than we went by order in council in August last.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

And that

definitely referred to this one subject which is the subject matter of this bill?

Mr. ILSLEY:

Yes. The bill merely ratifies the order in council. It was considered feasible to go to this extent by order in council, but later the opinion was given that we could not even do that without reference to parliament. The order in council is in operation now and we wish to give it validity, but the question whether we are to go back and introduce a long bill here, carrying out between twenty and twenty-five other recommendations, some involving very large expenditures of money, is one which perhaps we cannot be said to have finally decided. There is, however, no present intention of doing that in view of the war.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

That is

a matter of government policy and I am not quarrelling with it. Will the minister allow this bill to stand?

Mr. ILSLEY:

Very well.

Section stands.

Progress reported.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

It might

be well for the minister to make a general explanation, and it could then be decided, by consent I hope, whether there should be a full discussion on the resolution or on the bill in committee of the whole. We should not rush this important matter too fast.

Hon. N. A. McLARTY (Minister of Labour):

There is no inclination whatever

Unemployment Relief-Mr. McLarty

on my part to rush this resolution through. It is altogether in the hands of hon. members whether they wish to debate the matter on the resolution or on the second reading of the bill.

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

Or on both.

Mr. McLARTY:

Or on both. I do not know that I can add much to the statement which I made on Friday night. This is of course the resolution on which is predicated [the passing of the act that has been put through annually since 1936. In the previous three years it has been passed, I believe, without amendment. Apart from the amendments necessitated by dates in the bill, there are only three amendments that are included. In the preamble there is a reference to our war endeavour with the idea that our effort under this measure will be directed not only towards relieving unemployment but towards regulating employment so as to increase our war endeavour.

In section 3 of the former act it was provided that the dominion should of its own motion undertake works projects. It was thought, in view of the extensive war expenditures which the dominion is at present making, it might be well if, instead of carrying out these projects under the act, should they become necessary, vital and essential, they could be made under a special estimate which this house could pass upon.

The third amendment deals with the question of loans to the provinces to enable them to carry on their proportion of the expenditure under the act. That amendment merely provides that whereas in the act, as it was reenacted last year, such loans could be made by the Minister of Finance and the government when necessary, it is essential that they should be in the national interest in view of the extensive expenditures we are making.

I do not know that I can add anything to that explanation of the amendments which will be included in the bill when it is introduced. In view of the fact that the report was tabled yesterday, I would prefer to leave a statement as to the general operation of the act during the past year until I have had the advantage of hearing the discussion in committee on the resolution.

Mr. MacNICOL:

The minister should give us some report as to the plans he has in view.

Mr. McLARTY:

As I explained the other night, I had hoped that possibly we might debate this matter on the second reading. However, I am completely in the hands of hon. members in that regard. I do not suggest it, but I had not intended giving any statement until I had heard the debate in committee on this resolution.

Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):

In January, 1938, a report was presented, by the national employment commission, and practically none of the recommendations of that 1938 report have been carried out by the government. One of the great recommendations submitted by that commission was the establishment of a federal employment commission as opposed to provincial employment commissions. The minister ought to say something about this report. There were various interim reports. There was one in August, 1937, containing some important suggestions, and there was an interim report in September, 1937, in which certain recommendations were made.

We find ourselves in a difficult position to-day in Canada owing to the winding up of this commission, which should have been kept in existence all this time. Here we are faced with a shortage of skilled labour. The Minister of Munitions and Supply (Mr. Howe) told us some little time ago that it would not be long before there would be a great scarcity of skilled labour. What are we doing about skilled labour? Are we taking stock of the labour of the country? Are we seeing to it that some of these people who can be brought back to work are being brought back? Is there going to be any provision in this legislation for the rehabilitation of some of these men? We have a great opportunity at this time to get these men back to work. The minister should give us more information so that we can form some idea of what is proposed under this measure. This legislation requires a great deal of discussion before the bill is introduced, and the minister should be able to get from hon. members through this discussion a quantity of valuable information. I said not long ago that what we should have in Canada to-day is a national registration. When the national employment commission started on its job, it said. Why was this done? That is this registration. There were many reasons. They are set out on page 79 of the report, as follows:

Because the commission found very little accurate detailed information about relief recipients in existence; because any aggressive attack on unemployment to be real and constructive must be based on known facts: and finally because the commission had as one of its statutory functions to advise the government in respect to the expenditure of millions of dollars. . . .

That is why we need a national registration at this time, and that is why this commission should be working at the .present moment.

506 COMMONS

Unemployment Relief-Mr. McLarty

That is why we should still be gathering these statistics as to what these people are capable of doing. How can we expect to bring out the full war effort of this country unless we know what men we have available? The information must be obtained.

Mr. McLARTY:

I take it the hon. member is reading from the report of the national employment commission in relation to the registration of those on welfare. If he is reading that, we have, and have had for two or three years, that registration. He may be referring to a broader registration.

Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):

The minister has the registration made by the national employment commission.

Mr. McLARTY:

Which is being continued.

Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):

Which is being continued at the present time. He has a registration of unemployed people and what they can do.