1952-06-13

Mr. W. G. Weir (Porlage-Neepawa) moved:: That the following members comprise the special committee on immigration as provided for in the resolution adopted by this house on June 10, 1952: Messrs. Ashbourne, Balcer, Bourget, Brown (Essex West), Byrne, Carroll, Churchill, Coyle, Crestohl, Croll, Decore, Fleming, Fulton, Garland, Gauthier (Lake St. John), Gauthier (Portneuf), Harris (Grey-Bruce), Harrison, Helme, Henry, Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth), Lafontaine, McGregor, McLean (Huron-Perth), Murray (Cariboo), Riley, Shaw, Smith (Moose Mountain), Stewart (Winnipeg North), Thatcher, Weaver, White (Middlesex East), Whitman, Winkler, Wylie.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Righi Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That on and after Monday, June 16, 1952, until the end of the present session, the house shall meet at 11 o'clock in the morning of each sitting day, and that in addition to the usual intermission at 6 o'clock p.m., there shall also be an intermission every day from 1 to 3 o'clock p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Yesterday the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) asked a question to which I promised to give an answer today. She asked whether it is true that the income tax branch is refusing to permit deductions for tax purposes by professional engineers engaged in the public service in respect of fees they pay to professional associations. The answer is that in applying the provisions of sections 5 and 11 (10) of the Income Tax Act, the taxation division may only allow as a deduction for tax purposes the fees paid to professional associations by professional engineers engaged in the public service if it is shown that the payment was necessary to maintain a professional status recognized by statute that such engineer was required by his contract of employment to maintain.


Mr. Knowles:: May I ask the minister whether he has discussed with his colleague, the Minister of Finance, the possibility of having the act amended to cover the group referred to in the statement that the minister just made? Would it not be desirable to carry out what was the intent of that legislation when it was brought in?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which has been discussed by Colonel Medland, who is executive director of the engineering profession in Ontario. It has been discussed by him personally with the Minister of Finance, and there has also been considerable correspondence with this gentleman with respect to the matter. I am informed the Minister of Finance said that a decision as to whether or not there should be a change at a subsequent session of parliament would be given consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a little better.


Mr. Adamson:: Is that the Engineering Institute of Canada or the Ontario Association of Professional Engineers?


Mr. Abbott:: The Ontario association.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the government received an invitation from the British government to a commonwealth meeting of finance ministers for this fall? If so, are matters of trade and economic development to be discussed at such a conference? Will the Canadian government consider recommending that these matters should be discussed when and if that conference is convened?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I have received no information yet as to another meeting of commonwealth finance ministers. I think I can say that if such an invitation is extended, as usual Canada will be very happy to take part in the conference, and I would imagine that the agenda of the conference will be suggested when the invitation is sent out.

Inquiries of the Ministry KOREA



TRUCE TALKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) asked a question about the Korean armistice negotiations, to which I shall now reply.
There is no foundation to the suggestion that the negotiators for the United Nations command may withdraw from ithe truce talks. The negotiators for the United Nations command have put forward a package proposal for the solution of outstanding differences over the armistice. The communist negotiators have subjected the United States officers who are acting for the United Nations command to considerable abuse to serve the ends of their own propaganda and the United Nations negotiators have therefore recently taken the reasonable position that the main sessions might well be recessed from time to time until the communists are ready to make proposals which are constructive, not merely abusive.
Nevertheless it is the view of the Canadian government, and this is shared by other governments concerned, that if the armistice talks are finally broken off, that should be clearly the responsibility of the communists. In saying this I do not mean to suggest that we are not conscious of the gravity of the situation in Korea because of the build-up of communist military forces in recent months.
The negotiation of a military armistice has, by agreement, been entrusted to military officers on both sides. In accordance with the general outline of a plan for settling the Korean war contained in the supplementary report of the cease-fire group which was approved by the political committee of the general assembly of the United Nations on January 13, 1951, political discussions as such are not to be held until an armistice has been arranged and the fighting has ceased. I admit that the political content of these armistice discussions has now become significant. Whether, however, the machinery on the United Nations side for conducting them should be modified, or whether, indeed, an effort should be made to move the discussions from Korea itself, is another question on which I would not wish to express any opinion at this time.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I ask this supplementary question: I notice that Right Hon. Mr. Eden is to issue a white paper regarding the position in South Korea, particularly with regard to the activities of Mr. Syngman Rhee. Would

the minister inform us as to the views of the Canadian government in regard to these matters. He need not do so today, necessarily.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This question has come up in the house in recent weeks. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made an interim statement with regard to it the other day, and suggested that a further statement might be made by me. I should think that possibly the best time for me to do that would be when we are considering the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, which will probably be some time toward the end of next week.


Major James William Coldwell: That will be satisfactory.



DOMINION SUCCESSION DUTY ACT


Douglas Charles Abbott: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 208, to amend the Dominion Succession Duty Act.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should
explain that both these amendments were made with my concurrence. One is in one of the loophole sections in the act, and is to clarify what would seem to have been a drafting error in the section as passed by the House of Commons. The second amendment made by the Senate is to substitute the words "for a consideration" for the words "at a value" as they appear in the bill as originally enacted here. Both these amendments are entirely satisfactory, so far as I am concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
187. Departmental administration, $598,070.
Mr. Byrne:: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose last night I was discussing the problem of the 65-year-old people who, through no fault of their own, have been forced to retire on inadequate pensions, and in many cases without any pension whatsoever. Then there is the related problem concerning those people who, having reached the age of 35 without having established themselves in permanent employment, find they are not eligible for most of the positions in the larger industries where permanent employment could be had, or in various governmental departments.

It is my view that the government could lead the way in this regard by permitting those who are qualified to take civil service examinations, regardless of age, provided always that they are suitable for the positions offered. Only those who have had service with branches of the armed forces are eligible after reaching the age of 35. Then, in industry the unskilled workman, if he is over that age, finds that his position is prejudiced. If he is skilled he may find that in some industries he may obtain permanent employment. I believe the government should take the lead in finding a solution to this problem. The national advisory council in the Department of Labour, which was set up two years ago, could study the matter. Failing that, I suggest the committee on industrial relations might be given the task.
I have one further point to bring to the attention of the minister, although it may not deal specifically with his department. It has direct reference to the productive capacity of the nation, and I feel that representations made by the minister to the Minister of Finance might be influential in bringing about a solution to this problem, which I discussed on another occasion.
During the debate on the budget last year I made reference to the necessity for tax relief in respect of earnings made through an incentive system in excess of regular pay. As recently as yesterday the Minister of Finance agreed that the answer to our heavy taxation problem, and to the maintenance of our standard of living, lies in the productive effort of the nation. Many industries have adopted the incentive system. I am not one who will say I believe that employees are not turning in a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. It is realized that many labour unions are in complete agreement with the idea of an incentive system.
When incentive systems have been established it has been found that over-all production has been increased as much as 30 to 50 per cent, not necessarily because of harder work by the workers but because there has been a better adaptation of the facilities at hand, and the initiative of the various workmen has thus been increased. In some cases the increased production and earnings has been as high as 100 per cent.
However, we find that when a workman increases his production with a consequent increase in his earnings, the income tax takes a large portion of those extra earnings thereby defeating the very purpose for which the incentive system was established. The Department of Finance has established an incentive system in connection with the investment of capital because there is no tax
Supply-Labour
on capital gains. It is felt that a capital gains tax would curtail capital expansion, which no doubt is true, and apparently it has been thought inadvisable to increase the tax on corporations.
I feel that labour should be considered a partner in industry who is willing to invest the excess of labour over the normal amount required. That being so, labour should be treated similarly to the way capital is treated.
Those are the two problems I wished to raise. They may not be completely related, but they are related because of the necessity of increased production not only to provide for the war effort we are presently putting forth but to ensure the financing of our very extensive social program.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, I feel that the Minister of Labour would think me remiss in my duty if I did not say something on this first item in his estimates. I want to assure him that I am not going to be critical of what has been done by his department as I am more concerned about the things that have not been done but which I think should be done. I make these suggestions so that the minister, his genial parliamentary assistant and others in the department may read them. If they consider they have merit then I know something may be done about them in the future.
I have always considered the Department of Labour to be one of the most important departments of government. That department has serious and broad responsibilities. For example, they must handle the whole manpower problem so that national defence may get sufficient people for the different services and so that the Department of Defence Production may have the required technical personnel and general labour. They also have a lot to do with the Department of Agriculture because when harvesting time rolls around it is the responsibility of the Department of Labour to find the necessary labour to get in the harvest.
While many members in the house and many people outside the house look upon the Department of Labour as being a department that simply looks after strikes, disputes and so forth, actually this department plans many of the activities of the other departments, with the possible exception of the Department of Finance. I suppose the financial people are careful that you do not get into their realm to any extent.
In dealing with the ramifications and the responsibilities of the Department of Labour I must say that I am not completely satisfied with the job which has been done in one

Supply-Labour
or two fields. I am not satisfied with the job the manpower committee is doing. When that committee was set up about two years ago I said that I did not think it was broad enough because its personnel was being selected largely from the ivory towers of Ottawa. If that committee was to be realistic and in a position to make an appraisal of the manpower problems facing industry across the country, industrial councils should have been set up formed of representatives of the major industries in the country, of men who could talk from the standpoint of industry, who had personal contact with the workers in that particular industry. Those men could meet with the Department of Labour and discuss a particular industry from personal knowledge and be able to guide the department in its labour problems as well as the vocational training program.
I notice that the cost of running this committee last year was $57,000, but an amount of around $107,000 is being asked for this year. I realize that most of this money is required for clerical work, publications and so forth, but it is almost double the previous vote. Apparently the personnel of the committee is exactly as it was when it was formed.
I leave that point with the committee. If you are going to get in touch with those who really represent the workers in industry across the country you must have on that committee those who are closer to the problem than the present members. I am not saying anything about their personal qualifications but I do submit that it is necessary to have on that committee those who are more closely associated with industry and the people employed therein.
My second point is that I am not completely satisfied with the vocational training program because it has not produced very much. The estimates indicate that last year we spent approximately $8,700,000 to bring people to this country, many of them being farm labour. The minister indicated in his statement last night that we have had to bring in skilled labour, and will still have to bring them in. That adds up to the fact that our vocational training or apprenticeship plans have not been pushed as realistically as they should have been.
I have in my hand a press clipping dealing with this subject. It is dated May 24 and refers to the fact that the Department of Labour had convened a representative gathering in Ottawa on that date. The purpose of the gathering was to bring people together from the unions and industry to ascertain if there was not some way that the apprenticeship program to train personnel for industry could be stepped up. I do not know
[Mr. Gillis.l
what happened, but the statement indicates that industry will not sponsor such a program; the unions do not encourage it and it is difficult to interest apprentices. The statement indicates that actually nothing was done. Ideas were exchanged but nothing concrete came out of the conference and it was indicated that the benefits, if any, would not be noticeable for at least a year.
I do not think that is good enough. I do not think we are going to find a solution to the problem of securing more apprentices in conferences at Ottawa. I do not think we are going to find it through spending $8 million odd to bring people into the country. We are stuck so far as the skilled trades are concerned because over the years we have neglected to push the necessary vocational training program. I am not trying to saddle the present administration of the Department of Labour with the problem because it has been neglected for a long time. It is one that is not going to be overcome overnight but a start must be made.
To begin with, the matter of vocational training is a provincial responsibility. In the first place the provincial governments have to be sold the idea, and it has to be proved to them that they must do something about it. Second, instead of depending on industry to do something about it or the unions to push it, it is my opinion that what must be done is to find the necessary finances to build vocational training schools. I think the crux of the problem in the provinces, and particularly in the maritimes, is that they have not the necessary funds to provide schools. If you have not got the funds to provide schools and to pay the trained personnel necessary to staff them then you are not going to do anything about it. Industry is not responsible and neither are the unions. In my opinion the federal Department of Labour does not have the authority to push a vocational training program as they should be able to.
There is an item of approximately $2 million in the estimates this year to provide assistance by way of grants to the provinces to construct vocational schools. Under our present set-up the problem goes deeper than the provincial governments. I know that for years in my part of the country there has been talk of building a vocational school in the city of Sydney. I know that in at least two election campaigns the provincial government said that such a school would be built in the city of Sydney, but over the years all that has ever been done about it is that the provincial government, I suppose as the result of the grant from the federal government, decided that they would put up a certain amount of money to build that school.

Each municipality was then called upon to provide its share of the cost of the school. The federal grant was available, and I suppose the province could find its share of what it would cost to build that school, but many of the municipalities could not put up the necessary funds and for that reason the school was not built. Unless you can get the money to build such schools and staff them there will be no progress so far as any vocational training scheme is concerned. In my opinion the lack of funds on the part of the municipalities is the stumbling block in our whole apprenticeship training program.
It is a serious and pressing problem because, as was pointed out by the committee which was convened on the 24th of May, the older skilled men are dying and the young fellows are not coming up to replace them. They pointed out that while industry has expanded tremendously in the last few years the training programs necessary to provide men to operate the complicated machines of industry today were not in existence. Instead of overcoming the problem we are actually building up a new problem for the federal Department of Labour which has to deal with it. Whether or not they have the authority to provide schools they have to cope with the manpower problem. At the present time we are being compelled to import trained personnel from outside this country. I think that it is a very serious matter because it involves our defence production program, our national defence program and our whole industrial set-up. I think it is serious enough for the federal government to get in touch with the provinces and ascertain what they are prepared to do as soon as possible for the purpose of providing schools.
I am sure if you can get buildings designed to do that job erected in any section of this country you will not have any difficulty in getting apprentices. However, the municipalities have got to be relieved of the responsibility of putting up a certain amount of money as their share because they cannot afford it. The financial problem must be recognized. If we had spent $8 million last year in grants to establish such schools rather than to bring people into the country I think that we might have had a set-up for an apprenticeship training scheme throughout the country. I leave that thought with the minister because it is a very serious matter. It is a must and is in the best interests of the people of Canada.
I have been of the opinion since 1945 that we place too much emphasis on university training and far too little on vocational training and fitting the men of the future to run the machines of the future in our industrial set-up. There must be some new thinking on the problem because we are always going to
Supply-Labour
have hewers of wood and drawers of water. Everybody cannot go around with long hair looking down at the ground in a serious manner. There still have to be producers, and I believe if there is more emphasis on a vocational training scheme in the future and the building of such schools you will have no trouble in staffing them and not very much trouble in getting apprentices if the problem is tackled on that basis.
There is another matter about which I want to say a few words. I refer to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I know there are amendments to the act before the house at the present time in the form of a bill. What I have to say does not concern the bill but has to do with regulation 5A and the position of married women under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I think that married women are being seriously discriminated against under that particular section. I had a case which I followed right along the line. I thought that when we amended the act last year we had softened it a little bit and that there would be no trouble for a married woman who complied with the sensible requirements of the act. Unfortunately, however, after we write an act and set it out so that it looks fine somebody sits down behind the scenes and writes regulations. You may have a nice looking paragraph in the act that says that this shall be done under given circumstances but somebody writes about thirty regulations to prevent everything you put in the act happening. That is pretty much the way I look at regulation 5A. I thought all a married woman had to do was to work ninety days in insurable employment after she married to be qualified for unemployment insurance.
It does not work like that. I had brought to my attention the case of a little girl. She got married, and intended to continue working after marriage. She did not even take time off to get married. She used her vacation period for that purpose. She went back to work with her previous employer and carried on for 93 or 96 days, or some period like that; at any rate it was over the statutory requirement. Then nature played a trick on her, and she was in the position that she just could not carry on with that work. Her employer noticed that she had slowed up a bit in her work and he told her so. He laid the little girl off and hired someone else in her place. Naturally she thought she was entitled to unemployment insurance.
The situation is not bad in an industrial section that is highly unionized, where one can get advice or can hand one's problem over to the union; but this girl is living out in a rural section. She is not close

Supply-Labour
to offices. But immediately she was laid off she reported for work and continued to report for work. She was advised by the manager of the Sydney office that she was not entitled to unemployment insurance. She could not understand why not. She came down to see me and I went over the case with her. Having regard to the amendment that we had made to the act, I thought that the girl was in the clear. She is laid off. She has complied with the statute. She has worked 93 or 96 days. I called up the manager of the office and he said, "Oh, no; you forget the regulations." I said, "I have never yet seen the regulations." The girl appealed her case. I was her solicitor. I went before the board of referees. I argued the case for her and at least succeeded in splitting the board. One chap on the board said I was right; the other two said I was wrong. In any event, they not only disallowed her claim but they penalized that woman by debarring her from unemployment insurance for the next two years.
I was not satisfied with that judgment. In view of the fact that the board had disagreed on the matter, I said, "O.K.; we will take it the next step." I was sure I would get justice from a learned judge in Ottawa, so we took the matter to the umpire. The umpire is the final court of appeal. The evidence was all set out. The umpire decided that the woman was not entitled to unemployment insurance, and confirmed the penalty that was provided, namely, that she lose her unemployment insurance for the next two years.
In my opinion the thing was absolutely crazy. I have read the evidence. I have a copy of it oni my desk here. If the minister or anyone else in this committee who has any idea of fair play would take that case and read it over, and find out how an adverse decision could be handed down, I should be glad to be informed. I cannot understand it, because everything the act asked for or compelled her to do, she did. The fact that someone behind the scenes wrote a regulation with regard to a married woman in a certain condition is no reason why unemployment insurance should not be paid to her. That woman was laid off. She might have worked for seven or eight months longer. She reported for work every day, and to the best of my knowledge, is still doing so.
That case is, of course, closed. That girl is not going to get her unemployment insurance. For my part, I think that it is a rank miscarriage of justice. That girl paid for unemployment insurance for five years. After doing that her insurance is refused her. I believe she would be justified in suing the unemployment insurance commission for
[Mr. Gillis.I
the return of the money she paid in because she certainly was not given the protection for which she insured herself.
I suggest to the minister that someone should take a look at that regulation 5A, particularly those regulations, and just see how impossible it is, under the regulations, for a married woman to qualify for unemployment insurance. If we are going to accept married women as insurable, then we should see to it that they at least get the same protection in the same way as the man who pays in to the unemployment insurance fund, and that they are accorded as liberal an interpretation of the act. If we are not going to do that, we should cut them off altogether, not take their money under false pretences and deny them the protection that they think they are paying for while they are paying into the unemployment insurance fund.
That is not a criticism, may I say to the minister; that is a plea, on the basis of a miscarriage of justice, that he should take a look at the regulations under the Unemployment Insurance Act. I would also say that, in selecting the court of referees, which is the local court of appeal, you should be careful to select men who really understand the act and its purpose, and who are young enough to form judgments that are a little bit more flexible than some of the ones I have seen. For example

and I am not going to say where you may find this type of people- to take an old man who was employed in an official capacity for years in an industry and who, when he reaches the point where he is pensioned off, is 75 or 80 years of age, and to put him on a board to give judgments in disputes of that kind on modern, up-to-date legislation is a procedure that I think is wrong. I think you can get people whose minds are a little bit more flexible than that. I think if you get on the local board of referees the right kind of people, you will have little reason to send any cases to the umpire in Ottawa. I know that my first experience in trying to handle the problem through that machinery left much to be desired.
There is another subject on which I should like to say a few words, Mr. Chairman; I refer to the construction strike at present causing trouble in the Halifax area. The reason I mention the matter here is that I am informed that most of the projects where the wage dispute has taken place are government contracts. I was of the opinion that as to all government contracts of any size, when they were let, the Department of Labour generally attached to them a wage

schedule that was fair and reasonable in comparison with the rates that prevailed in the district concerned.
I do not know what the set-up is in the city of Halifax with regard to carpenters' unions and so forth; but my information is that, having regard to the dispute that is going on there at the present time, the carpenters are badly underpaid in comparison with the general wage rates in that industry. They also make the observation that since 1949 they have received an adjustment of only 10 cents per hour in their wage rates across the board. They have had no adjustment since that time.
In most of the industries-and I think this is true in most of the building trades as well-there has been a much more substantial adjustment than that in wage rates on a national scale. I know that this problem is one for the department of labour in the city of Halifax. It is their responsibility. But at the same time if it is true that most of the projects where the disputes arise are federal government projects, I think the Minister of Labour or some of his conciliation officers from here should take a look at the situation and should at least bring the wage rates in that area, in the building industry, into line with those that prevail on a national scale. I find it hard to understand why there is difficulty in the building trades, because there has been little in the past. It is the one industry in Canada which has a national industrial council that meets with the Department of Labour from time to time and irons out the difficulties that may exist in the building trades. It has worked very well in the past, so there must be some lack of co-ordination with the national industry in this particular case. In any event, I am suggesting that the minister might look at that to see to what extent government contracts are involved in that wage dispute, and in that way he may be able to help the whole situation in that area.
There is another thing about which I was rather disappointed. Last session the Minister of Labour introduced a bill to amend the Annuities Act. We had the pleasure of examining that bill in a committee under the chairmanship of the member for Edmonton East. After the introduction of the bill I was not surprised to find that the insurance companies put on quite a lobby around the house, and sent many very vocal witnesses to the committee who complained that the bill was unfair competition. I was not very much concerned about their arguments, because I have always felt the Annuities Act was a yardstick, set up by the government, by which one could measure the rates
Supply-Labour
of the old line companies. In my opinion it was the only stabilizing factor in the whole insurance field.
I was convinced that, without the Annuities Act, we would have been a good many years establishing our group insurance plans. This act laid the basis for those group insurance plans, and to a large extent set the actuarial basis which enabled fair and reasonable rates to be established. After much wrangling the bill was laid to one side. I hope that as soon as the minister can get around to it that act will be reintroduced. The amendments merely brought the act into line with the old companies. They provided for a cash surrender value, and stepped up the amount by another few hundred dollars. This act does not provide unfair competition, but it is a yardstick that will perhaps hold the other companies' rates in line, because in all forms of insurance in this country, life, property and car insurance, the rates have skyrocketed within a short space of time. I believe that legislation such as the Annuities Act is desirable in the public interest, and should be enacted as soon as we can possibly do it.
I am going to conclude, Mr. Chairman, by again mentioning to the minister something that I have mentioned on several other occasions. I think the department should give consideration to designating certain industries in this country as national industries. I am thinking of industries that are basic to our economy. In this event the federal government would have some say when trouble arose. I believe that coal, steel, packing house and communications are the important industries. We had a good demonstration of what happens from province to province when an industry like the packing house industry gets tied up on a national scale. The labour department in Ottawa found itself in the position of being unable to do anything except offer advice, because the responsibility rested with each province despite the fact it was a national strike that was affecting the food supplies of the people of Canada. It was impossible to get the nine provinces together to try to get some unanimity of interest as to how the matter should be handled as between the provinces. In these difficult times in which we are living it is a shortsighted policy to leave the federal government in a position of being unable to act when industries that are basic to our economy and to our whole defence project may be tied up by strikes.
The minister may say that the department might be able to do something under the Emergency Powers Act which we extended a few days ago. I noticed that, despite the fact that act existed during the packing house strike, it was not invoked; nothing was done about it. We have a national labour code

Supply-Labour
under which come the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the harbours board and shipping that may be engaged in interprovincial trade. I believe that we should include within the jurisdiction of this code the industries which I have mentioned, which are national in scope and are equally important from the standpoint of what might happen in an emergency. In the event of trouble, the adjustment of wages and that kind of thing, or in the prevention of trouble which is more important than untangling a mess, I believe that the federal government is in a much better position to act than any of the provincial governments. The federal department has an excellent conciliation service with trained personnel who are able to handle these situations much better than the average provincial set-up.
I know that so far as I am concerned I have been of the opinion for a good many years that the mining industry should be a national industry. I would much rather come here to find the solution to a problem than I would go to provincial departments, because they are wrapped up rather tightly with the industrialist himself, and it is difficult to get any thinking that is not warped and biased. A national coal board has been set up with jurisdiction in allocating financial assistance to this industry. I am definitely of the opinion that the coal mining industry should be a national industry, and so should steel, packing house and communications. They should be placed under the national labour code so that if at any time it appeared as if something was developing in any of those industries that might tie them up, the labour department in Ottawa would be in a position to act instead of having to wire the provincial governments in order to get some decision. In the final analysis, it is nearly impossible to get any unanimity amongst them.
I am just making these rambling remarks, Mr. Speaker, to provoke some thought on the part of the minister, and perhaps he may do something about them in the future.


Mr. White (Middlesex East):: I always appreciate the logic with which the member for Cape Breton South attacks the problem before us. This being Friday the 13th, Mr. Chairman, in deference to my superstitious Irish ancestors I am wondering just how I should attack the problem before me. I want to assure the minister, however, that I am not going to throw any horse shoes at him or anything like that. In fact, I intend to be rather kind to him today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In an Irish way.


Harry Oliver White: I have heard of the fellow who said he got just what he

expected, and a friend of his said, "Well, you ought to be thankful you did not get what you deserved." I have in my hand a volume which I hope the minister does not think is my notes. Perhaps I should have written to the minister about it. I want to take a moment to deal with the telephone directory of the city of London and district. Believe it or not, it is almost impossible to find the Department of Labour with the other offices of the government of Canada. If you want to find national employment you find it wedged in between National Dry and National Grocers. Unemployment insurance is pretty nearly the last thing in the book. Under the title "Government of Canada" there is a labour department, but no national employment and no unemployment insurance. The people there who want to get these offices look in the book for Joseph P. Ryan. They know who he is. I hope that will be taken care of.
I have given some thought to this problem. It is a problem that is troubling the minds of most Canadians. I do not need to mention what it is. Across the line there is a steel strike. The hon. member for Cape Breton South mentioned the strike in the construction industry in the maritimes. Every time there is a strike certain people are perturbed; industry is thrown out of kilter and losses ensue. Our industrial picture is changing. If you go back a hundred years you find that most of the industries were family concerns, and the owners knew all their employees. If there were difficulties they were talked over; if someone was sick or in difficulties he was taken care of. In our industrial development management and labour have gone farther apart. Then, in some instances organizers, and men who have sought to create differences between labour and management, have profited thereby.
With that thought in mind and with my tongue in my cheek I have risen today to try to offer a little constructive criticism, as I see it, on some of the things that might be done and that are being done around about us.
Just in passing I want to mention that probably no group in the country has more to lose by governments taking over all industry, as is done in the socialist countries where the individual loses his liberty, than labour. I mention this because of the statement of William Green, president of the American Federation of Labour, as follows:
Whenever organized labour has surrendered its freedom by opposing the free enterprise system.

the slavery of despotism has become entrenched or has established strongholds that threaten all freedom.
I hear from time to time some hon. members to the left decrying the free enterprise system. I want them to look around the world and they will see that wherever there is a high standard of living they will find that it is the free enterprise system that has built it. To maintain that, I am wondering how we can approach this problem of industrial strife. I do not attach blame to labour alone or to industry alone, but I do know that everyone in the country suffers because of it.
I have some figures that I want to introduce later to highlight that, to point out that labour loses wages when industry loses business, and people generally lose things because of it, and supporting industries are forced to close because of the lay-off of their suppliers. In the long run really no one has gained. More parties are involved than just labour and industry. It is similar to what happened in the last war. It was not the armed forces principally that suffered so much as the innocent bystanders, the civilians, the women and children; and that often happens when industrial strife occurs. The long-suffering public is often the ones that are injured.
Just in that connection I have a little table that struck me as rather interesting. It is taken from the dominion bureau of statistics, and it shows labour's per cent of the production over a period of years. In 1890 the percentage of the total product that labour made was 21-4. In 1939 they had lost a little ground. The figure was 21-2 per cent; and in 1948, which is the last figure that I could get, 20 [DOT] 3 per cent went to labour. Where did it go? During that period-and I can give the figures only for 1929-that is the purchasing power that labour had gained. In other words they did not gain a great deal from industry. In fact, with all the movement that has gone on during those many years, the percentage that they obtained from the industry with which they were engaged decreased. In other words, their gains were made at the expense of groups that were not so well organized. I am going to mention two or three of them.
In 1929 an hour's work bought 6-4 pounds of bread. Today it will buy 10 pounds. We seem to think that meat is dear, but in 1929, strange as it may seem, an hour's labour bought 1-2 pounds; today it buys 1-5 pounds. Back in 1929 an hour's labour would buy only a pound of butter; in 1951 it bought almost two pounds, to be exact, 1 [DOT] 9 pounds. In 1929 an hour's labour bought only 1-1
Supply-Labour
dozen eggs; today it buys 2-5 dozen. I just put these figures on the record to show that gains have been made but they are not always obtained from the ones that we have thought they were obtained from.
I do not think anyone will question this statement. It has long been my contention that the best interests of labour and management are served when they work together as a team and not as one group fighting or opposing another. Therefore any developments that the minister might bring in that will help to bring industry and labour closer together will certainly be to the best interests of all Canadians.
While I am on the question of strikes and losses incurred, may I say that I hold in my hand two of the publications of the Department of Labour dealing with strikes or lockouts in Canada during 1950. During 1950, 1,389,039 man days were lost because of strikes and lockouts. This does not take into consideration the supplying industries that sold to companies that were on strike.
In the first three months of 1952 we have already lost 188,325 man days. It has also been demonstrated that subversive groups are striving, and have been striving, to get control of many of the labour movements. I need only mention the affair at Valleyfield and Kent Rowley to highlight what I mean. I should say, in the same breath, that it is to the everlasting credit of labour that, by democratic means, they are routing out many of these subversive workers in the unions.
There is another thing we pass by a little too lightly, and that is that we are inclined to condone damage to private property or to company property. The labourer would certainly be incensed-so would I and so would any other individual-if, during a strike, attacks were made on his home, and damage done. The damage to plants owned by corporations or companies while a strike is in progress is a loss to everyone, and constitutes a regrettable phase of our industrial relations at the moment.
Not so long ago Mr. Frost, the premier of Ontario, very wisely said in answer to demands for compulsory arbitration that he would have no part of compulsory arbitration. This is an indication that a large number of people in the country are seeking a way to stall strikes. If serious strikes occur, greater pressure would be brought to bear for compulsory arbitration, but I am one of those who hope that this can be avoided. No doubt nothing suits communists and their fellow travellers better than industrial strife. It is high time more thought was devoted to this problem, and more action taken by all those who are concerned.

Supply-Labour
While I do not offer this as a cure-all or a complete solution, I think steps could be taken to improve the understanding between labour and management in industry. This would be at least an approach to the problem. I have been giving some study to profitsharing industries in the United States and Canada, and in doing so I have come across what, to my mind, are some startling figures, and worth-while results. While I shall not read the whole of it, I would refer to an article in the Reader's Digest written by Walter Cenerazzo, national president of the American watchworkers union. It states, in part:
Nowhere in the world is capitalism operated as in the United States and Canada. Nowhere else is there a virile labour movement dedicated to work within the framework of corporate enterprise. In all other countries the labour movement is a political movement trying to obtain all reforms by legislation. This has become the tendency even on this side of the Atlantic. Our sound trade unionists disagree with a political labour movement, feeling that the best gains can be obtained for the workers at the bargaining table with the employer.
In North America there are no longer numbers of very rich-and we are striving to eliminate the very poor. We are all middle-class, whether we are the president of the bank or the janitor who works for the bank. We all desire a home, an automobile, education for our children and a high standard of living. That is why a virile labour movement must be kept free and democratic in our society.
To me this means investor, management and labour working together for these objectives.
That is what the president of one of the labour organizations in the United States has to say about our present set-up. The idea of profit sharing is really democracy in labour. The few remarks I shall make in this connection are based upon actual experiences of industries that have introduced one or more of the profit-sharing plans into the operation of their companies. At this point I would quote Mr. P. M. Richards:
Free enterprise is doomed unless employees are given partnership by means of the profit-sharing system, says William Loeb, publisher of the Manchester (New Hampshire) Times-Union and chairman of the council of profit-sharing industries.
And later:
In this connection. Mr. Loeb warned that in sharing profits, business must see that the share given to labour is commensurate with the effort labour has put into making that profit; experience shows that the more generous the profit-sharing plan, the more will productivity rise. But it is definitely not a case of "something for nothing," since the workers must do their part to make profits before they can share them.
Profit sharing is any procedure under which an employer pays all employees special immediate or deferred payments based not only upon individual but upon group performance, and also upon the prosperity of the company. In our free democratic way of life this allows the individual to make his

greatest contribution to the wealth of the community, the production of goods and services. Profit sharing is an incentive to do just this.
It would seem inevitable that with a greater degree of profit sharing would come the steadying or stabilizing of our economy. It would seem, further, that when partnership between labour and industry can be achieved by this plan, industrial strife will be superseded by industrial partnership. Some of the chief results taken from the records of industries that have introduced profit-sharing plans are these: Greater efficiency in the production of goods; cheaper goods; higher pay; fewer strikes; more profits for industry spread over longer periods of time; and the elimination of a large turnover of labour.
It is good psychology and strategy, in a world divided between belief in the sacred rights of the individual as against the overpowering rights of the state, that the individual should be supreme. This is one way in which the individual can be a partner in enterprise.
No doubt this question arises in the minds of hon. members: Are there many firms enjoying this type of labour relations? I must confess I have not been able to secure all the data for Canada, but I am told that the percentage in Canada is comparable with that in the United States. The figures I have been able to secure concerning firms in the United States entering into these profit-sharing agreements apply to one half of one per cent of the business firms in that country, and five per cent of all the corporations. As I have pointed out, this percentage carries through into Canada.
In the United States 1,120 firms each year change over from the old type of management to the process of profit sharing.
The question might be asked whether this plan is applicable to both large and small industries. Sears-Roebuck in the United States have 105,000 employees, and are one of the larger companies which have adopted this plan. Howland and Howland, New York city, have some 14 employees. Apparently it is adaptable to large and small enterprises.
The department of internal revenue in the United States reports that over one-third of the industries which have labour union representation in their plants have adopted profitsharing plans. Labour unions and labour generally are agreed on the benefits from this type of management.
Another question is how much of the profits should be shared. The percentage varies from 5 per cent to 100 per cent, the average being slightly under 20 per cent. Not only do industry and labour have a share in the

gains; all groups in the economy which are able to get a better article at lower price because of efficiency, less lost time, and so on benefit as well. In the United States there is no corporation tax applied on profits set aside for plans of this type; the money is not taxed until it becomes part of a person's income.
Another question is, how many different plans are there. One of the beauties of this system is that a plan can be tailor-made to fit almost any industry. There is no hard and fast rule and practically every industry that has adopted this plan has worked out a plan adapted to its own particular needs.
Such a plan involves sharing, not only money but interest, purposes and efforts. There is another thing that many people forget, that enterprises have losses. The question then arises as to who is going to share such losses. It has been found that in industries which have profit-sharing plans the workers consider themselves as partners and are quite prepared to co-operate with management in order to secure markets and do everything to carry them through a period when ordinarily industries are facing difficult going because of losses suffered through competition.
We should be realistic in our approach to this problem, not only as labour and industry but as a democracy, because the preservation of our way of life is involved. If we have paralysing strikes all over the country we might really be in very serious difficulty, particularly with the world situation as it is and no one knowing when we might be called into armed conflict.
I should like to review for a moment some of the achievements that have been reported by participating industries. There has been a 40 to 100 per cent increase in efficiency; labour turnover, as I mentioned before, has been sharply reduced and in many cases eliminated almost entirely; lateness and absenteeism have been reduced as much as 75 per cent; better care has been taken of equipment and there have been fewer grievances and strikes; tremendous savings have been achieved through better workmanship, greater salvage and reduced rejections.
There are waiting lists of men and women seeking employment in those industries which have adopted profit-sharing plans. Strange as it may seem, although when you analyse it it is not so strange, there has been a reduction in the prices of goods manufactured by companies employing this type of plan. There has been increased home ownership by employees.
It may be asked:	Why do we not hear
more about this? I think the answer is that
Supply-Labour
the industries which have adopted these profit-sharing plans find that they are able to compete in a very competitive market because of less labour trouble and decreased costs. Therefore they are not going to say too much about it. They consider that they are sitting pretty, as it were, compared with their competitors who may be having industrial strikes.
No industry or group can enter into such a scheme without giving it serious thought and study, and I think this is where the department comes in. There should be some central place where information could be obtained. I have before me copies of many of the publications put out by the department and I think without spending any more public money good results along the lines I have indicated could be obtained. Unless there is complete understanding on the part of employees and management I think any plan will be doomed to failure. After all, it is a question of partnership.
The Department of Labour should take a long-range view of this matter and make its plans accordingly. When a strike occurs it becomes the duty of the province to send in an arbitrator or referee, but that is after the fight has begun. That is not the point at which the most good can be done. What I am interested in is preventing these fights, not settling them after they get started.
It is most important that management explain its problems to its employees. It should tell its employees about its markets and its competitors. I cannot think of a better way of improving industrial relations than the adoption of the profit-sharing plan. It is the answer to communism, it is the rounding out of democracy, it is the Christian way of life.
There are certain items in the estimates which have a direct connection with this problem. Item 188 deals with the economics and research branch; item 190 has to do with fair wages, conciliation and industrial disputes; item 193 has to do with the Labour Gazette; item 200 has to do with the national advisory council on manpower, on which we are spending $107,940, and many people wonder what we have to show for that; and then there is item 202, which has to do with educational films. Those items total $1,186,822 and it is my opinion that half of that might well be set aside for the purposes I have mentioned. I hope the minister and his department will go to work on this problem.


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, my general impression of the minister's department is that they are doing a good job. Inasmuch as

Supply-Labour
they are doing a good job, I believe mention should be made of that fact. When people in the country do a good job, they should be given credit no matter to what party they belong. I see no reason why we should be so partisan as to deny honour where honour is due. However, there are three matters that I think should be brought to the minister's attention by more and more members until something is done about them. I am not the first one in parliament to bring them up but I am one, and I hope there will be a good many more. They do not reflect on the minister at all, or on his department. They require that we do a little breaking of new sod.
The first one has to do with men 45 years of age and over. We know that very definite resistance has developed in many industries against the employment of men who have reached the age of 45. This is a manifest injustice developing in our nation which we must take measures to overcome. Exactly What should be done I am not prepared to say because I have not given the matter sufficient study, but something simply must be done to remove from men and women 45 and over the disadvantage under which they are suffering in the matter of obtaining employment.
The next matter that I think must be given attention at a very early date has to do with people who have reached the age of 65 and over. Not very long ago I was travelling on a train on which the conductor was making his last run. The whole thing was about as sad as a funeral. I have seen very few men more sad than this conductor. He was perfectly capable of carrying on and doing a good job but the age limit had come and he had to be laid off. We will grant that when a man reaches the age of 65 it may not be safe to entrust him with the heavy responsibility of being the conductor of a train, or perhaps of taking the lead in a great many other activities in which human life and property may be endangered, by reason of developing failure to co-ordinate and so forth which is likely to come upon any man after he reaches that age. Nevertheless it is in the interests of the nation that the productive capacity which still remains in many men and women after the age of 65 should be employed to the best advantage.
Unless we make provision for that sort of thing we are obviously not going to get out of our economy its greatest productive achievement. Just what ought to be done again is not easy to prescribe. One hesitates to even make a suggestion for fear he might be misunderstood, but when we reflect upon the use that is being made of human energy in various institutions which I think will
[Mr. Blackmore.l
come to mind, human energy which for one reason or another is more or less taken out of circulation permanently from the economy, it seems quite obvious that it should be possible to design something to enable the country to re-employ people who have reached the age of 65. The government will have to take the lead in this matter because private people cannot very well do it. Therefore I want to bring that matter to the minister's attention with the suggestion, that his department give it the very best thought it is capable of bringing to bear on this subject so that something can be done before we have too much suffering.
As the minister very well knows, we are learning now to feed people better and in various ways to take care of them better so that their expectancy of life is being greatly increased. It is a most doleful thought that a man's life should be extended in length only to be spent in idleness which leads in many cases to decay and unhappiness. These are general considerations that in my opinion apply to the proposition.
There is another matter which was more or less indirectly referred to by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I refer to the taking of an unemployment insurance fee from people when it is a foregone conclusion that they are not going to be able to receive unemployment insurance. I know that the whole unemployment insurance scheme is built up to a certain extent on the fees which are taken from people, and I believe it was designed to take fees from a good many people who would never derive any benefit from unemployment insurance. Let us have it clearly understood, however, that for the government to take a fee from -any ordinary individual for a service which that individual is not going to be able to receive is for the government to be indulging in what is morally unsound. In other words, it amounts to theft. That is a pretty severe word to use but I think one can hardly use a milder term and still express the truth. The instance the hon. member for Cape Breton South gave is a good case in point. It is not necessary to do things like that in an economy like Canada's in order to be able to have unemployment insurance.
I do not propose to enter into a discussion of the whole matter but I think everybody in this house or outside who is realistic in the matter of finance must certainly comprehend that there are ways of obtaining the money without resorting to such a device, and without resorting to such a device as the onerous taxation from which we suffer throughout the economy. It is high time that the government in power in Canada began to consider some of these ways and

means. I register my protest against taking money from people from which they are not going to be able to receive any advantage. Probably the remedy cannot be developed all at once but it is high time that we pushed our prow in the right direction and began working towards the desirable goal.


Mr. Henry:: Mr. Chairman, at this particular time it is appropriate to discuss the past story of the Department of Labour under the federal government. In doing so it takes us back through the regime of Sir Wilfrid Laurier when the department was founded and on through the years of the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King who was the first deputy minister of this department and then prime minister. As hon. members know, in his lifetime Prime Minister King took a deep interest in the affairs of the department indirectly when prime minister of the day. It gives me considerable satisfaction to have been in the department myself during the years 1942 to 1944 and to have seen later in the opening days of the regime of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent the department doing fine work and the things for which, in the mind of the founder and its first deputy minister, it was established. I take particular satisfaction in seeing Dr. Arthur MacNamara, its present deputy minister, still in office today and carrying on the notable work which he began when he took over during the years of world war II.
The results of the department in the legal sense have been very great over the years. The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act is a model of its kind and constitutes the first controlled collective bargaining statute in Canada. We can mention the wartime labour code. We all remember the good work of the Hon. Humphrey Mitchell in those days and also of the present deputy minister in producing this model labour code which has served so well that many of the provinces have adopted it as the model for their existing labour relations legislation. The unemployment insurance commission and the national employment service are institutions of which most Canadians are proud. Indeed, we are glad today to see the government increasing the allowance under the unemployment insurance legislation and also shortening the waiting period. These improvements are approved on all sides of the house as I am sure they are welcomed by labour and management.
There is another outstanding piece of legislation, and this is the vocational training legislation which this department has administered so ably to date. Here you have actual proof of Canada's recognition of the need for education of the masses as well as of the
Supply-Labour
classes. This government, from its earliest days, has taken great care as to this training, and it is a matter of increasing importance in these times when we find the necessity for this broad outlook and this balance in the field of education. Most Canadians recognize the need for greater skills on the part of those who do manual work. Our legislation, passed as it was by the present regime early in the days when the depression was concluding, is a statute which has increased the skills of the workers commensurate with the job opportunities which arose when this government came back to office in 1935 before the commencement of world war II. It has been said that Prime Minister King cured job scarcity in Canada during the late thirties, but it can be said too that he also provided educational opportunities for vocational training consistent with the job opportunities which were brought about towards the end of the depression.
Today, under the St. Laurent regime, we have at the helm Canada's lawyer without peer. We all know that he went to work early in the days of his regime on the question of Canada abroad at the bar of public opinion abroad; and we have the North Atlantic pact as a monument to his credit. This North Atlantic pact is undoubtedly a gesture of friendship on the part of the Prime Minister and a monument to him which sets him apart as a world statesman in the British commonwealth. However, at home he has also proven his skill as an advocate on behalf of labour at the bar of public opinion.
I was in the hospital at the time when the outstanding national railway strike centred itself on this parliament and was settled with skill by our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I think that the essence of the skill which he displayed is that he pointed out to labour the necessity, in the national crisis, of compulsory arbitration, at the same time reminding them of the seriousness of the position and expressing the firm hope that resort to it should not happen again unless under extreme conditions of national emergency. To see the way labour trusted him is the thing which makes us sure that he follows truly in the tradition of Laurier, and again in the tradition of King, setting himself apart as one quite capable of adding to the labour laws of the country which are to the credit of the government, and setting himself apart again as a trusted friend of all those who came to us here in this parliament at the time of the national railway strike.
The story of the department in the estimates brought forward by the minister today illustrates to me that the minister has in mind clearly the problem of inflation on the home front in Canada. We have seen the effect of

Supply-Labour
governmental taxes, credit and monetary controls in stemming the tide of inflation. We trust that there is a measure of stability which will last. But we also see, in the legislation of the department, encouragement of production on all sides, which is a good weapon against inflation. There has been encouragement to the ordinary working force by way of these increased benefits in the unemployment insurance legislation. We can point to that legislation as something which will encourage production and also help to stem the tide of inflation. Above all, the increases in the estimates for vocational training stand as something which provides for the youth of Canada opportunities to increase their skill, to increase their production, and to help on the question of inflation.
I note with interest that the minister has been able-and I think it is to his credit- to increase his vocational training estimates as he saw fit in an amount of $375,000 this year for purposes which become apparent as the estimates are examined. It is interesting to note that the record of the government has been extensive in this vocational training field in the post-war period. To date $58,641,625 has been spent on the matter of vocational training in the post-war period down to the last fiscal year now concluded.
It was interesting last evening to listen to the minister as he told about the apprenticeship conference here at the national level. Industry was represented, as were labour, the provinces and his own department. Although the minister is unable to predict-and I think wisely so-the future outcome and the immediate results of the conference, I am sure that these results nevertheless will bear fruit, knowing the minister and the officials he has with him in this matter. I know that at the conference approval was given to the proposals of the conference as to apprenticeship training, not only by management but also by the top figures of the labour organizations; I refer to Mr. A. R. Mosher and Mr. Percy Bengough in this connection.
Naturally labour is going to be concerned about the way in which the policies laid down by the conference are implemented. Labour will not want to see great pools of labour trained in the wrong places and at the wrong time. But I think it is a good sign that labour representatives at the conference endorsed the principles laid down and considered, naturally, providing necessary safeguards. Knowing the department and its reputation for carefully implementing policies of this kind, I think we can rely upon it to do a good piece of work. I think hon. members should encourage the minister, when his supplementary estimates come

before the committee, to further the aims and the findings of the conference.
It came as good news to me when I heard the minister report about the conference, because early in the life of this session I placed on the order paper a resolution which I was able to discuss briefly before the house in another debate. This resolution is on the order paper and, if the chairman will permit me to do so, I will read it so that it may be included in the record of these, my remarks. It reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give early consideration to the making of provision for increased financial assistance for the improvement and extension of vocational training facilities and the training of workers in skilled trades and occupations with a view to providing adequate facilities and opportunities for training workers in all sections of Canada and developing and increasing the skills and numbers of workers in essential trades and occupations in the national interest.
I think this is a worthy resolution, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, I have received from my colleagues on the government side general commendation as to the resolution. I think that members of this chamber on all sides approved the statement of the minister with regard to this matter of vocational training and increasing the apprenticeship side of it. And, too, the people of Canada have shown their need for increased vocational training facilities. I know that because the figures indicate that in the vocational training establishments in 1949-50 there were 179,043 individuals registered, and in the year 1951-52 the enrolment increased to 226,075.
It would be an oversight on my part if before taking my seat I did not indicate to the minister a personal debt to the department in my ordinary duties within the riding of Toronto Rosedale. We have there the Rosedale Liberal Association, which called upon me to take the nomination for my seat in parliament as of the month of April, 1949. At that time it was the policy of that association in the riding to establish there a permanent Liberal committee room on Parliament street. I wish to report to the house that since that time the association has obtained this committee room, with a permanent secretary on duty from 3 to 6 p.m. daily for five days a week. The purpose of the committee room is to serve the residents of the riding in connection with their legal, governmental, social welfare, and other problems which they may bring there for consideration. The practice is to refer the individuals concerned to the appropriate sources which can give them assistance in their needs. In that sense it has been called

a referral bureau, and it has been welcomed by no less than 1,000 people during the period of its operation in the riding.
If the chairman will permit me, I should pay tribute to the national employment service in Toronto for giving all possible assistance to us in our work in the committee room, f mention in particular the sympathetic outlook of those officers in that local office in Toronto in counselling senior citizens in the matter of employment. In the association we believe, and I know the impression has been gained for the most part in the riding, that there is a deep sense of personal interest on the part of the officers and officials of the local national employment office. Further, we believe that the national employment office in Toronto is carrying out the will of the people in the democratic sense, to the end that people have their needs satisfied in so far as is reasonably possible. We thank the minister for the co-operation and service of his officials, and for enabling us to make democracy work better at the riding level. We thank him further for enabling us to keep close to the people where, in my opinion, we who are in public life belong.
As a result of the minister's vocational training program, and the expansion of it, I intend to recommend to the executive of the association that in the future we include a new feature in the service rendered by the committee room. I believe that an opportunity exists for the members of the association, and particularly the executive, to assist the people of Rosedale riding on the question of vocational guidance. I wish to assure the minister that when his new program is well under way we shall endeavour to bring the program to the people of Rosedale riding, so that their needs may be fulfilled and they may obtain the fullest possible benefit from the program.
In closing, I wish to congratulate the minister on the vocational training program, because in my opinion it will produce more skilled workers, more production, better wages, a better standard of living, less inflation, and a better war prevention program in defence of freedom.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Chairman, I was very glad to learn last night from the minister's remarks that the question of rehabilitation in industry is receiving the government's attention, and to learn also that an advisory council on rehabilitation is to be set up. I believe that is a very good step. I only hope that this advisory council on rehabilitation will be given more opportunity to do good work than has the advisory council on manpower, which was set up with such great hope more than a year and a half ago.
Supply-Labour
The reason I say that about the advisory council on manpower is because the only way you can judge a body and what it does is by the reports of its meetings. I have here a news release sent out by the Department of Labour, reporting on the latest meeting of the advisory council on manpower, held on February 26 last. I have read it very carefully, but I cannot find one reference to any suggestion which was made by any member of the advisory council on manpower. In fact, I cannot find any reference to any member of that council being there, but I am sure they were.
It is a lengthy report, and contains a good many reports which were obviously laid before the advisory council on manpower by the government. In fact, I have studied these various news releases sent out by the Department of Labour when the advisory council on manpower has had its infrequent meetings, and I have yet to find more than one reference to advice being given to the government by a member of the council. That was a short statement of about half a paragraph by Mr. Rhys Sale of the Ford Company of Canada, about a year ago.
I feel that is a very regrettable state of affairs. When the council was set up, the membership appeared to be very worth while. It seems to me unfortunate that they have not been given more chance to operate in the manner in which I believe an advisory council should. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the government has been advising the advisory council, rather than the advisory council advising the government, and to me that seems the wrong way to do things.
I sincerely hope the minister will see to it that this advisory council on rehabilitation will be given a real chance to do useful work in this important field. I believe there is a great need for a rehabilitation program, both physical and occupational, to be operated in co-operation with the provinces. The purpose of it should be to look after the needs of those people in industry who, through disease or accident, are prevented from continuing to earn their own living.
The kind of program I have in mind is the one which was operated with such conspicuous success at the end of the last war, and which dealt so successfully with a great number of disabled veterans. Every effort was made to cure a man's disability, and if that was found to be impossible, then he was taught a trade. This enabled veterans to be fitted into jobs which they could fill and handle, often better than those who have the full use of their faculties. The reason for that is that a great many disabled people are so anxious to show their employer

Supply-Labour
that they can do a good job, despite their disability, that they work harder and apply themselves more than a person who is perfectly normal in every way. I believe if that kind of program is brought into effect by this government a great many more disabled people will be able to continue to earn their own living than is the case today.
The second suggestion I should like to submit to the minister for his consideration concerns the man or woman who has built up an unemployment insurance credit. They should be able to draw on that credit if sickness or accident prevents them from continuing to work. There is no time at which a man or woman needs unemployment insurance benefits quite so much as when sickness or accident prevents them from working. Not only do they have to maintain themselves and their families, but they have hospital and doctors' bills to pay as well. We must also remember that the unemployment insurance credit which a man or woman has built up is his or hers by right, and is not charity. It exists simply because the man or woman and the employer have contributed toward that unemployment insurance credit for the sole purpose of helping to maintain them if, for some reason, they are prevented from working.
The third matter I want to bring to the minister's attention is the desirability and need of paying a pension, equal to the old age pension, to be paid irrespective of age, to all persons whose disability makes it impossible for them to continue to earn their own living. That is simply in keeping with the principle behind the Old Age Security Act, which pays a pension to people over 70 years of age without a means test because it is assumed that people of that age are no longer able to earn their own living.
I believe that men and women in industry who, because of accident or disease, are prevented from continuing to earn their own living, are often more in need of pensions than many persons over 70 years of age. Sick and disabled people have hospital and doctors' bills to pay in addition to maintaining themselves and their families. That puts a considerably greater strain on their finances than is put on the finances of those over 70 who, in many instances-I would say in most instances-are still sound in wind and limb. For that reason I believe the principle behind the old age pension, which is excellent in every way, applies to those disabled people in industry to an even greater degree. For that reason I believe these people should be paid a pension if the doctors of the unemployment insurance commission certify upon examination that they are prevented from continuing to earn their own living. I would appreciate

it if the minister would comment on the suggestions I have made at an appropriate time later in this debate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
189.	Annuities Act-administration, $956,386.
Stanley Howard Knowles: This is an item with reference to the annuities act. The minister knows that we have asked him questions about this a number of times during the session, and some remarks were made on it today by my colleague the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I realize that we face a barrier so far as this session is concerned in the statement made by the Prime Minister a few days ago that no legislation amending the annuities act would be introduced at this session. Nevertheless, that statement by the Prime Minister did not preclude the possibility of an amendment being brought in at the next session, and we urge that that be done. We should like to hear from the Minister of Labour what the situation is and whether there is a reasonable prospect that a bill similar to the one that was not proceeded with last session might be introduced at the next session of parliament.


Mr. Thatcher:: I shall take only two or three minutes on this item. The government is proposing to spend this year $956,386 on the administration of the annuities act. Incidentally, that is an increase of about $98,000 over a year ago. I want to say at once that I, along with other members of this group, certainly support the annuities act, at least the principle of it, and I concur in most of what was said this afternoon by the hon. member for Cape Breton South.
The original purpose of this act was to encourage people of modest means to make provision for their old age, and I think the act has been at least moderately successful in doing that. I hope the minister will announce, when he brings in amendments to the legislation, that the scope will be extended and the ceilings increased. But there is one feature of the present act I do not like, and I am speaking personally. Out in Saskatchewan we have a government insurance office. That company sells insurance to the people of Saskatchewan at rates considerably below those which prevailed formerly. For the most part they sell insurance at approximately cost. Nevertheless the corporation is expected to pay its way as it goes along. It seems to me that the federal government might take a lesson from the Saskatchewan insurance office in so far as these annuities are concerned. Why should the annuities branch not pay its way as it goes along?

In other words, Mr. Chairman, I believe that federal annuities should be sold at cost, approximately, but not at a loss. If the branch did that, I believe they could still sell annuities considerably cheaper than the insurance companies can sell them. I believe, and believe very strongly, that premium rates charged on these government annuities should first of all cover the cost of administration, and second the solvency of the fund. I can see no reason whatever why the taxpayers of Canada should be called upon to subsidize a scheme which is used by only a minority of the population many of whom are not in need of such subsidy.
May 1 refer the committee for a moment to the details of the estimate. They are contained on page 237. Altogether we are spending $956,000 on administration. The annuity contracts issued last year totalled 21,775, according to page 24 of the minister's report. In other words, last year the administration costs of the annuities which were issued amounted to about $44 each. This bill the taxpayers of Canada had to pay. It does not seem very sensible to me.
We have 189 employees in this department. I hope that the day will come when the volume of these annuities can be increased. At the same time I find it strange that the taxpayers of Canada should be paying the wages of those employees, instead of the people who are benefiting-i.e. the holders of the annuities. Week after week people are saying something should be done to bring down the high cost of government. Surely this is a good place to start to trim the costs. I believe the annuities act, as I said a moment ago, is a most worth-while piece of legislation, and I hope it will be enlarged; I hope it will be expanded. But I do believe annuities should be sold at cost, and should not require annual payments from the taxpayers to keep them going.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: May I ask a question? Was the hon. member expounding the policy of the C.C.F.?


Major James William Coldwell: No; I am just getting up. I wish to say that we fully support this annuities act. The criticism I would make is that the money which is being spent is not getting enough contracts. I would like to see the annuities branch go out and sell more contracts and get more people interested in annuities. After all, when this annuities system was set up it was in order to encourage people, who might not otherwise provide for their later years of life, to make some such provision for themselves. And the fact that it was undertaken 55704-202^
Supply-Labour
as a national obligation to meet the costs of promoting these annuities was a step in the right direction.
Personally-and I think I speak for our group-we have always supported the fundamental principle of the annuity, and we have always supported the manner in which the cost of promoting these annuities has been met; and we are continuing to do that. It may be that-


Alphonse Fournier: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he say "and to subsidize the system"?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes, exactly. We believe if
it is worth while subsidizing-


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member who spoke before did not agree with that.


Major James William Coldwell: And the hon. member said he spoke personally. I am speaking as the leader of the group and as one who has always supported the idea that in order to encourage people who might not otherwise make provision for themselves, they should be assisted; and this important piece of social legislation should be subsidized, just as we support every other piece of social legislation.
That does not say that I think more care should not be exercised in the expenditure of the funds the government puts out in order to encourage the purchase of these annuities. As a matter of fact I think every care should be exercised. My criticism of the whole annuities system is this, that we have not sufficiently subsidized it, that we have reduced the interest rates over and over again because of the lobbies of insurance companies. Those lobbies have caused the reduction in the interest rates and thus made these annuities less attractive. That is the reason we are not selling as many contracts as we should be selling and as we did sell in the years immediately following the war. And that is why perhaps the proportion of employees and costs for the last year would seem to be higher than warranted by the number of new contracts made in that year. I have not been able to go into this matter thoroughly; but I wish to say that we certainly think every effort should be made to popularize the annuities. We regret that the rates of interest have been substantially reduced at the request-and I know this to be so-of the insurance companies. They have lobbied me on occasions about it.


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: The rate of
interest was increased two months ago.

Supply-Labour


Major James William Coldwell: I am glad to know that. The fact had escaped my attention; but I have been rather busy lately.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And successfully, too.


Major James William Coldwell: Never mind about the "successful" part of it. The fact is that I have been rather busy. But I do wish to say that, over the years, the rates of interest have been decreased. We thoroughly support the idea that in order to encourage people to take annuities we have to subsidize them to some extent.


Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word about annuities, because I have discussed the matter on other occasions and t would not want this opportunity to pass without stating my views. I cannot agree with those who suggest that we should be tightening up the reins in respect of these annuities. In fact, I think a little loosening of the reins might be more in line. I believe a year ago the ceiling was raised from $1,200 to $2,400.


Mr. Gregg:: No.


Charles Edward Johnston: What is the ceiling now?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It is still $1,200.


Charles Edward Johnston: Then I shall say that a good deal of pressure was put upon the government to have it raised to $200 a month. I am not in agreement with that because, as the hon. member for Moose Jaw has said, this plan was put in primarily to assist those who were not able to invest heavily with the insurance companies. I think the policy should be one which would encourage those in the smaller income brackets to take advantage of government annuities.
When the Minister of National Health and Welfare was speaking in connection with the old age pensions legislation I remember him suggesting that even those people with modest incomes might be able to take advantage of the new plan in connection with annuities, in order to increase their benefits upon reaching old age. One of the things that did happen last year was that the premium rate was raised from 3 per cent to 3J per cent. I made strenuous objection when, under the late Mr. Mitchell, the rate under the fund was reduced from 4 per cent to 3 per cent. That is not conducive to obtaining larger contracts.
As the hon. member for Moose Jaw said a short time ago, costs are too high; but I think the only way to reduce those costs is by increasing the amount of business. I have never known of any occasion when, through the efforts of the government, we have gone out to advertise the annuities plan to the public. When we are spending millions upon

millions of dollars to advertise branches of government, surely we could spend a few hundred thousands to advertise our annuities program. One of the best ways to do it would be to raise the rate from 3J per cent to 4 per cent.
An annuities plan is the only plan under which the ordinary worker, the man who is receiving wages, can invest his money at anything near a reasonable rate. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said, we did not hesitate to raise the interest rates on housing, to meet the accommodation of the lending companies. Everyone knows the reason the rate on annuities was lowered from 4 per cent to 3 per cent was the pressure of insurance companies around this House of Commons.
I would like to see the overhead in connection with this branch of the department brought down; but I do not think it can be brought down by cutting the interest rate or by raising the over-all ceiling. The only way to reduce those rates is to get out and obtain more business. That may not be popular with the insurance companies; but then they will have to reduce their rates if they want to keep in line. The insurance companies I know anything about are not doing badly these days, and could well afford to make their contracts a little more attractive.
I would like to see the government raise the annuities rate to 4 per cent. I suggest that the government should get out and do a real job of advertising. If more business were brought in there would be a great improvement in this annuities plan. I am sure the present staff would be able to handle an increase in business to the extent of another 50 per cent and now is the time to do it. Do not wait until the fund reaches the point where we have to curtail services. If it was put out primarily to assist people in the lower income brackets, then let us make it a little more attractive so the working people will have a break.


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: There are one or two questions I should like to ask the minister. Does this amount of $960,000 represent the complete cost of administering the fund and are the total receipts from the sale of annuities kept within the fund? Can the minister give a comparison, say between Newfoundland and New Brunswick, as to the number of annuities being taken up?


George Harris Hees: Before we go on to any other item, would the minister be kind enough to answer the questions I put to him on item 1 so we can keep ourselves straight?


Alphonse Fournier: I thought the general discussion had been terminated.

The Depuly Chairman: The general discussion was terminated.


George Harris Hees: When does the minister intend to answer the questions which I put to him in good faith on item 1?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Prior to this afternoon a number of hon. members have spoken about annuities, and perhaps I should say a few words now on that matter. As we move forward I shall cover the points that have been brought up when we reach the respective items. If by any chance I should miss any I would be very glad to have hon. members bring them to my attention.


George Harris Hees: I referred to disability pensions, and there is no item covering that.


Alphonse Fournier: There will be an item in the supplementary estimates.


The Deputy Chairman:: I recall the questions asked by the hon. member for Broadview, and that he requested the minister to answer at the appropriate time. As the first item is carried I do not believe anything else can be done at this time.


George Harris Hees: What I meant by appropriate time was that the minister answer at the end of item 1.


Mr. Martin:: I dealt with that very question.


George Harris Hees: If we cannot get a better answer than that given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare there is no use getting an answer. I asked the minister in good faith on item 1 if he would answer my question, and I would appreciate it if he would.


William Alfred Robinson: The hon. member has allowed item 1 to carry and I cannot allow further discussion of that item unless there is unanimous consent.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I know you want the committee to keep within the terms of each individual item, but there is an item covering the national advisory council on rehabilitation of the disabled and when that item is reached, I hope in the not too far distant future, I will be able to deal with the remarks of the hon. member.
Referring now to the questions put by the hon. member for St. John's West, he asked if the $900,000 constituted all the administrative costs. The answer is that it does. He asked if all the amounts received went into the annuities fund. The answer is yes. I have not under my hand at the moment information as to the annuities sold by provinces, but I shall get that for the hon. member.
I think under this item it might be appropriate to make some brief comments with regard to annuities. Since the session last fall there has been a great deal of general
Supply-Labour
discussion across Canada on this subject. Hon. members have stated that the insurance companies and insurance underwriters put on a heavy lobby, which I do not deny; but I may tell them that since Christmas I have received a great many representations from organizations and individuals who have nothing whatever to do with the sale of insurance or annuities.
I think the discussion this afternoon reflects the difference of opinion that exists with regard to this matter, particularly the point with regard to the term "subsidy". There is a very strong school of thought in Canada that has the view that if the federal government is going to remain in what is recognized as a field of private enterprise, if it is going to retain subsidies in connection with annuities, those subsidies should reflect to the benefit of the small wage earner and should not accrue to thei benefit of the well-to-do individual who can afford to purchase an annuity to bring him in, say, $2,400 a year. I am not going to discuss the merits of that position at this time. In outlining the legislative program for the balance of the session the other day the Prime Minister mentioned certain items of pending legislation, including this one, which would be held over for further study.
Discussions since last fall between officials of the annuities branch and senior officials of my department, one of whom is sitting in front of me, have brought to light a number of matters, particularly with respect to the underwriting of pension plans. These are being studied and it may be necessary to include a specific provision in the act to permit the underwriting of pension plans in the light of present-day trends.
The desirability of labour being free to move from one place to the other and the effect that pension plans might have upon such movement has been the subject of discussion by labour organizations as well as by the panel of discussion at the conventions of such employer bodies as the Canadian Manufacturers Association. I am free to say I now realize that there are difficulties related to annuities under group plans which I did not recognize before.
There are a number of other problems in connection with the administration of this act which require further study. Some of them arose out of the proposals to relate the annuity interest rate to the going yield on government bonds. In response to the point raised just a moment ago by the leader of the
C.C.F. party I may state that I have not been the object of any high pressure in the matter of interest rates.

Supply-Labour


Major James William Coldwell: Not of late.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Voluntarily, and without any pressure being exerted, we did increase the rate because we felt that it should be related to the earning power of long-term government bonds. It was on that ground that the rate was increased from 3 to 3J per cent.
I 'am asking to have set up an ad hoc interdepartmental committee composed of officials from the departments of government most concerned' with these matters and report to me. It had already been decided to study the point raised' this afternoon by the hon. member for Moose Jaw, that is what the effect would be if the $900,000 administrative costs were absorbed. Of course that would have an effect upon the actuarial equilibrium of the fund.
While constant review and check is made by the annuities branch of mortality trends this interdepartmental committee will also be asked to examine the tables being used and will be authorized to call in experts to advise the annuities branch on its practice.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are glad to know that this matter is still being studied, and we hope that study will not take as long as some other matters, such as health insurance for example.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Keep on the subject.


Alphonse Fournier: Stick to the item.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was hoping the Minister of National Health and Welfare might interject that something was coming in health insurance. It will.


George Harris Hees: In 1975 or 1976.


An hon. Member:: It would be if we waited on you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We hope there will be legislation in respect of annuities at the next session of parliament. While he was on his feet the minister said there was some confusion with regard to annuities respecting whether or not they are being subsidized at all, and that there was also confusion with regard to whether or not there is any justification for any alleged subsidy. In our view if there is an element of subsidy in this plan it is more than justified. It is associated with the aim to enable Canadians to provide more adequate old age security. In realistic terms I question whether there is any element of subsidy in it at all. Reference has been made this afternoon to the costs of administration. It was made clear to us in the committee on industrial relations last session when we had this matter before us that the cost of administration in connection with government annuities are much less than the costs of

private insurance companies in administering similar plans or insurance generally.
It must also be remembered that the government has the constant use of a very large sum of money as the result of the funds that are paid in on account of government annuities. The public accounts for the last year for which the printed copy is available show on page 75 that there was then on credit with the government under the heading of "government annuities" the sum of $620,398,995. The use of that money, even if it is computed in terms of interest, is a considerable advantage that the government enjoys. It must also be remembered that throughout the years more money has been taken in by the annuities branch each year than has been paid out. The annuities branch is not an insurance company that has to be operated under conditions of some day being put up on the block. The annuities branch goes on forever, and in realistic terms we have here what amounts in some respects to a pay-as-you-go scheme.
People are paying in today in return for which they will enjoy a benefit later on. The people who are drawing out money today are drawing out less than is being paid in. Therefore I submit when you add up all the figures and set them beside each other the taxpayers of Canada are not actually out anything at all as a result of the scheme, but rather the government is having the use of a very large sum of money. I hope this thing can be sorted out and that the type of propaganda, particularly from insurance companies, that argues that we are subsidizing something for a few people will not continue but that instead we will get the improvements in the annuities act which the industrial relations committee supported last fall when it reported the bill back to the house.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
190.	Fair wages, conciliation, industrial relations, industrial disputes investigations, including the administration of legislation relating thereto, and for activities re promotion of co-operation in industry between labour and management, $428,093.
Milton Fowler Gregg: On this item I should like to acknowledge the very excellent comments made by the hon. member for Middlesex East and to assure him with respect to the point he made concerning industrial peace that, while I am sure it is impossible for the federal government to take any direct action in the field of profit-sharing plans for industry which he outlined, nevertheless I will make the suggestion that the Labour Gazette publish an abstract of his comments in a future issue. In this matter, as in so many others in the field of conciliation which this item covers, we feel that the federal branch can do its most effective work in cultivating

the tree of industrial good will, of which such a profit-sharing plan is one of the lush fruits. I do not think we can expect to have a very great part in the development of the fruit. However, it is the purpose of this phase of our work to leave nothing undone, in co-operation with the ten departments of labour in the provinces and in co-operation with organized labour and management, to help create an atmosphere in Canada in which industrial peace can flourish.
It has been a great privilege both for myself and my parliamentary assistant, even though neither of us is recognized as a labour man, to take advantage of every chance we have had to join in conventions or conferences of organized labour and organized management for the purpose of expressing on behalf of the federal government a special plea in this regard. As all hon. members know, the officials engaged in this work have been doing intensive work along the lines of encouraging labour-management production committees which, while they have nothing to do with collective bargaining as such, are designed to help create an atmosphere of confidence and understanding within industry so that management will form the habit of talking with labour and ironing out minor difficulties for the purpose of improving production, and so that when they come to the bargaining table they will know each other's mind. I should like to express to the hon. member for Middlesex East my appreciation for his remarks.


Mr. Caiherwood:: I notice in the details with respect to item 190 that four additional industrial relations officers are employed. I realize that industrial relations officers are a very necessary part of the organization of the larger private companies and corporations, but 1 should like to know in what sections of Canada these additional officers are employed.


Milton Fowler Gregg: There is one in Montreal, two at head office in Ottawa and one in the maritime provinces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Under this item, which deals with the administration of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, would the minister say a word as to what consideration he is giving to representations that have been made to him again this year by the labour congresses for certain amendments to that act?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The act is under constant review by the deputy minister and other officials with respect to whether amendments appear to be required. The representations made by the congresses are being studied, but we did not feel there was an urgent need to introduce amendments at this session.
Supply-Labour


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would urge the minister to have more active consideration given to these matters. It is four years now since the act in its present form was placed on the statute books and each and every year since then the major congresses have pressed for such matters as the check-off and certain other provisions. They have also pressed for a revamping of the code to make it a truly national code with more uniform provisions throughout the country. I appreciate what the minister has said, but with respect I may say it is the answer we have had each year.
I hope the minister will feel that, even though these requests made by the congresses are the same every year, and of necessity so since they are not being met, so far as labour is concerned there is a sense of urgency about them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
193.	Labour Gazette, authorized by Labour Department Act, $126,996.
A. Earl Catherwood: I believe all members of parliament receive the Labour Gazette. 1 think it is an excellent publication. I was just wondering how the department worked out the number of complimentary issues of this publication that are sent out. In the report of the Department of Labour I see that 7,420 complimentary copies are sent out. How was that list arrived at?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I have not the detailed list here, but I understand that the main part is made up of lists of organized labour offices, also lists of management, and that they have been assembled during the life of the magazine. I believe it was felt that those most directly concerned with the magazine should have it on a free list at some time or the other. I should also mention that university libraries get it free.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
194.	To provide for the effective organization and use of agricultural manpower, including recruiting, transporting and placing workers on farms and related industries and assistance to the provinces pursuant to agreements that may be entered into by the Minister of Labour with the provinces and approved by the governor in council, $280,000.
William Joseph Browne: I should like to ask the minister whether the movement of general farm workers from Newfoundland to Ontario and Quebec was continued last year as in the previous two years. Can the minister tell us the number who were transported to Ontario and Quebec?


Milton Fowler Gregg: My hon. friend means the movement of workers from Newfoundland out into other parts of Canada?


William Joseph Browne: Yes.

Supply-Labour


Milton Fowler Gregg: According to the record I have here for 1951, from Newfoundland and the Magdalen islands-they are lumped together -to Prince Edward Island to work, a total of 73 only.


Mr.   Browns@St. John's West: But the
provision is there again for this year?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, if the occasion arises.


A. Earl Catherwood: Is it the intention of the minister to carry out the same policy with regard to bringing in labour from the west for farm employment in Ontario?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It will be necessary, I am sure, to carry out perhaps as energetic a policy as last year, if not more so, in the movement back and forth in order to get in the crops.


A. Earl Catherwood: I am glad to hear the minister say that. May I also ask him this question. Of this amount of $250,000 that was in the estimates for this last year, was the total amount used for that purpose?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The total, including the supplementary amount, was $283,000 actually used for that purpose.


A. Earl Catherwood: It was all used for that purpose?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
195.	To provide for investigations and inspection work in relation to working conditions in industries where the federal government has exclusive responsibility; field work in respect to wages and hours legislation; co-operation in accident prevention and workmen's compensation, $25,000.
Stanley Howard Knowles: In item 195 we find these words: "field work in respect to wages and hours legislation". Can the minister tell us what is meant by the phrase "field work"? In particular would he relate that field work to the question of legislation respecting hours? Does it have any bearing on the question of the five-day week or other matters in relation to hours of work? What progress, if any, is being made?


Milton Fowler Gregg: This is a new item, Mr. Chairman. We are not sure that it will all be used. But it appears that in the field outlined in the description there is an area which is not occupied by the provinces; and this year we propose to see whether we can or cannot perform any useful function in that field.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister has underlined the fact that this item generally relates to a field not occupied by the provinces. If I may I shall read a further part in addition to what I read before. We find these words: "in industries where the federal government has exclusive responsibility". What relationship exists between this type of work, for example, and the civil service, which after

all does come under the jurisdiction of the federal government? As the minister knows, his department has collected interesting figures on hours of work which were published in the Labour Gazette-and he placed them on Hansard in response to some of my questions a while ago-which show, for example, that considerable progress is being made in the adoption of the five-day week. In fact, at the present time it is more general than is the five and one-half day week and the six-day week. That statement applies both to workers in industry and to office workers. Is that question being studied in relation to the civil service? Might this lead to any useful advice that the Minister of Labour could give to his colleague the Minister of Finance?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to talk about any useful advice, but I will say this. Just as under "and workmen's compensation" I can conceive that perhaps we can do something in those private industrial capacities which come within federal jurisdiction, so under this item we might be able to do something useful as far as the civil service is concerned with regard to the prevention of accidents.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am glad to hear the minister is hopeful that something useful can be done under this item.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Otherwise the item would not have been inserted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would dare to assume that. I have one other question. The minister knows of the situation, to which I have drawn his attention on previous occasions, in relation to hotel employees in this country. Employees in hotels operated by the Canadian Pacific Railway come under provincial labour jurisdiction, but hotels operated by the Canadian National Railways come under federal labour jurisdiction. I believe that is so because of a decision of the privy council. As a matter of fact the minister referred to it a few weeks ago on the orders of the day in relation to another matter. The result is that in provinces where there is legislation limiting the number of hours of work per week, you find that employees in Canadian Pacific hotels work a shorter work week than do the employees in Canadian National hotels within the same province. The defence on the part of the employers, so far as the Canadian National hotels are concerned, is that they are not under the provincial law. Is any research or investigation being made into that point and into the possibility of federal legislation respecting hours of work?
I should like to see it general; but at any rate, it seems to me that it ought to have application to employees who come under

federal labour jurisdiction so there will not be the kind of disparity to which I have referred.


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is a large field my hon. friend has opened up, and I do not propose to enter it. We had not that in mind when working out this estimate. The remarks my hon. friend has made will be taken into consideration.


Mr. Green:: I wonder whether the minister would have a check made of the hours being worked by the men on the dining cars of the Canadian Pacific Railway? Earlier this year I believe they were working as many as 260 hours a month. Their contract calls for 208 hours, and they could not get any overtime up to 240 hours. As I said, they were sometimes working 260 hours a month and I do not think conditions are good. If the minister would have an inquiry made it might be possible to have that situation remedied. I do not know whether the same conditions exist east of Winnipeg, but I have reference particularly to the arrangements west of Winnipeg.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I should be glad to look into it.


Mr. Knight:: If it is not repetition, I should like to add a word to the sentiments expressed by the member for Winnipeg North Centre. In our city we have the Bessborough hotel, which is a Canadian National hotel, in which there are a large number of employees. They constantly approach me on this matter, and look upon it as discrimination. They do not see why the employees who are working for the Canadian government indirectly should be discriminated against as opposed to those who work for the government directly. I simply want to state that I hope that problem can be worked out, and that consideration will be given to it as the minister promised.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Vocational training co-ordination-
To provide for carrying out the purposes of the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act, 1942, and agreements made thereunder; to authorize the Minister of Labour to enter into agreements with any province on terms approved by the governor in council for the training of persons to fit them for defence industries, the training of members of Her Majesty's forces and other persons to fit them for skilled armed services occupations and training under youth training projects and to provide for the expenditures thereunder and under vocational training agreements entered into in previous years-
196.	Administration, $40,800.
William Joseph Browne: I should like to draw the minister's attention to the report of his department for the year ending March 31, 1951. At page 63, and from there on, it is stated that agreements for apprenticeship training were in operation in all provinces except Newfoundland. Then again it is 55704-203
Supply-Labour
stated, with regard to youth training, that this division was in effect in all provinces but Ontario and Newfoundland, where it was confined solely to assistance to students. I notice that on page 68 it states that no classes were established in Newfoundland for youth training.
I know from experience that the vocational school could not accommodate all the persons who wanted to take advantage of the training. I know of one person in particular who wanted to take a course in diesel engineering, and he was told he would have to wait at least six months before he could be accommodated. Is there any provision for taking in more students or for the expansion of these facilities in Newfoundland this year?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Last year we had $15,000 allotted for Newfoundland, and we spent $11,605. We will be glad to co-operate with the provincial government to make the training there as effective as possible this year.


William Joseph Browne: May I ask
what department of the provincial government you co-operate with? Is it entirely a federal office?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No; the departments of education and labour, I think.


William Joseph Browne: Is the same amount available this year?


Milton Fowler Gregg: This is an allotment made up within the department after the main vote is broken down.


William Joseph Browne: Does the minister believe any less will be allotted this year?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, I think it will be more.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I am interested in all forms of education, and am pleased to endorse the payment of federal moneys for the purpose of education. This, of course, is a branch of federal aid to education. It is a payment of moneys to the provinces earmarked for a specific purpose, namely education. I want to ask the minister one specific and direct question which he can answer equally specifically. Has this grant, in his opinion, in any way interfered with the provincial direction of education within the province?


The Chairman:: Order. I do not think the minister should be called upon to give his opinion on the matter raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon in the debate on this item. Shall the item carry?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Chairman-


Louis-René Beaudoin: I do not think it is in order to have this question debated at this time on this item. The hon. member may ask a

Supply-Labour
question on the orders of the day, or some other time but not now.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: On the point of order, I am not asking the minister's opinion. I withdraw that question. I am asking what the fact is, whether or not it has interfered with provincial autonomy over education within any province?


Louis-René Beaudoin: The question is put in other words, but it amounts to the same thing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The answer is no.


Mr. Goode:: Will the minister give me a breakdown of the figures in connection with this item?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Does the hon. member want the figures for all types of training?


Tom Goode: No, just for vocational training.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Under our youth training
agreements for the fiscal year 1951-52, British Columbia was allotted $51,946.73. Under the vocational schools agreement, for the last fiscal year, the amount totalled $95,419.75.


Tom Goode: Is there a construction grant?


Milton Fowler Gregg: There is the apprenticeship
training agreement which was for only $7,634. The capital expenditure on vocational schools was $31,000.


Clarence Gillis: Why not put those figures on the record for all those provinces to give us some idea of the breakdown.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I think, Mr. Chairman, it
would save time if I were to refer the hon. member to a reply given to the hon. member for Saskatoon on March 20, which appears in the record. The breakdown was given by provinces for the years 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52, and the totals, for all phases of federal-provincial training.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Was that not a sessional paper?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is right.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, is it permissible to have that table put on the record and appear in Hansard? In any event, I should like to get a breakdown of the figures, similar to that given to the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond a few minutes ago. I should like to see those figures for the four maritime provinces.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: I think the request by the hon. member for Cape Breton South is a reasonable one. I also ask that the figures be put on the record.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The document in question
comprises two pages, and if I have unanimous consent I am quite willing to put it on the record.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The tables are as follows:



APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

[Stage Direction]
Province	1949-50	1950-51	1951-52	Total$ cts.	S cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.44,748 83 37,248 17	33,410 46 35,150 80	21,221 22 23,806 43	99,380 51 96,205 40
144,200 87 42,260 93 19,476 57 91,011 11 21,546 65	152,195 25 40,172 84 30,444 28 114,954 72 22,478 40	162,207 67 21,264 62 29,758 49 116,514 44 5,283 32	458,603 79 103,698 39 79,679 34 322,480 27 49,308 37
				
				
				
				
				
	400,493 13	428,806 75	380,056 19	1,209,356 07

[Stage Direction]
4,993 76 25,559 53 34,098 85	7,543 94	2,363 91	14,901 6118,545 52	17,197 26	61,302 3137,607 15	21,485 91	93,191 91124,551 78	119,753 22	105,807 77	350,112 7760,000 00	60,000 00	60,000 00	180,000 0017,763 08	13,157 93	8,321 29	39,242 3034,844 50	35,393 39	29,739 00	99,976 8922,869 84	24,923 54	24,710 61	72,503 9943,607 53	45,415 68	627 41	89,650 626,900 00	6,900 00
368,288 87	362,340 37	277,153 16	1,007,782 40
[The Chairman.]

Supply-Labour

[Stage Direction]
Province	1949-50	1950-51	1951-52	Total$ cts. 5,691 49 37 35	$ cts. 7,780 23	$ cts. 7,633 15	$ cts. 21,104 87 37 35
5,728 84	7,780 23	7,633 15	21,142 22
RE-ESTABLISHMENT TRAINING Schedule "K"-Training of Persons to fit them for the Armed Forces
Prince Edward Island					
Nova Scotia					
	15,946 89 9,992 24 23,132 50 5,089 50 15,025 50	14,252 35 15,147 00 1,085 00 6,411 91 19,194 34	10,167 73 11,139 75 5,593 08 14,070 36 315 09 39,697 84	40,366 97 36,278 99 29,810 58 25,571 77 34,534 93 39,697 84
				
				
				
				
Alberta					
British Columbia					
				
	69,186 63	56,090 60	80,983 85	206,261 08
Schedule "M"-Training of Persons to fit them for Gainful Employment
Prince Edward Island					
	108,088 19 34,869 33	115,473 05 31,565 72 8,354 22	78,540 47 30,157 73 8,149 70	302,101 71 96,592 78 16,503 92
				
Quebec					
Ontario					
	25,361 46 20,550 08 36,038 86 3,748 18	19,814 56 25,946 62 51,207 42 6,912 79	14,137 76 26,756 96 46,035 33 3,750 45	59,313 78 73,253 66 133,281 61 14,411 42
Saskatchewan					
Alberta					
				
				
	228,656 10	259,274 38	207,528 40	695,458 88
Schedule "K2"-Training of Persons to fit them for Defence Industries
Prince Edward Island					
Nova Scotia				25,433 14 9,277 45	25,433 14 9,277 45
New Brunswick					
Quebec					
Ontario					
Manitoba					
Saskatchewan					
Alberta				2,856 67	2,856 67
British Columbia					
				
			37,567 26	37,567 26
				
Schedule "L"-Vocational Training for Discharged Memrers of Canada's Armed Forces
Prince Edward Island					
Nova Scotia		3,769 48 10,519 19 12,697 50 32,925 96 7,630 89 9,224 96 9,553 26 9,230 43	1,415 02 1,866 93 4,996 91	30 44 1 73	5,214 94 12,387 85 17,694 41 32,925 96 8,763 78 10,122 21 11,729 29 11,083 86
New Brunswick					
Quebec					
Ontario					
Manitoba			1,132 89 897 25 2,163 33 1,819 44		
Saskatchewan					
Alberta				12 70 33 99	
British Columbia					
				
	95,551 67	14,291 77	78 86	109,922 30
55704-203i
3218	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Labour

[Stage Direction]
Province	1949-50	1950-51	1951-52	Total$ cts.	$ cts. 2,160 10	$ cts.	S cts. 2,160 10 4,569 36 426 354,569 36	British Columbia	426 35	2,586 45	4,569 36	7,155 81

[Stage Direction]
16,000 00	35,110 00	23,335 17	74,445 1773,165 08	105,447 08	105,500 88	284,113 04102,700 00	92,700 00	92,700 00	288,100 00606,389 73	544,346 10	603.000 05	1,753,735 88589,000 00	589,000 00	589,000 00	1,767,000 0037,842 18	204,507 48	71,671 17	314,020 83138,773 08	173,563 94	198,080 09	510,417 11143,800 00	143,800 00	143,800 00	431,400 00130,983 15	128,707 94	115,988 92	375,660 0165,708 28	49,227 54	114,935 82
1,838,653 22	2,082,890 82	1,992,283 82	5,913,827 86
Payments to the Provinces for Capital Expenditures for Vocational Schools, Buildings and Equipment
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia -
3,248	96	9,890	13	3,677	37	16,816	46209,409	59	154,322	94	17,656	09	381,388	62354,869	79	17,896	61	60,233	60	433,000	00179,746	64	169,712	80	117,689	21	467,148	65344,260	75	369,675	23	221,297	07	935,233	05153,741	37	88,806	38	8,947	90	251,495	65181,290	05	201,432	35	78,410	86	461,133	26237,548	51	136,530	35	8,177	66	382,256	52392,189	72	6,341	95	551	75	399,083	422,056,305	38	1,154,608	74	516,641	51	3,727,555	63
Grants to Frontier College, Toronto, Ontario, to promote Citizenship among Migratory Workers
across Canada
1949-50	1950-51	1951-52	TotalS cts. 5,000 00	S cts. 5,000 00	S cts. 5,000 00	$ cts. 15,000 00
Mr. Noseworthy:: I think I should say that I have nothing but praise for the work of the department in connection with its vocational and educational assistance. I wanted to ask the minister what rule the department followed for determining when a secondary school is a vocational school and when it is not, particularly in the case of a composite secondary school.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, we take the definition made of the authority which is primarily responsible for education, namely the provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, with unanimous consent I move the second reading of the following bills:
Bill No. 215, for the relief of Irene Mary Johnson Muirhead.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 220, for the relief of Vera Kathleen Martin Lightfoot.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 300, for the relief of Albert Chevalier.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 302, for the relief of Roland Lesage.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 311, for the relief of Joseph Timothy O'Connor.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 312, for the relief of Victoria Elias Abdelhay.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 313, for the relief of Margaret Edith Grace Batt Trent.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 314, for the relief of Pearl Abramo-vitch Hoffman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 315, for the relief of Lily Sperling Kofsky.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 316, for the relief of Jean Isobel Taylor Cuffling.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 317, for the relief of Charles William Ledger.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 318, for the relief of Benjamin Gordon Church.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 319, for the relief of Laura Juliette Aubert Macdonald.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 320, for the relief of Jean Lesly Macfarlane Cameron.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 321, for the relief of Sarto Des-noyers.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 322, for the relief of Jean Marc Duckett Audet.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 323, for the relief of Eugene Cote.- Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 324, for the relief of Jean Baptiste Armand Michaud-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 325, for the relief of Anna Lapinska Cholewicki.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 326, for the relief of Alexander William Hyndman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 327, for the relief of Vivian Mary Dickson Stewart.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 328, for the relief of Stanley Baker Smith.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 329, for the relief of Rebekah Ellinor Conley Burman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 330, for the relief of Allan Gowans.-Mr. Winkler.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I did not object at this stage of the session to the request of the hon. member for Lisgar that this group of divorce bills be
Private Bills-Divorce
given second reading on one motion, though it is my normal disposition to object to such a request.


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: To everything.


Alphonse Fournier: It is a habit.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It so happens that at least the evidence in connection with all these cases has been printed and distributed, but I doubt whether all the evidence in connection with these cases has been read by all hon. members. In fact I have not had a chance to read many of these myself, even if I wanted to. I did note, however, that two of them, Bill No. 324 and Bill No. 325, appear to have been contested; and as I understand it one of these, if not both, will be contested before the committee of this house to which these bills will toe referred. In other words, in allowing the bills to go through at this stage, it is with the reservation that any of these bills that are contested in committee would be subject to further examination on our part when they come back to the committee of the whole house.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I wish to register once again my continuing protest against the fact that we are still handling divorce bills in this way in the parliament of Canada. I am completely convinced that this is not the place for these bills that are now before us, or for any other divorce bills, and more and more it is clear that the people of Canada feel that way about it. I hope that as we continue to voice that protest consideration will be given to the finding of some other way to deal with them. One dares to hope that we are coming close to the end of the number of these bills we shall have to deal with at this session. I express the hope as strongly as I can that between the end of this session and the beginning of next session the government and others will give consideration to finding some other way of dealing with these bills.
As I have indicated on previous occasions, if an alternative way to the method that I have suggested-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member think he is in order when he discusses on second reading the procedure by which these bills are examined by a committee of the Senate and the procedure by which he thinks they should toe examined? I hope he will bring his remarks to a close.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a debatable point, Mr. Speaker, but there is one thing we agree on, namely that I am just about through.


Mr. Stick:: Nobody will find fault with you on that.

Private Bills


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is good to receive approval once in a while even from one's political enemies in this house. I was simply pointing out that I did not feel that these particular bills for which Your Honour has put a motion for second reading should be here, and perhaps I was digressing. To end what I was saying, I do not think any other divorce bills should foe here either, and I hope some way will be found to deal with them in another manner before the next session rolls around. I am sure hon. members do not want them here next session, and I am sure they do not want some of us to have to spend the time on the bills in the earlier part of next session that will be necessary if some other way of dealing with them has not been found.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I hope I am in order; I always try to be. I do want to take exception to Bills Nos. 324 and 325. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that, to his credit, the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) has endeavoured to bar obscene literature from this country. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you have read this evidence. I should like to quote it to this house. I am sure I would be in order if I attempted to do so. I read very few of these cases. The only ones I read are the ones that are sent to me by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Any that he does not like to read' he sends to me and I read them.
We talk about obscene literature; but this evidence that is sent out at government expense to members of parliament is obscene. I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the morals of some of our junior members from Manitoba should not be open to corruption in that way. This is sent out at government expense. While the hon. member for Kamloops, to his credit, has suggested that legislation should be introduced to bar obscene literature coming in from the United States, yet we publish this evidence.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon, member is not speaking to the second reading of these bills.


William Joseph Browne: Before these bills are given second reading I should *like to say that on looking through them I notice one is different from the rest. I refer to Bill No. 311. This is not a divorce bill strictly speaking. It is an application for an annulment. The reason for the annulment is set out in. the petition, in. the evidence and in the bill that the marriage was never consummated. I feel that I should make a reservation in opposing the second reading of the other bills by saying I am perfectly willing .to consent to this one.
I should like to draw attention to the remarks of the hon. member for Fraser Valley, and state that in my opinion the Senate is doing a very useful job in suppressing the sale of obscene and indecent literature.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bills read the second time and referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 10, consideration in committee of Bill No. 62, to incorporate Boundary Pipeline Corporation -Mr. Larson-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Mr. Sinnott:: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to speak tonight on this bill, letter O of the Senate, to incorporate Boundary Pipeline Corporation, for the purpose of talking out the bill. Hon. members on the opposition side of the house were complaining that the Liberal members were reluctant to debate this pipe line bill. However, I have no hesitation in letting the house know how I feel toward it.
The first fuel used in Winnipeg, Mr. Chairman, was wood. The cost at that time was mostly the cost of transportation.


Mr. Brooks:: Look out for your head.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: The same applies now to lignite coal, which is mined in Saskatchewan. The same can be said of the coal we are importing from Alberta. Freight rates have risen to the point where at the present time it is almost impossible or prohibitive to carry on industry and to supply heating facilities. For instance, in cities like Calgary, Edmonton and Medicine Hat the use of cheap natural gas has been a virtual boon to industry. The Boundary Pipeline Corporation should be commended for its proposal to bring natural gas to the people of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, thus enabling the cities I have mentioned to prosper and look forward to a great future.
Many hon. members of the opposition have talked about an all-Canadian route. Last year I supported the all-Canadian route of a pipe line to Vancouver, for which a charter was granted. Work is well under way at the present time, and it is expected to be completed by 1954. As I said, there has been much talk about an all-Canadian route. As indicated in report No. 4 of the minutes of proceedings of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, which deals with this bill, it was moved by the

hon. member for Fort William that an amendment be made to section 6 of the bill, which deals with the power to construct and operate a pipe line-
-within the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba or outside Canada construct, purchase, lease or otherwise acquire-
And so on. The hon. member for Fort William moved an amendment:
That paragraph (a) of clause 6 be amended by inserting after the word "lines" in line 23 thereof the words: provided that the main pipe line or lines for the transmission and transportation of gas and oil shall be located entirely within Canada.
Hon. members will see, as it is set out at page 108 of the proceedings of the committee, this amendment was accepted by a vote of 15 to 7. In view of what has been said I should have thought the hon. member for Brandon, who I am sorry is not in his seat this evening, would certainly have made a plea on behalf of the people and the industry of that great city to have the charter of this pipe line bill approved by parliament so the citizens of Brandon, in general, would have the benefit of natural gas.
Then, coming farther east to Winnipeg, I would have expected that that great free enterpriser, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, would have been on his feet working for the city of Winnipeg, that great industrial centre, and would have made his contribution to encourage the building of a natural gas pipe line which would serve the city and his constituents.


An hon. Member:: What about Portage la Prairie?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Portage la Prairie will speak for itself. Surely a matter of such great importance cannot be overlooked at this time. Those of us in the west who are fortunate enough to have this great natural resource should make an all-out effort to develop it and make cheap natural gas available for industrial purposes and the heating of private homes in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, for the benefit of our constituents.
I ask hon. members to give their sanction and approval now to the passage of this bill, thus enabling the people of Manitoba and Saskatchewan to obtain as soon as possible this cheap means of heating. The citizens of Winnipeg, the citizens of the whole of Manitoba, those of the town of Beausejour, which is the hub of activity in the constituency I have the honour to represent, and also the people in Pine Falls, which is the centre of the Manitoba pulp and paper industry, will certainly welcome this great industrial and heating fuel. Natural gas will improve and develop the industry now located in Pine
Boundary Pipeline Corporation Falls. The export of paper from this company to the United States represents almost a third of Manitoba's total budget.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Whoever wrote that speech is a clever fellow.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: And you are looking at him, right now. As the source of supply gets greater, certainly there will be a possibility in the future of extending the gas pipe line to Ontario and Quebec. But surely, for the good of Canada, we cannot afford at this time to hold back industry in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Any attempt to conduct a filibuster on this bill would have the effect of creating a monopoly for other pipe line companies which have already been granted charters, and would thereby prevent the company now making application from competing. It would have the effect of eliminating from the field what might very well be a most competent company and one highly capable of carrying on this great enterprise, which would result in placing natural gas at the disposal of the people of Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
The board of transport commissioners and the Alberta conservation board will have the opportunity to look thoroughly into the economic aspects of this pipe line. Our action now in passing the bill would give the company an equal opportunity to place the facts before the board of transport commissioners so that body might look into all aspects of the matter and the details of the company's organization.
On June 10 I asked the hon. member for Huron North a question. I am sorry he is not in his seat tonight, but he will have to accept the responsibility for that. I asked him how many cubic feet of gas the proposed pipe line would carry. His answer, as reported at page 3098 of Hansard, was as follows:


Mr. Cardiff:: I would say just about as many as
the hairs on the hon. gentleman's head. If we could count the hairs on his head, we could pretty nearly tell how many.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Whose head are you talking about?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: What a silly, stupid answer! It shows plainly how unqualified the hon. member for Huron North was to speak on a subject of this kind-*


Alfred Johnson Brooks: What a silly, stupid head.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: -when he knew nothing aboul it. Then, again, he referred to raising his sights to build Canada first. Well, most certainly Manitoba and Saskatchewan are pari of Canada. We in the west do not oppose the great industries in the east; but we dc want to have the opportunity to develop oui natural resources out there. If we were tc follow the suggestion of the hon. member foi
3222	HOUSE OF
Boundary Pipeline Corporation Huron North, the great natural gas industry would not be developed in the next thousand years.
I shall now answer the question I asked the hon. member just to show what he knew about the pipe line. Evidently he did not know anything about them. It is estimated the natural gas carried by this pipe line in the first year will be 42,400,000 cubic feet per day. In the second year it is estimated it will be 50,900,000 and in the third year of operation 63,830,000. With the growing population and the increased industrial activity, it is expected that it will be greater from year to year. Again I ask my hon. friends opposite, and especially the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the hon. member for Fraser Valley, to give the people of Manitoba and Saskatchewan an opportunity to use this important commodity of natural gas which will make industry in the west prosper for future generations. Last year I was interested in an all-Canadian route for a pipe line going to Vancouver and I helped all I could in a project that would benefit the west coast. I am asking hon. members in all sincerity to support this pipe line which will benefit the citizens of Winnipeg and Manitoba and assist to develop industry in that territory. We helped you, so we ask you to help us and in doing so I am sure that by working together we can make this a better Canada.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, I am certain you will agree that the eloquent plea of the hon. member for Springfield should not go unanswered. It is because we in all parts of Canada are anxious to work for the benefit of Canada in connection with these pipe lines that we feel this particular company should not be granted a charter. I would point out to the hon. member for Springfield that this is not the only company proposing to serve Manitoba and Saskatchewan.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: I told you that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am glad the hon. member got one thing right. The Trans-Canada company intends to serve not only Saskatchewan and Manitoba but Ontario and eastern Canada. The benefits to be derived from such a pipe line should not be confined to Saskatchewan and Manitoba; if possible they should be extended to Ontario and Quebec. If the hon. member agrees with hat, and I think surely he will; if he admits hat the granting of a charter to this company, with accompanying permission to export gas, will prevent Ontario and Quebec :rom being served, whereas permission to 'xport to the Trans-Canada company would


permit them to be served along with Manitoba and Saskatchewan, then I would hope he would vote against this bill. I would hope he would agree with us and oppose the granting of this charter and support a proposition under which it is intended to serve the whole of Canada.
The controversy surrounding this bill is the historic controversy we have had in Canada for many years, namely whether our natural resources should be used to serve Canada first or whether they should be exported to the advantage of the economy of another country. We are suggesting that the resources of Canada should be used for the benefit of Canada first, including Manitoba and Saskatchewan as well as eastern Canada and British Columbia, whereas the government says-


Louis-René Beaudoin: I think the hon. member is embracing a rather wide field, and I submit his remarks should be more relevant to this particular section, which deals with the incorporation of the company. As I have said before, eight hours have been devoted to a general discussion of this bill on the first clause and I think the remarks of hon. members should be confined to this particular section and not the wider problem as enunciated by the hon. member.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I know that two wrongs do not make a right and I do not like to argue along that line, but may I point out that the line of discussion I am following is exactly that which has been followed in discussing section 1 for many days. It is very difficult when a particular line of discussion has been followed in the past to be told that now we must confine our discussion to the persons who are going to form this company. It would be most difficult to intelligently debate the matter at this stage. I would suggest for your consideration that the discussion having been of a general nature on section 1, once that general discussion is finished probably the other clauses will pass without much debate. Actually the whole bill is being debated at this stage.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member is right in indicating the lines along which the discussion has been conducted, but if he will read the debate which has been continuing on several occasions since May 2-I may say that I have read it-he will notice that from time to time I have pointed out that the discussion should not be so wide. Considerable latitude may be given during the course of the discussion on the bill and an hon. member may feel that he should be given the same latitude. I was hoping that the discussion from now on would be more

relevant to the section. Perhaps I should point out to the committee what I said on June 10, as reported on page 3102 of Hansard:
All that we should be considering at the moment is the bill before the committee. May I take advantage of this opportunity to say that a general discussion has taken place on the first section of this bill during the last twelve hours during which private bills could be considered. We have spent almost eight hours in a general discussion of that section. I think it will be admitted that so far hon. members who have taken part in this general discussion have been allowed ample latitude, and I think from now on the rules should be observed. I am sure hon. members will want to co-operate in observing the rules and will speak directly to the bill.
That is exactly what I am asking of hon. members tonight.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I do not think there can be any question that the hon. member for Kamloops is in order in speaking on the merits or demerits of this bill. The fact is that his remarks have been much more along that line than the remarks of many other hon. members. I suggest to Your Honour that he has not said one word which is out of line with the discussion that could properly take place on this section.
There is a significant feature to Your Honour's remarks which I think is quite serious and which should be given a little further consideration by Your Honour. You have referred to the time that is supposed to have been taken in the discussion of this measure, and have intimated that because of that there should be a change in the privileges accorded to hon. members who may speak from now on. I think that is an unsound and dangerous principle to adopt, if at a certain stage the presiding officer is to be able to say, "We have had so many speeches, so from now on no one can speak; or anyone who does can speak only along certain lines." That would indicate that the rights of members of this house are being very seriously curtailed.


Louis-René Beaudoin: May I interrupt the hon. member to assure him that if I mentioned the number of hours which have been spent in discussing this first clause it was not to indicate to hon. members that they had spent what one might consider too large an amount of time on that clause. That is up to hon. members. It was merely in connection with the other point I raised, namely that ample latitude has been given.
I think hon. members will agree that during the eight hours taken up to this time we have had a very wide discussion. The point I want to bring forward is that ample latitude has been given. I think hon. members will be
Boundary Pipeline Corporation reasonable enough to agree with me that, since the discussion was very wide during those eight hours, it is not unreasonable on the part of the chairman to ask that from now on hon. members direct their remarks in a manner which will be more relevant to the bill. That is the point I had in mind.
When the hon. member says the hon. member for Kamloops has not said a word so far that is out of order I beg to differ with him. The hon. member for Kamloops indicated that he was going to speak on what he called the problem of the exploitation of our natural resources and the way they were going to be exploited, and that he intended to show the difference which existed between the views of his group and those of the government. I am sure he used the word "government". I have not the typewritten copy of Hansard before me but I will have it in a few moments, and I am sure that is exactly what he said. It was at that moment I intervened because I did not want to have the discussion continue in the manner in which it was conducted on previous occasions. On another occasion when the hon. member for Peace River, or perhaps it was the hon. member for Vegreville, was speaking I pointed out that I did not think we should have a discussion on this bill of the various policies that may have been enunciated from time to time either by the Social Credit party in Alberta, the Liberal party in Ontario or Quebec, the Conservative or Liberal parties at Ottawa, or any other parties that may exist in Canada. I do not think it is relevant to the bill. The hon. member made a passing reference to that, and I think more than passing references have been made by various speakers who have taken part in the debate. It was at that point I intervened and asked the hon. member to direct his remarks to the bill.


Howard Charles Green: In discussing this bill an hon. member is surely entitled to deal with the policy which was explained to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines by the representatives of this group of men who are applying for a charter. That is all the hon. member has been doing.


Louis-René Beaudoin: If I may interrupt again, I should like to say if the hon. member for Kamloops is merely discussing the policy which was explained by the witnesses who appeared before the committee that considered the bill I think he is perfectly in order, but certainly he cannot discuss that by showing the difference between government policy and the policy of the other parties.


Howard Charles Green: Your Honour also said in your remarks of the last few minutes that there

Boundary Pipeline Corporation has been ample discussion of this measure. I submit to Your Honour that is going very-far for a presiding officer.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I do not think the hon. member understood exactly what I meant. I did not mean to say that there had been ample discussion. What I meant was that there had been ample discussion out of order. That is the point.


An hon. Member:: Quite a difference.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps the hon. member's remarks would be more relevant as far as the conduct of the chairman is concerned if he were to say that the chairman has been remiss in his duties in not calling hon. members to order more often since the discussion of this clause began.


Howard Charles Green: I do not say that.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I do not think the hon. member feels inclined to do that but I would not want him to feel inclined the other way either.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On the point of order-


Louis-René Beaudoin: The point of order is now decided. The hon. member for Kamloops.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Chairman, am I not allowed to speak to the point of order?


Louis-René Beaudoin: That point of order has been decided.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Then I will raise a new point of order. Surely in this day and age a member is entitled to raise a point of order. I have not spoken on this particular bill yet, and possibly I will speak either for or against it. I might be for it, but I have not spoken either one way or the other yet. On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I know my Beau-chesne probably as well as the rest do, and I know that a member has the privilege on a point of order to get up and demand his rights. If I am not entitled to speak either for or against the bill I should like to know under what section that ruling is made.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member has not stated a point of order. The member who has the floor at the moment is the hon. member for Kamloops. I intervened to call him to order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: On no grounds.


Louis-René Beaudoin: That is a different proposition. The hon. member may have his own opinion, but it just so happens that the chairman has a different one. In any event the fact is that I called the hon. member for Kamloops to order, that point has now been decided, and he has the floor.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I think I grasp the point of order you have raised, and I shall

say no more about it except to say that I may have used the words "government policy" and if so I assent to your correction. The purpose of my remarks was to indicate the basis upon which I oppose the bill and why, therefore, I consider that the gentlemen applying for incorporation under the clause we are discussing should not be granted that incorporation. That was the purpose of the remarks I was making, and I take it from what Your Honour has said that, provided I do not get into the wide field of controversy as to the different views on the general subject of the exploitation of our resources, I am nevertheless in order in saying, with respect to the way it is proposed that this particular pipe line shall go, why I feel these gentlemen should not have their incorporation.
That is what I shall endeavour to do for the remainder of the time which I had intended to speak this evening. It is because this company, according to the evidence its sponsors gave before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, intends to export the gas which they would carry to Winnipeg south to the United States instead of carrying it eastward in order to serve the eastern provinces that I am opposed to its incorporation. In that connection the considerations before the committee are very much the same as those which were before the committee on earlier occasions when pipe-line incorporations were being debated. I wish to point out and emphasize at this stage that the reasons which induced me and others on this side of the house, the hon. member for Fraser Valley and anyone else who may be opposed to the bill, to oppose it are not simply because the company intends to export what may be a surplus of gas, although I think I should observe that the question of whether there will be a surplus is by no means settled. It is not simply because they intend to export what they might claim to be a surplus of gas that we oppose them. It is because they intend to export it to the United States in such a way as to deny the use of that gas in perpetuity to the people of eastern Canada who have shown very clearly that they want and need the gas.
It is on the basis of the principle, therefore, that Canada's resources should be used for the benefit of Canada first that we stand squarely opposed to the incorporation of this company. It is the same policy exactly as that in connection with our opposition to the incorporation of companies in earlier years which had expressed their desire to export gas to the United States to the prejudice of Canada. What we say is that there should be

no denial of the export of surplus gas after Canada's needs have been met, but that we should rather follow an active policy of development of the Canadian economy by using Canada's gas and other resources so as to give employment and opportunity to Canadians.
There is a very interesting development, Mr. Chairman, which has taken place in connection with this whole gas pipe-line controversy as is shown by the discussion now going on before the board of transport commissioners. It has already been pointed out to Your Honour and to the committee that the gentlemen who are seeking to be incorporated here are connected with, and the company will be a subsidiary of, the Fish Engineering Corporation of the United States. Your Honour will remember that two years ago we incorporated another natural gas pipe-line company, namely Westcoast Transmission Company Limited. That company is now before the board of transport commissioners here in Ottawa seeking a permit to carry natural gas through this line from the northern Alberta and Peace river area, through northern British Columbia, down through the centre of our province to Vancouver and on to Seattle and Portland.
It is interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, that one of the companies which had also sought incorporation for the same purpose-that is, to carry gas west-a company called Prairie Transmission Lines Limited, was a subsidiary in the same way of the Fish Engineering Corporation. It is further interesting to note that the Fish Engineering Corporation, having failed to get this company incorporated to carry that gas, is now before the board of transport commissioners in Ottawa opposing the application of the Westcoast Transmission Company Limited. I point that fact out to hon. members-and particularly to the hon. member for Springfield-who have urged that we do not take what they call a small view with regard to denying the export of natural gas to the United States. I point out to them that this company, having failed in its own application to get a company incorporated earlier for the transportation of gas in western Canada, is now before the board of transport commissioners seeking by every means within its power to prevent the Westcoast company from getting on with that job which would be to the tremendous benefit of our province.
For the benefit of the committee I think I should read a report on this matter appearing in the Vancouver Sun of Wednesday, June 11. It is headed "From the Vancouver Sim Ottawa Bureau" and reads:
A sharp word battle developed before the board of transport commissioners today as a U.S. firm
Boundary Pipeline Corporation tried to block Vancouver's chances of getting natural gas from Alberta and B.C.'s Peace river.
The debate occurred during hearing of the Canadian-owned Westcoast Transmission Company's application to build a 700-mile gas pipe line to Vancouver from northwest Alberta through central B.C.
Opposing the application is the Pacific Northwest Pipeline Company which wants to pipe gas from Texas to American cities in the Pacific northwest.
That is the Pacific Northwest Pipeline Company which is the subsidiary of the Fish Engineering Corporation. The article continues:
This company would not service B.C.'s lower mainland.
Westcoast Transmission has offered to continue its pipe line south to Seattle, Portland and other U.S. centres. It was admitted the American market must be secured if the pipe line is to be built at all.
Several sharp exchanges between D. P. McDonald, Q.C., of Calgary, appearing for Westcoast, and S. Bruce Smith, Q.C., of Edmonton, spokesman for Northwest, featured the morning session.
I do not want to read the whole of this article, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps it is better to put it in the words of the article here because the tone will appear more clearly:
When A. Bruce Robertson, B.C. Electric vicepresident, testified that the BCE was willing to distribute natural gas in Vancouver, New Westminster and Victoria areas for Westcoast, Smith jumped to his feet.
"Does Westcoast have contracts with gas distributing utilities in Seattle, Portland, Tacoma and other cities in that region?" he wanted to know.
McDonald interjected that letters of contract from the American utilities would be submitted to the board, to the obvious surprise of the Northwest representative.
Then acid words were exchanged as McDonald hammered at the fact that Prairie Transmission Limited, nominally represented by Smith at the hearing, was "100 per cent owned by Pacific Northwest Pipelines."
Dr. Charles R. Hetherington of New York, natural gas expert for the pipe line firm of Ford, Bacon and Davis, said that if the Northwest company blocked Westcoast from the Washington-Oregon markets, "Vancouver would be without (natural) gas."
When Smith snorted audibly, Hetherington repeated his statement, adding: "Canada would be without the benefits of the explorations of natural gas in the Peace river sections of Alberta and British Columbia."
The point of this, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me is clear. Here is a case where a Canadian company, Westcoast Transmission Company Limited, which proposes to serve Canada first, is admittedly dependent for the whole success of its enterprise on getting into the United States market of the northwest states. As soon as its own company was defeated in an effort to pipe natural gas to the United States, this Fish Engineering Corporation announced it was going to bring gas into the northwest states from Texas and thus block the efforts of the Westcoast Transmission Company Limited. That is what we can see now. This is the attempt we see being made

Boundary Pipeline Corporation before the board of transport commissioners in accordance with the report which I have just read. It seems to me-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. May I ask the hon. member whether the application of the Westcoast Transmission Company Limited has been decided upon by the board of transport commissioners?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not yet.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Therefore the matter is sub judice and the hon. member should not deal with it. May I say I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get into a controversy with you as to the meaning of the doctrine of sub judice. I am not discussing the merits of the application of Westcoast Transmission Company Limited, as they are being argued before the board.
I am simply drawing to Your Honour's attention the arguments which are being put up before the board by somebody opposing that application, namely a company which is a subsidiary of the same company which is now applying for incorporation of this company in Canada. I am pointing out to Your Honour-


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon, member will agree that the line is rather hard to draw. If he were the presiding officer, and if reference was made to a matter that was before a court or a board such as the board of transport commissioners, I think he would point out that it has been the rule in this chamber that hon. members may not refer to such matters.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think Your Honour will agree that it is permissible to point out, without comment, that the application of this Canadian company is being opposed by a company which is a subsidiary of the Fish Engineering Corporation, the same company which now asks through another subsidiary for incorporation of this Boundary Pipeline Corporation before the committee. I think Your Honour would agree that it is permissible to point out that fact. I hope Your Honour will agree-and I will go carefully so Your Honour can stop me if you think I am overstepping the mark-that it is permissible to point out that the company opposing Westcoast, which is the same in effect as the company now trying to get this application through, is seeking to do that by denying to Westcoast the United States market in the Pacific northwest without which Westcoast's enterprise or operation would be uneconomical. I just want to point out and stress this fact and leave the matter there, because I think it is that fact that Canadians should bear


in mind when they have before them an application, as we have here in this committee, by that very same subsidiary of that same Fish Engineering Corporation, to incorporate this Boundary Pipeline Corporation which would again export gas to the United States and would have the effect of permanently denying Alberta gas to Ontario and Quebec.
I have already dealt with the fact that the reason we are opposed to this application is not that we are opposed to giving gas to the prairies, particularly to Saskatchewan and Manitoba but, as is indicated clearly from the discussion, that there will be only one pipe line carrying gas eastward, and if that pipe line goes down into the United States from Winnipeg it means that gas will never reach the eastern provinces of Canada.
In this connection I think it is interesting to recall that the argument taking place here is the old argument which took place in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway, except it is that argument in reverse. Hon. members will recall that in those days, when the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway was being mooted, it was suggested that the railway should not be built north of the great lakes but that instead United States railways south of the great lakes should be used for moving goods and passengers from Canada's eastern seaboard to the western portion of our country, and that only west of the great lakes should the line go north and be built in Canada. Today we have a case where history is reversing itself. In those days it was the east which was going to build the west. Here we have a case in connection with gas where the west is able to make a contribution to the east, and the east is looking with anxious eyes to the bringing of this resource down here from the west. It is the reverse of the old position.
We find some people in this house, however, still supporting the old argument that Canada's resources should be sent down into the United States. We, on the contrary, say that the line, just as was said in connection with the railway, must be built north of the great lakes through Canada first so as to serve Canada. Then if there is any surplus left by all means let us export it south of the border. It is interesting to recall that the same principles which applied in connection with the railway debate, and which I submit were valid at that time, are equally valid at this time-indeed, have more application-and that we from the west should be just as insistent that the resources of Canada now in the west should be brought down to serve the east, just as most patriotic Canadians were that the railway coming from

the east to the west should be built through Canada first. We in western Canada, and British Columbia particularly, have good reason to oppose the incorporation of this line which will work to the detriment to our friends in Ontario and Quebec, because those who recall past debates-the member for Fraser Valley, the member for Vancouver-Quadra and those of my friends in the C.C.F. party to my left-will recall that we had a full measure of wholehearted co-operation from the members from Ontario and Quebec last year in our effort to secure the movement of gas and oil to western Canada through the incorporation of companies which would serve Canada first instead of sending it to the United States to the detriment of our province.
I recall that we had support from the hon. member for Labelle, the hon. member for Three Rivers, the hon. member for Huron North, the hon. member for Greenwood, the hon. member for Broadview, the hon. member for Victoria, the senior member for Queens, the hon. member for York South, the hon. member for St. John's West, the hon. member for Royal, the hon. member for Cape Breton South, the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough; the leader of this party, the hon. member for Carleton; the hon. member for St. John's East, as well as many others. I do not think we would be showing any sense of gratitude if now, when they are so vitally interested in getting western gas into Ontario and Quebec, we were not to support their position but were to allow the incorporation of this company which will ship the natural resource down into the United States so it can never be obtained in eastern Canada.
I am impressed, Mr. Chairman, with something that no member can overlook in connection with this debate, a fact which admittedly has been referred to on several previous occasions but which it does not hurt to remind ourselves of again, namely that the responsible authorities in Ontario and Quebec have made it clear that they are very anxious now to have that gas. They feel that the only way they can be assured of a supply of gas is to have Alberta gas piped down here. I pointed out earlier in my remarks the tactics pursued by this United States company when their own interests are at stake, and the way they are opposing the application of the Westcoast Transmission Company to serve the British Columbia area. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, if they will resort to those methods in this case there is no reason for us to suppose that United States companies would make any
Boundary Pipeline Corporation deal which would guarantee to Ontario and Quebec a supply of gas from the United States.
If the supply of gas from Alberta to Ontario and Quebec is denied, then the only place they can look is to the United States. It is obvious from what has happened in the United States federal power commission, as well as the tactics of some of these United States companies, that Ontario and Quebec would not be on safe ground in relying on an agreement being reached to obtain a supply of gas from the United States. We find the Ontario minister of mines saying, as reported in the press of January 22:
. . . our policy is going to be to encourage a trans-Canada pipe line both as a source of fuel for Ontario and Quebec and as a national defence safeguard.
And then he went on to say:
We see no other answer than an all-Canadian pipe line.
Then I submit that hon. members in this house should, without question, reject an application for incorporation such as we have before us today which would deny Ontario the supply of gas which is so vital.
I do not want to forget, either, that the premier of Quebec, who after all in this connection is the spokesman for the province, has said much the same thing with regard to the interest of his province in obtaining a supply of gas from western Canada. This is what the premier of Quebec said on March 29, according to the Montreal Star:
Quebec was in favour of importing natural gas from Alberta rather than from Texas, he said, to support Canadian industry . . .
The premier said nothing had yet been decided as to whether pipe lines would be built or not into Quebec province. But he said, if natural gas is to be imported it will not be United States gas.
The premier said Quebec preferred to import gas from Alberta because it was preferable to support a Canadian industry, not subject "to a foreign authority."
So as I say, when we from the west-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. It being nine
o'clock, shall I report progress and ask leave to sit again?


Mr. Larson:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member has made the allegation several times that this company is a subsidiary of the Fish Engineering Corporation. This is not the case, and I feel that the hon. member should bring forward evidence to support his claim.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member has not raised a point of order.
Section stands.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will resume consideration of the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.

Supply-Labour SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
197. Training payments to the provinces, $4,027,000.
William Joseph Browne: On this item, Mr. Chairman, has the minister the amount that was allotted for Newfoundland, and how much was spent?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The allotment last year for Newfoundland was $65,800, and the total payments out of that allotment were $49,227.


Tom Goode: I want to point to the situation in British Columbia where the provincial government, with all compliments to the minister, in co-operation with the federal government have established a vocational training institute in the city of Vancouver. I do not intend to say anything about that institute because it is doing a tremendous job; but I do point out that all the province of British Columbia is not situated within the confines of the city of Vancouver. We in Burnaby, a community of 60,000 people, consider that we should have some vocational training facilities of our own.
In 1951 the number of pupils enrolled in the institute in Vancouver was 5,517. Because of the good work of the department some 500 of those pupils were placed in jobs after the completion of their courses. But the situation there is very serious. I know of a number of young people from my riding who have not been able to get into that vocational institute. As other hon. members from British Columbia will most likely tell you, we feel that our young people are entitled to the same advantages that are obtained by the young people in the city of Vancouver.
With all due respect to the minister, I believe that the department is going at this in the wrong way. I believe the institute is a very fine operation, and I support it wholeheartedly. But that institute takes the position that young men and women must have left high school before they can take part in these courses. As I have said on other occasions in the house, I believe we are going at this matter wrongly. There are young men and women in our high schools who, because of the financial difficulties of their parents, will never be able to go to university. In my own riding in 1951 only 20 per cent of our senior high school students could afford to go to university. That left 80 per cent of our senior high school pupils at loose ends. For instance, they cannot attend the vocational institute of Vancouver because there is no 
room for them. What happens? Perhaps 50 per cent of these young men and women go out to jobs for which they are not fitted, or perhaps they do not want them; but they are forced, through financial circumstances of the family, to go to work for which they are not fitted and to which they do not want to go in the first place.
There is money to be spent in vocational training, and I think in the years to come, perhaps not this year, the minister could consider what I have suggested in this house before with respect to vocational training, and start in a general way on the high school level. Our young men and women should be given the opportunity before they leave high school, or a least have it suggested to them through practical application, that there are jobs in this world available to them, if we can give them some help, rather than going out and accepting a job for which they are not fitted and perhaps to which they do not wish to go.
I know of some five young men in one school in my riding. I spoke to them during the time I was home quite lately. They told me that they have to go to work in the woods. They were not fitted for it; they wanted to go to university, but their fathers could not afford it. So they were going into the woods when school was over. That is not fair. Canada is far too big a country to allow our young men and women to take work for which they are not fitted and do not want. I am quite sure that if I place my position before the minister he will understand it and will consider doing a little more for general vocational training in our senior high schools.
I repeat what I said when I first rose to speak. The young men and women in my riding cannot get to the vocational institute in Vancouver because there is no room for them. Instructors are available, but there are no classrooms for these young men and women. The average course in that institute takes six or seven months. There are some people in that institute who will be there for two years. Vacancies are not occurring fast enough. I would suggest to the minister that some of this money spent on vocational training, instead of going into that institute and other institutes across Canada, could be spent in this way. We should consider this high school problem.
While I am on my feet, if the chairman will allow me, I should like to refer to item 198. I have a few words to say on it. In his estimates the minister calls for a decrease of $116,000 in this item. I doubt very much whether that meets with the minister's approval. I wonder how much the treasury

board had to do with this decrease. I am not going to be able to put over my idea of vocational training for high school pupils if the minister is going to be forced to reduce his estimates for capital construction.
So far as the $1 million odd is concerned- the minister will correct me if I am wrong- the province of British Columbia is allocated 6 per cent of the total. That amounts to $62,000 or $63,000 this year. I do not think you can build two classrooms at present construction costs for $62,000 or $63,000, regardless of the equipment it takes. I happen to know from my school board work before I came here that an ordinary classroom will cost you $25,000 to build and equip today. Therefore what does the minister expect to give to British Columbia with $63,000? What does the minister expect to get by way of capital construction for vocational training for that amount? I may have the idea wrong but the inspector of schools in Burnaby has told me by letter, which I hold in my hand, that we are entitled to 6 per cent of the total.
I do not think that is sufficient. I think the minister should be getting $10 million instead of $1 million for capital construction of vocational training institutes across Canada. And if my words can be of any assistance to the minister in his negotiations with the treasury board, then he can take them, because he has my full co-operation.


William Joseph Browne: I have the report for 1951. On page 78, table 1 deals with youth training, and we have the allotment for Newfoundland of $20,000, of which the sum of $6,000 was spent. Thirty-eight university students took youth training. I wonder whether the minister has the comparable figures for 1951-52. Can he give me a general idea as to who is entitled to apply for this?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The allotment for 1951-52 was $15,000, and the total payments $11,605.


William Joseph Browne: Has the minister the number of students? Is this on the same basis as the previous year? Does this grant apply to university undergraduates?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.


William Joseph Browne: Does the minister know how many?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I have not the number of students involved here.


William Joseph Browne: Is any student entitled to apply for this grant?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The whole selection-and this applies also to the suggestions made in the early part of the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-of students, who
Supply-Labour
shall qualify as to ages, and whether they shall be based on need and so on, is made by the provincial authorities. Provided the work is carried out in a general way in accord with the principles set out, our task is to mainly assist in the work the provincial authorities are doing by making grants in aid. I think it is true that, in the main, the boys and girls in Newfoundland who qualify for these courses are those who have reached certain educational standards, and who have some need for assistance in this kind of training.


Mr. Low:: I should like to find out on what basis the allocation of money to the provinces for capital expenditure is made.


Milton Fowler Gregg: In a general way it is based upon the population between certain age groups. I believe it is from 16 to 19. I will admit that in the very interesting and continuous discussions and negotiations with the provinces, if for instance one province cannot or will not use all its allotment, then we do try to make the best use of the money available. Consequently it may not always work out exactly in the same ratio to that of the youthful population I mentioned.


Solon Earl Low: Then can it be said that if an allotment is made to a province on the basis of the number of young people within that age group, and that province does not use the money, another province which is more ready to make use of an extra amount can apply for and receive a further allotment?


Milton Fowler Gregg: In some cases. We do not encourage it, though, because we like every province to feel that they are having an opportunity to utilize their allotments up to the end of the fiscal year.


Solon Earl Low: What I am driving at, ultimately, is this. I believe the point made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond was well taken. It may be that the minister has not enough money in this vote, and that he could use more. The point is how to get it. I am wondering if the minister could say he could use more money, if the provinces are ready to use it properly, under the policy laid down by the department. Would he say, for instance, that the $1,134,000 provided in item 198 is all the provinces are ready to use at this time under the department's policy, or would it be possible for him to spend considerably more money under that same policy and with the co-operation of the provinces?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is a fair question. The direct answer is that we could usefully spend more money than this. I was glad to have the representations this afternoon because, when the supplementary estimates are presented, I would hope that the suggestions

Supply-Labour
tonight for an additional amount in this respect might support my request for more at that time.


Solon Earl Low: You have our backing.


William Joseph Browne: I take it the minister is not very familiar with the details of the operation of the vocational school in Newfoundland, because it seems to me that in no case was the allotment spent. I made reference this afternoon to a chap who had applied for a course in Diesel engineering, but who was not accepted. There does not seem to be any reason for the refusal. The reason given to him was that there was no room for him, that there was a full complement of those who were to receive the training, and that as a result he would have to come at his own expense, live in the city and pay his own board. However, I now see from the nature of this assistance that at that time there was money available for the purpose.


Milton Fowler Gregg: In reply to the question asked a while ago as to the number of students enrolled for youth training in Newfoundland [DOT]for the year ended March 31, 1952, it appears that there were 42 men and three women.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
198. Payments to the provinces for capital expenditures for vocational schools, buildings and equipment, $1,134,000.
Mr.   Baler@: How many are there, and what are the locations of the vocational schools in Saskatchewan assisted by federal grants?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Balfour technical school, Saskatoon technical collegiate institute, Moose Jaw technical school, Prince Albert college, Yorkton college, Swift Current high school, North Battleford college, Weybum college, Estevan college, Assiniboine high school, Melville high school, Wilkie high school, Eastend high school, Shaunavon high school, Carlyle high school, Scott college, Rosthern high school, Sturgis high school, Kindersley high school, Humboldt high school, Moosomin high school, Rosetown high school, the school of Agriculture, Meadow Lake high school, Biggar high school, Melfort high school, Maple Creek high school, Foam Lake high school and Nipawin high school.


William Joseph Browne: I would draw the minister's attention to another table in the report for 1951 where it is shown that nearly $300,000 was allotted to Newfoundland, and there is no indication that any of that money was spent. Could the minister tell me how much was allotted in 1951-52 for buildings and equipment, and how much of it was spent? rMr. Gregg.]


Milton Fowler Gregg: For buildings, at the memorial vocational school only, $175,600, and for equipment $73,065.


William Joseph Browne: How much
was spent?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I have not that figure.


William Joseph Browne: Has any
allotment been made for 1952-53?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Not yet. They are under study now.


William Joseph Browne: It will probably be in proportion to what was given before. Will the minister get those figures and send them to me?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I shall be glad to do so.


Mr. Dube:: What was the amount of money spent by the federal government in New Brunswick in this connection in 1951-52?


Milton Fowler Gregg: In the same category as mentioned by the other hon. member?


Paul-Léon Dubé: Yes.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Does the hon. member wish to have the figure broken down?


Paul-Léon Dubé: What is the amount for
Edmundston?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do not believe we have any for Edmundston.


Paul-Léon Dubé: Is there anything for Campbell-ton?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No.


Mr. McLure:: I am not objecting to the passage of this item, but I was called out of the chamber to attend to some business connected with another department. I should like permission to refer back to two items, and I have just one question to ask on each.
I am generally here during the estimates but, as I say, I was called out not on my own business but for the benefit of another department.


Louis-René Beaudoin: It seems to be the general consensus that the hon. member should be allowed to ask his questions.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The first item is No. 189 dealing with annuities. Are the agents selling these annuities civil servants who are paid salaries or are they paid commissions only?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The rule rather than the exception is that annuities salesmen work for about two months under a drawing account, and then they are put on straight commission.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: My next question is with reference to item 195. Does the Department of Labour investigate the hours worked by individuals in other departments?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is one of the week to week duties of the industrial disputes and conciliation branch whose task it is to work out prevailing wage rates and make recommendations to other departments in connection with the employment of workers not under the civil service.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I know of one individual working for a department of the government who must work twelve hours a day without a rest period. He works from eight o'clock in the morning until eight o'clock in the evening, and if lie goes out to lunch he must pay someone to take his place. I am going to bring this up again when the estimates of that department are before us, but I wanted to know if I could have assistance from the Department of Labour.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I would be glad to have the details from my hon. friend.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The details on page 243 indicate that last year only $746,986 of a vote of $1,250,000 was spent. Could the minister state what provinces failed to take up their proportion of this vote?


Milton Fowler Gregg: All provinces have not submitted their accounts, but our records indicate that the following amounts have been
paid so far:
Prince Edward Island	 $ 6,402
Nova Scotia	 21,943
New Brunswick	 60,233
Quebec	 117,689
Ontario	 471,970
Manitoba	 34,531
Saskatchewan	 135,249
Alberta	 8,177
British Columbia	 1,315
Those amounts do not give a fair reflection of the facts because while some provinces have their accounts in, others have not.


Joseph William Noseworthy: When those accounts
come in will they be charged to the 1951-52 allotment?


Milton Fowler Gregg: They will be charged to the new year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services-
200. To provide for expenditures incurred in implementing recommendations of the national advisory council on manpower, and for the administrative costs of the council, $107,950.
Milton Fowler Gregg: I promised the hon. member for Hamilton West, who could not be here this evening, and the hon. members for Cape Breton South and Broadview that I would make some comment on the national advisory council on manpower. In the opinion of some hon. members this advisory council has not fulfilled the high expectations they had for
Supply-Labour
it when I announced the setting up of the council in the house a year ago last spring.
The personnel making up this advisory council I think is well known to all members; if not, the names are on the record. It will be recalled that it was appointed at a period when there was a great wave of concern throughout the North American continent with regard to the emergency which was then beginning and which has continued down to the present time.
The intention was not, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South suggested, to make this an administrative or directing or day to day working body, but rather to have available as supplementary to this House of Commons the advice of a group of people who were distinguished representatives of various fields of endeavour. Organized labour and1 organized management were well represented. The hon. member for Cape Breton South suggested that men from the shops should sit on the committee. If organized labour felt that was a better representation I am sure they would have said so. As it turned out they nominated national leaders to represent them on this body.
This council has held meetings, and the hon. member for Broadview has suggested that the results of those meetings must be judged by the reports. That is true to a degree. The reports in the press are based upon news releases. For reasons which the council felt were adequate the press was not present at the meetings of the council.
I can assure the committee that there has been no effort on the part of the Minister of Labour or any member of the government to dictate or even suggest to this body what they should recommend to the government. I felt it was my duty to invite the right hon. Minister of Defence Production, whose need for manpower was then and is now very great, to come before this council and tell them' what his plans were and to receive criticism and suggestions.
It was in the same vein that I invited the Minister of National Defence to attend. Since immigration into the country affects our man and womanpower resources the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was similarly invited to attend. Although I have not yet had an opportunity to do so, it is my intention to ask the Minister of Agriculture to appear before the council. I now invite the hon. member for Broadview to sit in at the next meeting.


Mr. Graydon:: That will be an improvement.

Supply-Labour


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am sure it will. While nothing spectacular has resulted from the meetings of this council, as far as I am concerned I have been quite happy about the work it has accomplished. For one thing, from the very beginning of the emergency following Korea it has provided a ready outlet for the expression of opinions on the part of organized labour and organized management sitting around the same table.
It has been asked why we have so many high government officials sitting in under the chairmanship of my deputy minister and the secretary of the privy council. The reason the deputy ministers or senior officers of the departments of labour, defence, immigration and defence production were asked to be a part of the committee was so the advisers of the government might be in originally on the suggestions made by organized labour, industry, veterans, women, farmers and so on represented on the council.
I should like to express my gratitude to those who have served on the council, and I can assure the committee that we do not consider it as a body to pass on what the department has done. We have asked it to criticize or make suggestions on what has been done. The apprenticeship conference called this spring was a direct result of suggestions that were made. The work that has been going on with respect to the needs related to our whole manpower picture in the larger emergency is a direct result of suggestions that have been made. Seasonal employment, which has been discussed here, the placement of older men and women and the project which is so close to the heart of the hon. member for Broadview, rehabilitation of the physically disabled, have all been discussed. I will mention typical subjects that have been under discussion, and I am sure the council has provided guidance not only to my officials but to those of other government departments. Subjects that have been discussed are immigration, the present manpower situation, seasonal unemployment, technical and scientific personnel, supply and demand in the professions, placement of older workers, farm labour, vocational training, rehabilitation of the physically handicapped, and preparation for any phase of manpower development as the result of a worsening of the emergency with which we are faced at the present time.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Would the minister give us some explanation of the details of this item as given on page 244? I notice, for instance, that in the estimates there is an amount of nearly $85,000 for stationery and office equipment and it appears that there are no employees there to use it. There are

no estimates for the payment of employees other than $12,000 for allowances and expenses of board members. Last year there was $20,000 for stationery and office equipment and this year the estimates call for $84,000. That is well over $100,000 for equipment for this office in two years. What sort of staff is there in the office?


Milton Fowler Gregg: My hon. friend is quite right. The personnel are not there to use the equipment but the answer is related to the last item in my reply a moment ago. As my hon. friend will recall, two years ago when my estimates were before the committee I was very strongly advised that we, in conjunction with other departments, should go a long way to anticipate the amount of paper work that might be involved within our departments in the event of a worsening of the national emergency. Consequently, to have the paper work on a large manpower program carried out involves the preparation of forms and the obtaining of the type of material and equipment required. That is why this item is there.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Who is to make use of all this paper? There is no staff listed here.


Milton Fowler Gregg: We have not reached yet, thank heaven, a full-out emergency.


George Harris Hees: I thank the minister for his explanatory remarks about the operations of the advisory council. I think potentially it is a very useful body, and I believe members of parliament would obtain a great deal of most useful information if they could be advised of the opinions expressed by members of the council on matters that are of tremendous importance to all of us. When news releases are made by the department I would suggest that the opinions of the members of the advisory council should be recorded, as well as the reports of government departments that are given to members of the advisory council. I would also suggest that when such news releases are issued, they should be made available to all members of parliament as well as to members of the press, which is the present practice. 1 think we would get a great deal of information from these news releases.
The specific purpose of this item is to provide for expenditures incurred in implementing recommendations of the national advisory council on manpower, and for the administrative costs of the council. Could the minister advise us what recommendations have been made during the past year and a half by the council, and which of those recommendations have been implemented by the government?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That would be quite a long story. May I refer to my hon. friend's first

suggestion. I shall be very happy to comply with it, and if it appears to be the desire I am prepared to go even farther and send out to members a more detailed analysis. I would hate to go through the record in a hurried fashion and reply to what he has asked with respect to the several meetings that have been held, but I will make a very compact abstract of those meetings and make it available for members of the house who may require it. I will be glad to send one to my hon. friend.


George Harris Hees: I want to thank the minister very much for his willingness and co-operation, and also for his kind offer to allow me to attend the next meeting of the manpower council. In passing I should like to suggest that the same procedure could be adopted with regard to the newly formed advisory council on rehabilitation. I think members of the house would be just as interested in the proceedings of that advisory council as they are in the manpower council, and if the same sensible suggestion the minister has made about advising us as to what goes on at the meetings of the manpower council could be carried out with respect to this new council I think it would be a good thing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
204.	Co-ordination of rehabilitation of disabled persons, $77,000.
George Harris Hees: It was on this item the minister said he would answer a few of the questions I put on the first item of the department. First of all, what are the government's views on a rehabilitation program to go hand in hand with our unemployment insurance program? The second question was: In cases where rehabilitation is impossible, what are the views of the government on paying a pension to those people who through disability are prohibited from being able further to earn their own living? I would appreciate it if the minister could answer those questions now.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, those are some of quite numerous questions that prompted the technical people engaged in the rehabilitation of the physically disabled in Canada to want to get together in the first instance, then to want to have an effective national committee working on this question to try to find the answers to questions which have been posed tonight by my hon. friend as well as others.
While the details of the committee have been recorded here before I know things often get buried. I should like therefore to take time tonight to read the order in council
Supply-Labour
setting up this committee. It is order in council P.C. 6806 and reads as follows:
His Excellency the governor general in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Veterans Affairs, is pleased to order as follows:
1.	A committee to advise on matters related to the rehabilitation of handicapped civilians and to be known as the national advisory committee on the rehabilitation of disabled persons is hereby established:
2.	The membership of the committee shall consist of the following:
Representatives of provincial governments:
Alberta, A. H. Miller, deputy minister of public welfare, Edmonton, Alberta.
British Columbia, F. T. Fairey, deputy minister of education, Victoria, B.C.
Manitoba, Hon. Charles Rhodes Smith, attorney general, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
New Brunswick, Dr. Ruth McDougall, director of maternal and child health, Fredericton, N.B.
Newfoundland, Dr. T. A. Knowling, director of tuberculosis dispensary, St. John's, Newfoundland.
Nova Scotia, H. S. Farquhar, director of old age pensions, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Ontario, Ian Campbell, chairman, old age pensions commission, Toronto, Ontario.
Prince Edward Island, L. W. Shaw, deputy minister of education, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.
Quebec, Gustave Poisson, deputy minister, Department of Social Welfare, Quebec, P.Q.
Saskatchewan, J. S. White, deputy minister of social welfare and rehabilitation, Regina, Saskatchewan.
I may say that Mr. Ian Campbell has since been obtained as co-ordinator for the national committee. The order in council continues:
Representatives of federal government departments:
Labour, C. A. L. Murchison, commissioner, unemployment insurance commission.
National health and welfare, J. W. Willard, chief, research division.
Veterans affairs, G. H. Parliament, director general of veterans welfare services.
Representatives of health and welfare voluntary agencies:
Lt.-Col. E. A. Baker, managing director, Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Toronto, Ontario.
John G. Counsell, president, Canadian Paraplegic Association, Toronto, Ontario.
T. A. J. Cunnings, rehabilitation officer, sanatorium board of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
E. A. Dunlop, executive director, Canadian Arthritis and Rheumatism Society, Ottawa, Ontario.
Miss Elizabeth S. L. Govan, secretary, public welfare division, Canadian welfare council, Ottawa, Ontario.
R. W. Hopper, recording secretary, Canadian council for Crippled Children, Toronto, Ontario.
Representatives of the medical profession:
Dr. L. O. Bradley, executive secretary, Canadian Hospital Council, Toronto, Ontario.
Dr. H. Hoyle Campbell, president, Canadian Association of Occupational Therapy, Toronto, Ontario.
Dr. Edmond Dube, chief orthopaedic surgeon, St. Justine hospital, Outremont, P.Q.
Dr. Campbell Gardner, chief of service-surgery, Queen Mary veterans hospital, Montreal, P.Q.
Dr. P. L'Heureux, medical superintendent, St. Boniface hospital, St. Boniface, Man.

Supply-Labour
Dr. Eustace Morin, chief of medical clinics, Hospital of the Child Jesus, Quebec, P.Q.
Representatives of organized employers:
Canadian Manufacturers Association, Roy Campbell, secretary, Canadian International Paper Company, Montreal, P.Q.
Canadian Construction Association, J. A. Lapres, H. J. O'Connell Limited, Montreal, P.Q.
Canadian Bankers Association, Leonard W. Townsend, Bank of Montreal, Montreal, P.Q.
Canadian Chamber of Commerce, James Young, Canadian Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Co. Limited, Longueuil, P.Q.
Representatives of organized labour:
The Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, Gordon G. Cushing, general secretary-treasurer, Ottawa, Ontario.
The Canadian Congress of Labour, Max Dodds, education and research director, district 6, united rubber, cork, linoleum and plastic workers of America, Toronto, Ontario.
Railway Workers, F. P. Donovan, general chairman, brotherhood of maintenance of way employees, Winnipeg, Man.
The Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour, Gaston Ledoux, first vice-president, Granby, P.Q.
Representatives of universities and groups especially interested in rehabilitation:
Rev. Father J. C. Beaudin, Montreal, P.Q.
R. Edgar Guay, Quebec, P.Q.
G. F. McNally, Edmonton, Alberta.
Dr. J. C. Meakins, Montreal, P.Q.
3.	The duties and powers of the committee are as follows:
(a)	To elect annually its officers and to form an executive committee;
(b)	To review the recommendations of the conference on the rehabilitation of the physically handicapped held in Toronto, Ontario, in February, 1951;
(c)	From time to time to review existing rehabilitation services and facilities and to recommend steps to be taken for their most effective utilization and for their expansion where necessary;
(d)	To recommend the preparation and distribution of information material;
(e)	To instruct the executive committee on duties to be carried out in the intervals between committee meetings;
(f)	To recommend the establishment of such working subcommittees, as may be deemed necessary;
(g)	To advise on the subject of rehabilitation policies generally, whether in relation to government action or the activities of voluntary agencies; and
(h)	To consider and advise upon such questions relating to handicapped persons as may from time to time be referred to it.
4.	When a member of the committee is unable to be present at a meeting of the committee he may, with the concurrence of the chairman of the committee, designate an alternate to attend and act in his place at the said meeting.
That, Mr. Chairman, is an outline of the order in council. As to some of the important questions that I know are in the mind of the hon. member for Broadview and perhaps in the minds of other hon. members, I should like them to be allowed to stand until the executive of this committee has had an opportunity to prove itself. Mr. Ian Campbell has taken on his new duties as from the first of this month. He is this week end attending
IMr. Gregg.]
the large social welfare councils that are being held in the city of Quebec. He has provided on the special council a panel which is dealing with the rehabilitation of the physically handicapped. When that meeting is over he is going to start at Newfoundland, I believe, and visit each provincial capital, calling upon the representative in that capital who is on the national council and upon those who are so capably engaged, in voluntary agencies, in this work. He will thus be working from the ground up rather than from the top down.
The members of the council are all technical people in this field. They all know what it is about. I think I interpret then-general view when I say they all feel that this problem is one that should be approached on a national basis-whatever each province might do, as has been done now in Ontario- through the voluntary agencies, provincial governments and federal departments concerned, and that the stress should be on the medical and occupational refitting of the person for work so that he will be able to earn his own living. Out of that, of course, will come some who will not be able to work at all, but if our veterans' experience holds reasonably well there will be few in that category.


George Harris Hees: I thank the minister very much for his remarks explaining the function of this new body. Might I suggest that if we agree not to press him for his opinions or the opinions of the government on matters that we have brought forward, will he agree to bring before this advisory council the suggestions that have been brought forward by the members of this house concerning rehabilitation, and will he agree to have the proceedings of the meetings of that council at which these questions are discussed made available to the members of the House of Commons?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I will be glad to do that, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it understood that this body has the authority to discuss and deal with the relationship between rehabilitation on the one hand and any probable pension plan on the other? Also may I ask whether the body has the authority to make recommendations to the employment service of the minister's department with respect to any steps that might be taken to deal with the employment of handicapped people?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Oh, yes, Mr. Chairman, that is quite true. As indicated in the order in council the committee, so far as the federal government is concerned, will report to the three members of the cabinet whose departments I mentioned a few minutes ago, and

will feel free to report or make any suggestions on any matter affecting rehabilitation. On the other hand we are asking that the employment officials of the national employment services and the special placement officers, not only in Ottawa and regional offices but in the local offices, work hand in glove with the voluntary agencies and with those who are in the provinces working in this field, so there will be every co-ordination of the work.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about my first question?


Milton Fowler Gregg: As to the channels for recommendations?


Stanley Howard Knowles: As to the channels for recommendations, whether it is in order for them to make recommendations with regard to a pension plan for incapacitated persons?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Unquestionably there are no restrictions whatever as to what they may recommend, so long as it is for the improvement of the condition of the physically disabled who have no rights under veterans or workmen's compensation.
. Mr. Hees: I was not quite sure whether the minister made any reply to my last request that the suggestions we have made in connection with rehabilitation be brought before the rehabilitation council for consideration by the members of that council, and that the proceedings of the meeting be made available to us. Is that agreeable to the minister?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I will be pleased to do so. I shall see that copies of Hansard, for today are placed in the hands of members of the executive, and I will be glad to work out an abstract of their meeting and send it to each member of the house.


George Harris Hees: Will the minister see that these questions are actually brought up at a meeting? It is one thing to distribute Hansard, but it might not be read. If a question were not put on the agenda for a meeting it might never be discussed. I should like his assurance that these questions will be put on the agenda at some meeting in the near future, and will be discussed.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am sure the hon. member would not want the minister to inform this advisory committee as to the things upon which they should give advice. We shall bring the suggestion to the co-ordinator's attention, and I feel sure he will be glad to carry it out.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The minister gave us a very long and imposing list of the members of the board and the executive who will be interested in working towards the promotion of this rehabilitation work. Could the minister
Supply-Labour
tell us what full-time staff he visualizes to actually do the work of initiating and promoting rehabilitation?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Most of the work arising out of this measure will be done by existing federal people who are in the field. For instance, veterans affairs will be the great laboratory, as you might call it. They have been through the mill, and they will throw the results of their experience into the work. The Department of National Health and Welfare will take a great share of the load, because it is already in the field. Our placement officers in the national employment service will be oriented into it. So far as the additional full-time staff is concerned, there will be a co-ordinator, and perhaps an assistant and one stenographer at the most at the present.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940-
205.	Administration, including expenditures incurred in connection with the activities of the national employment service as delegated by the Minister of Labour in accordance with section 88 of the act, $25,390,583.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, with respect to unemployment insurance, we are having a debate on that subject on a bill which the minister has before the house. Thus we do not need to spend too much time on unemployment insurance itself under this item. One could, because there are the matters that we have raised from time to time, about which the minister knows. I hope they will be given further consideration.
At this point, however, I should like to ask the minister what progress he is making in a city like Winnipeg, and perhaps in other cities, in getting better accommodation for the unemployment insurance commission and the national employment service which is associated with that commission. I should like to point out in the first place that there are a number of offices of the unemployment insurance commission in Winnipeg, and for the most part they are on streets that are off the main thoroughfares, and in the main they are in rather old buildings. The minister's colleague the Minister of National Revenue seems to fare much better. The place where the taxes are collected is a fine building. I do not know what the idea is, whether they want to make you feel it is a nice place to go.


Gordon Graydon: Honey for the flies.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes; and where you get stuck, too. This function which is performed by the unemployment insurance commission is rather important. The number of people that come and go in those offices, both in connection with unemployment insurance and in connection with employment placement,

Supply-Labour
must be very large indeed. It would seem to me that an effort should be made to get a reasonably choice location, and also to get all the unemployment insurance offices under one roof. Naturally, an effort should be made to locate it in some place which is not only choice in the sense of being attractive, but choice in the sense of being readily accessible to the large number of people who would have to go there.
I believe the matter has been under consideration; I would hope it has, because of the scattered nature of the set-up in Winnipeg. Can the minister say what progress has been made? If he is having any difficulty with his colleague the Minister of Public Works in getting more desirable accommodation and would like some help, we shall support him.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I can assure my hon. friend that we are very much concerned that the offices shall be-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just as good as the income tax offices.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes. The fact is that the rush period in those offices corresponds with the bitterest and worst weather we have in our Canadian winters, and that makes it very difficult to get the square footage space to take care of the peak load. I have not been in Winnipeg yet, but I have visited some of our offices during the winter months, and I have deplored these cases where you find a queue down the steps and out on the street.
I can assure my hon. friend that we shall continue to do our best also for the improvement of conditions in Winnipeg.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it from what the minister has said that the Winnipeg situation is specifically under consideration. Does the minister agree with me that it would be desirable to have all the unemployment insurance offices located under one roof in a more desirable location than is now the case?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Well, I would make one reservation there, of course. There is a great advantage in having offices dispersed for the convenience of the workers who may live in outlying sections of a large city like Winnipeg. I do not think-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The dispersal at Winnipeg does not meet that qualification. The offices are on William avenue, McDermot avenue and Bannatyne avenue. They are at those different places because you do not have one place in the downtown area that is satisfactory.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I shall be glad to look into that. I will not go into the argument as to

whether we should have the offices uptown, or in the central part of the city, or downtown, but we shall take into consideration my hon. friend's remarks.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I note that while under one item the government contributes $32 million to the unemployment insurance plan, the administration of unemployment insurance eats up something over $25 million of the $32 million. Has the minister or his department given any consideration to the possibility of reducing the administrative costs of unemployment insurance, or changing the basis under which unemployment insurance is paid so that less bookkeeping and fewer bookkeepers will be required for the administration of the act?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The commission is not an old body. As my hon. friend knows, it was ten years old last year. By the very nature of things it is a very complicated structure, but I can assure him that it is given constant study for improvement. The administrative costs are high. On the other hand, from my observation I am confident that our 200-odd offices across the country dealing with this problem are not overstaffed from the' point of view of the employment service, the service they have to give the public.
As to the wing which deals with the insurance and all the related records, statistics and cards and all the things that I am sure are as mystifying to my hon, friend as they are to me, we have them under study and are making any improvements we can to cut down not only on the cost but also on the amount of paper work involved to do the job.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
206.	Government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund, $32 million.
William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make an observation on this, again in regard to the question of insurance for fishermen. The sum of $57 million is involved in these two items as the government's contribution toward unemployment insurance, and fishermen get no insurance. In the Daily News, published in St. John's, of April 10, 1952, an editorial appeared which dealt with the statement by the minister. I do not remember the statement but it referred to the difficulties cited by the minister as follows:
The obvious difficulties cited by Labour Minister Gregg as obstacles to the extension of unemployment insurance benefits to Newfoundland fishermen reveal a problem only to be solved by a change in fishing organization or in unemployment insurance procedure.

The editorial goes on to cite what is obvious, that the fisherman sees people getting insurance benefits and he gets nothing. Then they say that not much can be done about it because he is a sort of small capitalist; he is a self-employed person. The article goes on:
The unfortunate aspect of this situation is that many men are turning away from the fisheries to enter insurable employment. And that process can continue to the point where the fishing population of Newfoundland will be sadly and even calamitously diminished in size. That would not be so grave a prospect if alternative employment on a permanent basis were to be readily available but thousands of new jobs cannot be created overnight. Thus abandonment of the fisheries on a large scale could mean excessive competition for other jobs, demands for relief, or substantial migration to the mainland.
The newspaper editor considers that perhaps the best way to deal with it would be reorganization of the fisheries to convert owners and sharemen into wage earners. I cannot say I quite agree with that solution. 1 think it is better for men to have their own business. Then he says:
But the dispersal of the fishing population in a thousand coves and harbours sets up an immediate obstacle to the swift development of a plan of this kind. The only possible alternative would be the evolution of a practicable means of underwriting the security of the producer by assuring him of an adequate reward for his labours. That seems to involve an elastic use of the price support law to cover this specific problem.
It seems to me there is no doubt about it; on the Pacific coast as well as on the Atlantic coast, in Newfoundland and in the maritime provinces, the fishermen are faced with that situation. Some new device must be invented by the minister, or perhaps the Minister of Labour in collaboration with his colleague the Minister of Fisheries. There seems to be a sort of injustice. While I appreciate all that the deputy minister of fisheries has recommended be done for the fishermen, nevertheless that uncertain prospect of poor prices for his fish or a poor catch has the same effect upon his economic fortunes as unemployment has on workers in the factories, and leaves him in a position where he feels he is being treated unjustly. I hope the minister will give consideration to these points I have brought out.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I will promise to comply;
nevertheless I must admit, as my hon. friend outlined at the beginning, that the difficulties are very great. There is the difficulty of the small capitalist who has his own boat and runs his own show, often with one helper, and how to make collections in those cases. Then there is the small farmer in our eastern country who has a farm helper part of the year and is a cutter of pulp wood and pit props the rest of the year. These are questions
Supply-Fisheries
that so far we have not found answers to, but we will be glad to keep them ever to the fore.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
207.	To provide for the transfer of labour to and from places where employment is available in agriculture and industry and expenses incidental thereto, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $200,000.
A. Earl Catherwood: Will the minister explain the difference between this item and item 194? It seems to me there is quite a similarity in the relationship of these two items. I am not objecting to the amount of money spent under this item because I feel it is very important, particularly as far as agriculture in eastern Canada is concerned. I should like the minister to explain the reason for these two items which to me are remarkably similar.


Milton Fowler Gregg: It just happens that that question was anticipated. The unemployment insurance commission vote shown here is to provide for the payment of transportation for federal-sponsored movement of workers to areas of short supply not only for agriculture but also for other industries when the movements are interprovincial in nature. If movements sponsored by the federal government relate to the agricultural worker, 50 per cent of the cost thereof is billed by the unemployment insurance commission to the province, apportioned to the numbers and estimated length of time they are employed in each province, and the amount is charged against the allotment under the farm-labour agreement. Transportation costs shared by the federal government under the farm-labour agreements relate principally to movements within the provincial boundary which are sponsored, with the concurrence of the federal government, by the province and administered by provincial transportation warrants.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
141. Departmental administration, $294,900.
William Joseph Browne: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: I had not intended to make one at this time. My experience on other occasions has been that we get along faster and probably get better information by letting hon. members make their statements now. I shall take notes, and answer later on.


Mr. Applewhaite:: Mr. Chairman, I remember that last year and the year before I took occasion under this item to express to the minister my appreciation and that of those

Supply-Fisheries
connected with the fisheries industry in the Skeena electoral district for his interest, and the way in which this department has been administered in the interests of the fishing industry. I am very glad to say I have just as much reason to do so this year as I had in years past.
I should like to add our expressions of appreciation of the work of the officers and employees of the Department of Fisheries. I can extend that appreciation quite sincerely to all those whose duties are in any way connected with the operation of the fisheries on the Pacific coast.
Despite the fact that on the whole we have a very real feeling of satisfaction with our Department of Fisheries, by the very nature of the industry matters arise from time to time which have to be brought to the attention of the minister and the department. Many of these are small and of only local application. Many can be handled by discussions with the minister, his deputy or some other departmental official. There are only four the discussion of which I propose to inflict upon the committee at this time. I believe all four are of such a nature as to be handled satisfactorily under item 141, and by so doing the committee will be saved watching me bob up and down as each item is called.
The first matter I would draw to the attention of the minister is certainly one related to departmental administration, in that we can get help only if those who administer the department will take action. At first blush it may appear that the matter does not apply at all to the Department of Fisheries, because remedial action would have to be taken by another department of government. However, I think when the Minister of Fisheries is before the committee I am fully justified in asking him, on behalf of the fishing industry, to take an interest in this matter.
I was not in the House of Commons prior to 1949, but it is my understanding that it was the purpose of parliament to exempt from sales tax and excise tax all those articles which go into the earning of a living by either fishermen or farmers. This year we had some amendments to the sales tax extending those exemptions to items used by fishermen which apparently had not been covered before. The exemptions are varied. In general terms I believe they might be said to appear to include everything in the nature of fishing gear, including small ropes, sinkers, floats and the like.
Quite recently it has been found, however, that certain types of fishing plugs and lures, including plastic plugs and certain lures used extensively by commercial fishermen,

were not included and are not at the present time exempted from sales tax. Yet they are just as much a part of the equipment of a commercial fisherman as are nets or other fishing gear.
I am not asking the Minister of Fisheries at the moment to give me a reply in this connection, because I realize he would not be able to do so until the matter had been discussed with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Revenue and others; but I would ask him, as Minister of Fisheries, to look into the matter. If it is found that the acts as at present worded are such that lures and plugs used by commercial fishermen are now subject to sales tax when sold to commercial fishermen, I would ask him to take the initiative in bringing about an amendment so that what I have no doubt was the original intention of parliament will be carried out, namely that the tools of the trade used by fishermen may be exempt.
The next matter I would refer to the minister and the department is of major concern to a large section of only the Pacific coast. In July of last year we suffered a major calamity out there in the nature of a rockslide. I believe hon. members would have a better picture if it were described as a landslide. It completely blocked the Babine river. That is the river up which pass the vast majority of the sockeye salmon of the whole Skeena river run. Other types of salmon also go up the Babine river to the spawning grounds.
I suggest it is fairly obvious that if salmon do not reach the spawning beds, then four years later there will be a complete failure in the salmon run. The damage done by the Babine river slide was such that last year there was not a very good escapement of sockeye or other salmon to Babine lake. The situation this year may be somewhat the same. If it is not possible, and I think perhaps it is not, to construct in that isolated area a permanent solution to the major calamity caused by the Babine slide in one season, then extraordinary remedies will have to be taken to assist this year's run of salmon to get into the lakes so they can spawn.
I would ask the minister to be kind enough to give the committee information as to what has been done to date and what the expectations are for the immediate future in connection with this matter. While a rockslide may not sound like a matter of major importance, the complete blocking-and it was a complete blocking-of a whole run of salmon is a matter of major concern to the whole Pacific coast.

There is another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. Perhaps it is only fair to say that it should be given some consideration by the scientists of the department before any answer could be jxpected. This matter has been brought to my attention by the Prince Rupert fishermen's co-operative association. In passing I should like to say that in connection with these practical matters of local concern I doubt- I say this with great respect to all contrary opinion-whether there is any body better fitted to advise than the fishermen's co-operative association composed as it is of the men who do the actual fishing, who have day by day and year by year knowledge of local conditions and who because of the nature of their operation have a knowledge of the commercial end of the business as well.
This matter about which they are now making representations is that the department give serious consideration to the adoption of conservative measures in connection with flatfish. They have not made their submissions to me quite as general as that. What they have asked is that the department should be asked to take steps to ensure the closing of fishing in Skidegate inlet as soon as the flatfish taken in that area show evident signs of spawning. It was felt that this action was necessary in the interests of conservation.
I am not making my request in quite those narrow terms. I am asking the department to give consideration to investigating whether or not a situation has been developed where the conservation of flatfish should be undertaken. That may involve considerable inquiry, experimentation and research by the scientists available to the department. If this branch of the industry considers that we have reached a position where conservation is necessary, then I am quite confident in passing on that request to the department to make scientific inquiries into the matter. I feel that this matter would not have been brought to my attention by the co-operative unless they had cause to worry as to the future of flatfish.
There is another matter which I think is worthy of some consideration by this committee. In this particular instance the initiative on the coast is taken by the deep sea fishermen's federal union. I may say for the benefit of the committee that some two years agj the department operated on the Pacific coast a tuna patrol which was intended to investigate and report upon the movement of tuna. This was not in connection with conservation or spawning; it was simply an effort to find the crop available for fishing that year. That patrol was not carried out last year, and I understand no provision has been made for it this year. Evidently those 55704-204
Supply-Fisheries
engaged in fishing on the coast found that the tuna patrol was of real and practical value, and they have asked that it be reinstituted. I pass on their request with my endorsement. I realize that in the Department of Fisheries, as in all other departments, an effort must be made at reasonable economy, that we should not only conserve fish but should conserve money as well. However, if this tuna patrol is going to increase the catch of fish the amount necessary to keep it in operation will not be an expenditure; it will be an investment which would pay a good return.
I admit quite frankly that I am not in a position to state definitely that the industry will suffer if this tuna control is not reinstituted, but I am in position to say that the deep sea fishermen's federal union, which is a well managed organization, is of the opinion that it will. I submit these few suggestions to the Minister of Fisheries assuring him again, and I say this quite sincerely, that while we on the Pacific coast see fit to bring our problems to his attention that fact detracts not one iota from the appreciation we have for the way in which our interests have been looked after by him and his department.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped the minister would make a statement. I have been reading again the report of the Department of Fisheries for 1950-51, and have found it a most interesting document. I had thought that if the minister spoke he would give us some information that would be appearing in the next report, which I suppose we shall not receive until several months have passed. It is to be regretted that the report of the department for the year just past does not come out until after the estimates have been considered. As a result hon. members have no opportunity of seeing what has been done by the department during the year.
This report indicates that a great deal of activity was carried on during 1950-51, and I imagine there has also been a great deal of activity during 1951-52. The minister was present in the chamber a few minutes ago when I spoke on the question of unemployment insurance for fishermen. I am aware of the difficulties to be encountered in connection with this, but I am sure the minister is also aware of the plight of many fishermen when there is a bad season, either because the catch has not been sufficient or the price has been low. He knows that in 1950 the price of salt codfish in Newfoundland was low. The officials of the fisheries prices support board were put to work on the problem, but they were some time in

Supply-Fisheries
coming to a decision. I appreciate that they had many difficulties to contend with because there are so many fishermen and so many dealers. All the books had to be examined, and each fisherman's account had to be inspected.
I would point out to the minister that the principle which was adopted was unsound. The principle followed by the fisheries prices support board upon which payments were based was to average the value of fish at $10.10 per quintal of 112 pounds, and then they averaged the price the fishermen were supposed to have received at $8.80. The difference of $1.30 per quintal was paid to all fishermen who had been selling shore fish.
I say this principle was unsound because some fishermen received higher prices than others. Those who sold their catch in August and September received the highest prices, while those who sold their fish in October and after that received very low prices. As I pointed out previously, some of them received an average of $5 to $5.50 per quintal, yet they received the same amount, $1.30. The minister must be aware, and certainly the officials in the fisheries prices support board are aware, that all fishermen did not receive the same price for their fish. It seems to me that where they are not catching sufficient fish, or because of bad weather they have not been able to take good fish and therefore will not get a good price, they are put in the position of men who are out of employment. Their income is low, so low that they will not be able to carry on for another six months until the new fishing season begins. It is the same for the fisherman as if he had been out of employment.
The Minister of Fisheries is aware of that problem, and I suggest that instead of giving a straight figure of $1.30 per quintal on the fish in 1950 a more elastic system should have been adopted. A higher figure should have been given to those who received the lower prices. If that principle had been adopted in 1951 I think he would have found a lot of people would have been entitled to receive some amount of money from the fisheries prices support board. What is that board for? It is supposed to help people in the post-war era. This is still post-war. The conditions that have existed in the European markets are certainly not nearly so good as they were in the period before the second world war. The export of salt codfish to the traditional markets in Europe has been affected by the war and conditions arising from the aftermath of war.
Therefore it seems to me that the fisheries prices support board should come to the rescue of fishermen when they receive low

prices or when they make poor catches. I should like the minister to keep the welfare of the fisherman directly before his mind. I have made this same appeal before. He can have all kinds of bait depots, longliners, drag-gers, cold storage, experimental kitchens and that sort of thing but that is not helping the fisherman directly, and it is direct assistance which is most appreciated.
I said a few minutes ago that the number of fishermen prosecuting the fisheries is declining. I do not know what the figures are for 1951-52 but I see from the figures in the report for 1950-51 that in 1949 there were 26,758 fishermen in Newfoundland and in 1950 there were only 22,556. That is a decline of over 4,000. How many were there in 1951, and how many will there be in 1952? The number of schooners taking part in 1949 was 232 and the number in 1950 was only 105, or less than half. I feel quite sure that the principal reason people are leaving the salt cod fishing industry is because of the uncertainty of the fishery, because the fishermen are not always able to earn a living wage and are not receiving insurance benefits which people receive who are out of employment.
I have here an item from the May 12 issue of one of the daily papers published in St. John's. The report is from Grand Bank which is one of the principal settlements on the southwest coast of Newfoundland, and is in the district of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. The article reads as follows:
The fishery continues good for the shoremen around here. The dories are getting a quintal and better daily. The catch is being salted now and will be sold undoubtedly saltbulk. It was encouraging to hear Mr. Lane express his confidence in an improved situation and price to be realized for this year's catch. He urged fishermen to remain in the fishery but this will not follow this season in some sections. We understand that in the Marys-town and Lamaline sections that a fairly large proportion of the trap fishermen do not intend to prosecute the fishery this year. In fact, some of them have burnt their bridges behind them and have sold their traps and skiffs.
That is only one section, and I believe the same is also true of other sections. Therefore I believe the problem should receive urgent attention on the part of the minister.
During the past week a question has been on the order paper in my name arising out of information that came to my attention. The hon. member for Charlotte had a question on the order paper a short time ago in which he inquired as to the amount of assistance that had been given to farmers under the Canadian farm loan board and the amount of assistance that had been given to fishermen under the fisheries loan board. I do not think the title he used with respect to the fisheries loan board was correct. It is a very long involved title. Its

short title is the Canadian Fisherman's Loan Act. It is very enlightening to make a comparison and I think that was the object of the hon. member for Charlotte-between the assistance which has been given to the farmers of Canada and the assistance which has been given to fishermen by means of loans. Under the Canadian farm loan board the amount of assistance given is small in comparison with that which is given under the Farm Improvement Loans Act. I urge the minister to give consideration to having the act relating to fishermen altered or to introduce a new act to provide that fishermen can take advantage of the same provisions which are now applicable in lending to farmers.
Under the Farm Improvement Loans Act a farmer may apply to a bank for a loan for anything to assist him in his business or anything to improve his home or surroundings in order to make life more pleasant in the home or to make his business more profitable. All he has to do is go to the bank, and if the bank thinks his credit is good it will give him a loan of up to $3,000 with seven years to pay and the government will guarantee the loan. Last year $85 million were loaned by the chartered banks of this country under that act. Since the legislation was passed a few years ago $255 million has been loaned by the banks, and the bad debts only amount to 1/100 of 1 per cent.
The hon. member for Charlotte asked the amount of money loaned to fishermen under the fishermen's loan act last year. Do you know how much it was, Mr. Chairman? It was $800 compared with $85 million loaned under the other method. It must be apparent to all persons in the house that similar provisions should be extended to fishermen as are extended to farmers. The hon. member for Charlotte urged that, and I support him. I have been in houses in Newfoundland, and perhaps the minister has been in them too, where there are industrious men who make a living but sometimes have a poor year. They do not feel justified in making a big expenditure for a boat, a new engine, a new trap or other useful objects that could help them in their business. A longliner, for instance, would cost a lot of money. I refer to things of that kind that would help him to improve his catch or improve the value of the catch when he is curing it.
On the other hand he might wish to have something in his home in order to make a better place in which to live so that his wife and family will be more comfortable and contented. Where is he going to borrow the money? Suppose he needs $1,000 to 55704-204J
Supply-Fisheries
instal an electric pump or a water or sewage system? Let us be frank and honest about this matter. Thousands of fishermen of Newfoundland have no such amenities at all, and nobody will lend them the money to put those things into their homes. If the minister wants the people of Newfoundland to remain in the fisheries-that is, those who are fishing-he must see to it that there are available to them advantages similar to those that are available to the farmers.
According to the latest census 55 per cent of the people of this country are now living in the cities and only 45 per cent are living in rural or fishing communities. The trend is away from rural communities, where there are so many disadvantages, into the cities .where they have the bright lights, the heated homes and all the modern conveniences. One of the objects of the minister with regard to the fishermen of Newfoundland should be to make their homes as comfortable as possible.
While I speak of the fishermen of Newfoundland I am thinking of the fishermen in the other provinces as well. This type of loan should be made available to all of them. If the minister does not feel he should do that, I assure him that at the earliest possible moment I propose to introduce a resolution- if I cannot introduce a bill-into the house asking the government to give consideration to this matter, in order to get a decision by the government upon it.
The Secretary of State is familiar with the fisheries of Newfoundland. Not long ago he made a statement about them. I do not know whether he did this on his own-probably he did-or whether he did it with the approval of the Minister of Fisheries, which was not necessary. His broadcast was favourably commented on in an editorial in the Evening Telegram published in St. John's, I think on April 26. The Secretary of State said:
It is only trash to talk about prosperity in Newfoundland until the fishermen are placed in a position to earn a good living according to present-day standards ... I cannot too often repeat that the two great problems are: to increase the catch of each fisherman, to improve the quality of his product so that it will fetch higher prices in wealthier markets.
I am aware that the Secretary of State has for a long time been an advocate of long-liners. His advocacy of this form of catching fish has been ridiculed by the provincial minister of fisheries in Newfoundland, but this newspaper seems to support the Secretary of State. A little while ago I put a question on the order paper in order to find out what was the cost of operating these longliners and what was the value of the catch they made; and I was surprised to find they were losing money. When the minister is on this

Supply-Fisheries
item, if he has any figures which were not available to him at that time I should like him to indicate, if he will be good enough to do so, whether the experiments that have been carried on in connection with the long-liner have been successful, whether further expenditure on that account is warranted, and whether that system of catching fish should be more generally practised in Newfoundland. The figures that were given in answer to the question I asked do not seem to me to justify the expenditure. However, there may be longliners and longliners. There may be boats that use long lines which are more suitable for the fisheries of Newfoundland than are others.
There is another matter about which the fishermen in my riding have spoken to me frequently and which I believe is generally considered by the fishermen of Newfoundland to be important in connection with catching fish. I refer to the supply of bait. The federal department of fisheries has a bait service. It has at least one steamer which goes around to the different settlements where no bait freezer is established and supplies bait to the fishermen; but there are still a great number of places to which this steamer does not go and in which no bait is readily available. As you look around the peninsula of Avalon through my riding, starting at St. John's and going south around Cape Race and up St. Mary's bay and into Placentia bay, how many bait depots will you find? There is one at Ferryland and there is one at St. Mary's. In St. Mary's bay there are a great many settlements where there are fishermen; in fact in all the settlements there are fishermen; and it is not a sufficient answer to say, "There is a bait depot over there", 15, 20 or 30 miles away. It seems to me there must be some way of having bait made more easily available than that.
In a letter which the minister wrote me I think he spoke about "holding depots". I do not know whether any holding depots have been built since I first brought the matter to his attention, but I do not know of any. I do not see any improvement in that situation since I first directed his attention to the matter. The fishermen are always talking about it. What it means is this. Trap fishing begins in June. It may last the month of June and go on for a couple of weeks in July. In most places it will be over by the end of July. In some places it may go on for another week or so. When trap fishing is over-that is catching fish by large traps-the fishermen go trawling or hand-lining and they must have fresh bait for those forms of fishing. It is necessary that it be fresh. The cod are very particular 
fish. They must have their bait fresh. If the fishermen have not fresh bait they cannot go fishing. Therefore as we get toward the end of the summer the fishermen find it more difficult all the time to go fishing because they cannot catch the bait to use and it is either too far to go or there is some other obstacle with regard to procuring bait from the bait depot.
In St. Mary's bay there is an island called Colinet island where all the men are fishermen. In fact in most of the settlements-St. Vincent's, St. Joseph's and North Harbour- practically all the able-bodied men are engaged in fishing. It is a good many miles from North Harbour over to St. Mary's, and it seems to me unreasonable to expect that a man should hire a truck and go around perhaps 30 or 40 miles and come back again -that is 80 miles-with bait and then have no place to keep it; or to go by boat, which would mean going 15 or 20 miles in a motorboat out into the open sea, which means great hardship for the fishermen; and he would not be ready to go fishing if he had gone that distance. I would therefore urge again that greater consideration be given to this question of bait depots, bait freezers or holding depots, whatever you choose to call them.
Two years ago last April fisheries development committees were set up in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, each headed by the chief justice of that province. They have been sitting for two years. While I was not aware of the one in Prince Edward Island until recently, I was aware of the nature of the people on the committee in Newfoundland. It is a joint committee with federal and provincial representatives. They have sat now for over two years. I wonder whether the minister is in a position to give us any information as to what that committee has done, or whether it has made any interim report. The premier of Newfoundland has come out with some rather strong statements about the changes that must take place in the fisheries of Newfoundland and the large amounts of money that must be expended if they are to be put on a profitable basis. I wonder if the minister is in a position to make some remarks upon the statements made by the premier, or at least some statement on what the committee has been doing and when it is likely to furnish us with a report. Apparently a great deal depends upon the report of this commission. It is composed of able men, and they have been two years on the work. After two years I imagine they should produce something very beneficial to the fishermen of Newfoundland.
I notice that in the maritime provinces the Department of Fisheries, during the year

1950-51, set up a number of fish hatcheries. I do not think there is any fish hatchery in Newfoundland. Has the minister given any consideration to the building of fish hatcheries in Newfoundland? I would say it is most important that we should have fish hatcheries for lake trout and salmon. Many years ago the Newfoundland government brought out a Mr. Chambers from Scotland to investigate the salmon fishery. He made a report in which he recommended the establishment of a fish hatchery, but I do not think it was ever established. I should like to see one there, because in my opinion the quantity and size of the salmon caught in Newfoundland has declined over the years.
The salmon fishery is certainly not what it used to be. From the point of view of angling it is a remarkable attraction for tourists. We have a lot of fine rivers, but unfortunately the cutting of wood has interfered with the flow of water. We have had low water more often and more seriously of late years, and as a result the fish have died. Quite strict conservation measures, therefore, should be put into effect.


John Horne Blackmore: Would the hon. member permit a question?


William Joseph Browne: Yes.


John Horne Blackmore: Does Newfoundland contemplate any reforestation measures on these watersheds?


William Joseph Browne: I have to inform the hon. member that the Conservative party is not in office in that province. If we were in office there I believe we would take far better steps to see that these rivers were protected.


John Horne Blackmore: What I wanted to know is whether or not they are taking any measures.


William Joseph Browne: I have been an advocate of reforestation for a long time, but recently the provincial government has termed the nursery where young trees were grown for the purpose of reforestation-well, they have used some opprobrious term.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: This is Friday, Mr. Chairman, and I think we should stick to fish and not trees.


William Alfred Robinson: The minister points out that we are on the first item of the Department of Fisheries, and that we should discuss fish and not trees.


William Joseph Browne: If the minister cannot see the connection between reforestation along the rivers and the salmon fishery he does not know very much about the salmon fishery of Newfoundland, because it is largely dependent upon having a good flow of water in the streams.
Supply


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister a question in connection with the Japanese fisheries agreement? Will the minister tell the committee the position in which that agreement is now, and when it will be before the house for ratification?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: The Japanese fishing treaty has been before the committee on marine and fisheries for the last five or six weeks. The committee recommended it for the approval of the house, but I have no intention of asking the house to ratify the treaty at this session.


Mr. Carter:: May I ask permission to call it eleven o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, which will be a long day, we shall proceed with the following bills and resolutions: Bill No. 335, to amend the Cold Storage Act; Bill No. 310, for the control of traffic on government property; Bill No. 306, the third reading of an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code. Then we shall move to go into supply and call two new departments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How many?


Alphonse Fournier: Two; report progress, and ask leave to sit again later that day. I believe we may also dispose of the resolution in the name of the Minister of Resources and Development to amend the Northwest Territories Act; Bill No. 210, to provide for carrying into effect the treaty of peace between Canada and Japan; Bill No. 333, to amend the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act; Bill No. 336, respecting marine and aviation war risks insurance and reinsurance agreements. If we had more time we could continue the estimates of fisheries.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And public works?


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
General administration-
187.	Departmental administration. $598,070.
188.	To provide for expenses of the economics and research branch. $499,783.
189.	Annuities Act-administration, $936,386.
190.	Fair wages, conciliation, industrial relations, industrial disputes investigations, including the administration of legislation relating thereto, and for activities re promotion of co-operation in industry between labour and management. $428,093.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Labour
191.	Canada labour relations board, $6,250.
192.	International labour conferences, $62,608.
193.	Labour Gazette, authorized by Labour Department Act, $126,996.
194.	To provide for the effective organization and use of agricultural manpower, including recruiting, transporting and placing workers on farms and related industries and assistance to the provinces pursuant to agreements that may be entered into by the Minister of Labour with the provinces and approved by the governor in council, $280,000.
195.	To provide for investigations and inspection work in relation to working conditions in industries where the federal government has exclusive responsibility; field work in respect to wages and hours legislation; co-operation in accident prevention and workmen's compensation, $25,000.
Vocational training co-ordination-
196.	Administration, $40,800.
To provide for carrying out the purposes of the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act, 1942, and agreements made thereunder; to authorize the Minister of Labour to enter into agreements with any province on terms approved by the governor in council for the training of persons to fit them for defence industries, the training of members of Her Majesty's forces and other persons to fit them for skilled armed services occupations, and training under youth training projects and to provide for the expenditures thereunder and under vocational training agreements entered into in previous years-
197.	Training payments to the provinces, $4,027,000.
198.	Payments to the provinces for capital expenditures for vocational schools, buildings and equipment. $1,134,000.
Government employees compensation-
199.	Administration of the Government Employees Compensation Act, $65,745.
Terminable services-
200.	To provide for expenditures incurred in implementing recommendations of the national advisory council on manpower, and for the administrative costs of the council, $107,950.
201.	Vocational training for discharged members of Canada's armed forces, including undischarged commitments of previous years, $5,000.
202.	To provide for payment to the national film board for educational films for exhibition, $24,000.
203.	To provide for expenses that may be incurred in the arranging for and the movement of workers from outside Canada to work on farms and other essential industry in Canada when Canadian labour is not available to meet the need; including costs connected wtih the supervision and welfare of persons already immigrated to Canada under former authorized labour movements and administrative expenses connected therewith, $876,933.
204.	Co-ordination of rehabilitation of disabled persons, $77,000.
B-Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940-
205.	Administration, including expenditures incurred in connection with the activities of the national employment service as delegated by the Minister of Labour in accordance with section 88 of the act, $25,390,583.
206.	Government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund, $32,000,000.
207.	To provide for the transfer of labour to and from places where employment is available in agriculture and industry and expenses incidental thereto, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council. $200,000.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 16, 1952