1954-06-24

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay on the table the report of the civil service commission respecting the transfer of certain employees of the House of Commons to the staff of the library of parliament.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, if I can have the leave of the house I should like to move:
That the report of the civil service commission respecting the transfer of certain employees of the House of Commons to the staff of the library of parliament, tabled this day, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table in manuscript form the seventh report of the Canadian maritime commission covering the period between April 1, 1953, and March 31, 1954.


Mr. Green:: Will copies be available for members?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, just as quickly as they can be printed.



COLOMBO PLAN


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the house at this time that the annual meeting of the Colombo plan consultative committee will be held in Ottawa from October 4 to October 9. Previous meetings have been held in Sydney, London, Colombo, Karachi and New Delhi.
The countries participating in or associated with the Colombo plan now include Australia, Burma, Cambodia, Ceylon, India, Indonesia, Laos, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, the United States and Viet
Nam. Dependent territories of the United Kingdom in southeast Asia-the Federation of Malaya, Singapore, Brunei, North Borneo and Sarawak-also fall within the scope of the plan. Thailand and the Philippines have sent observers to some previous meetings of the consultative committee and have been invited to send representatives to the Ottawa meetings.
I am sure hon. members will be glad to know that it is intended that the meetings should be held in this building, with the consent of the Speakers of both houses. It is expected that the opening session, which will be held in this chamber, will be addressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and by leaders of some of the visiting delegations.
The Colombo plan, which was framed to cover the six-year period from June 1951 to June 1957, is now in its third year. The consultative committee meets annually to discuss common problems, to review the progress of economic development and basic economic trends in countries of the Colombo plan area, and to survey the contributions which member countries are making to economic development in this region. A progress report by the consultative committee is published at the conclusion of the meetings. I am confident that the Ottawa meeting, like previous meetings, will be of real value to all the Colombo plan countries, and I know that I speak for all members of the house when I say that we are very glad that we shall have the privilege of receiving the members of the committee in Ottawa next fall.
(Translation):



CELEBRATION OF FEAST OF ST. JEAN BAPTISTE

Mr. Maurice Boisvert (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I could hardly let the feast of St. Jean Baptiste go by without extending my best wishes to all my French-speaking compatriots in this house. On the occasion of this, their national holiday, I would like to say to all my French-speaking fellow citizens, first how sorry we are to be unable to take part in the celebrations which are now taking place in the province of Quebec and throughout the country, next that we who are at this time sitting in this parliament have now and always have had the greatest

Questions
regard for them, a regard which is inspired by the best traditions of this country and which is such that we never fail to put their interest above everything.
In conclusion I wish to say that this feast is of very great importance for our compatriots. I should therefore like to pray our blessed patron saint to keep them in this confederation of ours, a durable institution which they could not do without.


Mr. Speaker:: Normally it would be out of order to extend greetings of this kind and if, in these dying days of the session, I might have proved to be somewhat negligent, I trust St. Jean Baptiste will forgive me. (Text):



QUESTIONS


Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	What was the total cost of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's television installation in Winnipeg, including building, transmitter, tower, ground system and studio equipment?
2.	Were tenders called for this installation?
3.	If so, was more than one received?
4.	On what basis was the tender or tenders awarded?
5.	Who drew up the specifications for buildings and equipment?
6.	Were these specifications checked or reviewed by any outside source or authority?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	This project is not completed although the station is already on the air with limited facilities. Orders and contracts have been or will soon be placed for the additional facilities required. Actual disbursements to May 1, 1954, were $153,000.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	On the basis of the lowest quotation meeting the corporation's specifications and requirements.
5.	The corporation's architects and engineers.
6.	The antenna system has been checked by an outside consulting engineering firm. Structural designs and specifications are approved by municipal authorities concerned.


C.B.C. TELEVISION STATION, HALIFAX
Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	What was the total cost of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's television installation in Halifax, including building, transmitter, tower, ground system and studio equipment?
2.	Were tenders called for this installation?
3.	If so, was more than one received?
4.	On what basis was the tender or tenders awarded?

5.	Who drew up the specifications for buildings and equipment?
6.	Were these specifications checked or reviewed by any outside source or authority?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	This project is still in the early stages. Equipment has been ordered and construction of the transmitter building is scheduled to start in August. Actual disbursements as of May 1, 1954, were $12,000.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	On the basis of the lowest quotation meeting the corporation's specifications and requirements.
5.	The corporation's architects and engineers.
6.	The antenna system has been checked by an outside consulting engineering firm. Structural designs and specifications are approved by municipal authorities concerned.



LAND RECLAMATION, KINGS AND ANNAPOLIS COUNTIES, N. S.

Mr. Balcom:: What expenditures have been made or are to be made for reclamation of land in Kings and Annapolis counties in Nova Scotia (a) 1952; (b) 1953; (c) 1954?


Mr. McCubbin:: (a)	1952-53: Annapolis county, $47,173.45; Kings county, $47,148.53.
(b)	1953-54: Annapolis county, $150,233.64; Kings county, $16,178.36.
(c)	1954-55 (estimated): Annapolis county, $63,000.00; Kings county, $32,000.00.



MANITOBA WHEAT POOL, 1952-53

Mr. Argue:: 1.	How many bushels of wheat by grade and condition from No. 1 northern to feed wheat were received at local shipping points from farmers for the crop year 1952-53 from the Manitoba wheat pool?
2.	How many bushels of wheat by grade and condition from No. 1 northern to feed wheat were in store with this company at (a) the beginning of the crop year 1952-53; (b) the end of the crop year 1952-53?
3.	How many bushels of wheat by grade and condition were delivered by this company (a) to fill domestic orders to mills and other customers in Canada; (b) from the terminal elevators owned and operated by this company or diverted or transferred by it to other terminals?


Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, question No. 8 requests information about the operations of a private grain company. It has never been our policy to answer questions of that type. I had hoped the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) would be in his place when I made this explanation. However, I do

Questions
so now. The same explanation also applies to questions Nos. 9 and 10 and I would ask that they all be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Question No. 8 dropped.



SEARLE GRAIN COMPANY, 1952-53

Mr. Argue:: 1.	How many bushels of wheat by grade and condition from No. 1 northern to feed wheat were received at local shipping points from farmers for the crop year 1952-53 by the Searle Grain
Company?
2.	How many bushels of wheat by grade and condition from No. 1 northern to feed wheat were in store with this company at (a) the beginning of the crop year 1952-53; (b) the end of the crop year 1952-53?
3.	How many bushels of wheat by grade and condition were delivered by this company (a) to fill domestic orders to mills and other customers in Canada; (b) from the terminal elevators owned and operated by this company or diverted or transferred by it to other terminals?


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
POPULATION STATISTICS Mr. Tucker:
1.	What is the population of Canada and of each province according to the most recent estimate of the bureau of statistics?
2.	What was the population of Canada and of each province as shown by the census of 1941?
3.	What was the percentage of increase in each case?


Mr. Dickey:: 1, 2 and 3;
Population, Canada and provinces, at 1941 census and latest estimate
Province	Population June 2, 1941 (Census)	Population June 1, 1953 (Estimate)	Percentage increaseCanada	
. 	14,781,000	383,000	Canada (excluding Newfoundland)	11,506,655	14,398,000	25-1Prince Edward Island	95,047	106,000	11-5Nova Scotia	577,962	663,000	14-7New Brunswick	457,401	536,000	17-23,331,882	4,269,000	28-13,787,655	4,897,000	29-3Manitoba	729,744	809,000	10-9Saskatchewan	895,992	861,000	-3-9Alberta	796,169	1,002,000	25-9British Columbia	817,861	1,230,000	50-4Yukon	4,914	9,000	83-2Northwest Territories	12,028	16,000	330



RIVIERE-DU-LOUP  LEGAL AGENTS EMPLOYED

Mr. Pouliot:: What are the departments, commissions, boards, or crown companies who have employed legal agents from Riviere-du-Loup outside the civil service, since 1949?


Mr. Garson:: Department of Agriculture.
Department of National Health and Welfare.
Department of National Revenue.
Department of post office.
Department of Transport.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Unemployment insurance commission.
Foreign exchange control board.
Wartime prices and trade board.



OLD AGE SECURITY


Mr. Hansell:: 1.	How many liens have the government collected on estates of old age pensioners under the Old Age Pensions Act, since the Old Age Security Act came into force?
2.	What is the total amount collected?
3.	What amounts were collected from each province?
He said: I was able to get the information I required, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest that this question be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.

Inquiries of the Ministry



SASKATCHEWAN POOL ELEVATORS LIMITED,

Mr. Argue:: 1.	How many bushels of wheat by grade and condition from No. 1 northern to feed wheat were received at local shipping points from farmers for the crop year 1952-53 by Saskatchewan Pool Elevators Limited?
2.	How many bushels of wheat by grade and condition from No. 1 northern to feed wheat were in store with this company at (a) the beginning of the crop year 1952-53; (b) the end of the crop year 1952-53?
3.	How many bushels of wheat by grade and condition were delivered by this company (a) to fill domestic orders to mills and other customers in Canada; (b) from the terminal elevators owned and operated by this company or diverted or transferred by it to other terminals?


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



C.B.C.-DOMINION NETWORK

Mr. Fulton:: 1.	Is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation now reviewing, or has it completed a review of. network radio broadcasting in Canada which has in its ambit the possibility of eliminating the dominion network?
2.	In the light of statements made by the Minister of National Revenue from time to time that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is not any agency of government but an independent operating entity, responsible to parliament, would such a decision be a matter of government policy or one to be determined by the corporation?
3.	Has a decision in this matter yet been reached?
4.	If so, what is the decision?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Yes.
2.	By the corporation.
3.	Yes.
4.	To continue the operation of the dominion network to the fullest extent possible.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Minister of Public Works. Has the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation recently issued instructions that pine boards for roofing on houses constructed under the National Housing Act shall not be wider than eight inches? If so, has consideration been given to the adverse effect this order may have on the lumber trade in Canada?


Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Public Works):: I wish to thank my hon. friend for having given me notice of this question. I understand that such instructions were contained in a directive

to inspectors which was issued two months ago. The new national building code, which has been under study and preparation for some years, was issued on June 1 by the national research council, providing that such roofing should not be wider than six inches. As the code is adopted by municipalities, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will, of course, conform to its provisions.
In the meantime, we shall continue to give consideration to the question as to what effect this directive may have on the lumber trade.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY REFERENCE TO PRESS REPORTS RESPECTING APPOINTMENTS TO AUTHORITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that there is reason to believe that appointments will be made to the St. Lawrence seaway authority before next session, and further, in view of the statement in today's Globe and Mail as well as in other newspapers that Mr. R. A. C. Henry is likely to be appointed to the St. Lawrence seaway authority, can the Prime Minister assure us that such appointment will not take place in view of other positions which would be in conflict with such an appointment?
Righi Hon. L. S. Si. Lauren! (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the article or the report in the Globe and Mail. I do not think that I quite appreciate what the hon. gentleman is referring to as something that would make it unwise to have Mr. Henry appointed to that board. I know of no such consideration. However, I can assure the hon. gentleman that no decision has been reached yet and that in making appointments to that board, the government will endeavour to give consideration to every factor that could possibly affect the efficiency and the prestige of the board.


George Alexander Drew: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has indicated that he is not aware of the reason for caution that I suggested, I would point out that, as of present record, Mr. R. A. C. Henry is shown as being a director of Marine Industries Limited, which is a company whose powers are such that Mr. Henry's position in the case noted would obviously conflict with an appointment such as that to the St. Lawrence seaway authority.
Mr. SI. Lauren!: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that Mr. Henry, if he were to become a member of that authority, would feel that nothing should be left behind that would in any way

reflect upon the complete independence and objectivity of the actions of that authority.



REPORTED DAMAGE IN NORTHEASTERN SASKATCHEWAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister received a telegram from Weekes, Saskatchewan, suggesting that a flood disaster area be declared as the result of the flood damage in northeastern Saskatchewan?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I have a telegram which I received from a municipality in that area. I may say that when I was passing through Regina last Monday I met the minister of highways of the province of Saskatchewan. He had just been up to Weekes or at least he had been there a short time before and he described to me the condition which exists there. I am quite sure that the hon. member understands that this is a matter which is dealt with by the provincial authorities. Any representations that would be made to us eventually would come from the provincial authorities rather than from elsewhere.



VETERANS LAND ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. Bennett (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) inquired as to when copies of the Veterans Land Act as amended will be available. I am informed that it is hoped that these copies will be ready for distribution within two or three weeks after Bill No. 459 receives the royal assent. In the meantime V.L.A. representatives in the field have been notified and instructed as to the new amendments, and I can assure the hon. member that there will be no delay whatsoever in implementing this new and important legislation.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
342.	Operations-including salaries and other expenses of staff post offices, district offices, railway mail service staffs, and supplies, equipment and other items for revenue post offices, also including administration; and including, notwithstanding section 16 of the Civil Service Act, payment, in such
Supply-Post Office
amount or amounts as may be approved from time to time by the treasury board, to civil servants who are hired as casual employees, $76,007,630.
Mrs. Fairclough:: There are one or two
questions I should like to ask on this item. In the first place I notice that the department has increased staff by the addition of 5 mail transportation officers. I should like the minister to tell us just what the duties of these officers are. It looks like the creation of a new position. There is another item to which I desire to refer. I believe I mentioned it on the first item of the estimates. I refer to what are now called senior transcribers. It would appear that this is a new classification. They are probably the same employees transferred from the classification formerly described as stenographers grade 2B and grade 2A and now to be known as senior transcribers, grade 2 and grade 1. If the minister would explain these changes in staff, I am sure the committee would be interested.


Mr. Cote:: The employees of the department doing typing and stenographic work are reclassified on the basis of their competence and general efficiency over a six-month period. This classification scheme has worked exceptionally well and has permitted a reduction in the total number of stenographic positions. Hon. members will notice a reduction from 146 to 139 in the number of positions. At the same time it permits the better workers to receive some adjustment in their salaries based on their competence and efficiency. As far as the transportation officers are concerned, they are engaged in the implementation of the Woods-Gordon report.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I presume the position of senior transcriber is a new classification-


Mr. Cole:: A new classification.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: -which has been introduced because these people have reached the last bracket in the stenographic classification. Is that correct?


Alcide Côté: Not exactly. It is a reclassification by the civil service commission based on the efficiency of the employees.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am sure I know what the minister means by that, but there is one other item about which I should like to speak. I notice that the boot allowance is $222,000 and was the same last year. Will the minister tell us how much each man receives in boot allowance, whether the amount has been increased and when, and how much of the $222,000 was expended last year?

Supply-Post Office


Charles Delmar Coyle: The boot allowance is $15.60 twice yearly, and the last one was paid in May, 1954.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: How much of the total of $222,000 was expended? What was the actual amount paid to all employees as boot allowance?


Charles Delmar Coyle: The total amount for the year 1953-54 is $205,780.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Perhaps the minister will tell me whether the amount of $15.60 twice yearly is the same amount that has been paid for years and years or if there has been an adjustment in the amount in the last few years when the price of all clothing has gone up considerably. I should also like to know if the boot allowance is supposed to cover the entire cost of the shoes, boots, rubber footwear and so on that the postal carriers are required to purchase for their use in the course of their duties.


Charles Delmar Coyle: To answer the first part of the question, it has varied from year to year and it is only for boots. The amount is fixed after inquiry as to the purchase price for similar articles.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: When was it last raised?


Charles Delmar Coyle: It has been practically the same for the last two years. I am sorry I have not got the figures for the previous year.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The last item in the list of details on page 416 is uniforms and letter carrier satchels, and the amount is reduced from $697,000 to $263,000. I understand that is because uniforms are supplied every second year. I have had some little experience with the Post Office Department and its employees and I have some knowledge of the uniforms that have been supplied. This leads me to ask the minister a question which he may think is facetious, but I assure him it is not intended as such. In view of the classification here, I wonder whether the uniforms are made by the same people who make the letter carrier satchels. If so, are they primarily makers of uniforms or makers of letter carrier satchels?


Charles Delmar Coyle: The uniforms are made by a firm which specializes in that sort of work. It is done after an inquiry has been made and an understanding reached. A meeting is held at which the employees are represented.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If the minister will
inquire into the matter a little bit he will find that the measurements are taken in a very offhand manner. I think about thirty seconds per employee is the time spent on that, and the uniforms really would fit better if they were just made in small, medium and

large sizes. In fact, I suspect that is about how they are made and that the manner of taking measurements is a camouflage. I would advise the minister to inquire into that matter and to actually talk to some of the postal carriers. I know that much of the information that reaches him reaches him through the usual channels, and probably by the time it gets to him it is slightly coloured. I am often interested to hear the minister say that such and such took place after consultation with the employees. Then I get an entirely opposite story from some of the employees, and I have had sufficient experience with employee relations to realize that when a story goes through several hands it may have a slightly different complexion by the time it reaches the head than .it had where it started. But quite apart from the abominable fit of these uniforms, does the minister not think that it might be well to separate these two articles? It seems to me it might be better to put uniforms and boot allowance together. I cannot see that uniforms and letter carrier satchels have any relation to each other.


Alcide Côté: I understand the natural taste for fashion of my hon. friend. I think she will understand that it is very hard to have employees all over the country of the same stature. But we are doing our best to make the uniforms suitable. There is a special board on which the employees have their representatives, and it is through consultation with these representatives that we come to a decision as to the types of uniform. If there are some who are not satisfied they have every right to complain to this board. If my hon. friend has some special names in mind, I will be glad to receive them personally, and if there is really something that can be corrected we will be pleased to investigate and make the correction.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I think that is a rather poor excuse because the transportation companies, the fire departments and police departments of the various cities manage to take measurements of their employees and supply them with uniforms which look neat. If I might say one last word on this subject, I think the letter carriers' satchels fit better than the uniforms in most cases.


Mr. Noseworthy:: I wonder whether the Postmaster General has any information as yet as a result of his check-up on working conditions in the Fleet street post office in Toronto which he undertook some weeks ago.


Alcide Côté: The committee is still working on this question and they have not yet filed their final report.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I have just one other question. I wonder whether the minister could enlighten us on the mysteries of the classifications of employees in the post office? I note, for instance, the postal staff ranges all the way from grade 1 to grade 14. Is that general in other departments or is it applicable only to the post office? I further note that a grade 14 postal employee gets about the same salary as grade 7 in other departments. Now, it is a great mystery to me. I do not know whether it is to the Postmaster General, but perhaps he can enlighten us on that.


Charles Delmar Coyle: The technical classifications are made by the civil service commission and relate only to the Post Office Department, but the clerical classifications relate to all departments.


Mr. Michener:: I have two or three items to take up with the minister. By way of introduction, I should like to thank him for his courtesy in dealing with the rather minute complaints I have passed on to him from time to time, and which he endeavoured to investigate. In the departmental estimates I see there is an item for $192,000 for films, displays, advertising and other informational publicity. This amounts to something more than 10 per cent of the administration expenses, and I wonder if the minister would indicate what amount was spent under that heading last year. What films were made and for what purpose?


Charles Delmar Coyle: The item of $192,000 covers all ihe following items:	advertising, general,
$100,000; advertising, Christmas, $40,000; films, national film board, annual Christmas trailer, $2,500; "all-up" film, nothing this year; postal exhibits, displays and floats, $12,000; photography, national film board, $2,500; art work on posters and exhibits, $3,500; truck signs, $4,300; meals of employees while on duty at postal exhibits, $700; "teamwork pays" series of posters and management bulletins purchased from G. Wilson Co. of Toronto. The posters are directed towards building employee morale, and bulletins are for supervisors on proper handling of employees. This program is in effect at headquarters, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg and Toronto with the possibility of extension to other centres, $10,000; motion signs for post office lobbies, $2,000; "Canada Welcomes You", a pamphlet handed to tourists at border points and containing information about postage rates, $3,500; householder leaflets concerning "mail early" programs, distribution 3 million, $10,000; householder leaflet concerning postal zones, $1,000. This brings the total to $192,000.
Supply-Post Office


Daniel Roland Michener: Would the minister indicate the purpose of the newspaper advertising involving $100,000.


Mr.   Cofe@: It is to keep the public informed about postal rates, early mailing notices, changes in hours and all sorts of postal matters.


Colin Emerson Bennett: Following upon the question of the hon. member for St. Paul's, I should like the minister to tell us how he chooses the media through which he does the advertising concerning changes in rates or notices about Christmas mailing. For instance, I have in mind that on or about April 1 there were several advertisements appearing in various newspapers in the county in which I live, but I observed there was no advertising in the local paper in Georgetown which serves a community of from 3,500 to 4,000. If we are to advertise efficiently, it seems to me the department should be advertising in all the local papers. Would the minister tell me how this choice is made?


Alcide Côté: It is done through the A.B.C. circulation by an advertising company. We do the advertising through the Walsh advertising company in Montreal and Toronto. They have to establish certain lines of demarcation. As an example, if a newspaper has no bona fide subscribers it is not considered, because that is one of the conditions necessary to be classified by A.B.C. We are not doing it ourselves; we are doing it through an advertising agency which considers all the qualifications of the respective newspapers.


Colin Emerson Bennett: It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that is a very arbitrary and unfair way of choosing a method of advertising, that is through the audit bureau. I take it that is what the minister indicates. The newspapers are not necessarily all members of this audit bureau, and does that mean those newspapers that do not happen to be members of the bureau get no advertising?


Mr.   Coie@: We have only a small amount of money to cover this advertising. If we had enough money to spend, and if we considered it advisable to spend that money, we could probably give this advertising to all the local newspapers. The advertising company has to find a way to make a choice, and that choice is made on the basis of circulation and experience, which might place some newspapers in a higher class than the others.


Colin Emerson Bennett: I appreciate that there
should be economy in the department, and particularly in the spending of the public's

Supply-Post Office
money, but I am not sure we are getting the most efficient service when we observe Post Office Department notices can appear in papers serving perhaps from 1,500 to 2,000, while a newspaper serving a community of from 3,500 to 4,000 gets no advertising at all. I think that does not work toward efficiency in the department. These advertisements mean a great deal to the local weekly papers and, if possible, some fair way of allotting advertising should be undertaken by the minister. I say that just by way of suggestion to him, because it means a great deal to these local weekly papers. They give a very fine service in getting information out to the public, and keeping the public informed. I suggest that the minister and those in his department should look into the possibility of placing in the hands of those weekly newspapers any business that could be given to them, keeping in mind always the principles of sound business practice.
May I say that the minister has always been most kind to me in any communications f have had with him, and I would appreciate his giving this matter his consideration on behalf of all the weekly newspapers throughout the country. I suggest to him that it is an important matter.


Alcide Côté: I wish I could fulfil the hon. member's suggestion, for which I thank her. However, as a department we are not experts in advertising, and that is why we rely upon agencies. If there is anything that can be done along the lines suggested by the hon. member, we will look into it.


Daniel Roland Michener: Mr. Chairman, the second item to which I wish to refer is one which has been raised by the Auditor General, and to which I referred earlier in the session. At page 38 of the Auditor General's report a suggestion is made to the Post Office Department which it seems to me has considerable merit as a means of effecting economy.
As hon. members know, the department had to come to parliament asking for an increase in rates to offset the heavier expenditures as a result of which, it was indicated, the department would have operated at a loss. So that every economy I suggest is worthy of careful attention.
The one I have in mind is related to the post office savings bank which has been carrying on for a great many years and in many communities and local areas and has fulfilled a useful service. This is particularly true where there are no branches of chartered banks readily available. I am not suggesting therefore that the service be discontinued. The point to which the Auditor General calls attention is that out of 278,000 accounts,

150,000	are inactive, the money involved having remained in that status for years.
He gives an illustration of an account opened in 1878 with a deposit of $700, in which there have been no transactions since that time. I would suppose that after this interval of time the depositor is dead. After some decades of bookkeeping, the adding of interest and the occupying of the time of employees in the post office bank to no good purpose, the balance in that account now stands at $5,448.
Hon. members will have in mind the fact that the Bank Act provides a scheme for dealing with unclaimed deposits held in the chartered banks. Interest is added for ten years, and then the account is transferrred to the Bank of Canada. The Auditor General suggests that the same procedure could be applied to the post office savings bank, with substantial reductions in the unnecessary carrying of small accounts which are dead.
This might give rise to a review of the postal savings offices now maintained, because where there are adequate banking facilities it is difficult to see how the post office savings bank is required. Certainly there is no advantage in the interest rate allowed, because I believe it stands at 2 per cent, just as it is in the savings accounts in the chartered banks. If there are chartered banks and trust companies operating savings accounts readily available in a community, it seems to me that this duplication of banking facilities might very well be avoided by having many of these offices closed, thus leaving the business to the chartered banks-keeping in mind always the fact that communities in which banking facilities are not available should not be deprived of those facilities.
I rise at this point because I notice the business of the postal savings offices has dropped off very substantially. In fact, looking over the report of the Post Office Department-I do not have it before me this morning-it becomes apparent that there is no great demand for this type of savings office. Withdrawals in the last ten years have almost equalled deposits, and it does not look as though the public requires this service that is now being maintained. Certainly it does not require the maintenance of accounts which long since have ceased to be active. I do recommend this to the minister for his consideration as a very direct way of effecting an economy in the department.
If the minister has no comment I have one further point.


Alcide Côté: I am glad the hon. member has brought this matter to my attention. He may rest assured that all the points he has raised,

as set out in the Woods-Gordon report, have been considered, and are continually under consideration by the department.


Daniel Roland Michener: When parliament meets again we will look forward to some action having been taken.


Charles Delmar Coyle: If the hon. member wishes, I could give an explanation right now, although I would not want to lengthen debate unnecessarily. It can be pointed out however that the Woods-Gordon report indicated that the cost of operation of the savings bank has been estimated by the cost ascertainment division of the department to amount to $377,000 annually. It has been repeated several times and quoted as the amount which would be saved if the bank were discontinued. Such is not the case.
The $377,000 mentioned covers not only the employees actually engaged full time on savings bank work at headquarters of the department but also employees in post offices, who spend a small portion of their time on savings bank work. It also covers a proportion of the salaries of administrative officers at headquarters and at various district offices and post offices in the field.
If the bank were discontinued it would not be possible to make a saving of $377,000. It would not be possible to make an immediate saving of the total expenditures at headquarters.
It should also be taken into consideration that the money now on deposit is obtained at a cost of 2 per cent for interest, plus less than 1 per cent for all administration costs. This should be compared with the higher administration costs and possibly higher rates for funds borrowed by the government from other sources.
The savings bank is utilized a great deal by a certain sector of the Canadian public who have always been accustomed to a government savings bank. Furthermore, at points where we have military camps the savings bank is unquestionably a desirable and well utilized service.
This is why at the present time we have decided not to discontinue the savings banks. The hon. member has brought up the question of "closed" accounts, and we are actually investigating each case. We are constantly considering the whole question so that, if it is necessary to make a change, we shall have all the information.


Daniel Roland Michener: I am not advocating the discontinuance of the post office savings bank because, as I said in opening my remarks,
I believe it performs a necessary service in some communities. But it seems to me that 83276-418
Supply-Post Office
150.000	inactive accounts out of a total of
278.000	leaves a good deal of room for economy such as the Auditor General has recommended. The service is already being given by the chartered banks.


Mr.   Coie@: The cases to which the hon. member has referred are gradually being investigated.


Daniel Roland Michener: This involves a change in the law for which a pattern has already been set. Those of us who served on the banking and commerce committee were told what the chartered banks do with their accounts after they have become inactive for a period of ten years. It is a matter of bringing the post office savings department under that.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Is there any special
expense incurred by the Post Office Department in looking after these inactive accounts, or any disadvantage in the government having these deposits?


Alcide Côté: Very little.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I can see no reason wny that money should not lie in a government account as well as in a private-bank account.


Daniel Roland Michener: To keep the record straight, I am not suggesting that it lie in a private-bank account. If an account in a private bank is inactive for ten years it is transferred to the Bank of Canada and becomes a government account. I am suggesting it could be transferred from one government account to another government account where, as an inactive account, it could be handled more cheaply.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
343.	Transportation-movement of mail by land, air and water, including administration, $48,524,258.
Mr. Nowlan:: This item covers transportation of mail by land, air and water, and also administration. There is one matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the minister in this connection. It is a matter within my personal experience, which happened during the past few weeks. In May of this year it was necessary for me to send some passports down to Montreal to a friend of mine who was leaving for Europe. I did not have time to send the passports to Wolfville and I arranged to send them to my friend in Montreal and have him pick them up there prior to his sailing for Great Britain.
On Thursday evening, May 27, at ten o'clock, I mailed in the post office here in this building a special delivery registered letter addressed to my friend in Montreal at Notre Dame de Grace. The letter arrived

Supply-Post Office
in Montreal at 1.40 a.m. on Friday, the 28th.
I heard no more about the matter until, on the following Wednesday, my friend phoned me from Montreal. He was not in hysterics, but under a reasonable degree of excitement, in view of the fact that he was sailing that night and there were no passports. I got in touch with the assistant postmaster here who was most co-operative. He got Mr. Dempsey of the investigation branch of the Post Office Department, who was certainly very co-operative and very efficient. To make a long story short, Mr. Chairman, at two o'clock on Wednesday afternoon Mr. Dempsey located this letter lying in the Notre Dame de Grace post office. It had been there from Friday night until Wednesday. I could have walked to Montreal in that time. It was raining, and I would have had to walk rather slowly, but I could have walked to Montreal in a rainstorm, delivered the letter and been back here and had a good night's sleep in that time. As a matter of fact, probably I could have made two journeys. There is something radically wrong with a special delivery system that works in that way. It is true the mail courier called at this home and there was nobody there. I am not in a position to comment on that. The people who were in the home say that there was always someone there.
I wonder just what the regulations are. I understood that if somebody called with a special delivery letter and made some memo it should have been left. I understood that they were required to call at least twice. This envelope has marked on it "one call" and somebody initialed it. I hardly think that is the worst of it. Mr. Dempsey was able to locate this letter shortly before two o'clock on Wednesday afternoon. My friend was sailing that night. Mr. Dempsey told me himself that the postmaster in Notre Dame de Grace said it was impossible to deliver the letter until the next morning. That would be on Thursday. I want to be fair. He said: "If you want to have that done now I will issue special instructions to have that done." Why in the name of common sense would it be necessary to have to get special instructions issued to deliver something which has already been lying around there for five days? I have heard a lot about the forty-hour week, the five-day week and the eight-hour day, but I wonder what hours are in force when at two o'clock in the afternoon a letter which has been missing for five days is discovered and they say: "Well, we are sorry we cannot deliver this until the next morning", despite the fact that I spent about $20 in telephone calls getting in touch with various parties and telling my

friend to sit there in Montreal, and also to the postmaster, inquiring as to why it was not delivered. In the end I telephoned the man to whom this letter was addressed and said: "Don't take any more chances in this thing. We have found the letter." He hired a taxi and drove out to the post office and got the letter and came back with it; otherwise it would not have been delivered yet. I know the Postmaster General is not responsible himself for this situation. I do not expect him to deliver the mail. I know he will understand that this is not uttered in any way against himself; but when you pay money for a special delivery letter, I think you assume, and the public assumes, that you are going to get efficient and speedy service. As a matter of fact, you get a poor quality service. I do think the Postmaster General or the department should warn the people particularly not to pay for special delivery letters, and if they do they are just taking a chance. They will deliver the letter only in certain hours, and it is much more difficult to get it than it would be if it was sent by ordinary post. I would suggest that special delivery be refused by the Post Office Department in any case where there are no couriers who will make special delivery of them. If there is to be no special delivery why call it "special delivery"? You pay 20 cents for a special delivery stamp and I presume the department takes in quite a lot of money out of that. There must be hundreds of thousands of them throughout the country. The public expect a little bit better service than we got in this case. Why a letter should lie around in the post office from Saturday morning until the following Wednesday I cannot understand. I can understand that with the five-day week no one works on Saturday and you would not expect anyone to work on Sunday. Even so, there was still Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. The letter was growing moss by the time it was discovered. Had it not been for Mr. Dempsey we would not have found it yet; the passport would have been of no use on this occasion.
I draw it to the attention of the minister. I think it is indicative of a situation which occurs very often, and something which should be investigated by the department.


Alcide Côté: This is a case where I think I should first remind my hon. friend that we deliver twice, and if the person to whom the letter is addressed is not there, then we leave a notice. This is exactly what happened in this case.


George Clyde Nowlan: If it happened in this case why put "one call" on the letter?


Alcide Côté: I will come to that.


George Clyde Nowlan: And nothing left.


Alcide Côté: There might be some contradiction, but here is the information I have:
Re: Registered special delivery letter
No. 647, addressed to Dr. Konstanty
Rayski-Kietlicz, 4069 Northcliffe,
Notre Dame de Grace, Montreal.
Was received in Montreal on the 28th May at 3.52 a.m. via flight 240 from Ottawa.
It was given to the special delivery contractor at 8.10 a.m. on the same morning. He called at the above address but received no answer.
That was the first delivery. I continue:
Therefore, he brought it back to the general post office registration branch at 1.30 p.m.
On the 29th May, 5.20 a.m. the letter was sent out to Notre Dame de Grace postal station for delivery by letter carrier. It was taken out by the letter carrier, but still there was no answer to the call-
That was the second delivery. I continue: -so he left a card indicating that it was to be called for at Notre Dame de Grace postal station.
The letter in question was placed in the general delivery, Notre Dame de Grace postal station on the 31st May, where it remained until called for on June 2.
There might be a difference in the appreciation of the facts, I do not know; but these are the facts I have. My hon. friend might have been informed that the letter was delivered only once. We have information based on facts. That does not mean that this or any other system is perfect. Incidentally, my hon. friend called my attention to the fact that the postmaster there refused to allow the letter to be delivered. I do not know about that but I will have inquiries made. However, in the main the rules and regulations have been applied in this case as in other cases. We made two deliveries and on both occasions there was no one there and, as the regulations require, we left a note. We know these facts to be accurate and I believe they are as have been reported to us. I believe that in the circumstances we did what the postal regulations require us to do.


George Clyde Nowlan: I can only say, Mr. Chairman, that if the minister did not make a mistake in the information he gave me then there must be something wrong, in view of the fact that he states it left the office for delivery at 5.20 a.m.-


Alcide Côté: No, that is not exact. On the 29th of May it was sent from the office at 5.20 for delivery to the postal station and it would then be taken by the letter carrier. But when he called there was no one there and he left a card. It was sent to the postal station and then given to the letter carrier to deliver and he attempted to deliver it but without success.


George Clyde Nowlan: Well, the envelope I have here has only one call marked on it. I would 83276-418J
Supply-Post Office
imagine that a proper carrier who had instructions to deliver this letter according to the regulations would make more than one call, but this has only one call marked with some initials after it. As I said, I am not going to debate the facts. The minister has given some of the facts according to his report-


Alcide Côté: We have a full report here.


George Clyde Nowlan: Well, I have the facts from people who are thoroughly reliable and they say there was always someone in the house and that no card was ever left there. They even took up the carpet and moved the bookcase to see whether the card may somehow have slipped under them but they were unable to find any card. I think this is a situation which indicates that the system might be reviewed, because after a survey of the facts in this case it seems rather strange that the letter should have lain there without being delivered. It might even lie there for a year. Would you allow that to happen, or what would you do in a case like this?


Alcide Côté: After two deliveries without success we leave a card requesting the people to call for the letter. That is exactly what was done in this case. We have the names of all the employees who tried to deliver the letter. I do not say the system we have is perfect but we are trying to improve not only this part but other parts of the service. As far as the regulations are concerned I believe, and I think the hon. member will agree, that we have followed the regulations and attempted a delivery on two occasions without success. We then left the card. As it may be of some interest to my hon. friend, I might inform him that according to regulations special deliveries are made from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. every day including Sunday.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Chairman, on this item I wonder if the minister would make a brief statement for the information of the public on a matter about which there is some confusion, namely just when and where letters can be carried by air with an ordinary five-cent stamp, and when anyone wanting special air delivery has to affix a special stamp.


Charles Delmar Coyle: All first-class mail is taken by air up to eight ounces when it will speed the delivery of such mail.


Mr. Knowles:: Is it not the case that this applies only to mail delivered in Canada?


Charles Delmar Coyle: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It does not apply to letters sent to the United States, for example?


Charles Delmar Coyle: No, for domestic delivery only.

Supply-Post Office


Stanley Howard Knowles: If anyone wished to send a letter to the United States by air mail he would have to affix a seven-cent stamp.


Alcide Côté: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
344.	Financial services, including audit of revenue, money order and savings bank business; and postage stamps, $2,586,950.
Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Chairman, I notice in the details of this item at page 419 there is an item for the renting of accounting machines amounting to $42,000 and another for the printing of money order forms amounting to $147,000. Are those accounting machines rented from private firms or from any other government department, and is the printing done by the government printing office in regard to these money order forms?


Alcide Côté: The $42,000 item provides for the rental of machines necessary for accounting. They are rented.


Joseph William Noseworthy: From a private firm?


Alcide Côté: Exactly.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The post office does not
own any of them?


Alcide Côté: No.


Joseph William Noseworthy: In regard to the printing of money order forms for which there is an item of $147,000, is that printing done outside the government printing bureau?


Alcide Côté: Yes, by contracts.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I suppose these machines are tabulating machines? The punch card type of machine?


Alcide Côté: Yes.


George Clyde Nowlan: Before this item is carried,
Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw the attention of the minister to one matter which I believe has already been brought to his attention on various occasions. This item covers postage stamps and I know the minister has adopted the principle that stamps cannot be issued in commemoration of the founding of any particular city or town. I do not think anyone can quarrel with him on that because, if the department issued special stamps commemorating the establishment of one city, naturally the people in another city would feel they would have to receive the same consideration, and special-issue postage stamps would have to be issued for every town and city in the Dominion of Canada. And we know that could not be done.
But the minister has already been approached by one historical organization requesting that next year a special stamp be

issued in commemoration of the founding of the first settlement of white persons north of the gulf of Mexico. It is to this that I wish to draw the minister's attention. I believe when the minister received the application he assumed that it was a stamp to commemorate the founding of the town of Port Royal. Incidentally, the town of Port Royal grew out of that settlement. Champlain established the first permanent white settlement north of the gulf of Mexico at Port Royal, and the 350th anniversary of that occasion will be celebrated next year.
I think it is an historical event of profound significance and one in the celebration of which I think the national film board and other federal organizations have been requested to co-operate. I believe they will.
I am going to take the liberty of urging this historical society to resubmit its application to the minister and I hope he will reconsider it and give the matter favourable consideration, not because it is a town or community but because this was one of the great historical events which went to the making of this nation. If that event had happened in the country to the south of us, I am sure that they would have several issues of stamps, several flags, several anthems; they would have many things done. Our government has rebuilt Port Royal in order to show the historical significance of it. As the parliamentary assistant well knows, the government spent $100,000, $200,000 or more-I do not know exactly how much-in order to rebuild, in its original shape, the habitation of Champlain, the old wooden log building which I am sure many hon. members have seen, with its wooden pegs and hand-drawn nails. It was rebuilt because it was realized that this was an historical shrine. Because of the 350th anniversary of the founding of this settlement, I am making this suggestion. I am not going to take up any more time of the committee now, but I urge the minister to reconsider this matter. It has the support of the historical societies throughout the whole dominion. It has the support of the government of Nova Scotia. I think it has a broad appeal to each and every one of us in this country.


Mr. MacLean:: In connection with what the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings has just been saying, I should like to point out that, if I recall rightly-and I am just speaking from memory-I believe I have seen a special stamp which was issued in 1908 to commemorate the 300th anniversary of Champlain's founding of the city of Quebec. I think perhaps there is a precedent there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In line with what has just been suggested by the hon. member for

Digby-Annapolis-Kings and the hon. member for Queens, I should like to express once again the hope that consideration might be given to the recognition of the 100th anniversary of the opening of the first post office in western Canada. I agree with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings that there is no point in having too many of these stamps. Their value would be cheapened if that course were followed. However, I suggest that we do not have too many events of this kind yet, particularly in western Canada, that can be celebrated.
Surely the 100th anniversary of the opening of the first post office in western Canada is an event that should be recognized. I believe that anniversary will occur at the end of February next year. If the Postmaster General still finds it impossible to recognize the event by the issuing of a commemorative stamp, perhaps I should invite him to come out with me next February when the event is recognized. As he knows, that first post office in western Canada is located in the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre and is an old building which has been put into shape and is being cared for by the historical society of Manitoba.


Mr. Whits (Middlesex East):: The matter I wish to deal with is something which I have had brought to my attention by several people. It is the fact that some of our postage stamps, even of the new issue, are pale and anaemic. Also, for those people who probably have not 100 per cent eyesight, the figures designating the value could be improved on. I just bring these matters to the minister's attention so that when any changes are being considered-


George Clyde Nowlan: Make them so people can see the figures.


Harry Oliver White: Yes; they might be made so that people can see the figures.


Mr. Small:: There is a question I should like to ask the minister. A couple of months ago an announcement was made that a new machine for sorting the mail had been developed by the engineers in the department and that it would possibly be installed in Toronto, Hamilton or some of the larger cities. It was to be a rather expensive machine. At the time the increased postal rates debate was going on we were searching to find economies in the department. This would have been a good proposition to have been introduced then. The expense is so great that it is out of the question at the present time. However, I understand it is going to be of such benefit that it would take care of all the Post Office Department requirements in connection with sorting letters. Can the minister
Supply-Post Office
give us any information on that development or as to the possibility of its introduction in the future?


The Chairman:: Shall the item carry?


Robert Hardy Small: No. Can the minister give us any information as to this new machine or its introduction?


Alcide Côté: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to elaborate on this matter at this time because I did so previously. It will take a few years before we are in a position to operate the machine. We are working on it now. The national research council has helped in telling us that it would work. Our experts and technical engineers have made progress. I hope it will be possible to make use of it sooner rather than later, but it will take a few years before we are actually able to operate the machine. Once it is in operation it will represent a fantastic advance in the sortation of mail; it will be unique in the world.


Robert Hardy Small: I thank the minister for his statement. I think that is information the committee should have.


Mr. Churchill:: I just want to refer to the matter of commemorative stamps which was raised by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings and supported by the hon. member for Queens and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I think it would be helpful if the minister would make a statement on this subject which is of intense interest to everybody in the country, and would let us know what is the general policy of his department with regard to it. It would also be helpful if he could give us a list of the commemorative stamps that have been published recently.
As has been pointed out, if too many of these stamps are put out, the whole idea is cheapened. That is why I suggest that perhaps there must be some well-outlined policy that the department has adopted. If not, it is for us to discuss now what it should be. The commemorative stamp serves a useful purpose. I grant that the minister might be inundated with requests for them unless it was made clear what should be done with regard to that type of issue. If the minister would give us an explanation now, perhaps the matter would be cleared up.


Alcide Côté: I do not want to elaborate again at length on that subject but I may say this. The basic principle with regard to the issuing of these stamps is, first, that the subject must be of national interest. The suggestions which have already been made today, just within five minutes, show that, if it were

Supply-Post Office
possible, not only every member of the committee but every person in the country would like to have a commemorative stamp of his own. Therefore each case must be studied on its merits. The event must be one of national interest. On the other hand, I may say that Canada has an extremely high reputation. We do not issue stamps every day of the week, every week of the month and every month of the year. We have regard to the timing and we try to issue the stamp when we deem it necessary. Because of that fact, our issues of stamps are well received in all parts of the world. I do not want to make comparisons with any other country but I may say this. Those countries which have made a business of frequently issuing stamps find that the stamps have no value, philatelically speaking. To come back to the basic principle, I say again that the subject must be of national interest. Otherwise there is no line of demarcation. If that were not the principle followed, we would be swamped-as we are-with all sorts of suggestions. They are good suggestions in themselves. But if we were issuing a commemorative stamp for my home town anniversary or for the home town of anybody else, in which there might be some minor feature of national interest but more local interest, there would be no limit or no end to the requests. In those circumstances, we would not be able to respond to all the demands we have and would have.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I am not advocating the issue of large numbers of commemorative stamps. What I am really interested in is a declaration of policy. The minister has pointed out that national interest is the most important factor. Would he tell us then who makes the decision and would he strengthen his position by giving us a list of commemorative stamps that have recently been published? It would then be open to us to determine whether national interest has been the overriding factor.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the item carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I am waiting for a reply.


Alcide Côté: I might refer my hon. friend to the Postmaster General's report for 1953, page 12. I will not impose the reading of all this on my hon. friend, but I might read the second paragraph. It reads as follows:
On July 26, 1952, a 4 cent postage stamp was issued to commemorate the 18th international Red Cross conference which was held in Toronto. Additional commemorative postage stamps were issued on November 3, 3 cent and 4 cent denominations,
fMr. Cote.]
displaying portraits of the two former prime ministers, Hon. Sir John J. C. Abbott and Hon. Alexander Mackenzie. These two postage stamp issues were a part of a series that will eventually display portraits of all of those former prime ministers who have not previously had their portraits reproduced on postage stamps. On the same date there was issued a 7 cent postage stamp depicting a Canada goose in flight. This stamp was issued to replace the 7 cent commemorative postage stamp that was first issued on September 24, 1951.
I am informed that we do that each year, and I will be glad to give my hon. friend more information if he wishes to have it. We will send him a complete list if he wants to have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Like the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, I am glad to have had a statement of policy by the minister in connection with this matter, but I must confess that I still think the opening of the first post office in western Canada 100 years ago is an event of national interest. I think it is of just as much national interest as what is on this 4 cent stamp that I hold in my hand. I see the minister straining his eyes to see what it is. It is a walrus. At least, I think it is. I am not too familiar with the animal. But I ask the question, of what greater national interest is a walrus than an event in the history of Canada such as that to which I have referred?
Having mentioned this first post office in western Canada, and having done so on a number of occasions, I hope I may be permitted to take a moment to tell you, Mr. Chairman, since as a British Columbia member you frequently have occasion to go through Winnipeg, and also to tell all members of the house where this post office is located. When you travel through Winnipeg by Canadian Pacific Railway, if you will just step out the front door of the station during the hour stopover that usually takes place there and look across the street you will see this log structure to which I have had occasion to make reference quite a number of times. It is that log structure which was the house of the late Mr. Ross in which the first post office in western Canada was opened in February, 1855.


Alcide Côté: In order to add to the information given by my hon. friend, the stamp he showed was one of an issue of 4 cent and 5 cent wildlife design stamps issued in April, 1953. The series of wildlife stamps was introduced for annual issue to support Canada's national wildlife week and the preservation of wild life. The grey coloured 4 cent stamp depicts a walrus and the blue coloured 5 cent stamp depicts a beaver. These two stamps will be short-term commemorative issues. The stamps were designed by Emanuel Hahn of Toronto.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is the quantity of commemorative stamps issued? Is there some policy with regard to that? How great or how small is the issue?


Charles Delmar Coyle: I will give the postage stamp impressions purchased. In 1951-52 there were
1,863,845,000	stamps and in 1952-53 there were 1,870,075,000 stamps.


Gordon Minto Churchill: How many were commemorative?


Alcide Côté: I have not got that breakdown, but those are the total impressions purchased in 1951-52 and 1952-53.


John Angus MacLean: What the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has just said reminded me that perhaps the time has come, as the walrus said, to speak of many things. Therefore I should like to ask the minister if he can indicate to the committee what series of stamps, if any, have been approved for issue in the near future that have not yet appeared. Perhaps he might give that for the year ahead. I am thinking particularly of any commemorative stamps that may have been approved but have not yet been issued in connection with such events as the British Empire games.


Alcide Côté: It is not news to the committee that we have issued a new set of stamps depicting the Queen to replace the not so successful stamp on the coronation. We must admit that the new one is far better. I am sorry that I cannot answer the second part of the question as to commemorative stamps for the coming year.


John Angus MacLean: I was not referring to the present general issue with the new likeness of the Queen. I was thinking of any special stamps which have already been approved but have not yet appeared.


Alcide Côté: There are none so far.


Harry Oliver White: If I may be
permitted to revert to item 343 for a moment, I should like to ask the minister what percentage of first class mail is actually transported by air?


Alcide Côté: What percentage?


Harry Oliver White: Yes, what
percentage of first class mail is actually airborne?


Alcide Côté: The closest I can come to it now is between 30 and 40 per cent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
699. Operations-further amount required, $1,265,904.
Stanley Howard Knowles: This supplementary item is a companion item to one we had in the main
Supply-Post Office
estimates a few moments ago. In other words, it has to do with the same question of operations. I should like to say a few words concerning a matter which comes under the operations branch. I have in my hand sessional paper No. 94-M, which was tabled in the house on Tuesday, June 22, 1954. It contains some 89 pages. Most of it, indeed almost all of it, is correspondence between the operations branch of the post office and certain people in Winnipeg. The subject matter of this return is the matter of appointments to small post offices situated in the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre. As hon. members will readily gather, this 89-page document is a companion volume to the one my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North, displayed in the house a few weeks ago. When I indicate that it is a companion volume I mean to indicate that there is a good deal of similarity between the other document and this document, and it is not my intention, Mr. Chairman, to make a speech that would be merely a duplication of the excellent speech made on this question of patronage in the Post Office Department by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
This document does bring out one or two points in addition to the points that were brought out in the sessional paper which was displayed by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North. I may say at the outset, Mr. Chairman, that practically the same names appear in this file as appeared in my colleague's file. There are names such as those of Alderman Peter Taraska, Mr. D. W. W. Revie, the secretary to the Minister of Justice and one or two others. In other words, the same people seem to be involved in this correspondence with the operations branch regarding post office appointments in the various constituencies in the Winnipeg area. There is also correspondence with the same secretary of the Manitoba and northwestern Ontario command of the Canadian Legion, and one additional person who turns up in this file who did not turn up in the other file. This additional person is Mr. W. A. Molloy.
Perhaps I should identify some of these people. Mr. D. W. W. Revie, to whom I have already referred, is an official of the Manitoba Liberal-Progressive Association. Mr. Peter Taraska was the Liberal candidate in Winnipeg North in 1945 and 1949, on both of which occasions he was defeated by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North. In 1953 he came over to Winnipeg North Centre and gave me the benefit of his candidacy as the Liberal candidate and once again enjoyed defeat. Mr. W. A. Molloy was

Supply-Post Office
the Liberal candidate in Winnipeg North Centre in 1949. As I pointed out there is also a good deal of correspondence in this file, as in the other one, between the operations branch and the secretary of the Minister of Justice. There seem to be no letters addressed directly to the Minister of Justice and no letters written by the Minister of Justice. Rather the letters are to the minister's secretary and she is asked to forward the minister's recommendation. She replies stating that her minister recommends such and such and then another letter goes back to the secretary of the Minister of Justice advising that her minister's recommendation has been accepted.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, it would be an imposition on my part were I to regale the house with the same kind of outline as was given by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North. But I do feel I should draw attention to one or two aspects of this file which are a little different. I have referred to the fact there are letters here addressed to the same Alderman Peter Taraska, who had a good deal to do with appointments in Winnipeg North and he has had something to do with appointments in Winnipeg North Centre as well. This seems to have begun about the time he moved over and became a candidate in Winnipeg North Centre.
The case of Mr. Molloy is extremely interesting. I find that there has been correspondence, according to this file, with him with respect to five different small post office appointments in the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre. In only one of those five cases, so far as I can ascertain from going through this file, did Mr. Molloy make a recommendation; that was back in 1949. I do not know why, but apparently Mr. Molloy does not seem to be too interested in this matter of post office patronage. I say that to his credit, and I repeat that he was my Liberal opponent in 1949. Indeed, I ask hon. members to note this with regard to the other four cases. They are found on pages 18 to 23; 26 to 31; 49 to 55; and 80 to 85 of this sessional paper that I hold in my hand. Those page numbers are inclusive in all cases. Strangely enough in each of those cases hon. members will notice that I have referred to six pages in the file-six letters-and the pattern is the same in all four instances.
First of all, there is a letter-let me take the first one I gave as an example, pages 18 to 23 of this file. As hon. members know, these files are built up from the bottom, sc we start on page 23. Starting with that page, we note that on May 29, 1950, a letter went to Mr. Molloy from the director of
IMr. Knowles.]
operations, advising him of a certain vacancy and asking him for his recommendation. There was no answer immediately, so on June 19, 1950 a second letter went to Mr. Molloy with respect to the same vacancy. Mr. Molloy answered that letter on June 23, 1950. His letter, addressed to the director of operations reads as follows:
I acknowledge your request for recommendation of a suitable person for permanent appointment as postmaster at the above-mentioned post office.
I thank you for referring this matter to me, and I wish to advise that I am not in a position to make any recommendations.
That is the third letter on the file. First, there are two letters to Mr. Molloy advising him of the vacancy and asking him for his recommendation. Then, Mr. Molloy writes back and says he is not in a position to make any recommendation. Following that, there are three more letters addressed to Mr. Molloy still telling him about this vacancy and eventually telling him what has happened in the matter.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Three more?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Three more letters after Mr. Molloy had indicated in a rather tactful manner his disinterest in this question. I am not going to read all of these letters. I have indicated by giving the page numbers that there are four instances exactly the same, where two letters are written to Mr. Molloy telling him of a vacancy and inviting him to make recommendations. He writes back and says, I have none to make, but the department goes on writing him three more times after that.


Mr. Martin:: Mr. Molloy must be a good man.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Molloy is a very fine man. As I pointed out a while ago, he was the Liberal candidate in 1949 and joined a long succession of Liberal candidates who have stood in Winnipeg North Centre, but that is as far as they got.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They still have hopes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Molloy has since transferred his political interest to other parts of the city of Winnipeg. The point of this is obvious. Even when you have a political person out in the field who is obviously disinterested in post office patronage, the operations branch keeps fostering it. I submit that is very clear evidence that this business of patronage in the post office is fostered and pursued by the Post Office Department here at Ottawa. I think it is fair to say that Liberal members themselves, and even defeated candidates, would be quite glad if this whole business of patronage in the Post Office Department were discontinued. And in view of this evidence that

it is being foisted upon them by the operations branch, I feel very strongly that serious consideration should be given by the department to discontinuing this patronage in the matter of making these post office appointments.
Perhaps I should go a little further with regard to this one case. I can give it as a sample, because the pattern is practically the same throughout the whole file. With respect to this Winnipeg sub-post office No. 15, situated in the heart of my constituency, not only was Mr. Molloy written to, but the provincial secretary of the Canadian Legion was advised. Oddly enough, or perhaps significantly, the letter to the provincial secretary of the Canadian Legion is a form letter, a mimeographed letter, with the secretary's name put in. In the case of the letters to Mr. Molloy, four out of five of them were original letters. The provincial secretary of the Canadian Legion was written to, but there is no reply on the file.
Then, D. W. W. Revie, 803 Charles building-I am sure that should read Childs building-was also written to about it. He made no reply so far as the file is concerned. But this is not so in the case of the correspondence addressed to the secretary of the Minister of Justice. First there is a letter to her asking for her minister's recommendation. There is a reply from her indicating whom the minister recommends. And then there is a reply back to her stating that the appointment has been made in keeping with the recommendation of that secretary's minister. I do not think it is very fair to a secretary to a minister to put her in the position of having to carry on this correspondence in her name. If the Minister of Justice is going to be the dispenser of patronage in respect of these matters in Manitoba-and I would point out that his constituency is that of Marquette, which is up on the Saskatchewan boundary, and this matter has to do with a constituency in the city of Winnipeg-if he is going to do it, then I suggest he should do it over his own signature.
As I say, the hon. member for Winnipeg North has made very clear what is going on with respect to the matter, and I do not need to go further with it. But so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned I do wish to point out what struck me when I got this file, namely that even when a man like Mr. Molloy is not very interested in the patronage aspect of the matter, it is continued by these letters from the operations branch, which he does not bother to answer.
Supply-Post Office
Of course that is not so in connection with Mr. Taraska. There is no letter to him that is not answered. He seems to be active in these matters.
Then, there is one other point. I am now looking at page 22 in the file which happens to be a letter addressed to Mr. Molloy; but there are quite a few letters in the file which are like this one. It reads in part as follows:
The order of preference which, according to law, is observed in making such appointment is as follows:-
(a)	patron of the office entitled to disability preference;
(b)	patron of the office entitled to overseas preference;
(c)	patrons not entitled to preference under either
(a) or (b);
(d)	non-patron entitled to disability preference;
(e)	non-patron entitled to overseas preference;
(f)	non-patron not entitled to preference under either (d) or (e).
Now, as I say, these people who are asked for their recommendations are informed that according to law this is the order of preference. The question I would like to put is this-


Alcide Côté: It is strictly followed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What happens if a person like Mr. Taraska or Mr. Molloy or Mr. Revie or the secretary to the Minister of Justice, or anybody else, recommends anyone who does not come under these categories? What happens in that event?


Alcide Côté: I am glad my hon. friend has asked that question, because we should not dramatize it too much. This was done after a committee of the house decided to do so, following recommendations and information. And it is done to avoid the great expense that would be involved if we had to send an inspector perhaps 100 or 200 miles. It would cost more than the annual revenue of these little post offices.
And that is exactly why in 1932 a committee decided to follow this procedure-that is, to ask for information and recommendations from the member or the defeated candidate, because the committee felt they were the persons in the best position to give this information.
And now, to come to the question asked by the hon. member. Let me say that the order of preference is strictly followed. And when A, B or C recommends somebody who does not fall within the order of preference the recommendation is not followed. We receive this information or these recommendations in respect of the appointments to be made, but those recommendations are

Supply-Post Office
not appointments by any means. And it is going a little too far when an attempt is made to dramatize this matter.
I am glad my hon. friend adopted the tone he did this morning, because there was considerable difference between the tone he used and that used by his colleague from Winnipeg North. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has brought forward some factual reports.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So did the member for Winnipeg North.


Alcide Côté: Yes; but within the meaning of that word, they are not patronage. This is just a useful proceeding to get information. Appointments are made in the order of preference mentioned by my hon. friend, and not because the information is given by A, B or C.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What happens if one of these unofficial people makes a recommendation of a person who does not fit into the order of preference?


Alcide Côté: He is not appointed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Such a person does not get the appointment?


Alcide Côté: No. If a man who is recommended or suggested does not fit within the order of preference, then he is not appointed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am very glad to hear that. Now, just a word or two further. The Postmaster General seems to be satisfied that it is perfectly all right to follow this system of getting these items of information from these unofficial people. It has never been my view that in any business concern it is a matter of economy to have people do things for nothing. In the end they can turn out to be very costly.
I would point out that Mr. Taraska, Mr. Molloy and Mr. Revie, who figure in this correspondence, have no official standing so far as the Post Office Department is concerned, or so far as the government of Canada is concerned.


Mr.   Cofs@: And they make no appointments, either.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, but their advice is sought, and their recommendations are sought.


Alcide Côté: They are asked for information because they are in a position to give information. But giving information does not mean that they make appointments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Mr.   Coie@: I am satisfied with your tone.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But this point is strong. Let me make it clear-


An hon. Member:: Crystal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Somebody used the word "crystal".


Mr.   Cofe@: Crystal clear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let me make it crystal clear that I do not think we people here should be involved in this kind of business at all. I do not want the minister to ask me for my recommendations with regard to these appointments. I want him to do this work in and through his department. But I do want him to clarify what he said a moment ago when he referred to the practice of writing to defeated candidates and members of parliament. He means defeated Liberal candidates and Liberal members of parliament.


Charles Delmar Coyle: Why not?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it from that question that the Postmaster General thinks that the patronage system is all right. I may tell him it went out a long time ago in any democracy worthy of the name.


Mr. Weir:: My hon. friend has been attempting to make something significant out of a couple of returns that have been brought down in connection with post office matters in the two constituencies in Winnipeg, and from his observations one would think that the people whose names have been referred to have done something wrong, when they have intervened in a matter which is not their business. Well, I think it is regrettable that he took occasion to dig these people's names out in the manner in which he has. They are all good, responsible, reputable citizens. If they happen to be Liberals, they are that much better.

I come back to the practice that has been in effect in this country for a long period of time in so far as post office appointments are concerned. I do not think there is very much wrong with it. If, as he apparently would suggest, we should turn the selection of postmasters in the smaller postal stations over to the civil service commission or to some other branch, I am sure it would add greatly to the expense and it would not bring about greater efficiency or greater satisfaction to the public.
I am sure that in these cases-I will not say so much for the city constituencies, but I will so far as the country post offices are concerned-apart from elected members or people who have been candidates no one is in a position to give the same type of satisfactory recommendations that these people can. It is often not easy to get people to take certain post offices in certain outlying areas. The point I make is that any elected person, if you like, or any defeated candidate, is going to attempt to secure the person who will do the job efficiently and well and who is acceptable to the community.
My hon. friend the Postmaster General referred to the conditions of appointment and I am sure that no one is going to step very far afield in making recommendations to the Postmaster General for the selection of postmasters that do not conform to those conditions. I am sure that if anyone were to recommend a civilian ahead of a pensioner who was equally qualified and equally entitled, he would hear from the community in no uncertain manner. Therefore one is governed by his conscience in matters of this kind. I cannot for the life of me see how you are going to devise a system that works any better than this, unless you are going to bring the whole thing under the civil service commission, which I am sure would add greatly to its cost.
Let me say this to my hon. friend. As he knows, I have been here some little time, and I presume he will ask for files on the constituency of Portage-Neepawa, and I hope he does.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are putting ideas in my head.


William Gilbert Weir: I will tell him this. In all the experience I have had, I have had more trouble and more irritation over appointments made by the civil service commission than anything that I ever had to do with. So it works both ways. I do not think I would have done any better had I tried to inject myself into the larger post offices in the appointments made by the civil service commission; but I do know that my own 83276-419J
Supply-Post Office
experience is that there has been more fuss made over appointments made by the civil service commission than over any other types of appointments that have been made. Let me give you one illustration which I find very curious. Take a civil service appointment, where one man in a competition is rated for the appointment by the commission and he gets the position. Within months, not years, another office comes open, and this man, as he is entitled to do, applies in the second competition. In the one competition he is placed at the top of the list and gets the appointment. In the other competition, with the same competitors, he is placed fourth or fifth on the list and somebody else gets the appointment. How are you going to explain that? It happened to be out of my category. I was not interested in it, and I was glad to be out of it, but these things can work both ways, even in so far as appointments by the civil service commission are concerned.
I am going to say nothing more about this except this. If these are the greatest mistakes that have been made by the Postmaster General, or if these are the biggest complaints that my hon. friends can dig up about the administration of the Post Office Department even in the province of Manitoba, I am afraid that we shall have to say that our Postmaster General and those associated with him are pretty pure in the administration of that department.


Mr. Knight:: I have one word on this, and it is in regard to the opinions of the member of parliament vis-a-vis the opinions of defeated candidates. That is the one thing that I cannot get straight. I am interested to hear the hon. Postmaster General and the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa defend the patronage system. If that is their opinion they are entitled to it, and they are on record in regard to it. I have no quarrel with that expression of opinion, but I do not believe in that system. I do not believe it is worth anything to anybody.


William Gilbert Weir: May I just submit one question to my hon. friend? This system is in vogue at the present time. Do I take it that my hon. friend would rather have the officials of the Post Office Department go out and take recommendations from the drugstore operator, the storekeeper, the bank manager or somebody else instead of from a duly elected person or one who has offered himself for public service?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: My answer to that question is largely yes. If the administrators of the Post Office Department are efficient, and if the appointments are made on the basis of efficiency and convenience, I suggest then

Supply-Post Office
they should do it and that members of parliament or defeated candidates should have nothing to do with it. But I do want to say just one thing. The hon. member for Portage-Neepawa has said that somebody may be appointed who is suitable to the community, and from that angle I was interested in it. He wants someone suitable to the community, and he goes out to get the advice of somebody who has proven himself to be unsuitable to the community as far as being elected as a member of parliament is concerned. They go to that man to find out who is suitable to the community. I imagine a great many people in Saskatoon-I will flatter myself and say there are not too many; there are some-think I am not suitable for that constituency.


An hon. Member:: Agreed.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The hon. member sitting on the other side of the house can make that statement and I love him for it. He is just like a lot of the people in my constituency who happen to belong to the unfortunate political designation of my hon. friend. The point I want to make is that it is a ridiculous thing to me as a member of parliament for Saskatoon. I do not want to be bothered with anything like that. I want you people over there to put into these jobs people who are supposed to be qualified to carry on their work efficiently; make your appointments and you will never hear a growl from me in that department; but I do say this in respect to consulting the defeated candidate to find a man suitable to the community. In doing that you are consulting a man who will recommend a man who in the opinion of the defeated candidate would be suitable to that community, but he himself who is advising the department on this man is a man who has proven to be unacceptable and unsuitable to his community.


An hon. Member:: Rejected.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Rejected by his community, and this is the man to whom my hon. friend goes for advice. They consult the defeated candidates. The question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was fair and it was not answered.


Alcide Côté: What question?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The question is, in the case of a defeated candidate belonging to another party but the Liberal party, does the Postmaster General write to him?


Alcide Côté: We receive recommendations and information from members of every party and we even receive recommendations from many of my hon. friends opposite.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The minister can wriggle and he is in a good place in which to learn how to do that, but I am asking the minister this question. And let me put it in this specific manner. If we had an election tomorrow and if I were defeated for the constituency of Saskatoon, during the following three or four years would I be receiving letters from the Postmaster General asking for recommendations, or, as he puts it, for information?


Alcide Côté: I can answer that question in two ways.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: There are two ways-yes and no.


Alcide Côté: The hon. member has asked a question and he should at least permit me to answer. He told me a few moments ago he did not want to be bothered so I do not think we should bother him. Secondly, he has asked me what I would do tomorrow. Well, I will tell him tomorrow.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: The minister has simply
wriggled around the question and refused to answer it. I can only accept that as his answer. It is on the record.


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, before we carry this item I want to support the case made by my colleagues. I might say that I have a great deal of confidence in the officials of his department. But the interjection made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle prompts me to say that in the last copy of the Saskatchewan Gazette there was an item stating that Mr. G. M. Ferrie of Invermay had been made commissioner of oaths by the C.C.F. government. I was not consulted about that appointment and I offer no objection because I do not want to be consulted by this government or the government of Saskatchewan as to who should or should not be appointed to government positions, but I hope the Postmaster General will have another look at this patronage question.


Alcide Côté: Mr. Chairman, I want to be fair to everyone but the hon. member who has just spoken wrote an article in his local newspaper telling the people there that he was the one who obtained certain concessions by means of pressure on this government. I think if that is the way in which my hon. friend-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I would ask the Postmaster General to quote from the article he mentions. I deny the charge he has made and I suggest

he put the article in question on the record. If he cannot do so I suggest he withdraw his remarks.


Alcide Côté: Mr. Chairman, I am ready to be corrected if correction is needed, but I am referring to the erection of a public building in my hon. friend's riding about which he wrote that he had obtained it because he forced the government to do so.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, I must ask the Postmaster General to withdraw his remarks or substantiate his statement by putting the article in question on the record.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: May I remind the committee that we are not debating the erection of a public building. I have followed very closely what has been said by the Postmaster General. The minister suggested that the hon. member for Mackenzie had written certain things in a newspaper article and the hon. member for Mackenzie said, "I deny that", and the Postmaster General said, "I am willing to be corrected if correction is needed." I take it from the Postmaster General's remarks that he has accepted the denial of the hon. member for Mackenzie, as he is bound to do.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: But, Mr. Chairman, I would like the Postmaster General to put on record that he withdraws the remarks he has made. He is nodding his head but I would like him to withdraw his statement.


Charles Delmar Coyle: Mr. Chairman, I am willing to withdraw that remark, but may I just point out to the committee that I was informed that an article was written by my hon. friend in a local newspaper in his own constituency. He did not deny he wrote the article. If what I said is incorrect, then I am willing to withdraw my remarks.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I write a weekly letter for the newspapers in my constituency and I am quite prepared to have the minister quote from anything I have written at any time to show-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I think I must point out to the hon. member that the Postmaster General has accepted the hon. member's denial and withdrawn any misinterpretation he may have placed on the information he received.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
Supply-Labour
The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
General administration-
177. Departmental administration, $683,551.
William Alfred Robinson: Hon. members will find the vote on page 28 of the blue book and the details commencing on page 229.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Chairman, at various times during the session I have had the feeling that I should like to give the members of the committee of the whole a good deal of information with regard to the activities listed in pages 28, 29 and 30, but at this late date I must confess that I shall curtail my remarks. If I leave out some of these activities, I hope hon. members will not think that I do not consider them to be important, because I do. However, the things that I shall refer to are perhaps those which, in my opinion, require a little bit of explanation.
The estimates represent an increase over last year of $4,044,957 due, in large measure, to the general salary revision for civil servants announced last December and the normal increase in the contribution to the unemployment insurance fund. That $4 million approximately is an increase for both agencies, the department proper and the unemployment insurance commission. Staff strength remains virtually the same as last year, with no change with regard to the unemployment insurance commission and an increase of one in the Department of Labour. The members of both these staffs have continued to render excellent service during the year. The consistently high quality of their work is, I think, a credit to the public administration in Canada.
The industrial relations branch is provided for in votes 180, 181 and 182. The last fiscal year was a period of good industrial relations in the industries within federal jurisdiction. Out of 184,000 workers involved in 78 disputes dealt with during the fiscal year by our conciliation officers and boards, less than 1,600 workers were involved in a total of two strikes. Of the 78 disputes, 59 were settled, and 16 were still being dealt with at the end of the year, by conciliation officers and boards. In one case, conciliation proceedings lapsed without a settlement but also without a strike, and strike action occurred in two cases. I think this is a good record. Let me 'interject the pious prayer that we may have as satisfactory a record during the oncoming months. This branch is also responsible for the administration of legislation governing wages and working conditions on government contracts, for the promotion of

Supply-Labour
productivity to the benefit of both workers and employers through the medium of labour-management production committees, and for the administration of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act.
The Canada Fair Employment Practices Act is, as the committee knows, new legislation and the experience so far gained under it has been encouraging. When the act came into effect at the beginning of last July, steps were taken to make its provisions known to the public, and particularly to the employers and trade unions whose operations fall within federal jurisdiction.
I believe that educational activity is an essential element in the administration of this legislation, and a broader program of educational publicity is planned for the present fiscal year.
No serious enforcement problems have been met in the administration of the legislation thus far. Up until the end of last May only three official complaints of alleged violations of the act had been received, and all three had been quickly settled either by correspondence or by direct investigation and conciliation.
One of the most encouraging features of the experience we have had in administering this legislation has been the willingness of employers and trade unions generally to co-operate in the work of establishing employment practices that may truly be called "fair".
Amendments to the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act have been the subject of debate at this session of the house and, for that reason, I intend to limit my remarks to the activities under votes 189 and 190. In vote 189 there is an increase over last year of $84,200. This additional sum is necessary mainly because of an expansion in our apprenticeship training program. This program, in co-operation with the provinces, is one of the most important training projects in which the department participates. As its name suggests, it is designed to stimulate apprenticeship and, in doing this, to ensure that this country will have an adequate supply of the tradesmen whose skills play such an important role in maintaining and developing the productive power of our economy.
Earlier this session I promised to say a word on my estimates about the retraining of unemployed persons. I might refer, if I may, to item 189 in the main estimates and item 669 in the supplementary estimates. Heretofore, trainees in these classes have been referred for training individually by the local offices of our national employment

service. The nature and extent of the training in each case has been determined by the availability of definite jobs on completion of training and the capacity and previous experience of the trainee. Recently serious unemployment situations have developed in a number of localities. In some cases displaced workers have been absorbed in other plants or industries, but in other cases workers possessing specialized skills have found it impossible to find suitable employment in other fields. The provisions and conditions of schedule M are being reviewed with a view to facilitating the establishment of special training programs to provide such workers with new skills which will fit them for employment in other industries or occupations. In addition, a special committee of the advisory council on vocational training has been named to study this program and officials of the Department of Labour and of the unemployment insurance commission have been designated to co-operate with the provinces in dealing with specific situations.
In vote 190 of the main estimates, which provides for payments to the provinces for capital expenditures in connection with vocational schools, a decrease of $100,000 is shown. This reduction is because the obligations of the federal government under the vocational schools assistance agreement have been met in all areas of Canada except Newfoundland and the Northwest Territories. During the past ten years a total of $30 million has been made available under this agreement for sharing with the provincial governments the cost of building, equipping and operating vocational and technical schools of less than university grade.
Provision is again made, in vote 185, for the farm labour program which has been carried on ever since world war II. During the past year, farm labour agreements were concluded with all provinces except Newfoundland and, under these agreements, organized movements of farm workers were carried out to meet seasonal demands in different areas. The program is a co-operative venture and is characterized by the excellent teamwork of provincial officials and officers of the Department of Labour and the national employment service. It has served, in large measure, as a means of overcoming the shortage of farm labour which we in Canada have experienced for over a decade, and it will continue to operate during the present fiscal year. As a matter of fact, it is operating now. Farm workers are being recruited for certain crops at the present time.
It has been necessary not only to carry on a farm labour program aimed at the most

effective utilization of the farm labour force, but also to supplement that force from time to time by bringing immigrant farm workers to Canada in organized groups. These group movements have been used to meet unsatisfied demands for labour in several basic industries and there are indications that some such movements will have to be organized this year. On the whole, however, this is likely to be on a smaller scale and, consequently, the provision made for it in vote 194 represents a reduction of $115,574.
I want to make special mention of item No. 186 initiated in my estimates for the first time last year for a women's bureau. During the year the civil service commission undertook a survey and competition for the purpose of finding a suitable head for this bureau. I did not think, I can tell the committee frankly, that it would take so long to bring this task to a conclusion, but I am glad to say now that it is expected that an announcement will be made very shortly as to the person selected for this post by the commission.
During the past year the economic and research branch continued its important work of research and analysis, providing to both the government and the public accurate information on vital subjects such as manpower, factors affecting levels of employment and unemployment, trade union organization, collective bargaining trends and the incidence of work stoppages resulting from industrial disputes. Much of this research material has been printed in the Labour Gazette, a publication which needs no introduction to hon. members.
I should like to say something about the help being given by my department to establish a comprehensive plan for the rehabilitation of Canada's disabled. This work is being done in close co-operation with the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Veterans Affairs. It has been greatly aided by suggestions made by the national advisory committee on rehabilitation. The government has offered to make to each province, on a matching basis, a maximum contribution of $15,000 a year through my department towards the salaries and expenses of a provincial rehabilitation co-ordinator and his staff, and towards the cost of supplying certain rehabilitation services not otherwise provided for.
Last year the national co-ordinator, Mr. Ian Campbell, accompanied by the senior medical officer of the Department of National Health and Welfare, discussed this offer with the appropriate government officials in each of the provinces, and these discussions have produced encouraging results. To date, eight
Supply-Labour
provinces-Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Newfoundland, Alberta, Prince Edward Island, British Columbia and Nova Scotia-have signed the co-ordination agreement, and it is now being studied in all the remaining provinces. This rehabilitation effort is of course closely co-ordinated with the federal-provincial pension plan for the permanently disabled initiated this year by my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
And now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to turn to the estimates of the unemployment insurance commission. There are three votes, one for the administration of the act, one for the contribution of the government to the fund, and one for the transfer of unemployed workers to areas where jobs are available. The vote for administration shows an increase over last year of $2,227,753. Most of this is to be used to meet increases in salary requirements resulting from the general salary revision, normal statutory increments and casual assistance to handle an enlarged load of claims for unemployment insurance benefit. The number of claims received in the fiscal year 1952-53 was 17 per cent greater than in the fiscal year 1951-52, and the number received in the twelve months to the end of March, 1954, was about 25 per estit greater than in the corresponding period of the previous fiscal year.
In spite of this increasing claim load, the payment of unemployment insurance benefit has been speeded up appreciably by the judicious use of casual help during the midwinter period of seasonal unemployment, and, I may add again, without any addition whatsoever to permanent full-time staff. During the fiscal year 1953-54 a total of $186,850,766 was paid out in benefit, and the number of beneficiaries was 950,000. Total contributions were $190,409,070, with the government contributing $31,735,794 of this amount. At the close of the last fiscal year the balance in the unemployment insurance fund was $881,278,689, an increase of $29,693,525 over the balance on March 31, 1953.
The most important function of the commission of course is the operation of the employment service. The value of this work cannot be overemphasized. The fact that both employers and workers have at their disposal, without direct charge to them, a national organization manned by men and women experienced in the field of employment is of great value in a country such as ours where mobility of workers is so very important. During the last fiscal year 966,880 placements were made by the national employment service.

Supply-Labour
Under the provisions of the act the Minister of Finance from time to time credits the fund, out of moneys provided by parliament, with an amount equal to one-fifth of the aggregate contributions made to the fund by employers and employees. Over the years good employment conditions and annual increases in the working force have increased the total contribution of employers and employees and the government contribution has risen accordingly.
The item for the transfer of labour, vote 197, remains unchanged from the previous year in the main estimates but an increase has been recommended in the supplementary estimates now before the house, and is found in vote 671. This item is designed, and the reason for the increase is, to assist in the transfer of unemployed Canadian workers to places where employment is available. Expenditures are made when they can be recovered from employers who are willing to pay the transportation costs of these transfers and, to that extent, provide a revolving fund of working capital to aid in the movement of workers to jobs. Where such a refund cannot be assured and where the minister finds that conditions in an area are such as to warrant such action, he may use this vote to assist unemployed workers in meeting the cost of moving to a job elsewhere. That concludes what I want to say on the opening of my estimates.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, any approach to the estimates of the labour department at this time must take cognizance of the present unhappy employment situation. Despite the optimism expressed by the minister and his officials in announcements which have been forthcoming within the last couple of days, there are still many distressing conditions and the clouds are far from having been dissipated. However, before going into the matter of the unemployment problem as such, there are a few other matters of departmental jurisdiction and labour matters in general on which I should like to make a few remarks. I preface those remarks with the observation that I believe, as I stated a moment ago, that the most important problem is now the pressing one of how we shall find jobs for those workers who are now unemployed.
But there are these administrative matters that should be referred to at this time, and I shall take a few minutes to speak of several matters which have claimed my attention recently. First of all I should like to say something about apprenticeship. The minister made some remarks about it in his statement, and I am pleased to see that the government has recognized the importance

of this phase of employment by the increase of $84,000 odd under item 189, which the minister mentioned, and the $125,000 in the supplementary estimates.
It is a fact that there is a grave need for skilled workers in Canada today, and it is a peculiar thing that, in a time when employment generally is at its lowest ebb for many years, there is still this grave need for skilled workers. We are still importing into this country people with peculiar skills to fill positions which otherwise might be taken by Canadian workmen or by those who are already here. I believe everyone who is experienced in labour matters will agree that it is desirable that the learning of skills should be at the practical level.
I am one of those people who believe probably we have a tendency to depend too much upon the teaching of skills in our various academic institutions. We leave too little to the actual practical application of those skills. If then, as has been shown to be the case, there happens to be a lack of incentive on the part of young people to apprentice themselves to a given trade, we might well ask ourselves just whose fault it is. Certainly, it is not entirely the fault of the employer, nor is it entirely the fault of the trade unions, most of whom have apprenticeship schemes of their own and definite rules whereby these people acquire the training they need.
But I suggest to the minister that even the increased amounts to which he has already drawn attention will not entice young people into the learning of specific trade skills unless some other incentive is given to them. While I realize that the minister has had committees working on this very point, I suggest to him that money alone is not going to bring these people into the skilled trades. About six months ago in the Financial Post I noticed a summary of apprenticeship matters. There is a table there indicating that training is falling off, and it gives the ratio of allowed apprentices to journeymen. The interesting thing is, for instance, that for bricklayers and masons, while the number of apprentices allowed is 426, the actual number of apprentices employed is only 178. An even worse picture is given with regard to carpenters, where carpenters were allowed 2,475 apprentices and only 333 were actually employed; plasterers and lathers were allowed 242, and only 103 were employed; painters were allowed 1,984 and only 39 were employed. There is a similar picture for plumbers and steamfitters, with 1,514 allowed and 765 employed; electricians, 2,580 allowed and 637 employed.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that is not only a most interesting picture but also a most

deplorable one. Here, in no case have we even 50 per cent of the allowable apprentices employed-oh, yes, plumbers and steamfit-ters just manage to come up to the 50 per cent mark. In all other cases the ratio is extremely low and in some, notably in the case of painters, it is quite deplorable. This table only shows the picture in a few of these skilled trades, but I would think it would be similar in others. I would suggest the department should concern itself with a scheme for educating the young people of this country to the importance of these skilled trades and to the opportunities which are open to them in these fields. I believe it is very important to Canada that our young people should be learning these skills and that they should learn them at the most practical level, right in the employment of those industries that will ultimately need them when they have attained journeyman's status.
Along this line of employment at various levels, I should like to speak for a few minutes about the older workers. While workers generally are concerned over employment these days, it is nevertheless a fact the older worker has a general concern of a very different order. Attention has been drawn by many persons in editorials, and in discussion groups on the radio, to the increasing life expectancy of the people of this nation. It is a fact we are living longer these days. We are living longer, and we can expect to live longer still because we have learned how to take care of ourselves. For this we can thank our scientists whose research along medical and scientific lines has produced knowledge that has resulted in the defeat of disease in some cases, in its alleviation in others, and the general enrichment of health in the life of the average person.
It is true that there is a changing age pattern, and it is not yet static. We hope it never will be. We hope that the pattern will continue to change and enlarge. If this is true, then the present retirement pattern is scarcely realistic, taking into consideration the life expectancy of most persons today. The question has been asked before, and it will be asked again, should a longer span of life mean a longer span of work? Of course, this is a question which each individual must ask for himself because many people retire voluntarily at an even younger age than that usually dictated by industry and by the professions.
If it is conceded then that the span of work should bear some relationship to the span of life, then the whole pattern of employment and the age of retirement, which of course is optional, as I said, might well undergo radical changes. With retirement pensions
Supply-Labour
based on the longer work expectancy, it might well be that those over 40 years of age, and who have been experiencing difficulty in finding employment once they have been severed from employment, would not be in such an undesirable position with respect to industry as in the past.
The other day I noticed a United Nations report on work opportunities for older women, and an interesting comment which came by way of a memorandum from the British ministry of labour and national service. Their remarks were these:
For compelling social and economic reasons the door must be open widely to the employment of men and women able and willing to work, irrespective of age. These social and economic reasons are not remote and abstract. This is essentially a human problem of providing a proper place in our society for the ever growing proportion of elderly persons. The solution to this problem requires a radically changed outlook on the part of employers, workers and the general public. Age 65 for men and 60 for women ought no longer to be regarded as normal retiring age.
The remarks I have just read, Mr. Chairman, from the British ministry's memorandum will find an echo, I am sure, in the hearts of many people today who are at or approaching retirement age and who feel that they still have a great contribution to make to the life of this country. Certain it is that we are even now faced with a fantastic waste of skills and experience, which is sure to be more pronounced as time goes on. I think we must ask ourselves, and the Department of Labour must consider, whether or not we can afford this waste in an expanding economy. And if the answer is that we cannot afford it, then we should make a definite study of this particular problem, with a view to finding its solution.
I should like to ask the minister a question with regard to the Government Employees Compensation Act, because I notice in the April issue of the Labour Gazette, to which he has referred, there appears an item in which an official of the compensation branch is quoted as saying the following:
Some important changes in the Government Employees Compensation Act have been recommended by an interdepartmental committee and are being incorporated in a bill that it is hoped will be submitted to parliament at the current session.
Well, we have seen nothing of that bill, and I am wondering what progress, if any, has been made, or whether the government has thought better of the proposal. Or, if not either of these, is the bill just shelved for this session?
Of course we realize that the matter of federal government compensation is administered by the provinces. Just last year seven of those provinces made rather drastic

Supply-Labour
changes in their amounts of payment, as well as changes in their regulations. As I understand it, all these changes become applicable automatically to federal employees who suffer injury, and who come under government compensation regulations. I feel however it would be interesting for the house to know just what progress has been made in the study which, apparently, is currently under way.
I should like also to make some observations in respect of the anti-discrimination legislation passed by the last parliament, and in which all of us concurred. I am pleased to hear the minister's remarks with reference to the educational aspect of the work of his department; and I noticed only recently in a news release coming from his department, and also in one of the labour publications, that there is to be a series of eight radio broadcasts commencing next week. It is pointed out that they are to have wide coverage, right across Canada.
No doubt this is part of the educational program the department has undertaken. However, I should like to draw attention to the fact that, while apparently the government is making an effort to bring this legislation to the attention of as many people as possible, the scope of the program could be widened very materially, and greater realism could be given to the whole picture if the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act were amended so as to include within its provisions certain provisions of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act. Along with the representations which have been made to the minister by different organizations, I urge that consideration be given to the inclusion of those provisions in the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act.
It is nearly two years since the minister first told us that the department was undertaking a complete revision of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. Last year when the committee on industrial relations met, and was considering the matters referred to it by the house, once again the minister stated the act was being revised, and that the revisions would be placed before the House of Commons for ratification. I realize he did not set a time limit, and I also understand that no doubt it is quite a job. But it seems to me we should be making greater progress. After all, two years is a reasonable length of time in which to expect some sort of report, even if only an interim report. I should like very much to see something done to bring the act up to date and to remove from it that peculiar patchwork-quilt pattern it presents at the present time.

Certainly it is true that conditions have changed greatly even within the last ten years; and I think it is about time the minister made some announcement as to when we may expect a revision of this act.
A matter which has claimed a considerable amount of my attention in the last year is the establishment of the women's bureau. Or perhaps I should have said the "non-establishment", because I find that while a year ago we budgeted for $21,560, the estimates indicate that only about $2,560 was spent. I suspect most of that amount was spent in advertising for a director, because that is about the only bit of activity discernible at this distance from the department.
I would ask the minister whether anyone is actually working in this branch. Has it been set up? Is there anyone there? A year ago provision was made for three or four employees. Provision is made again this year, the only difference being that there is to be an increase in salaries-an increase which, I must say, applies to people who were never employed.
Apparently the minister has had some difficulty in securing someone to fill the post of director. I recognize that in the establishment of a new branch it is always difficult to decide upon the qualifications required to produce the desired results. But, in line with my remarks in the house in connection with the civil service estimates, I would say to the minister that if more women-or even some women-were included in courses such as the administration course just completed at Kemptville, there might not be the same difficulty in determining the qualifications of civil servants who would be encouraged to apply for positions like this.
I cannot understand why it has been so very difficult to secure a director. The minister now says he expects one will be appointed soon. Despite that statement however I notice that while the vote is now increased by $2,530 over last year, the amount asked for stationery and office supplies is down by $500 as compared with last year, and that the amount for publications and reports is down to the extent of $1,000. On the other hand salaries have been increased to the extent of $4,030. I am interested in learning the reasoning which would prompt that kind of budgeting. It would look as though the operations of the office are predicated upon an assumption of inactivity for at least another six months. And yet salaries have been increased to take care of a full year's operation.
It is most important that this bureau get under way as soon as possible. Frequently we hear remarks in the house and elsewhere

to the effect that the number of women employees is likely to diminish as circumstances change, and that there are certain classifications of employment not open to women and certain other classifications for which they are not suited. Yet we find in a return from the Department of Labour that 1-8 per cent of the 116,432 women now employed in Canada are employed as labourers, or positions which would indicate fairly heavy work. Some are in transportation, others in farming, and even some in construction work. Certainly these are occupations in which one would not expect to find great numbers of women.
Quite apart from the type of work they are doing, it is a fact that the numbers of women employed and seeking employment increase every day. I was interested in an article written not so long ago by Mr. James Barrie, who writes an excellent column on labour matters for the Hamilton Spectator. It is a most interesting daily column and I recommend it to hon. members. He brought out the point that one out of every seven women employed is the sole support of her family. Probably this picture has not presented itself to many people heretofore. They might very' well consider that one in seven of all the women employed are employed because they must support dependents. He goes on to say that the reasons that motivate the woman worker today are exactly those that motivated the woman of pioneer days who, because of her position, had to work at home weaving, making clothing and producing many of the household goods. He says it just seems to be that the circumstances differ. In the old days the woman made these things with her own hands, so that the family could enjoy them. Today she goes out to work in plant and factory so that the money she earns may buy them. That is a point we might well consider. We should realize that women in employment are not going to decrease in number but are going to increase, and consequently the problems which they will encounter in employment will increase with the numbers of employees, and the federal Department of Labour should get a move on and get this women's bureau operating, and not finally jump in when the problems have become so numerous that they will not be able to cope with them.
I had intended to say a few words on unemployment insurance, but time is slipping away and I have some other remarks to make. Therefore I shall content myself with just two requests, which I have made before, and which I could not overlook when speaking on the labour estimates. My first request is that the minister abolish regulation
Supply-Labour
5A (1). It has been a thorn in the flesh for some time now. It has been changed a couple of times. The fact that it has been changed would indicate that the department itself is not too sure of it. I urge the minister to see that this clause is taken right out of the regulations. It permits a discrimination against women that does not exist against any other types of employees. I can see no reason for having this discriminatory clause in the regulations. It just offends one section of worker. I urge him to take it right out of the regulations and be done with it.
The other matter on which I wish to speak is the appointment of a woman to the unemployment insurance commission. I have made this request every year and I make it again. I have an idea that the minister's reply will have something to say about the way in which the commission is set up and as to how the appointments are made. I am quite well aware of that, but there is nothing in the regulations that would prohibit the enlargement of the commission by one member, and I urge the minister to take this strongly under advisement, because I am sure the women workers of this country need and deserve representation on that commission. I am sure of one thing. If there was a woman on that commission clause 5A (1) would not be written into the regulations.
There is another major problem which has been in existence for a long time. I refer to the responsibility for unemployed employables. I have spoken on this matter in the house on a good many occasions, and not only on the labour estimates. It is a problem that is assuming considerable importance in the life of the present-day unemployment picture. A short time ago a pamphlet was published by the Canadian Welfare Council which is entitled "Public Assistance and the Unemployed". I am sure the minister is familiar with its contents. If any hon. members are not I would suggest that they get this pamphlet and study it. In the introduction it points out the various committees which have been set up and the reports that have been made from 1938 on. It makes this statement:
No action has been taken on the recommendations in any of these for public assistance to the employable unemployed.
The recommendations have been gone over in this house on numerous occasions. Probably the best known are those which are made in the dominion-provincial conference report and which were set out as government recommendations. And yet nothing has been done to implement them.
To come back to this pamphlet of the Canadian Welfare Council, may I say that a

Supply-Labour
number of suggestions and recommendations are made. I shall not attempt to name them all, but the ones that immediately attract my attention are these. The first one I should like to refer to is No. 2 in the recommendations. It states that the Unemployment Insurance Act should be kept under constant review. I am sure we all agree with that, Mr. Chairman, because this act has been in operation for some twelve or thirteen years. I believe the minister tabled the thirteenth report this morning. Basically there has been very little change in it.
Under the heading, "Review of the Unemployment Insurance Act", the report cites various points which should be kept constantly in mind. The report claims that the duration of supplementary benefits should be extended and the amount increased in keeping with increasing costs of living. It mentions also that the greatest possible flexibility in procedures should be permitted in order to meet needs quickly and with the minimum of administrative difficulty. One of the other recommendations, which is important, is one which has been made in this house on two or three occasions in the last couple of years. It reads:
The needs of the unemployed In periods of "abnormal" unemployment, national or regional, should be planned for in advance, by the legislative provision of extended benefits for persons who have exhausted their insurance rights-
It goes on to state a point that was brought out in the dominion-provincial report, not in quite these words, that the federal government should assume most of the financial responsibility for the residual assistance required by all employable unemployed persons not provided for adequately by unemployment insurance or extended benefits. It proceeds to set out ways and means for doing just that.
I cannot see how the federal government can escape responsibility when, by its own admission, by its own statistics, it is proved that there is still a large percentage, almost one-half of the labour force in Canada, which is not insured or insurable under the act. There are several other comments in this pamphlet which are worthy of consideration, but once again I find time getting away from me. I should like to say this. The matter of responsibility for unemployed employables, and those who have exhausted benefits, or for one reason or another are unable to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits, is of very grave concern to everyone in this country. The mayors and reeves association made their own particular contribution to the consideration of

this problem. I hold in my hand press reports which quote various mayors and reeves and their comments on what is to them a very grievous problem.
It is true that social service and welfare workers across the country have also made representations to the government. The real estate taxpayers of the municipalities know full well who is going to pay the shot for increased welfare costs in times of serious unemployment. We could very well ask ourselves just how bad it must be before the federal government will take the matter into consideration. If, as has been claimed on several occasions, the provinces should enter into the matter, then let us get together with the provinces and find out wherein lies the solution to this problem. Let us take the load off the backs of the home owners in Canada who are otherwise forced to carry the entire load of unemployment relief for these people who should be covered by the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to come to the most important problem which we have to face today, and that is this matter of serious unemployment into which we have fallen this year, and from which it looks as though we will not easily recover. If the employment situation is a cause of concern in the month of June at the time when the difficulties of seasonal employment would, we are told, have been overcome, what can we expect for next autumn and winter? Has the government an answer to that question? If so, this house and the worried people of this nation should hear about it. Has the minister taken any steps to inaugurate a program of training for unemployed persons in parts of Canada other than at Marysville? Has the program undertaken there been as successful as the minister had hoped that it would be?
I notice that as late as about three weeks ago the publicity director for the textile workers union reported that the Minister of Labour told a recent textile delegation to Ottawa that he is considering initiating a scheme of vocational training for unemployed textile workers. I would like to hear about that and to know just what is being done.
On May 13 in a news release from the minister's own department reference was made to ways and means of extending training for unemployed persons, a matter which the minister apparently had urged upon the delegates to the Canadian vocational training advisory council. But, whatever the picture is at the present time, we would like to know just what is being done.
The minister referred to an amount in the estimates for moving jobless persons from

one part of the country to another. But how many of these people can be moved? I would venture to say that only those who are single and have no domestic responsibilities can really be moved to another part of the country, because it is an almost impossible task to uproot a man and his family from one municipality to another even if it is only a matter of a few miles away. These are matters which we have to consider.
It is all very well to say quite blithely, "We will move some of the jobless from one district and put them down in another district." But if the minister tries to put such a scheme in operation he will find it is an entirely different matter.
There have been a number of reports issued, so many in fact that it is almost impossible to keep track of them, in which there have been assertions by various members of the government and by some of the leaders in industry that the present labour situation is largely due to seasonal fluctuation. But I contend, Mr. Chairman, that this is a totally false viewpoint and I should like to spend a few minutes on this matter of seasonal unemployment.
Personally I am sick and tired of the phrase. I think it has been overworked. I think it is becoming an excuse for anything and everything regardless of whether seasonal or not.
The other day the monthly report from the minister's department was issued and it stated that the spring pick-up is now in full swing. But I contend that any pick-up, spring pick-up or otherwise, which leaves over 358,000 people out of work is not swinging very freely and, in fact, despite that pick-up, 7 per cent of our labour force remains idle. In view of that, does the minister think that 7 per cent of the labour force is a negligible amount, particularly in the month of May, which is the month in which these figures were issued?
Every month since the first of the year little squibs have appeared in the newspapers carrying optimistic headings, but the figures are dreadful. For example, one reads, "Unemployment rise is halted on the first day of June." Yet the figures show that in the city of Hamilton there were 10,220 people seeking work and the week before there had been 10,178. In other words, there were 42 more people seeking work on a day on which the "unemployment rise was halted". Another one reads "fewer males seeking jobs than a week ago." But it fails to show that there were a lot more women seeking work than the week before. Here is another, "Number seeking work declines," and there again the
Supply-Labour
figures show that the number of males seeking work had declined by about 100 and the number of women seeking work had increased by 200. Yet another, "Jobless figures show increase", and that is the only pessimistic headline among all of these. But then it seeks to alibi the matter of increase in unemployment as of June 12 by starting out in this fashion: "The temporary closing down of the Ford plant at Oakville made a considerable difference." Well, of course, that is what causes unemployment, namely, a shutdown or lay-off. But why alibi that? Why not say the jobless figures show an increase? It might be said, "Oh, yes, but this is only because the plant has had a lay-off or a shutdown." But that is what causes unemployment, and it is still unemployment no matter what the reason for it may be. It does not help anyone to say, "Well, this is only a temporary condition and you will all be back at work in a month or so." If there is no pay envelope coming in it is still tough to take for all these workmen and their families.
Even in the trade papers issued by the banks the story is much the same and we find an apology for the current conditions, though it is a rather watered-down apology, for it says, referring to the increase in number of unemployed: An increase of 36,000 relative to mid-March is below the seasonal increase reported in 1953.
All the way through these various press reports there have been apologies or half apologies for conditions, but in every case it says, "Well, true enough, conditions are bad but 'not as bad as they might be." Or, "Everything is going along fine, true enough at a somewhat slower pace than last year."
But even after saying that employment increased seasonally but at a slower pace, the report from the minister's department states that the unemployment level was about twice as high as for the same period a year earlier. In other words, it is increasing but not fast enough, and it is still twice as bad as it was a year ago. So the picture goes on all the way down the line, and while the minister has had a committee working on the problem of seasonal unemployment the number of industries which claim to suffer from seasonal unemployment have increased. Perhaps what the minister should do is to throw out the committee. Perhaps seasonal unemployment might not then be so bad if the committee did not function. Possibly it should be the other way around, and perhaps the committee in its deliberations has found more industries are affected by seasonal unemployment than the minister has been

Supply-Labour
aware of previously. But whatever the case is, it is still true that the number of industries which are now deemed to be suffering from seasonal unemployment is greater than it was. Yet at the same time the work of this committee was supposed to be to find ways and means of relieving that situation.
In the April issue of the Labour Gazette I find a complete report of this committee. I read the thing through. It makes some recommendations. This report came down on February 17. I wonder what the minister's department has done to implement any of the provisions of that report? Four months have elapsed and in those four months we have gone through some fairly rugged times; and it looks to me as though we shall go through more of them.' I should like to know what the minister proposes to do with regard to the recommendations of that committee. Will the recommendations be left as were the recommendations of other committees which I cited in connection with the responsibility for unemployed employables, or will the department really get down to work and try to do something about them?
After all, Mr. Chairman, the outlook is far from bright. It is only about a month ago that the minister at a meeting in Montreal was bragging that we had passed the unemployment peak for this year. I use the word "bragging" advisedly because I do not blame him for that. I am sure that any little break in the clouds must have looked particularly bright to him. But an article which appeared in the Belleville Intelligencer points out that the effect of unemployment is cumulative, and it goes on to say this:
Many of those who were unemployed during the past winter exhausted their benefits. Getting jobs this spring, they will easily qualify for more benefits next winter, should they again become unemployed-but the periods for which they will be entitled to draw these benefits are likely to be shorter. If seasonal unemployment were to continue, even the man who, through years of steady employment, had built up a right to receive benefits for the maximum period of one year would eventually find his "savings" had dwindled away.
It then goes on to say this:
That is why, just because the employment situation improves with the coming of spring, we cannot afford to be complacent about the factors which left men without work during the winter.
Unemployment insurance, like a savings account, is a great friend in need, but it is no adequate substitute for steady employment.
Mr. Chairman, the time which is at my disposal has expired but I should just like to say a few more words. No nation is greater than its people, and no economy is stronger than the degree of employment it provides. What makes prosperity? Jobs make prosperity. The labour income of this

country has been cited as being 62-3 per cent of the total personal income. What happens to our economy when more and more people are unemployed? What happens to us when pay envelopes are cut off from those workers? It is not the millions of dollars which are poured into oil fields or mining operations that make prosperity, lucrative though the returns from those operations may be. It is jobs for Canadian workers. They and they alone are the backbone of this economy.
When a government becomes so shortsighted that it seeks to tax commodities right out of a competitive position; when the members of that government blithely refuse to regard the danger signals; and when complacency permits unemployment to mount without any attempt being made to correct the situation, save where it happens to hit the constituency represented by a cabinet minister, then the danger to the economy is grave indeed. It is grave not alone because of what has already happened but because of the indifference of those who should be planning for the months ahead when, following a historical pattern of employment, we may expect less employment than in these summer months. If the government is misjudged-if it has been making plans-then let us know what those plans are. Let the minister tell the House of Commons what he intends to do and thus take the load of anxiety off the shoulders of all those people in this country who have been worrying themselves sick over the situation.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure to discuss the minister's estimates; there is a great deal of meat in them. I am going to be as brief and as realistic as I possibly can. I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Hamilton West and during the course of her remarks I was wondering about certain things. She made a good deal of valid criticism on many matters, but in the final analysis, when it comes to a matter of regulating the economy of this country to cure the problems that she complained of, I think she forgot that both she and the minister play on the same team.


Mr. Fulton:: Be careful.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is only the hon. member's conception of it.


Clarence Gillis: All right. Before I am through I hope I shall be able to convince the hon. member. I have been sitting here and looking at the minister, whom I have known for a long time. I am sure that the next four or five years in the field about which we are talking today are going to be some of the toughest years this country will ever have

gone through and that it is going to take a great deal of serious thinking and co-operation on the part of all of us if we are to avoid the greatest possible dislocation and discontent among our people.
I appreciate the fact that the minister is obliged to play according to the rules of the game. That is what I meant when I said that the hon. member for Hamilton West and the minister, when it comes to the mechanics of society, are playing on the same team. They both believe in a system of free enterprise. The minister is doing the best he can to make a very bad state of mechanics work. The old 1903 model Ford car cannot compete with the Cadillac of today. That is exactly the position that the system is in.


Daniel Roland Michener: A socialist Cadillac?


Clarence Gillis: The hon. member has not the slightest idea what he means when he says "socialism". I would suggest that some time during this debate he define socialism for us. He is just frightened of that word because the manufacturers association and the bankers association and those who are responsible for unemployment in this country have told him that there is something bad about socialism and he continues to throw that bogeyman around. Let him tell us something about it during this debate.


Daniel Roland Michener: I shall be very glad to do so. I believe what I say.


Clarence Gillis: All right. I should like to hear his definition. I have heard that crack made so often that I am getting fed up with it.
To return to this matter of unemployment, may I say this. Unemployment is merely the symptom of a disease in the body politic. That is all it is. Why have we unemployment in this country today? That is the first question. If you get a disease, you call in a doctor and put yourself in his hands for examination and diagnosis. Then when he tells you what is wrong with the body, he will generally recommend something to cure it. The reason we have unemployment today in Canada is international cutthroat competition. There is not anyone who can dispute that statement. Why has our textile industry gone practically out of business? Simply because they cannot compete with the textile industry in the United States and with textiles coming in from Britain. The basic philosophy of both the Liberal and Conservative parties is to maintain the status quo, the system of free enterprise, and the basis of that is competition. Textile workers are unemployed in Canada because international competition is preventing the selling of Canadian textiles
Supply-Labour
and the maintenance of the standards that have been built up. That is why textile workers are unemployed.
The same thing is true of the electrical appliance industry. That industry is making the same complaint. They are laying off men. They cannot compete with the products of other countries. It is competition again that is responsible for unemployment in that industry. The same thing is true of the automobile industry. There is competition between Ford, Chrysler, General Motors, the little English cars, and to some extent today cars coming in from Europe in the cheaper price field. Again it is competition.
We are only starting to get into this situation. We would have had it for a long time if it had not been for Korea. Prior to the outbreak of hostilities in Korea we were pretty much in the same position with respect to employment as we are today. But we diverted a lot of money to the manufacture of armaments, threw them away and still maintained full employment and prosperity. We have got to examine that question if we are going to get any sanity in our economic set-up.
I do not expect the Minister of Labour to cure unemployment as long as the country has to function in the way it is functioning today. Drastic changes will have to be made not only in Canada but elsewhere because today the problem is world-wide. In my judgment the final answer to unemployment in the world rests with the United Nations. We set up the United Nations Organization in the first place to maintain peace and negotiate international difficulties in the only way that befits this day and age, that of sensible people sitting around a table and working out their problems in a sensible way. But in addition to giving it the responsibility of policing the peace of the world we set up other organizations in conjunction with the United Nations that were designed to iron out the kinks in other fields. We set up the world bank to deal with the question of international finance and the world food organization that was going to distribute the surplus foods of the world to people without food.
In the final analysis that is where the answer to this whole problem will be found, and it will not be found by fighting among ourselves either in Canada or in the United States. All of the mechanics are there but they are not permitted to work because of this other idea of competition. We have had two or three hundred years of competition. We have had two wars and a partial war with depressions between wars. Surely it is time that we smartened up and began to realize

Supply-Labour
that the mechanics that have pretty well destroyed us over the last two or three generations cannot work. Some serious thinking has to be done about the problem, and we must realize that about 75 per cent of the people of the world are starving to death.
The answer to unemployment in Canada and the United States lies in international trade, and unless we can free the channels of trade and get our goods moving to places where they are needed we are not going to cure unemployment. Do not forget that countries are going to have to give up some of their sovereignty if they are going to take part in a world government. They are going to have to try to do something for the world and not stick to the old outmoded machinery just because it was good for their grandfathers. The difficulty in the world today is to get people to let go of anything that they think belongs to them. You do not have to leave this chamber to see that. When you suggest changing the hours and cutting speeches from forty minutes to thirty minutes everybody gets on their high horse and says that ten minutes belongs to them and they are going to hang on to it.
It is a difficult thing to get individuals, sections of a nation or a nation to let go of things that they consider are their right, but before an answer is found to the problem of distribution throughout the world some concessions will have to be made. It is a question of distribution. Unemployment is a misnomer. We have got an abundance, and every time we have an abundance we get in trouble. We have learned how to build atomic bombs and all that kind of thing but we have never learned how to distribute food. Getting that food into somebody else's hands is a terribly difficult problem.
I have no intention of delivering a lecture on socialism. I hope my friend will give us one when he gets a chance to talk. I want to make certain suggestions as to things we can do that might relieve the spots where there is trouble. I leave the thought with the Minister of Labour that at this time in 1954 unemployment is 90 per cent worse than at the same time in 1953. That is not good, but as I said before you cannot solve the problem alone. You have got to get co-operation. You have got to get the surpluses of the country moving. No matter whether we sell them or give them away, we have got to get them moving. Otherwise we will have more unemployment.
But there is something that can be done. The minister will remember that he has had some correspondence on the question of the

relationship of section 108 of the Unemployment Insurance Act and subsection 1(f) of section 31 of the same act. I sound like a lawyer, but this is what I mean. In July, 1953, about 1,600 men were laid off at colliery IB of the Dominion Coal Company. At the time they were laid off they were paid their vacation pay covering two weeks coming to them in 1953 and a week coming to them in 1954. That was in July, 1953. The unemployment insurance commission, applying subsection 1(f) of section 31, decided that they were not entitled to unemployment insurance because they had received that vacation pay.
In my opinion a section in the act that permits a ruling of that kind is wrong. These men paid their unemployment insurance dues in order to protect them during a period of unemployment. When these 1,600 men were laid off en bloc they were unemployed. They were not on vacation. They paid for that insurance in order to get certain benefits as laid down by the act if they were unemployed, and they were unemployed. The three weeks' pay they received was received as the result of the trade union agreement between the employer and the employees. It was a gratuity which they were paid for services rendered. I want to leave this thought with the minister.
When an industry shuts down for vacation purposes it is not compulsory to go on vacation. If it had been the case of an ordinary vacation and these men had wanted to remain at their employment they would have got their vacation pay and wages for the period that they worked. In my judgment that should influence the people who made the decision in that case to either change that regulation so that the situation can be treated as straight unemployment or the regulation as it stands should be interpreted to mean that these men were unemployed, which they were. They were laid off. Let me deal with how section 108 comes into the picture. These men went back to work a month or two ago, although some are not back yet. If their employment had been continuous, in August of this year, they would have been getting their ordinary two weeks' vacation. There is no vacation coming to them, because they have not been working a year.
These mines will close down at that time for the two-week vacation period, because that is part of the agreement between the men and the company. These men will find themselves laid off for two weeks, and they will not be able to draw any unemployment insurance because they will not have worked

a sufficient time to make the necessary number of contributions that would entitle them to draw unemployment insurance. They were laid off, and they will be laid off again for vacation purposes, and they will be penalized again so far as unemployment insurance is concerned.
There are about 1,600 men affected, and in my judgment the unemployment insurance commission owes that group of men three weeks' unemployment insurance. I would suggest that the minister and some of his officials take a look at the section of the act I have mentioned and at least determine the status of those men when they start their vacation period. They will not have any vacation pay. If they were not entitled to it when they were laid off first, then they should certainly be entitled to it when they are idle in August for vacation purposes and have not any vacation pay coming to them. They should not lose it at both ends; they should get the protection for which they paid. The minister and his department can do something about that, and I hope they will.
The second matter to which I should like to draw his attention is also a matter about which he can do something. At Moncton, New Brunswick, there is an agency known as the Drake-Merritt employment agency which selects personnel in Canada for contracts that are in the hands of the United States government in Labrador and Newfoundland. This Drake-Merritt agency has recruiters, people who go around and pick up men for these jobs. They are not taking their men through the national employment office. I want to stress again that the employers of this country who are looking for employees ignore, in so far as they can, the national employment offices. The big employers in this country did not want the national employment offices. They accepted them partially during the war when there was a shortage of labour, but I know that so far as the steel company is concerned and the coal company, they do not put their requirements through any national employment office. They pick up their own personnel through their own agency.
Now, this Drake-Merritt agency in Moncton, under some arrangement with the Newfoundland government, must take all the unskilled labour they can get from Newfoundland. The skilled labour can be picked up anywhere. I am making this complaint to the minister on behalf of the national employment office in Sydney. There are mechanics, machine tool workers and skilled tradesmen of all kinds registered at this office, and to my knowledge that office has been trying to get the recruiters at Moncton
Supply-Labour
to take some of that skilled labour. They have not been successful so far in getting any co-operation from the recruiters who operate from this agency. I would suggest to the minister that this is a United States agency and it should at least work through the employment offices rather than pick up their personnel wherever they see fit. I would suggest the minister might communicate with this agency from Ottawa, and do something to have this condition rectified.
There is another thing about which the minister can do something. A complaint was made in this house on one or two occasions that there was a possibility that immigrants coming into this country were being used by employers for the purpose of reducing wages. The evidence I heard here in the house was not conclusive proof that that might be taking place. I have accurate information, however, that there was a lumber firm at North River Bridge in Nova Scotia, known as the Mariana timber company, which tried to secure 200 immigrants from Montreal to work in the lumber camp established in that area. This shows that there is a labour supply available in Montreal through immigration circles if the regulations can be circumvented by an employer who wants to pay less than the going wage.
I want to tell the minister again that it was due to the vigilance of one of his offices that the employer did not obtain the personnel through immigration circles in Montreal. I am not saying that the immigration people in Montreal would have co-operated, but the evidence is that there is a source there to which employers can apply for surplus immigrants who are in that area if they can find a way of short-circuiting the regulations. The fact that this employer asked for 200 immigrants to work at wages that would be much below those prevailing in the area proves that there are employers in this country who will make use of immigrants for that purpose unless the labour department is on its toes and makes it compulsory to route all immigrants for employment purposes through the proper channels. If a surplus labour force is built up in this way in some centres, then employers who are interested in the economy of this country can obtain labour at bargain prices. The area into which these labourers would have been moved could be called a depressed area, so there are labourers available in the area. This employer would have brought in 200 more men to dump into the area because he wanted to make a few more cents on the cutting of lumber.
I mention this now to the minister because one of his offices was smart enough to put a sprag in that kind of thing. However, the
664C

Supply-Labour
next area in which that type of thing occurs, the office might not be so vigilant. I feel there should be some definite understanding between the department of immigration and the Department of Labour that immigrants brought into this country cannot be used for that purpose.
I know, Mr. Chairman, that everyone wants to get home, just as I do. I am going to finish by saying this in connection with the matter of vocational training. I have told the minister privately, and I have told him publicly, about the great need all over this country for vocational training, with particular emphasis on the island of Cape Breton. That island is one of the biggest industrial sections east of Montreal, where a third of Canada's basic steel is turned out, as well as about half its coal. And employment conditions are bad. I do not think I need stress to the minister the need for a vocational training school in that area, because he is fully aware of it. But the angle I do want to stress is this, that the reason there is no vocational school in the area is that apparently the provincial government has not been able to raise money to match the grants of the federal government, under the agreements applying to the provinces.
At some time the department is going to have to sit down with the provinces and try to work out some kind of agreement that will enable some vocational training to be carried on in all the provinces across Canada. It is not possible today to get equality in all these fields, because of the differences in provincial income. We have gone into that matter on many occasions. I am sure if the government in Nova Scotia would co-operate with the federal government, something could be done. I know this, that the federal government has leaned over backwards, but the province has just shrugged it off with the statement that it cannot match the grants.
If there is a dominion-provincial conference -and indications are that there may be-this matter should be on the agenda, with a view to getting some equality across the country in the matter of vocational training.
That is all I have to say at the moment. There are some thought-provoking items in the minister's estimates, and no doubt very soon we will be chucking some short questions in his direction.


Mr. Hansell:: Mr. Chairman, this group believes it should avail itself of this opportunity to say something on the first item in the estimates of the Department of Labour. Before going into the particular theme I had planned, however, I should like to make one or two observations concerning the speeches of hon. members who have preceded me in the debate.

I am not so much concerned about the little bit of by-play which may have gone on between the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the hon. member for Hamilton West, when the former indicated that the latter was playing on the same team as the minister. I do not know whether or not they are on the same team. I cannot quite reconcile myself to the belief that the Liberal party in Canada is in every particular a free enterprise party. However, this may all be a matter of interpretation.
If anyone were to ask me which side of the game I am playing on I would say that I am not going to be on either side, just so long as the rules continue as they are now. I do not think the game is to be played between the free enterprise side and the socialist side. Surely that is not the problem. As I see it, the problem is not one as to who plays the game, or the plays they make, on whatever side they may be. The problem is that the rules of the game are wrong. No matter how it is played, under the present rules no side will win, and the whole country will lose.
I believe that sometimes we need to redefine the purpose of industry and of government. It appears to me, if I may judge from speeches made in the house, that hon. members appear to think that the purpose of industry is to provide jobs. I do not think that is correct. It is not my belief that industry exists primarily to create jobs. I believe a coal mine exists to produce coal, that an automobile industry is there to produce automobiles, and that an oil well is drilled to produce oil. The purpose of industry is to produce those things which the people of the country enjoy.
Then we hear this attitude: Well, now, the government is supposed to manage industry so that industry can provide jobs. In other words, it is said that indirectly the government exists for the purpose of giving jobs. I do not think that is right, either-that it is the purpose of government to give jobs. If it is, then we might as well have the extreme socialist state and say: Now you are in power; just take over and put everybody to work. If that is what the people want, it can be done-as it is done in certain parts of the world.
The fact of the matter is that industry exists for the purpose of producing the things the nation requires to enjoy a high standard of living. And when industry has done its job-and in this instance it has-the problem that is basic is this: How are we going to distribute among the people the things industry has produced so that the people can have them?

A moment ago I said that at times we must redefine our terms. We say that people need jobs, that they have got to have jobs, that they want jobs. It is all very well to say that; but when the statement is completely analysed we realize that it is not jobs people want. The fact is this, Mr. Chairman, that if it is jobs they want, then all their lives they work as hard as they can to acquire enough income so that they do not need to have jobs.
What people must have is income; and when we think in terms of income another factor enters the economic picture. I said a moment ago the purpose of industry was to produce goods. When industry has done its job of producing goods we should be able to sit back and say: Now we have surely accomplished a great thing in this country; now we can sit back and enjoy ourselves. But that is not the way it works out, at all. When industry has done its job and has produced an abundance of everything we just sit back and, instead of taking out our pipes and smoking them, with the thought that we can take it easy, everyone becomes worried lest they are going to starve in the midst of this abundance that industry has been able to supply.
Even the hon. member for Cape Breton South said that we have an abundance, and that the problem is one of distribution. We have been telling parliament and the country that very thing for the last 18 years. Of course it is a problem of distribution. Let me ask, how can that problem of distribution be met? By putting everybody to work and producing more? The hon. member for Cape Breton South did not answer that. I know a little play went on between him and one af the hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party in respect to defining socialism. The hon. member asked him to define it. I am not so particularly anxious whether be does it or not, but may I tell you what [ should like. I should like some of these socialists to define socialism for us. I should iike to know just exactly how, if there were a socialist government in this country, they svould distribute the abundance by giving everyone what is known as full employment. [ should like to know that. I should like to bear them say how it could be done; I should like them to give us a picture of how ;hey would administer that matter from the rery beginning to the ultimate end. Trace it ill the way through. Say: We would first do ;his; second, we would do this, until we would eventually arrive at this stage. I should ike them to tell us how they would handle hat thing step by step. I should like to enow whether it is worth while plunging
Supply-Labour
this country into a state of extreme socialism. As far as I can diagnose what is happening in the world today-I may be wrong; they can correct me if 1 am wrong-I do not believe that there has been what our C.C.F. friends would term a socialist government in the world that has solved the unemployment problem. The only governments that have actually solved the unemployment problem have been the extreme socialist states, those that are behind the iron curtain, or the national socialists of Germany previous to the war. Those are the only governments I know of that have been able to do it. What I say is, it is not a matter necessarily of solving the unemployment problem. It should not be looked upon as being a problem; it should be looked upon as being an accomplishment that we have been able to reach such a vast stage of production with the least amount of work. It should be an accomplishment to be able to take the sweat and the toil from the backs of our workers. It should be an accomplishment, if we can produce an abundance with five hours' work a day instead of eight hours' a day or a forty-hour week. That should be an accomplishment, but instead it is a problem.
The problem of course is income. We in this group claim that the present functioning of the economic arrangement, such as we have, does not return enough money out of the process of production to buy all the goods produced; therefore incomes must be supplemented. We have been proclaiming that for many years, and that is the thesis upon which we work.
These are some preliminary observations I wanted to make, complementary to the speeches that have already been made; but I rose particularly to present another angle that is not usually referred to in the course of a debate on labour. It may be casually mentioned at times, but I should like to present this for the minister's consideration. I know his department realizes the situation and I am sure they have not been idle in doing what they can in at least trying to diagnose the problem; whether they have the remedy for it or not is another thing.
I should like to put up a plea for the older worker. That is a problem in the present-day functioning of industry in respect to labour. How often do we hear of a man of forty or forty-five or fifty coming home and saying: "Well, I do not know; but I guess I am getting too old". They do not want to employ the older man any more even though he is not particularly old as

Supply-Labour
far as the numerical age is concerned. It is common talk that they do not want to employ older men any more. This is a young man's age. Well, it may be a young man's age to a large extent. I do not wish to discourage the young man at all; it is a young man's age very largely. We live in an age of speed. Our best pilots and aeronautical engineers and so forth are very largely young men. They like adventure; they are able to do it. When a man gets to be thirty-five or so he cannot fly with the same precision as he used to. That is the claim, and there may be something in it. I am not saying it is not very largely a young man's age. But, after all, if you take all the older brains out of our modern civilization I do not think there will be very much left to run it. However, there appears to be that idea abroad. It is largely a mental condition that even management in industry has adopted. They believe that the younger man can do more than the older man. They fear that there are certain obstacles in the way of the full use of our older workers. I think it is largely developed by a mental prejudice rather than anything else.
That mental prejudice can be broken down into three thoughts that I believe will hardly bear investigation. The first one is that the older worker is not readily adaptable to learning new techniques in a rapidly developing age. The second is that absenteeism is a problem and that absenteeism is found largely among older people because accidents are more frequent or perhaps sickness is more frequent. That idea could be exploded. The third is that age brings a sort of slowdown and lessens production. I believe that all these three ideas can be exploded when they are looked into and analysed.
As I said, I do not believe these prejudices are well-founded. The danger of these prejudices remaining in the minds of management is that they prejudge the situation rather than investigate it seriously.
I should like to put on the record some thoughts. One authority has said that a man of sixty may be as young, as vigorous and vital as the average man of forty. I want to quote from a reference to the ageing process by Dr. Edward J. Sheglitz, a leading American geriatrician, who says:
The changes which come are not all decline. 1 think there is a general opinion that it is all downhill. Speed of reaction does diminish; but endurance increases in certain capacities.
[Mr. Hansell.l
It is not without significance that the records for all the sprints are held by youngsters but the marathon records are held by men 38 to 45 and have been for many years. Endurance of a certain type, for the long, slow grind, the continuous type of labour operation, increases. As speed declines, skill declines, judgment increases. The mental changes are not all decline either. There is some depreciation in the ability to learn but it is extraordinarily less than the average person assumes.
Now, Mr. Chairman, here is another quotation from Dr. Nathan W. Shock, chief of the cardiovascular diseases and gerontology section of the United States public health service:
It should be pointed out that no differences in efficiency in the performance of moderate work are observed between the ages of 17 and 71 years. This finding is of considerable importance since most work of an industrial nature falls within the classification of "moderate work".
Now, Mr. Chairman, in taking the matter of the adaptability of age to new techniques I think experience has to a large extent given the lie to that old saying "You cannot teach an old dog new tricks". As somebody said, "You can teach old dogs new tricks if the old dog wants to learn and if the teacher is smarter than the dog."
The psychological research department of Columbia University, which dealt with the mental ability of several hundred test cases of older workers, found that the intellectual power to learn does not change between the ages of 20 and beyond 70, and we are told that in this same investigation by Columbia University which dealt with the efforts of a class of 300 to learn the Russian language, there was no significant difference between the ages with respect to their ability to learn.
Now, let us deal for a moment with the accident frequency and the absenteeism rate as age increases. I do not think I need labour the point by argumentation but I do wish to put on the record a table which was devised by the bureau of labour statistics, a branch of the United States government. This analysis was published three or four years ago and perhaps, Mr. Chairman, in order to save time I might have the consent of the committee to put this table on the record. It covers only about a dozen items and it would save time, and figures are laborious in any event.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Has the hon. member permission to place this table on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ernest George Hansell: The table is as follows:
Age Group	Absenteeism per 100 work days	Non- disabling injuries per million work hoursAll age groups 	
3 4	980Under 20 years 	1,23020-24 years 	
4-9	1,50025-29 years 	
4-3	1,56030-34 years 	
3-6	1,42035-39 years 	
3-4	1,24040-44 years 	
3-5	1,05045-49 years 	
3-4	99050-54 years 	
3-3	74055-59 years 	
2-8	63060-64 years 	
2-9	56065-69 years 	
3-3	43070-74 years 	
3-2	320I do not think	I need say any	more, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the older workers except to suggest to the government that they might perhaps do something along the lines I have suggested. How they are going to do it is their own business, and perhaps they are already doing something along that line, but perhaps management requires to be reeducated in this matter. I do not know what procedure the government has of making suggestions to management throughout the country but I do believe they could embark on a study of this thing and present it to management throughout the country and say, "We want you to do all you can to encourage and employ older workers." After all, even though they may say, "Well, we think we are getting more out of our younger workers," the fact is that in 25 or 30 years' time the younger worker becomes the older worker.
It will certainly work to the advantage of management to recognize the abilities of the older worker. For one thing he has experience behind him, steadiness and reliability, and surely when it comes to a question of craftsmanship age is a contributing factor in the quality of such craftsmanship. You cannot learn to be a real craftsman within a few months. I know we are living in a modern age and it is surprising what can be done. I am not a craftsman, but it is surprising what I can do around my home with my little power tools, my circular saw, wood turner, and a few other things, but I do not claim to be a real craftsman. As a matter of fact, and I think the minister is well aware of this, we are not turning out the type of craftsman in Canada that they are turning out in some of the older countries. That is a well-known fact and you only have to look over your shoulder to see it.
Some of the immigrants who come from the older countries of Europe such as the Scandinavian countries. Germany, France, and
Supply-Labour
others, have spent years apprenticing themselves to certain arts within the realm of labour. Even painters spend years apprenticing themselves to their craft. No one would think there was much of a job in slap dabbing a brush over a barn. But I had an experience not so long ago when one of these immigrants came to a neighbour of mine who wanted a paint job done and the immigrant said he would do it in so many hours. He said, "It will take me longer to do it than my competitor but I will guarantee that it will last longer and be a better job." My neighbour thought the matter over. He could have had the job done a little cheaper by another man who was not such an experienced painter, but he decided to pay a little more for the services of the skilled man, and when that job was completed my neighbour said to me, "Well, I did not make any mistake in having that man do the job." However, Mr. Chairman, I simply mention that in passing as an illustration.
Men can become real craftsman only by many long years of applying their hands, minds and tools to the task. I think there should be plenty of places in our industry for our older workers. My plea this afternoon is for the older worker, and when the minister comes to reply I would appreciate it if he would give the committee some idea of what the government is doing to encourage industry to keep the older worker in employment.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Mr. Chairman, I have some questions on the various items but I also have a few general remarks to make, and they can probably be made at this stage. Before I go into the question of unemployment I want to call to the minister's attention one particular case. A month ago I placed on the order paper a number of questions having regard to the relationship of a company known as the R. F. Welch company with the department of immigration and the Department of Transport. Only a couple of days ago I received some correspondence from the general chairman of the brotherhood of maintenance of way employees of the Canadian National Railways with reference to a matter which comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour. The general chairman says this:
As general chairman of the brotherhood of maintenance of way employees on western lines of the Canadian National Railways, I am very much interested in the outcome of questions raised by you...in respect to the R. F. Welch company.
We have attempted to contact the upper brackets in C.N.R. officialdom in an effort to get release from a condition which has given us great concern for years . . .
In November, 1951,-

Supply-Labour
And I think this is the point that the minister may be interested in and may be able to do something about:
-the labour relations board certified our brotherhood as the bargaining agent for all maintenance of way employees including extra gang labourers. The C.N. has been evading the certification by transferring certain of these men over to R. F. Welch for payroll purposes in spite of the fact that the work performed is in all respects identical with that performed by other extra gangs under complete supervision of the C.N.R.
Other trade unions have called to my attention the fact that this particular company, which appears to be working very closely with both the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Department of Transport, has been running foul of and evading trade union practices for some time. I just wanted to call that matter to the minister's attention as a separate item.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Will my hon. friend repeat the name of the company?
Mr. Nose worthy: The name is the R. F. Welch company.
I listened with a great deal of attention to everything the minister had to say with regard to the retraining of the unemployed. Like the minister himself, I am keenly interested in any kind of training or education. I believe-as I am sure does the minister-that any man or woman acquires a greater capacity for becoming a better citizen by reason of the fact that he or she acquires training or education in any field. The heartbreaking thing about the present situation is that it is our skilled workers in Canada today who are unemployed. My experience is that, while the unskilled jobs are being taken to a large extent by new Canadians, our own skilled and trained Canadian workers can find no jobs.
I just recall one particular instance as an example of many. It is that of a man about whom I have been writing to the minister, a man who was trained in a skill four years in the services; he drew skilled pay and was trained for that particular vocation. He had five or six years' employment with a specialized branch of the minister's own department. He took six months' specialized training at a well recognized technical institute at the department's expense. Yet he has been three or four months looking for a job and is unable to get any assistance from the minister's employment officers. That is the situation in which we find ourselves today.
While I am all for retraining-as much of it as we can get-I do not think that

retraining alone is going to meet our problem. As long as the government considers that its only responsibility with regard to employment is to create an atmosphere that will be conducive to full employment instead of taking some practical measures to provide employment, we are going to have this problem before us.
There is a great deal of truth in what the hon. member for Cape Breton South said with regard to the capitalist system or the system now better known as the free enterprise system and which the government supports. I challenge the minister or any supporter of the free enterprise system to point out any prolonged period in human history during which that system has been able to maintain full employment during peacetime. We were saved from unemployment in the thirties by the war. We were saved from mounting unemployment again by Korea. Unless we can get some little war started somewhere to replace Korea, we are going to be faced with a situation of increasing unemployment.
I want to deal with something a little bit more specific because I know that, as indicated, it is beyond the minister's power to do anything about changing the system. The best he can hope for, in order to maintain employment, is that the international tension with regard to communism does not ease to the extent where we can lop about $1 billion off our defence budget. The day we cut $1 billion from the defence budget, on that day the minister's headaches will increase as will the unemployment. That is a part of the system.
There is another matter that is a bit of a worry to the unemployed. I know that we have the unemployed with us now and it looks as though we are going to have them with us in increasing numbers when the fall comes again. One thing that is causing a great deal of dissatisfaction among some of those unemployed is that, because of stringent rules with regard to unemployment insurance, many of them are unable to draw the full amount of unemployment insurance which they have built up over the years. Generally they have not been able to get the requisite number of days in the specific years to entitle them to withdraw from that fund all the credits that they have built up. Now, an unemployed man who cannot get a job, who cannot get any help from the government's employment offices, who knows that over the years he has built up a backlog of unemployment insurance and who finds that he cannot draw more than a part of that because he cannot fulfil certain rigid conditions, is not in a very happy frame of mind

about it. I would suggest to the minister that some steps be taken to see if it is not possible to make provision that an unemployed man for whom a job cannot be found and who has unemployment insurance built up to his credit may be able to withdraw at least the full amount of that even though he is not able to comply with the regulations requiring a definite number of days in certain years. I think it would do something to soften the disappointment and disillusionment of some of the unemployed regarding unemployment insurance.
There is one other result of mounting unemployment that I want to bring to the minister's attention. With that, I will leave the rest of my questions for the individual items. That matter is the burden which is already falling upon local municipalities with respect to the support of employable unemployed. We are back now where we were in the 1930's when those who needed municipal relief were passed from the municipality to the provincial government, from the provincial government to the federal and back again and were given the merry-go-round treatment. Today the provincial governments say that provision for these unemployed employables is a federal matter, and generally speaking they are refusing to do anything about it.
A municipality just cannot stand by and see citizens of the municipality starve or families go without food. Consequently local taxpayers are being called upon to bear that burden which certainly should be borne by one or both of the major governments. I have two resolutions here. As a matter of fact they are copies of resolutions that were sent to the minister, and I have no doubt he is familiar with them. They were sent by the municipal council of the township of York which forms the major part of the riding of York South. They both have to do with the question of unemployment relief. The first calls upon the federal and provincial governments to get together with representatives of local governments to see if this problem cannot be ironed out before the situation becomes more desperate than it is at the present time. The resolution reads as follows:
. . . that the provincial and federal governments be requested to arrange for the immediate holding of a further federal and provincial conference at which representatives of local governments will be permitted to be present for the consideration of a broad adjustment in the tax basis between the federal and provincial governments and local municipalities and for the purpose of finding some immediate means of relieving municipal governments from demands for increased unemployment relief, which the municipal taxpayers are unable to bear . . .
Supply-Labour
The other resolution I wish to put on the record is similar and reads as follows:
That whereas the number of employable persons who are unemployed is increasing in number in this and other municipalities, and in most cases such persons have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits and are accordingly forced to appeal to the municipal relief department for assistance in providing food, clothing and shelter;
And whereas the government of the province of Ontario has taken the position that relief for unemployed employables is the responsibility of the dominion government and not of the provincial government;
And whereas the welfare departments of this and other municipalities are unable to assume the responsibility of financing the cost of relief to such unemployed employables which should be the actual responsibility of the federal and provincial governments as recommended in the interim report of the Ontario provincial-municipal relations committee;
And whereas up to date no action has been taken by the federal and provincial governments to meet the present situation and the possibility of more serious unemployment conditions arising;
Therefore be it resolved that the government of the Dominion of Canada be strongly urged to provide directly or through the municipalities a suitable formula to meet such situations as they arise, in order that the municipalities may be better able to cope with the problem without unduly and improperly burdening their ratepayers . . .
These are the only two matters I am going to raise on the general discussion: the question of unexhausted unemployment insurance which the unemployed are unable to draw because of the department's regulations; and the question of who is going to feed, clothe and house the unemployed employables, a matter which is becoming more serious every day to industrial municipalities. If the minister will make some comment on these matters we will appreciate it.


Mr. Starr:: Mr. Chairman, I rise with some apprehension to speak on the estimates of the labour department inasmuch as approximately a week ago a small but determined delegation met with the Minister of Labour and officials of his department and the unemployment insurance commission. May I express to the Minister of Labour and the heads of his department on behalf of the members of the delegation their thanks for and appreciation of the wonderful reception they were given by the minister and his officials, their attentiveness, and the time they spent in listening to the problem that they presented at that time. However, they did not go away with any assurance except that the minister promised, and has followed up his promise, that close contact would be maintained with the Oshawa unemployment insurance commission so that if the unemployment situation there becomes any more serious than it is at the present time some

Supply-Labour
action will be taken by the department in order to meet the situation. This was appreciated.
Nevertheless no definite policy was expressed by the government for the purpose of alleviating unemployment. When I listened some few months ago to the six-day debate on unemployment that took place in the house it struck me that the government was rather uninterested, and at that time seasonal unemployment was given as the reason or excuse for the situation. I am amazed that the government did not take any action at that time to show that they were willing to look for some solution in order to forestall any further increase in unemployment in Canada. I do not wish, Mr. Chairman, to discuss unemployment generally as it affects all of Canada. My prime interest is in the area that I represent, and particularly the area under the jurisdiction of the unemployment insurance commission office located in Oshawa.
In April of this year there were 3,443 unemployed registered in that office, and a month later in May there were 3,961. A year ago at the same time there were 1,519, so from this it can be seen that the increase is close to 160 per cent as compared with a year ago. As of April 15 of this year some 670 unemployed were removed from the list for supplementary benefits. What has happened to those people seems to be a mystery, because they seem to have disappeared. Thank heavens, not too many of them have gone on the relief rolls of the city of Oshawa, but that is no guarantee that they might not do so before too long.
I am saying these things, and repeating what has been presented to the minister by this delegation, simply for the record because the matter is serious enough that it should be emphasized over and over again in order to impress the government with the situation as it is now. During these discussions the question arises as to who is responsible for unemployment. In certain quarters there seems to be some doubt. The responsible labour organizations of this country have stated that unemployment is the problem of the federal government, and with that I concur. However, the government seems to feel that it is a sort of combined provincial and federal responsibility, and that the provincial governments should take the initial step in bringing to the attention of the federal government the seriousness of the problem in a particular province or a particular area in that province.
Neither the municipal nor the provincial governments, Mr. Chairman, can exert control over the causes of unemployment,

which are, of course, economic. Only the federal government is in a position to exert control over these economic and financial policies. Canada has always depended, and will probably continue to depend for many years to come, upon foreign trade to maintain a level of economic activity that will guarantee a high employment scale. Only the federal government is in a position to influence even slightly our position in this respect. Only the federal government can regulate national financial and tariff policies or exert any control over other factors in Canada's economic picture that have a bearing on unemployment.
I maintain, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that the responsibility for measures to offset or relieve unemployment must be laid mainly at the door of the federal administration. Unemployment, because of the complexity of the whole economic structure in the modern world, is a federal and not a local responsibility. It should be recognized as such. It is the federal, and not the provincial or municipal administrations that shape national policy, which is the main factor in determining employment or unemployment.
I should like now to take up the matter of unemployment insurance. Since its inception in 1940, unemployment insurance has been a great help to the working people in Canada. It is quite true that in the early stages of unemployment insurance, the rules and benefits had to be more or less rigid in order to build up the fund sufficiently to maintain its solvency. Since that time, although there have been some inroads into the fund, jobless insurance has stood up very well. We find that on March 31, 1954, the unemployment insurance fund stood at $881,274,000, compared with $851,585,000 for the same day in 1953. This represents a gain of nearly $30 million during that period.
There have been certain amendments made to this act since it was first introduced that have benefited many of the people affected by the act. First of all, there was an increase in the benefits from a maximum of $21 for a person with a dependent to $24. There was also an amendment which allowed a person who was in receipt of benefits from the unemployment insurance fund, and who during that period of time became ill, to continue drawing unemployment insurance benefits. Then, there was a reduction by three in the number of waiting days, and that was also a step in the right direction. Previously the waiting period had been eight days, which meant that there were nine noncompensable days at the beginning of the benefit period, since the first day in any period of unemployment is non-compensatory.

The reduction of the waiting period from eight days to five days meant that the initial non-compensable period was reduced from nine days to six.
Now, these amendments were very welcome additions to the act. The minister told the unemployment delegation which appeared before him a week ago, and myself, that the unemployment insurance commission was reviewing the benefit structure of the act. I am sure he is unable to divulge information in that respect because the review is probably still in progress at this time. May I make some observations and perhaps some recommendations which may be considered in connection with that review of the Unemployment Insurance Act. There have been various submissions made by labour organizations that have appeared before the government this year to the effect that a higher bracket of benefits should be instituted because there are people who are earning over $48 a week. These labour bodies also recommended that the present maximum should be increased from $24 to $40. I believe it could be left to the minister and those associated with him in the review of the act whether it is done in that way or whether it is done on a percentage basis.
I feel, however, that some substantial increase should be made because of the fact that in certain areas in Canada employees are earning wages that enable them to build up commitments in connection with their family life. Certainly the maximum of $24 at the present time is barely sufficient to pay for the board of a family consisting of a man, his wife, and possibly three or four children! Definitely it does not permit the head of the family to carry out the commitments of insurance or the commitments of a mortgage, as well as the few luxuries that we fee] Canadians are proud to possess and should have at their disposal.
To my mind it should be increased on a percentage basis possibly to the extent of two-thirds, in a manner somewhat similar to the way in which the Ontario compensation board establishes its rates when a person meets with an accident in a plant.
Consideration should also be given to a longer minimum period of benefit for which a claimant may qualify. It is considered that the maximum period of approximately a year should be sufficient for the normal occurrence of unemployment. But there is some concern for the worker who is eligible for only the minimum period of six weeks, as he may be facing a period of unemployment of longer duration.
I feel that the waiting period should be eliminated altogether. At the present time it
Supply-Labour
is six days. A person who is laid off one day should, in my opinion, become eligible immediately to draw his benefits as of the following day. As it is at the present time, a person who has been laid off must register at the unemployment insurance office, and the waiting period commences from the day of registration. Let us consider the case of a person laid off one day and who, through some misfortune, is unable to register at the unemployment insurance office on the following day. It may be that he is called out of town on a matter of urgency, and may be away for a week. Upon his return he registers, but can draw insurance only from the date of registration. Because of the misfortune that has befallen someone in his family he has not had time to register, and is forced to lose the time he was away. I repeat that in my view a person should be eligible for unemployment insurance from the day following his lay-off or termination of employment.
Regarding the supplementary benefits, the period of time is set aside from October to March. From the experience of a few years it is felt in all circles who are interested in this matter that this should be extended from October to June, inclusive. I would bring to the attention of the minister the case of a married woman covered by the Unemployment Insurance Act. As an example we will consider the married woman who is employed in one municipality and who, through necessity, must move to another. She is not eligible for the benefits of unemployment insurance until she has worked 90 days in the new location, in order to establish her qualifications. I say this penalty of 90 days should not be imposed, and that such a person should be eligible for unemployment insurance as though she had not moved from the original locality.
Let us consider the case of a single girl who is employed and eligible for unemployment insurance. She gets married and leaves her employment. Under the present act she is unable to draw unemployment insurance unless she obtains employment and works at it for 90 days. I feel that this penalty should be eliminated.
Then there is the person who is employed and is laid off, and who under the present act is eligible for unemployment insurance. But if that person is fired from his job-and there may be various circumstances under which a person is fired, through no fault of his own-under the act he is penalized for a period of six weeks before he can make application for unemployment insurance.
I shall not take up further time of the committee, because within the next few days

Supply-Labour
we are most anxious to get as much done as possible. I did feel however that it would be proper for me to rise at this time and bring these matters, which I feel are important, to the attention of the minister. I would hope that he would give some heed to these recommendations, and that at least a portion of them might be included in the amendments to come before the house at the next session for purposes of review and implementation.


Daniel Roland Michener: Mr. Chairman, I doubt if the usual benign look on your face would continue at this time in the session were I to respond to the invitation extended to me by the honourable and amiable member from Cape Breton South. I am not disposed to quarrel with him when he describes as a model 1903 Ford the machine the government is attempting to operate, but I fail to recognize the brilliance of the 1954 Cadillac that was supposed to emerge from my hon. friend's criticism of the government.
However, I have risen today to remind the minister of a promise he made. And, incidentally, before I proceed further, I would be delighted to engage in offering a description of socialism at any time. And if the hon. member wants a definition now I could give him one. I must say, though, that it does not entirely suit him.


Clarence Gillis: Perhaps I could give four others to offset it.


Daniel Roland Michener: 
Harry Oliver White: Mr. Chairman, there are two or three items I wish to bring to the attention of the minister before this vote carries. On two different occasions when dealing with labour problems I have drawn to the minister's attention what I consider one of the primary problems not only of labour and management but of Canadians generally.
I think that Canadians are a bit worried about the recurrence of industrial strife. Probably this is a case of fools rushing in where angels fear to tread, but it does seem to me that some method must eventually be found to overcome this difficulty. In all other human relations courts are set up to deal with disputes between man and man. It would seem to me that if the proper, wise justices were selected some of this industrial strife would be done away with.
On other occasions I have suggested to the minister that an increasing number of firms throughout Canada and the United States have adopted the profit-sharing plan. I am not going to go into that again. The very fact that more and more firms are turning to that type of arrangement, under which labour in the factory is a partner in the firm, as it were, indicates its popularity. If the company has a successful year, labour also has a successful year. I am just going to take this opportunity to highlight, as it were, one of the most successful plans, namely, that of the Dofasco Company. I am going to read just a little from their report:
For the benefit of non-fund members, the plan is an agreement between the company, the fund members and the trustees under which each member saves 5 per cent of his salary or wage each year up to $5,000 (a total maximum saving of $150 per year) and the company on its part agrees to pay in not less than 10 per cent of its net earnings and not more than four times the fund members' saving. In practice, the share of profits has always exceeded the minimum and for the last two years has come close to the maximum. The plan is open to all full-time Dofasco employees who have been with the company continuously for three or more years and so far no one eligible has refused to join.
The fund has grown from a modest beginning in May of 1938, with about 750 members, to its present size with about 2,500 members and assets of $13 million.
That in itself points out some of the benefits, how production can be increased and how the cost of the product can be decreased to the consumer and at the same time the labourer in that particular industry benefit from his services.

I should now like to quote from a recent issue of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce magazine:
In the recent submission to the ministers of finance and national revenue by the executive council of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce prior to the last budget, the executive pointed out that "the present basis of taxing deferred profit sharing plans . . . subjects the employee to tax on the contributions made to the plan by the employer, and also on the earnings of the plan at the time such contributions are made or such earnings accrued, although the employee does not receive such moneys until some later date and in some instances may never receive them. The submission suggested that the beneficiaries, under a deferred profit sharing plan, be taxed when they receive the actual benefits.
That submission is a good one, and one that the minister might recommend to his colleagues as an important incentive to other firms in Canada to consider introducing this type of profit-sharing plan.
Other speakers have said something about the unemployment situation. The latest figures indicate that there are almost twice as many unemployed now as there were a year ago at this time. During the early part of this session considerable emphasis was laid on the fact that it was seasonal. I do not think you can answer the criticisms now by saying that it is seasonal. Other factors are involved. In my estimation one of the biggest factors is that inflation has helped to price Canadian products out of many world markets. There is also the fact that a large number of Canadian people are in receipt of less money. They have less money to spend, especially those who are on short time, and more especially farmers whose incomes have been greatly reduced, regardless of what the Minister of Agriculture may wish to say to the contrary.
Let me go back to the budget. It did not do anything to relieve the situation so far as labour is concerned. There was no reduction in taxation to relieve the low income groups to any great extent, and consequently their purchasing power, as I mentioned before, has not been augmented so far as the budget was concerned.
I should like to mention another matter. I realize it is not a federal matter in a sense. It has to do with the workmen's compensation acts, not only of the province of Ontario but of other provinces. My suggestion is that a three-man medical board should rule on questions of dispute as to whether a man is eligible for assistance under the workmen's compensation act or not. In some cases arbitrary rulings are made. An independent medical board might find differently and would give the labourer the benefit of the doubt, as it were, to improve relations between labour on the one hand and the 83276-420i
Supply-Labour
administration of the workmen's compensation on the other. If this independent board brought in a report it would be respected and it would improve relations. That is all I have to say.


Mr. Nesbitt:: I should like to make a few brief remarks on this first item. First of all, I should like to say I sympathize in every respect with the minister, because he has had a particularly difficult time this year owing to the world economic situation generally. It would be a particularly difficult situation for anyone in the minister's position.
There seems little doubt that unemployment has been on the increase this year over last year. I do not mean to reiterate what has already been said. A certain amount of it has been seasonal, but the facts would indicate that unemployment at this period of the year, as compared with the same period last year, is considerably greater. In this regard I refer to an item on the front page of the London Free Press of Wednesday, June 23, of this year. I quote as follows:
Informants said that at May 27 about 336,000 persons were registered for work with national employment service. This was down from 549,000 at April 15, the last figure made public in the government's monthly labour surveys.
However, it was still more than 60 per cent higher than the 202,000 in late May of 1953. At that time, though, Canada's labour force was smaller.
In this regard I would also like to quote very briefly from a press notice which appeared in the Sentinel Review of Woodstock, Ontario, which indicates certain figures relative to that part of Canada. It states:
In Ingersoll, however, the situation is not as encouraging since April figures showed 210 unemployed compared with 193 at the end of May.
In other words, the number decreased slightly over the period of a month.
Benefit payments were increased from $16,000 in May, 1953, to $32,000 in May 1954.
Generally speaking, and according to what we have heard and what has been indicated in press notices, it appears that unemployment is considerably greater at this time than it was at the same time last year.
I would like to make some remarks with respect to the textile industry. It is an industry which is of considerable importance to the people of my riding as there are a great many textile workers there. The textile industry as we have heard many times in this house this session is sometimes called a depressed industry. It has suffered severely during the last few years and there have been substantial lay-offs which apparently still continue. I would like to read a paragraph from a letter I received from one of the

Supply-Labour
prominent union leaders in the textile industry in the city of Woodstock, Mr. E. B. Tilford, who states:
Harvey Knit laid off 32 people on Friday the 4th of June and 12 more on Friday the 11th so they are not so good.
He then makes further reference to other matters which are not relevant to this discussion, but his letter indicates that the textile industry is still having its difficulties. Undoubtedly the whole answer in this regard lies in the policy the government will adopt with reference to this particular industry. We all know that during the war years we had to have a textile industry for war purposes and after the war the industry was encouraged to continue production because of the great shortage of consumer material. Consequently, the textile industry continued to do fairly well immediately after the war but eventually the heavy demand for clothing, fabrics and draperies and other products of the industry fell off and many of these textile units, sometimes referred to as marginal units, found it difficult to survive in our economy.
I fully realize that raising the tariffs in this matter is not an answer because it only raises the cost, but if we are going to have any kind of textile industry at all, which can successfully compete with similar industries in countries such as Japan and India where they have very low wage rates, we are going to have to keep some sort of tariff barriers to protect the workers in this industry. It must inevitably depend on what policy the government is going to adopt and how much of the textile industry they determine we are going to keep in operation.
I think all hon. members will agree that a certain proportion of the textile industry must be retained for national defence and other purposes which are uneconomic in themselves, and indeed it may very well be that at the present time some portions of the textile industry are marginal or uneconomic, though I do not think that as yet we have the proper figures in this regard. However, the government must decide to what extent various portions of the primary and secondary textile industry can be let go, so to speak, and since this matter concerns trade and commerce as well as labour I think that before any decision is reached by the government in this regard the matter should be thoroughly examined.
There are two suggestions I would like to make to the minister. The first is with respect to unemployment generally. It seems to me that during this last winter we had a particularly unpleasant picture in Canada with a large number of persons becoming

unemployed, and indeed in much larger number than we have had for many years. This, of course, was referred to as seasonal unemployment and undoubtedly it was to a large extent. However when large groups of people become unemployed it is fairly axiomatic that their purchasing power goes down and we then begin to start that long downward spiral of deflation which has the accumulative effect, like a snowball, and generally wrecks the economy.
I have heard this suggestion by a number of persons and I certainly hope the minister will look into it if he has not already done so. The suggestion is as follows: When unemployment in the country reaches a certain figure, which would have to be decided upon, and let us say for the purposes of example, 300,000 or 250,000, the amount of benefit paid for unemployment insurance be increased. The figure involved of course would have to be decided after careful study. However, this plan would have a much quicker effect in stopping this downward spiral than would the suggestion of instituting a program of public works. That plan would more quickly scotch and stop the downward spiral of so-called added deflation.
Since the geographic and climatic conditions of Canada make it almost inevitable that Canada suffer permanently from this problem of seasonal unemployment, my suggestion would be that, in order to stabilize the economy and eliminate so to speak the crest and trough of unemployment between the seasons, everyone in Canada contribute to a certain extent in overcoming this situation. Because of the climatic and seasonal conditions under which we live I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that these fluctuations in unemployment be moderated a little possibly by some form of extra taxation. I think we will all generally agree that the economy of our country would be much better if we did not have these seasonal dips in the unemployment situation, and if the purchasing power of those temporarily out of work on a seasonal basis could be kept up so that the economic effects all the way down the line would be considerably lessened.
With respect to the textile industry generally there is a brief suggestion I would like to make. If a large industry employing large numbers of persons such as the textile industry is to be dislocated as a matter of national policy on a permanent basis then it hardly seems fair that all those persons employed in that industry be thrown out of work at once. In other words, if the government takes the view that in our trading relations with other countries such as Japan we will have to buy something from them in return

for their buying our agricultural products- and that is the line of reasoning I have often heard expressed-and that in the national interest they should dislocate an industry such as the textile industry, which was encouraged and built up during the war in some cases on an artificial basis, then large numbers will be thrown out of work.
I think that will be unfair for two reasons. First of all it is very unfair to those people from a personal point of view so far as their families are concerned and because it will cause great hardship. From a broader economic point of view, it naturally tends to dislocate the economy of the country if a large number of people are thrown out of work all at once. I think there will be little argument about that statement.
If it is found necessary not to protect the textile industry or any other industry that might get into a similar situation by additional tariffs or something of that nature, and if it seems necessary to allow a portion or even a large part of this industry to go by the boards, so to speak, and to go out of business, then in the interests of the persons employed in the industry, I think something should be done for them. If an industry is allowed to go by the board, to coin a phrase, in the national interest I think everyone in the country should share a proportion of that burden and that it should not fall just on those who are employed in that particular industry.
It might mean some sort of small tax levy, but until these people who are out of a job because of national economic policy can find other employment I think that under these circumstances the benefits to these people should be raised. The situation is no fault of their own. It is a matter of national policy in a particular industry. I know that the minister will probably say, "In a broad sense, that might apply to any industry", and that the national policy might occasionally hit one industry from time to time. That is true. I would not make that suggestion in a general way. But when you get one industry that has been built up to a large size and is a large employer of persons, and when as a permanent policy some portion of that industry is going to be put out of commission, so to speak, in my opinion those persons who are out of a job because of this policy should be given, until they can be re-absorbed, a higher rate of unemployment benefit. I agree that-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Order. I think now possibly the hon. member can make himself heard.
Supply-Labour


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I should like also to suggest in this regard something to which I know the minister is himself sympathetic. When an industry is dislocated, as the textile industry is, quite possibly a scheme such as that which I have heard has been started in Marysville-which I believe is in the minister's constituency; it is a scheme of retraining people who have been in this industry

might be implemented. I think that is an excellent suggestion. But while these people are being retrained, I think they should draw these somewhat increased benefits I have suggested because it is a question of reallocating these particular persons from one job to another.
Also, as my colleague the hon. member for Hamilton West pointed out earlier today, this question of moving large groups of the population from one part of the country causes great expense and hardship. The textile industry, or the parts of it that are apparently marginal and are going out of business, are often located in communities in which there is only one industry. I suppose that is the situation in the towns in the Ottawa valley, one in the minister's constituency and many others. The textile industry often seems to be located in small villages and towns. If the people of these places are going to be permanently out of work, and even if they are paid some unemployment benefits or something along that line at a rate higher than that at which they are now paid, and even if they are retrained, the job of moving those people from one centre of population to another where they can get future employment is going to be an expensive one.
If people are forced to move because of this national policy, I feel that possibly some percentage of their expenses ought to be contributed to by the government which, of course, is the people of Canada. As I said before, if things of this nature are done for the benefit in the long run of the people of Canada, everybody should contribute his small share and we should not just make a certain percentage of the population suffer.
I know the minister will likely say that it is not the intention of the government to try to create ghost towns out of some of these textile towns that may have to go and that they hope that the people can be retrained and find new jobs in those communities. Nevertheless, there will be a large number of persons who, as a result of the present textile situation, will have to move in the long run; and, as I have said, I feel that those persons should have a part of their moving expenses contributed to.

Supply-Labour


Milton Fowler Gregg: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I should like to acknowledge the tolerant and helpful tone in which the speakers this afternoon have presented their views on the general item of my estimates. With very few exceptions, all of those who have spoken so far have mentioned one item. If the hon. member for Hamilton West will not consider me discourteous, I should like to deal with that item first. I may say that she also mentioned it. I refer to the responsibility, as it has been called, for the welfare of the unemployed employables. Much has been said about that matter.
However, I think there are several things that should be said again. One of them is this. The so-called offer or the agreement, as it has been called in some cases, of 1945 was never in reality crystallized into an agreement. I think all hon. members will agree with that statement. That being so, there have been many things that have happened since. One of those things has been the setting up of the federal-provincial tax arrangements. Those arrangements have been made in the light of the fact that there was no agreement on the offers and counteroffers that were put forward and were left in the air in 1945. I think that situation should be made clear because I am quite certain-as some hon. members have indicated this afternoon-that those representing some municipalities in this country have felt quite sincerely that there was a crystallization of responsibility at that time when, in reality, there was not.
That being true, a great many other things have happened since that time. It was on the basis that no responsibility had been assumed there by the federal government definitely for the unemployed employables-except for unemployment insurance which I will go into in a moment-that the federal taxpayers, through the federal government, assumed some responsibility for the costs of what we used to call the unemployed unemployables, namely, older people over 70. As a second step this year the unemployed unemployables came partly within the scope of the federal field through the bill brought in by my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
There is one other statement that should also be made. I think it will be agreed by all hon. members here that the federal government should not go out to the municipalities and make individual arrangements with those municipalities on these matters without the knowledge, or without the request or the concurrence of the province in which those municipalities exist. I think every one of our provinces has a minister of municipal affairs. Certainly this province has one, and
LMr. Nesbitt.]
my own province has one. I believe the minister of municipal affairs for this province represents a constituency not so far from here. As has been mentioned this afternoon, during the past winter when representatives of municipal governments and trade unions came here and interviewed members of the cabinet, the Minister of Labour and his officials and presented their briefs, it was found that practically all of them came from the province of Ontario. I can state this afternoon that as far as I know no representations were made during this past winter or spring by the province of Ontario to the federal government on behalf of those municipalities that have presented their case.
In his remarks the hon. member for St. Paul's kindly reminded me of a promise which I had made. Following what I have just said, I should like to tell him that I did not forget the promise. I will not say that the notes I made afterwards would answer his question fully, but nevertheless I should like to refer to it, and in so doing perhaps I might be considered as having referred to all the questions that have been put forward this afternoon on the subject of the responsibility of municipal, provincial and federal governments in respect of unemployment assistance.
My colleagues, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Finance and others, have said on earlier occasions in this session and others that since the passage of the Unemployment Insurance Act in 1940 the federal government has accepted the responsibility for developing and administering that act for the protection of the welfare of the fit workers of Canada. As part of that responsibility the coverage of the act has been gradually extended from time to time. The effort to extend the coverage is continuing, and at the present time an attempt is being made to bring in other groups. It was also said this afternoon that the financial cost involved when workers of Canada are unemployed should devolve upon the federal treasury. I contend that that is true at the present time because in addition to contributing $32 million during the calendar year 1953, or one-sixth of the total paid into the unemployment insurance fund, the federal government has assumed full responsibility for the administration of the unemployment insurance program and the national employment service at a cost of $25 million a year.
In other words, during the last fiscal year federal taxpayers paid a total of $57 million for the purpose of protecting the fit workers of Canada against hardship when they are unemployed. So far as I know, during recent

years the contribution of most of the provincial governments and municipalities toward assistance of the unemployed employables has been relatively light. In some cases provincial governments have decided to turn over this responsibility to the municipalities, and in those instances no provincial expenditures have been incurred during recent years.
In addition to unemployment insurance, the federal government has increased substantially assistance extended through other social security and related measures in the last ten years. I am not going to deal with them in detail this afternoon because members of the committee know what has been done through the federal treasury. When I spoke at the beginning of the unemployment debate in February I indicated then that no representations had been made by provincial governments that they were unable to cope with the situation in their provinces, and the same holds true today. We have received no such request, and I should like to repeat that we regard unemployment as a matter of concern to all levels of government. It is not the exclusive worry of any one level, and we feel it can only be dealt with satisfactorily by cooperative action by all concerned.
Several other matters were referred to by other members. One of them concerned the retraining of unemployed persons under an agreement known by the department as schedule M for the training of unemployed persons. The hon. member for Hamilton West rather implied that the only place the Minister of Labour had put that into effect was in his own province. I can tell her that it was put into effect quickly in my own province to help to relieve the difficulty in the textile industry because the provincial government was on the mark and was ready with a plan to propose to the Minister of Labour who was happy to put it into effect under schedule M, for which he already had received authority.
There again I can say to her, without wanting to be insistent, without wanting to be impertinent, that because of the large number of representations we have had from the province of Ontario this year we have suggested to the government of Ontario that we would be willing to co-operate under schedule M within the province, but up to this time they have not entered into an agreement.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Is it not so that there is an entirely different arrangement in the province of Ontario entered into by the Ontario industrial and educational council and the Canadian Manufacturers Association, and that a new ten-year agreement was drawn up this year?
Supply-Labour


Milton Fowler Gregg: Between the provincial government and the federal government?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes.


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, there has been no agreement drawn up under schedule M.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, but this does away with the necessity for operating under schedule M, does it not? It is a complicated agreement, and I understand it expired this year and that a new ten-year agreement was drawn up.


Milton Fowler Gregg: We have had no application from the government of Ontario for matching dollars for the training of fit unemployed workers. As I indicated in my opening remarks, the estimates envisage extending that field if the provinces are prepared to do so and if it is felt that assistance can be given in the provision of greater skills for the individual, thus assisting in helping to solve unemployment to that extent in the particular vicinity as well as adding to the sum total of skilled personnel in Canada.
I agree with everything the hon. member for Hamilton West said regarding apprenticeship training. The total number registered as of March 31 this year was 12,900, but that is not nearly enough. It is a field of training which is of the utmost importance, but I am sure that the hon. member will agree that it is again a field where the federal government cannot impose its will. We have a very capable, active and aggressive voluntary committee working on the matter, and I believe management and organized labour are coming to realize more and more the importance of apprenticeship training.
With all that has been said this afternoon regarding older workers, I agree. I should like to reassure the committee that not only in the Department of Labour but elsewhere we are doing everything we can to encourage the employment of older workers. The government itself through the civil service commission has set an example this year, I believe, in the retention of older workers for a longer period than formerly, and through the civil service commission has perhaps cast a slightly more friendly eye on applicants who are no longer young.
The hon. member for Macleod referred to the suggestion that is made that older workers are unable to learn new techniques. I can assure him that is a prejudice that has been proved to be wrong. As to absenteeism, the attendance to their work of older workers has proved to be much higher than that of younger workers. The charge has also been made that the use of older workers means a lessening of production, but that is not true.

Supply-Labour
In connection with this matter some of the members of the committee may have noted that the Canadian Manufacturers Association has conducted a very broad based survey during the last few months, the results of which were incorporated in a recent issue of their magazine. The subject of older workers and the matter of seasonal unemployment were brought forward at their convention, and are the top items on their agenda not only for study but for carrying on experiments within certain parts of Canada.
My hon. friend referred to the Government Employees Compensation Act. This act, as she said, is a co-ordinating act and the benefits arising out of it to federal employees come under the province in which the federal employee happens to be. The amendments to it were pretty well administrative and routine. There was some difference of opinion as to whether the amount accruing to a federal employee who, for instance, was injured in British Columbia when his place of employment was in Ottawa should receive payment through Ontario or British Columbia. I can tell her it is my intention to bring this forward as soon as these kinks are ironed out. I made a reference to the women's bureau in my opening remarks.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South said there were going to be tough years ahead. I hope they are not going to be as tough as he indicated. He also stated that the hon. member for Hamilton West and I were on the same team. For my part, I am quite satisfied with that.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The minister noticed that I disclaimed that.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I noticed my hon. friend did not brag about it.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South brought up two points, one of which was specifically related to Cape Breton and concerned a very important group of men. I am going to tell him here and now, without taking up the time of the committee, that following the end of this session, which I hope will be very soon, we will investigate that matter once more.


Clarence Gillis: I might say the section of the act to which I referred could apply in that way in any part of Canada in which similar circumstances arose.


Milton Fowler Gregg: As the hon. member knows, under the act we have not only the commission but umpires and other bodies, so we will have the appropriate people take a new look at the situation before the new holiday period rolls around. The same

remarks apply to his second point with regard to the Moncton office recruiting workers for the north. I believe the same remarks apply to the third point as well.
In so far as the hon. member's last point is concerned, I could not agree with him more. Perhaps I should not say so, but I feel that since the greater portion of Nova Scotia is now to be tied together at last by the Canso causeway I would hope before too long there might be a vocational school located there.
The hon. member for Macleod asked what the government was doing in connection with the older worker. If I may I am going to send him along a copy, not of a speech I made but of a report that was made to me on that subject. I am sure it will answer the questions he had in mind. We are really doing something worth while in that connection. The value that is being brought about lies in the fact that employers and trade unions are more and more recognizing the facts that the hon. member for Macleod brought forth, that is the problems arising out of the longer life expectancy today and people who have nothing to do getting fed up with life. Therein lies the hope for providing more useful employment for the older people and thus adding to the productivity of the country.
The hon. member for York South referred to the matter concerning the R. F. Welch company. I will look into that. I should like to refute completely the remark which my hon. friend made when he said that unless we get a little war we are going to have terrible times. I do not think my hon. friend really believed that. In spite of the sympathy that was passed on to the Minister of Labour this afternoon, I would rather see success at Geneva and a peaceful world established by some means or other than have whatever value there may be from the superficial employment that comes from expenditure of money to be blasted away in the air.
The hon. member for Ontario, as well as others, proposed some amendments to the act. It was suggested that there could be a rearrangement of the benefits that might be of value during another serious period. I can tell the committee that even though the session is nearly over and even though we are approaching summer, my department is taking a very serious and continuous look at this act in the light of experience gained during the past winter. I believe that we will all agree that this last winter is the first time anything approaching a severe test of the effectiveness of the Unemployment Insurance Act has occurred.

I shall admit at once that the total number of unemployed has been large. I can admit, too, that the government has been greatly concerned and I can assure the committee that steps are being taken to guard against hardships in the future, just as I hope the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act has softened the really heavy sting of hardship during the seasonal unemployment of this past winter.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Before the committee
takes recess, may I say that I would not want the minister to get the impression that I advocated another little war, nor would I want him to give the impression on the record that I did so. My statement was that wars have saved us from unemployment in the past and that unquestionably a little war would save us from unemployment now as long as the capitalist system remains in vogue.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I admit at once that I knew my hon. friend was not advocating war. I believe he knew that I did not understand him as saying that. I should like to say again, with regard to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Middlesex East, that that is a really constructive suggestion. He has made it before. This afternoon he said that everything possible should be done to encourage the profit sharing plan in industry as a method of working towards industrial peace. However, the federal government cannot impose such a plan.


George Alexander Drew: There is one subject with which I wish to deal in connection with this item, Mr. Chairman. It will take me less than five minutes. If there is not going to be further discussion, then perhaps we could deal with this item if that is satisfactory to the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Alexander Drew: I wish to deal with the statement made by the minister growing out of the remarks in regard to responsibility for unemployment in the municipalities. The minister in seeking to correct impressions that have been conveyed made statements that are directly contrary to the record.
He was referring to a statement that had been made about the problems of the municipalities. He in some measure brushed aside the seriousness of that situation. But I would point out that as recently as June 9 representatives of 900 municipalities meeting in Windsor were agreed that unemployment now is serious, and that the question of unemployment relief for the municipalities is 83276-421
Supply-Labour
critical in many cases. They urged that the government recognize this fact and that it do something about it.
The minister explained that the difficulty arose out of certain discussions in 1945. Without attempting to quote his exact words he said there were certain proposals put forward and that the proposals put forward and the conditions submitted were not agreed to, and that therefore the discussions ended. They did not end in 1945. Those discussions began on August 6, 1945, and they continued on different occasions until the adjournment on May 6, 1946. There was no refusal at any time, as the record shows, of the proposals put forward by the federal government nor was there on the other hand a refusal of the proposals put forward alternatively by the provincial governments.
If the record is examined-and there is a Hansard record-it will be seen that it was expected that the meeting was only adjourning and that a meeting would be called again at the instance of the federal government. The agreements that later emerged were not agreements resulting from negotiations arising from this discussion. They resulted from a statement by the minister of finance at that time, Mr. Ilsley, that the money arrangements would be made by the federal government. It was not a question of negotiation; it was a statement that this would be done. And certain provinces entered into an agreement on that basis.
The minister has said that there are substantial payments going back to the municipalities. That is true. But, Mr. Chairman, I mention this to put on record the fact that there is only one reason this conference did not continue and that was the failure of the dominion government to reconvene the conference which adjourned on May 6, 1946. It is difficult to imagine how much greater concentration of taxation is needed before the federal government will deal with the problem.
It now is getting the major proportion of all taxes in Canada. How much farther does it have to go before it can deal with this matter of employable unemployed or unemployable unemployed which today gives so much concern to the municipalities, as is indicated by the resolution passed at Windsor early this month?
I leave that subject now. Referring back to certain statements I have made before, if the minister thinks-and I hope he does- that it would be advisable to have some discussions as to the way in which this could be dealt with, and so as to meet the argu-

Supply-Labour
ments I have put forward in asking lor a conference between the federal and provincial governments, and to meet the conditions that the mayors and reeves from 900 municipalities in Ontario have placed on record, then I say the way to do it, the way to lay the foundation for the solution of this problem is to have a conference right away between the federal and provincial governments, not merely to discuss constitutional problems but to discuss this extremely important problem which today is particularly unfair in its application to municipalities right across Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
17S. To provide for expenses of the economics and research branch, $528,366.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question with respect to item 178, which has to do with the economics and research branch. As a matter of fact, a great many very useful statistics are available from this branch, but there is one set of figures that I believe is not available. I understand figures are kept showing the number of man-hours lost per year due to industrial disputes of one kind or another. But so far as I can ascertain, there are no figures showing the number of man-hours lost due to sickness or accident. I wonder if it is possible to have statistics kept on that point.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I agree with my hon. friend that they have not been available. But may I take that as a suggestion for consideration during the summer recess.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Are we not going to adjourn? It is ten minutes after six.


William Alfred Robinson: Is it the wish of the committee that we carry through the dinner hour, or that I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Harris:: I think hon. members opposite would like to have a short time to get ready for some further questioning of the minister. However I do not think there are any further questions on this item. Perhaps we could carry it, and then adjourn.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Perhaps we could adjourn until 7.15.


Walter Edward Harris: I do not think that is necessary. We could adjourn until seven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at seven o'clock.
180. 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, $468,714.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Item 180 has to do, amongst other things, with the conciliation of industrial disputes. Has the Minister of Labour any comments he would care to make regarding the dispute between the railway companies and the non-operating employees?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, the representatives of management and of the unions met last Thursday, and then adjourned and met again on Tuesday afternoon. Before the meeting adjourned on Tuesday afternoon I understand that they made an arrangement that they would not at that time make any public pronouncements as to the negotiations up to that point. They having done that, consequently I cannot make any comment regarding it. All that I can say is that the ending of the meeting on Tuesday afternoon was left open to reassemble on the invitation of either of the two parties.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I appreciate the position the minister takes in view of the meetings of last Thursday and this Tuesday between the two sides to the dispute. However, there are a few words that I should like to say. The first thing I want to say-perhaps it is unnecessary for me to say it in view of the situation but I shall say it anyway

is that I trust that the Minister of Labour will put his best brains and everything he has got into the effort to avoid this dispute resulting in a strike. I am sure it is the desire of everyone, including the employees, that there not be a strike.


Milton Fowler Gregg: And the employers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The only reason I neglected to say that was that could be taken for granted. But it so happens that the employees are voting on the question as to whether or not to back up their demands by going to the length of a strike, and it is possible that they may cast an affirmative vote on that matter. . That was my reason for referring to the employees, for even though they may vote for a strike they would rather not see one.
There can be no doubt that it would be disturbing to the economy of the country as a whole and disturbing to the people of Canada if there were another railway tie-up such as we had in 1950. I must say, however, that what disturbs me most about this

situation is that I do not feel there is sufficient understanding of the position of the men. I refer to the non-operating employees who have presented certain demands to their employers. "Demands" happens to be the word that is used, but in my view it is of the nature of things that, with technological progress and other improvements in industry and in our economy, the workers have a right to share in that progress and in those improvements. I cannot see the logic of those who would contend that there arrives a time when workers such as our railway employees should be satisfied with what they are getting and should ask for nothing more.


Walter Edward Harris: Nobody in this house has said that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, no one in this house has said that, but there are people in the country-


Walter Edward Harris: Would it not be better if you left that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: -who express that view. I should be very glad if the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would give us the benefit of his comments on this important matter. I say I feel that the workers in this instance have been most responsible in what they have requested. As everyone knows, they have not asked for any increase in their hourly rates of pay. They have asked for a series of what are known as fringe benefits. They have asked for an increase in the number of annual holidays with pay to be granted to the workers; they have asked for a certain number of statutory holidays throughout the year; they have asked for certain sick benefits and also for certain overtime rates of pay for Sunday work.
As hon. members will recognize, in all cases these are what are known as fringe benefits. We do not know what went on at the meetings in Montreal last Thursday or the earlier part of this week, but it is a matter of public record what happened as a result of the deliberations of the board over which Mr. Justice Kellock presided a while ago.
As hon. members are aware, in addition to Mr. Justice Kellock, there were two other members of the board, one representing the railway companies and the other representing the railway employees. Nevertheless that board did not produce what might be called a proper report. It was not possible apparently for any two of them to get together on a set of conclusions. What happened was that three reports were made. That is not without significance. To me this is the disturbing feature of this whole situation, that 83276-42IJ
Supply-Labour
the member of that board representing the railway companies and apparently speaking for them refused to give a single inch. His report was an uncompromising recommendation that nothing that the men were requesting be granted. On the other hand, the representative of the employees did make a report which represented a scaling down to some extent of the requests or the demands of the employees.
One does not know just what relationship exists in a situation like that, although I have been a member of such boards myself and I know a little about it. But one can assume that when the representatives of the employees suggested a settlement on the basis of a slight scaling down of those demands that that indicates a willingness on the part of the employees to enter into something of a compromise. That seems to be the situation as it stands at the moment. The companies are not prepared to move an inch, but the men are prepared to compromise.
It is because of that situation that there is a great deal of feeling about this issue amongst the employees affected, and I share their feeling. I have been in pretty close contact with these employees across the years and indeed there are a great many of them in my own constituency. I was home for a couple of days a week or so ago and I made contact with some of them while I was there, and I can say that the feeling about this situation is very high. The reason it is high is because of that uncompromising stand taken by the employers even in the face of the willingness of the employees to enter into some sort of compromise. One reason I say this in this House of Commons is because I hope that it may contribute to what I feel is necessary, namely, an understanding by the public of the position of the men. They do not want to suffer the loss of time and pay which will result from a strike, but they also feel, because of a situation such as that which now faces them, that they have no alternative but to back up their just and reasonable demands by the use of the only weapon that is in their hands.
When I say I hope the minister will give this matter his best attention I imagine it is already on the top of his priority list and that I do not need to say that to him. Indeed, with all the other matters that have been thrown into his lap this afternoon I do not see how he is going to have much of a holiday this summer. But I hope, if necessary, he will call in any of his colleagues who may be able to help him so that they may join with him in trying to solve this problem by

Supply-Labour
giving whatever publicity is necessary to the issues in the case, I urge him to do his level best to see to it that a strike is avoided if it possibly can be, but also to see to it that justice is done to these men.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there are those who will say, "Well, why should they not withdraw their demands; why should the company be asked to move in view of the financial position which they say is theirs at the present time?" Well, it is the same old story, Mr. Chairman, as I indicated a moment ago. The fact of the matter is that as time goes on we do make progress with regard to technological improvements, and the amount of wealth that can be produced with a certain amount of labour power keeps growing. The tendency is for labour always to have to put up a struggle to get its just share of that increased production of wealth in which our workers participate to such a great extent. I know there are arguments that will be put forth on the other side, but I must say that I feel very strongly for the position of the men. I think they are making very just and reasonable demands and I hope that a solution will be found that will make it unnecessary for them to go out on strike, but which at the same time will do justice to the men and will give them a larger share of the wealth they are producing, which they are asking for not in any increase in hourly rates of pay but in these other social benefits which in my view they thoroughly deserve.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with great interest to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had to say and with some of his remarks I concur. However, I must say, having taken part myself in labour negotiations, that I realize full well there is a time when it becomes a matter of saving face on both sides of the fence. The negotiator who can produce a formula by which the two factions can come together and from which each of them can be content with the report which they take back to their individual factions is going to be the person who saves the day.
But it looks very much as though we are headed for an impasse in this particular matter. I do not think so myself, I think we are probably remote from the time when we will reach that stage. But nevertheless I think that all of us should realize the weaknesses of human nature. After all, all of those people on both sides, whether on the side of management or labour, are human and they want to save face. They hate to give in to the other side and yet they realize over their better judgment that certain elements emerge that are probably unforeseen.
tMr. Knowles.]
I know, Mr. Chairman, that this is a slim house tonight. I know that we should be considering very seriously the implications of a problem which, if it is allowed to develop, might blow up in our faces and affect all of our people in the entire Dominion of Canada. I think those of us who are here should very seriously consider what our responsibility is in that regard, and so accordingly I urge the Minister of Labour to use his influence to see to it that a conciliatory attitude is adopted by both factions in this dispute.
I have a great deal of sympathy for those people who realize the time is not ripe for a demand for an increase in wages. They know that their only hope is to get some concession in the way of fringe benefits. An absolutely adamant stand on the side of the employer is going to achieve nothing. It is only going to stiffen the backs of those who have been instructed by their union membership to make demands which have come up perhaps through the ranks, or possibly have been suggested to the rank and file of employees as reasonable demands to be made upon the employing agency.
Whatever the situation may be it boils down to a matter of conciliation, a word which has become common in our everyday life. I urge the minister to use his best offices to stop this before it goes so far that neither side can give in and still save face. I would urge him to stop it now by means of conciliation before we are forced into a position where even members of this house will have to take a stand, as they did once before, for or against an arbitrary decision. I ask the minister to do that. I think that is what every member of the committee has in mind.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I give to the committee and to the hon. members who have spoken my complete promise that nothing will be left undone by my department or by the government to accomplish a mutually equitable solution to the problem.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
182. Administration of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, $9,200.
Daniel Roland Michener: There is one minor point I wish to raise under this item. There are votes for travelling expenses and postage but not for any personnel. The administration seems to be operating in a vacuum. I suppose the personnel who administer the act are in on the general staff of the department. Is that the answer?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes. The industrial relations personnel administer the act. This item is just for the special things arising out of the expenses of the board.


Daniel Roland Michener: May I ask the minister to give me a figure that I missed on the third item, namely, the annuities vote. What is the amount this year required to maintain the reserve under the Government Annuities Act? The last figure was for 1952-53, in the amount of $743,666. I would appreciate having the figure for the year last concluded.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The hon. member asked for what figure?


Daniel Roland Michener: The amount required to maintain the reserve under the Government Annuities Act.


Milton Fowler Gregg: From the statement for the year ended March 31, 1954, the transfer to maintain the reserve was $98,911.57.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the item carry?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If we have reverted to the annuities item, Mr. Chairman, may I ask what is meant by security premiums, the amount of which has increased? I agree that it is a small amount, but I am rather curious as to what is meant by the term "security premiums", found at page 233, item 22, which has increased from $4,000 to $4,500.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I understand that item is for bonding of our annuity agents.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
184. Labour Gazette, authorized by Labour Department Act, $136,043.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: This is something that we find not only in connection with the Labour Gazette but all the way through the pattern. Every item has an increase in postage. The reason I marked this one particularly was that there was no item at all for postage last year. This year there is $400. I notice under general administration there is an increase from $15,000 to $25,000. That is quite a sizeable amount. I do not want to raise this matter on every single item of the minister's estimates but I should be greatly interested to know why these postage amounts are so stupendous this year in comparison with last year.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I think it will be found in other departments. It is because of a ruling of the Post Office Department that my department, and the Labour Gazette in particular, have to pay for all registered mail and all special service mail. Formerly it went free.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It is a very interesting point because I remember raising this matter
Supply-Labour
myself on the post office estimates. I refer to the matter of having the various departments charge their postage to their expenses and credit the Post Office Department. But on looking through the estimates I notice that the other departments have not done so.


Walter Edward Harris: Oh, yes.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Oh, no. Maybe the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration has done so, but I went through the estimates today and I found a great many instances in which the amount was exactly the same as it had been in former years.


Walter Edward Harris: Let us take that matter up with those departments.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Either it is an over-all policy or it is not an over-all policy. As a matter of fact, I personally think that it would be a good thing if every department was charged for its postage and that amount was credited to the Post Office Department. I think it would give a clearer picture of postal revenue and expenses. But I notice that, all the way through the labour estimates, this matter of postage is quite an item, with increases in some places as I have just mentioned from $15,000 to $25,000 and in other cases increases of lesser amounts. But I notice other departments also in which there is no increase whatever. If that is the explanation, I wonder whether it is government policy or whether it is not government policy.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the item carry?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No. I should like to have an answer.


Walter Edward Harris: Since I perhaps started this argument, I might say this. I must apologize for doing so. I do not want to hold up the committee. I have not the time to go through the various estimates. I have just looked at the Department of Agriculture and I notice that it has been done there. I know my own department is now charging postage whereas it has not done so before. I daresay that if I have time I can unearth some figures that might satisfy my hon. friend. But it is the policy, as I understand it, that has been decided upon.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It may be, Mr. Chairman, that some of the departments had already inaugurated this service.


Walter Edward Harris: It may be so.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: However I open my book of estimates at random and I look at defence production and at page 154 I find they had $30,000 last year and that they have $30,000 this year. I turn over the pages and I see

Supply-Labour
national health and welfare; I find that under the heading of immigration medical services they had $2,600 last year and they have $2,600 this year. Everyone knows the volume of material that goes out from the Department of National Health and Welfare. I turn over quickly to the laboratory of hygiene of the Department of National Health and Welfare and I see an item of $100 for last year and $100 for this year. Then I turn to-


William Alfred Robinson: Perhaps the hon. member would come back to the Department of Labour, if she would.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I have only brought this matter in because the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has said that it is the policy of the government. Apparently it is not the policy of the government.


Walter Edward Harris: As I say, I cannot keep up with my hon. friend who is very quick-witted and has read from the pages she has looked at. I have looked at the Department of National Health and Welfare-she mentioned that department-and at page 327 there is an increase in the postal charges shown there.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: How much?


Walter Edward Harris: It is $1,000. As I say, I do not want to continue this argument because we are considering the estimates of the Department of Labour. If my hon. friend will take my word for it, I will go through the whole of the estimates before the evening is out and see if I cannot convince her that there have been increases.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: An increase of $1,000, from $6,500 to $7,500 is not a great deal of difference, is it?


Mr. McCann:: Mr. Chairman, last night when I was going through my appropriations for the Department of National Revenue, I myself was rather surprised that the postage for national revenue cost $725,000 a year. Of course, we are dealing with 4,500,000 people who make income tax returns. That is $125,000 in excess of the amount we paid last year. I enter into this discussion because of the fact that for the last eight or ten years I have presided, I would think, at 99 per cent of the meetings of treasury board. As a matter of good accounting we expect that each department should pay its postage account to the Post Office Department. Therefore I think the increase in postage expenditure in the labour department is quite justified.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not object to it at all. I think it is the adoption of a realistic attitude. The Minister of National Revenue

has cited one instance, but on page 361 I find there is an increase from $200 to $8,000 in the customs and excise division. Then I see that the inspection, investigation and audit services branch decided to leave their postage at exactly the same amount. So it goes down the line. Some departments have done it and some have not. It just brings us right back to the contention which I made on the post office estimates, that if the departments would pay their own postage we would not have needed an increase in postage rates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
186.	To provide for expenses of a women's bureau, $24,090.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the director of this bureau been appointed yet?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, Mr. Chairman. In my opening remarks this afternoon I made an apology, on behalf of the civil service commission, for taking such a long time to provide a woman for this post, but I have hopes that they will have a recommendation to make in the very near future. I would make one comment on what the hon. member for Hamilton West said. She criticized mildly the fact that we had not established the junior positions during the past year. We refrained from doing that deliberately. I have felt from the beginning of this plan that the whole form of a women's bureau in relation to my department and the unemployment insurance commission, where the greatest scope lies so far as the country generally is concerned, would depend upon the character and capacity of the woman chosen to head the branch, and that it would be unfair to her to build up something and hand it to her when we were starting on this work. I am hoping to have a more complete report when I have occasion to talk about this subject again.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I hope the minister will have something by the time we next come together.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
187.	To provide for payments to implement a program for the rehabilitation of disabled persons, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, and administrative expenses connected therewith, $197,513.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: I see that the amount voted last year was $195,000 and that the amount actually expended was $101,000. Yet the appropriation requested for this year is $197,000, very close to twice the amount actually expended last year. I should like the minister to tell us why they need twice the amount expended last year. Will he also tell us what program is anticipated which

necessitates an increase from $15,000 to $25,000 in the amount for radio, film and other publicity.


Milton Fowler Gregg: In response to the first question, the past year has been a period of organization, as I pointed out in my opening remarks. It has been a year of discussion on the part of the two officials, one from my department and one from the Department of National Health and Welfare. They have taken up this matter with all the provinces in the utmost detail for the purpose of working out a co-operative plan. As in so many things, the initiative has to be taken by the province and we assist financially. We assist financially in a special way here in that we assist the provinces in the provision of a provincial co-ordinator. Therefore the first year of organization is not an indication at all of the amount of money that we will need. I am sure we will need that amount of money during the coming year.
The other point has to do with the amount set out for publicity and information. In the early stages of getting into action on this plan we believe that a good deal of its success will depend upon co-operating with the provinces in making the plan known, in assisting in the placement of disabled persons after they have been medically rehabilitated and trained and in encouraging employers to employ a larger number of rehabilitated disabled people.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am sure no one objects to any amounts which are expended for this purpose, but it is a little confusing to find these things in two different departments and to try to bring them together and form a clear picture. That is the sole reason I asked the question.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am very glad my hon. friend mentioned that because I should like to take a moment to say that the reason why we in Canada have been so long in getting the plan under way is that it is a matter that comes within the scope of municipal, provincial and federal governments, a vast array of national organizations both specialized and miscellaneous, and a great array of provincial and municipal organizations and voluntary agencies which have been doing magnificent work in this field. But after three or four years of patient and loyal effort on the part of a great many people throughout the country we have worked out what I believe is a unified plan that is going to work well towards the objective we have in mind.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I cannot help but comment on that because it has been my very happy experience to work closely with some of the people who are doing this community
Supply-Labour
work. I am sure the minister will agree with me that it would be impossible to do this work if it were not for the voluntary services of people throughout this country from Halifax to Victoria in the rehabilitation of disabled persons, not only the rehabilitation of those of mature years but the training of young people too. I realize that the training of young people probably comes under the Department of National Health and Welfare, but they eventually come under the minister's department. I cannot speak too strongly of the great contribution which is made by people who have their own responsibilities but who give greatly of their time and effort in order to supplement whatever contributions are made by the various levels of government towards the rehabilitation of these people.


Mr. Macdonnell:: I would venture to make an appeal to the minister by reason of what has just been said by the hon. member for Hamilton West, and I think agreed to by him. I want to ask the minister if he will make a very special appeal to the Minister of National Health and Welfare emphasizing the great importance of the voluntary organization. I sought to do that on the minister's estimates but I am not at all sure I made a very good job of it and I would be very pleased if the Minister of Labour would assist.	-


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am sure it will not be needed but I will be very glad to do that. It is quite true that in this effort the voluntary agencies are in the front line and governments are there as allies, financially and otherwise, to help in the effective work which has been carried on.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I suggest that the minister might use that phrase "front line" to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I doubt if he has that conception at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Vocational training co-ordination-
189. Training payments to the provinces, $4,290,000.
Joseph William Noseworthy: Would the minister tell us which provinces, if any, failed to take advantage of the federal grant last year, and how much was involved.


Milton Fowler Gregg: There are, as my hon. friend knows, a number of agreements with the provinces. We have one, for instance, which my hon. friend mentioned this afternoon, under schedule M. We have one for youth training, one for apprenticeship training, and so on. Did my hon. friend have any particular type of training grant in mind? My hon. friend meant capital grants, was that it?

Supply-Labour


Joseph William Noseworthy: I asked lor training
grants, Mr. Chairman.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Well, I have, for instance,
apprenticeship training; did my hon. friend want that?


Joseph William Noseworthy: Has the minister not a recapitulation of the amounts available for each province and the amount of the total that was taken up by each province?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I can give my hon. friend the figures for the youth training, for the apprenticeship training and for the vocational training. Then, we have, of course, the armed services personnel training which is carried 100 per cent by the federal government. The figures for youth training are as follows: Newfoundland, allotment, $30,500; at the end of March, 1954, the actual was $8,000; Nova Scotia, allotment, $43,740; actual, $19,398.49; Prince Edward Island, allotment, $7,000; actual, $3,957; New Brunswick, allotment, $43,450; actual, $22,884; Quebec, allotment, $175,000; actual, $132,157; Ontario, allotment, $100,000; actual, $40,000; Manitoba, allotment, $17,500; actual, $8,278; Saskatchewan, allotment, $45,000; actual, $39,145; Alberta, allotment, $32,500; actual, $16,506; British Columbia, allotment, $52,000; actual, $44,825.


Clarence Gillis: I should like to say that the figures the minister has put on the record just now clearly indicate the reason we have not the vocational training that we should have. It is not the fault of the federal government.


James Joseph McCann: Hear, hear.


Clarence Gillis: The allotment for Nova Scotia was $43,000, and they took up only $19,000. The only province that did take up their quota fairly well was Saskatchewan. Ontario had an allotment of $100,000 and took up only $40,000. We ought to get some organization back in the provinces that is going to co-operate, and at least try to take advantage of the money that is available for carrying on this program.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is all very well, but as long as the federal government takes the major share of taxes of the country I do not know how they can expect the provinces to match them dollar for dollar.


Clarence Gillis: It is not very often I have to defend the federal government, but the shoe is on the other foot.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: You have been doing it all along, brother.


Clarence Gillis: The shoe is on the other foot.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is not on your team, so you should hardly call him "brother".


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The heck he is not; he has been defending the federal government ever since I came here this session.


Clarence Gillis: Any time I get up in this house, I know the difference between the labour estimates and the post office estimates, and any time I say something in this house I generally try to have all the facts and put them honestly. The "crack" the hon. member just made clearly indicates she is not very well acquainted with the facts, because according to those figures the provinces definitely are not co-operating with the federal government in taking advantage of the funds made available for vocational training.


James Joseph McCann: Those figures were for youth training.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I should make it clear-


Clarence Gillis: I understood they were for one schedule. We are not dealing with schedule M or with rehabilitation, we are dealing with the youth training program.


Milton Fowler Gregg: These figures were for one schedule only, the youth training program. There are others that refer to the apprenticeship training program, the vocational training program, the armed services personnel training, defence industries and so on. The main one, or the large one, is for federal assistance grants to vocational training schools.


Clarence Gillis: That is right, but if the minister went into the whole picture it would be much worse. I am talking about the schedule to which the minister referred, and I resent the observation by the hon. member for Hamilton West that I defend the government. I am merely trying to be honest about this thing. I am not concerned about making political propaganda out of the situation in the provinces which needs correcting. The only way to correct it is to understand where the trouble lies, and so far as I can see the trouble lies with the provinces.
The excuse that the government is taking most of the taxes is not a valid one, because most of the provinces that are under the dominion-provincial taxing agreements are better off financially than if they were not under them. I have taken a look at my own province, and I am interested in it. I want to get some vocational training in that province. If the fault is with the province, then that is where I am going to place the responsibility and that is not defending the federal government. It is trying to get something done in a field where the provinces are

not measuring up. It they cannot match the federal government dollar for dollar, then it is up to the provinces to say so. It is not good government to allow hundreds of boys and girls to come out of school, largely because of economic circumstances, when they are still untrained for anything and when there is this amount of money available to help train them. If any province is not able to take up the money that is available, then it is nearly time the government of that province was replaced by somebody else.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I notice, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Cape Breton South frequently defends the government on something that is of a federal nature only, like post offices, which he has introduced into this discussion, but nevertheless-


Clarence Gillis: You introduced it; you have been talking post office rates all night.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Oh, I have not.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The hon. member must have a peculiar echo in his brain, but in any event, Mr. Chairman, he does defend the government on everything that affects federal policies. When it comes to provincial policies, he defends the only one province that is governed by the party to which he gives loyalty.


Clarence Gillis: It is not any provincial policy at all.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I feel I should like to know a little more about this item. I want to read the item, and perhaps the minister would say a word of explanation. There is the sum of $513,000 for youth training and $931,500 for apprenticeship training. Would the minister explain exactly how that works? And then I find a further amount for vocational school assistance; one for foremanship and supervisory training, and then the following:
Training of persons to fit them for gainful employment or for defence industries including vocational training for the physically disabled.
And then there is a further sum of $100,000 for the training of persons to fit them for the armed forces. There must be a wide variety of objects and purposes. Would the minister give us the position with respect to those?


Milton Fowler Gregg: To take first the apprenticeship training, to which we have just referred in passing. That is carried out on a fifty-fifty basis between the provinces and the federal government. Does the hon. member want details as to figures?
Supply-Labour


James MacKerras Macdonnell: No, but would the
minister explain how this is done. I remember being in a plant and seeing some youths apprenticed there. Would they come under this scheme? Is this done in co-operation with industry?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It is done in co-operation with industry, and in some cases assists in bearing some of the cost. But whatever costs there may be in those provinces which industry does not bear, then they are shared equally between the provinces and the federal government. But every encouragement is given industry to do as much of this work as it possibly can, not only because of the cost but because we feel it is more effective if industry does it rather than by establishing apprenticeship schools.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It would seem to me that if industry would do it it would be more realistic and effective. But when industry does not do it, what is the relationship of those apprentices which are in industry? Are they like visitors who are in there, just looking on, or are they an integral part of the work going forward?


Joseph William Noseworthy: While we are on this point let me say that I hold no more brief for the Liberal government in Ottawa than I do for the Conservative government in Ontario. But I do suggest that school boards should be made cognizant of the amount of the grants made by the federal government. I know of school boards in Ontario where federal grants have been given through the provincial government, and the school boards have been given to understand that the entire grant was paid by the provincial government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Concerning this item which has to do with trade training, and the training of persons to fit them for the armed forces, as set out at page 238, I notice that the amount listed is $100,000. In the report of the Department of Labour at page 87 there is a table showing the federal allotment as $138,542. And then in the same table, breaking down the people enrolled under training and the like, it indicates that for those training for the army in New Brunswick there is a payment of $12,585.50, and the total days training is shown as 5,668.
Then if one follows it down you see the Quebec army plan, the Manitoba army plan and the Alberta army plan. You find there is a difference in the cost of a day's training in each one of those provinces. It varies from something over $2 in New Brunswick to more than $3 in Manitoba.

Supply-Labour
Then, at page 76 of the report of the Department of Labour it speaks of this trade training for the armed services, and says in the last paragraph:
During the year 62 instructors were hired by Canadian vocational training tor this purpose, the money being provided by the Department of National Defence.
The question I would ask based upon those figures is this: What is the nature of this training, and why is not the cost of it the same from province to province? In what way is the money allotted for this purpose expended? Is it expended for the payment of other instructors rather than those who are provided by the Department of National Defence, or is it for some other purpose?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I shall come back in a moment to the question asked by the hon. member for Greenwood. My hon. friend knows that this training is done by the provinces, through the federal government, where 100 per cent of the cost is paid, because it is being done on behalf of the armed forces. In the Department of Labour we are acting merely as a sort of honest broker between the Department of National Defence, the provinces and the schools.
The other question asked was as to the variation in costs, as to why it is much cheaper in New Brunswick than in Manitoba. Well, the obvious answer is that we are a poorer people than you are in Manitoba. But I think it is due to the fact that there are bound to be variations in the schools, and the number of students under training. Consequently this would govern the cost per head in training.
Then to answer the other question concerning apprenticeship training, I shall refer to my memorandum. This is a renewed apprenticeship training agreement. As I said a moment ago, this schedule was the basis of training under separate agreements between the federal government and the provincial governments. So that apprenticeship training is an agreement all by itself. The renewed apprenticeship training agreement is in operation in all provinces except Quebec and Prince Edward Island. The Northwest Territories have also entered into an agreement recently. The agreements which cover a ten-year period expire on March 31, 1964. The purpose of the apprenticeship agreement is to promote and develop training programs for indentured apprentices registered under various provincial laws and regulations, and to encourage the training of more skilled workers in all types of industrial employment where apprenticeship is applicable.

Subject to the amount voted annually by parliament the federal government shares equally with the provincial governments in the cost of organizing and operating special training classes, and maintaining adequate field supervision of provincially controlled apprenticeship programs. Apprentices registered March 31, 1954 totalled 12,902. The apprenticeship program of Quebec differs from that in the other provinces, as it is controlled by special committees operating in designated zones, and is financed by assessment.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: How many are there under agreement?


Milton Fowler Gregg: As at March 31, 1954 there were registered for training, all told, 12,902.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Under the apprenticeship scheme?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes, under the apprenticeship scheme.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And the amount appropriated for it is $900,000. Will the minister just tell us what the relationship is? We will say that there is an apprentice working in a factory; is that correct.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: How much does he
receive from public funds and how much from his employer?


Milton Fowler Gregg: When he is at school we pay an allowance, and the tuition fee at the school. When he is taking his training with private industry, then private industry absorbs all the cost.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
190. Payments to the provinces for capital expenditures for vocational schools, buildings and equipment, $300,000.
Joseph William Noseworthy: I am rather surprised that these items are so small for past capital expenditures. Can the minister tell us in what provinces that $400,000 was spent last year, and just what the conditions are on which those grants are made?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The reason the amount is so small is that we had cleared up prior to this year practically all the payments that were owing by the federal government on schools that had been constructed during the post-war period. The amount last year was to provide for commitments only in Newfoundland, Ontario and Manitoba.


Joseph William Noseworthy: What are the conditions under which this money is available?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The conditions are that the vocational school or the technical school must

be up to certain general standards that are satisfactory to the kind of training that our department feels should be done, and following that the cost is matched on a fifty-fifty basis with the provinces.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Will the minister give the provinces which have participated?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Newfoundland, Ontario and Manitoba.


Clarence Gillis: These are grants, of course, and every province will take them all up. There is no matching in this. The minister indicated that only Newfoundland, Ontario and Manitoba received anything by way of grant last year. Under what circumstances does the minister start negotiations for the establishment of a vocational school or high school? Am I right in assuming that the province must first decide to build a school in some section of the province, determine the cost and the federal government will then offer a grant in aid of a certain amount of money. Suppose you are putting up a school that costs $2 million. The grant made by the federal government is a small fraction of that, is it not?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Fifty per cent, if within the allotment.


Clarence Gillis: Fifty per cent of the total cost of the erection of the school. Once the school is in operation, its maintenance is in the hands of the municipality in the province? There is no grant by the federal government for maintenance?


Milton Fowler Gregg: We pay 50 per cent up to a maximum annually.


Clarence Gillis: After it is in operation, who maintains it? What I am interested in now is this. How do you get started on this application for a school? Does the provincial government make application to the federal government, or do they build a school and determine the cost and bill the federal government for it?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The normal way is for the provincial officials to discuss it with our officials at the planning stage. This will include the size, the cost, et cetera, and we pay 50 per cent of the cost within their allotment.


Clarence Gillis: What I am thinking of now is this: Newfoundland gets $300,000 of these estimates by way of capital assistance.


Milton Fowler Gregg: May I make an explanation, because I think it is important? We were working on a ten-year period from 1945 to 1955. This of course is another outgrowth of the war. The ten years are ending this
Supply-Labour
fiscal year. We shall now be going on, I hope, to another period in the future. During the ten-year period certain amounts were allotted federally to each province. The amounts were not all spent in one year. They may be spent as the schools proceed.
It might be of assistance if I just put on the record how much these allotments were in that ten-year period and how much was spent, because it would be unfair to say that because that small amount of money was paid to those three provinces this year that is all they received. It might give a distorted picture. I will give this in round figures: Newfoundland, allotment $219,000. No claim has yet been made in Newfoundland. I am going to give the whole thing.
Prince Edward Island, federal allotment $61,500 for buildings: paid, $61,500; allotment for equipment, $20,500; claims paid, $20,500.
Nova Scotia, allotment for buildings, $378,000; claims paid, $378,000; for equipment, allotment, $126,000; claims paid, $68,000.
New Brunswick, allotment for buildings, $324,750; paid, $324,750; for equipment, $108,000; paid, $108,000.
Quebec, allotment for buildings, $2,354,000; paid, $2,354,000; for equipment, $784,000 allotted; $784,000 paid.
Ontario, $2,272,000 allotted for buildings; paid, $2,273,000; for equipment, allotted $757,800; paid, $534,060.
Manitoba, allotted for buildings, $492,000; paid, $373,000; for equipment, $164,000; paid, $74,000.
Saskatchewan, allotted for buildings, $643,000; for equipment, $214,000; paid, $214,000.
Alberta, allotted for buildings, $525,000; paid, $525,000; allotted for equipment, $175,000; paid, $175,000.
British Columbia, allotted for buildings, $446,000; paid, $446,000; allotted for equipment and paid $148,000.
Northwest Territories, allotted, $12,700; it has not yet been paid.


Clarence Gillis: These were ten-year agreements? Does the minister renew these agreements this year?


Milton Fowler Gregg: They may be renewed after March 31, 1955.


Mr. Montgomery:: I thought I knew something about this, but between the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the answers given I am all mixed up, and I think I shall have to ask the minister a question or two. These are not grants, are they? Is this money not paid more or less under what we call arrears? Does the municipality or

Supply-Labour
the school board not decide on the buildings, with the approval of the department of education of the province, and then the building is erected? The federal government deals with the provinces after the building has been erected and has been approved by the department of education? In other words, there is no particular grant given to a province and they get it whether they use it or not? It is paid in arrears, is it not?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do not think I said that, Mr. Chairman.


Gage Workman Montgomery: No, it was the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The provinces knew what they could expect if they were able to provide the kind of buildings for the purpose, and then went ahead, consulting along the line. When the construction was ended, 50 per cent was paid by the provinces and 50 per cent by the federal government up to the amount of the allotment for each province. Some provinces have spent additional amounts over the allotments.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Is the minister in a position yet to indicate what is likely to be the nature of the next ten-year agreement? Will that be more or less left for the future?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, Mr. Chairman, I am not in a position at the present time to say that, as my hon. friend will understand.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services-
192. To provide for expenditures incurred in implementing recommendations of the national advisory council on manpower, and for the administrative costs of the council, $11,700.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Would the minister say what has happened on these terminable services. This item provides for expenditures incurred in implementing recommendations of the national advisory council on manpower, and for the administrative costs of the council. Last year the item was $66,780 and this year it is $11,700. According to the details there was one item last year covering office stationery and supplies amounting to $55,000, which is a sizeable amount, and this year it is reduced to $500. Would the minister say whether this means that the activities of this council have been, I might say, curtailed, though that is a very mild word. Has it been wiped out or what has happened to it?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, the council has been doing very good work. We have only had one meeting and I hope we will not have to have meetings of the full council more often than that. On some other occasion I would be glad to give a full report of the activities of

the council and indeed I explained them fully to the hon. member for Broadview last year. The reason the vote is so much smaller this year is that last year under the advice of the council a certain amount of material was stockpiled against the day when it might be needed in case of an emergency. This is a non-recurring item.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, do not get excited. The total expenditure last year was $4,231 and the amount appropriated last year was $66,780. That seems to be a magnificent piece of budgeting. This year, in spite of the fact that $4,231 were expended for last year, we have an estimate of $11,700. How does the minister explain that this particular item will cover almost three times the expenditure last year despite the curtailment of the activities of the council?


Milton Fowler Gregg: If my hon. friend will look at page 29 she will see that under item 192 for 1953-54 there was an estimate of $66,780, and for 1954-55, that is this year, the estimate is $11,700.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: But that is not a very good comparison because although they estimated to the extent of $66,780 last year they spent only $4,000 and now the estimate of expenditure amounts to $11,700, which is three times as much.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What about the $55,000?


Milton Fowler Gregg: In reply to the hon. member for Hamilton West I might say that this is due to the fact that we expect to have one more meeting of the council this year.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Will that one meeting cost $7,000?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would like to know what this council does. The minister has told us they have had a laudably small number of meetings. I think that is desirable. But I would like to know just what they do. The item reads, "implementing recommendations of the national advisory council." I think it would be reasonable for us to know what we are implementing.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not think my hon. friend would want me to go into a full report tonight. I did that on one or two other occasions. In 1950 there was an apparent need for an organization through which the employers, workers, farmers, women, and other groups could bring their views bearing on manpower problems to the attention of the minister and the Department of Labour, and this very excellent council was organized to carry out this work.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The minister has not
answered the basic question which I put in regard to the sharp cut in the appropriation for this department amounting to about one-sixth. The minister has just made a statement about the tremendous amount of work done by this council last year and yet they did it on $4,000. Does the minister say that $11,000 is going to produce three times the result? Or does he say that in view of the appropriation of $66,000 for last year this council is practically going out of existence?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I shall not admit the latter point at all. All I will say to my hon. friend is that this council is not in the same category as a branch or sub-branch of the department which has a stabilized expenditure that can be figured exactly. Certain plans are under way which vary from year to year.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The minister said a few minutes ago that it cost almost $7,000 to call a meeting of this council. But they spent only $4,000 last year and they are calling for $11,000 this year. They had an appropriation of $66,000 last year and 1 think the committee should have an explanation.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The normal expenditure for calling a meeting together is $1,114.


Gage Workman Montgomery: Is the personnel of this council more or less permanent?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Like the hon. member for Hamilton West I am a bit confused by these figures and I think we should get them straight. Let me read what these figures say. The item on page 29 asks for $11,700 for 1954-55 and indicates that this is a decrease of $55,000 from last year when the item was $66,780. So far so good. Now, on page 240 I confess I become confused because first of all we have a reiteration of the figures on page 29, namely the request for $11,700-and I still feel the hon. member for Hamilton West has not been answered very well on that point-and then there is the figure of $66,000 for last year. But following that we have another figure which does not seem to tie up with anything because it says "fiscal year, 1952-53, expenditure $106,099; fiscal year 1953-54: estimated total $4,231." I must admit I am completely confused.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do not think there is anything confusing about it. When we prepared the estimates last November we felt and still feel that there are certain projects during this fiscal year that the council could well undertake and carry through and it was known at that time that an amount in the estimates would be required to do it.
Supply-Labour


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am not at all satisfied with this. In the first instance the amount for office stationery and supplies has been reduced from $55,000 to $500. Everyone who ever ran an office knows that the measure of your activity is, to some extent, the amount of supplies and so on that you use in your office. But to cut the thing right down to 1 per cent is a ridiculous item. Then you turn around, on the other hand, and you have "allowances and expenses of council members and others" raised from $9,000 to $10,000. I think this committee is entitled to some explanation of this item. Travelling expenses have gone down from $1,500 to $1,000. Terminable allowances have been wiped out completely. Office stationery and supplies have been reduced, as I said, from $55,000 to $500. Yet the allowances and expenses of council members and others have gone up from $9,000 to $10,000. What is the answer?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, I hope that my hon. friend will not think that there is anything deep and devious here at all. I tried to explain the matter of the office expenditure. Office expenditure is the wrong word there. It was a special kind of paper that was required for a special kind of use to have ready in case of need. That happened only once and it will not happen this year. Consequently we did not put the amount in the estimates.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: You mean to say the
inventories on hand will last for how many years?


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the item carry?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The minister does not know.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
194. 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 with the supervision and welfare of persons already immigrated to Canada; administrative expenses connected therewith and to provide for expenditures under agreements with the provinces authorized by the governor in council, $878,258.
Mr. Herridge:: Will the minister please explain the procedure under this estimate which is to provide for expenses that may be incurred in the arranging for and the movement of workers from outside Canada to work on farms. From what country do they come? What citizens of which country get assistance under this vote? How is it applied?

Supply-Labour


Milton Fowler Gregg: Where firms require workers the Department of Labour, in co-operation with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, if it has not those workers available in Canada, co-operates to bring over groups of workers. They come from any country in which the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is operating.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Under this item there is a decrease of $115,574. In the supplementary estimates there is-wait a minute, maybe I have the wrong amount-no, in the supplementary estimates it is under unemployment insurance commission. It is to provide for the transfer of labour to and from-


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is a different item.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I know, but it is for the
same thing, is it not?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No. It is a different thing.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It is a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul, I would think, because it says in the one instance, in item 194:
To provide for expenses that may be incurred in the arranging for and the movement of workers from outside Canada-
In the other case it says:
To provide for the transfer of labour to and from places where employment is available-
And so on. It is still juggling with labour.


Milton Fowler Gregg: One has to do with workers coming into Canada and their getting work; the other has to do with moving workers from one part of Canada to another.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Just a minute. It is still a case of juggling workers around, is it not?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to have some information as to the number of people involved. The item reads:
To provide for expenses that may be incurred in the arranging for and the movement of workers from outside Canada

And so on. I think we should have quite a little bit of information as to just what is involved. We are trying to get through these estimates, Mr. Chairman, but we are not trying to pass everything in a rush, only to be asked questions afterwards which make us look like ninnies for not having asked them.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am glad to give all the information that is required.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister is very good about it, but there are certain signs of impatience in the committee which makes it a little bit difficult for us to continue.


Mr. Abbott:: Summer heat.
[Mr. Herridge.l


Milton Fowler Gregg: The technique of group movements was developed in 1946 when 2,876 Polish soldiers who had served with the British in General Anders' army were brought to Canada for employment on farms. I mention that only to indicate its inception. I am not going to trace down the history of it from there. During the fiscal year 1953-54 there have been 9,952 immigrants brought forward in group movements, including 3,543 domestics, British, German and Greek; 5,003 farm workers and sugar beet workers; 1,142 track maintenance workers and 264 general labourers from the island of Malta.
In previous years substantial numbers of immigrant workers were brought forward in group movements for employment in woods work and mining but there was no demand for this type of worker during the fiscal year 1953-54.
Displaced persons who came forward in previous years were provided with free ocean transportation by the international refugee organization. Since IRO ceased operations on December 31, 1951, there is no provision for free transportation to immigrants coming to Canada. The cost of ocean transportation for immigrants coming to Canada in group movements is now provided by way of assisted passage loans granted by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in some instances and in other instances the immigrants themselves pay their ocean passage.
The Department of Labour pays the cost of inland transportation for domestic workers and farm workers, provided they are placed in employment by the national employment service or the federal-provincial farm labour committees, and provided that such workers remain in the employment to which they are assigned for a period of one year. I should of course add there that they do not always all do that. If there is any other information my hon. friend would like to have, I shall try to give it to him.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: This seems to be like a piece carved out of what one would expect to be the functions of the department of immigration. What is the relationship between the two departments? Why, for example, is this particular activity assumed by the Department of Labour? Is there any other feature or factor of immigration which is assumed by the Department of Labour and not by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration?


Milton Fowler Gregg: The main reason is that the requirements for those workers come to the

attention of the national employment service and the Department of Labour in the first instance and they are subject-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I interject a question there? Are they different from all other immigrants in that respect and are all those that are included in the description the minister has just given covered under this grant?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Only those that I mentioned. Those categories that I mentioned are included in this move of the Department of Labour.


Mr. Cardiff:: Do these groups come out for farm labour or are they employed in any kind of labour that is needed?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I will give my hon. friend the groups for this last year. That will give him an idea. For the last year the figures are as follows: General labourers, 264; farm workers, single males, 2,448; farm couples, 478; farm families, 166; sugar beet families, 1,506; special church groups-that is in cooperation with church organizations and agricultural organizations-405;	then on
construction, 1,142; domestics 3,318, domestic couples, 224. Those are the only categories, namely, construction and farming.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: What denominations were they? What church denominations?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Lutheran, Baptist, Roman
Catholic, Methodist and Mennonites.


Douglas Charles Abbott: No Anglicans?


Gage Workman Montgomery: Are any of these expenses returned? It was our understanding that money was advanced by the immigration department to pay the way of certain people coming out here to work as farm and other types of labourers, and that there was a revolving fund set-up under which the money was repaid. I understand this has nothing to do with that type of immigrant. If not, are these people expected to refund to the department the money advanced? For instance, there is an item here of $30,000 for travelling expenses and then an item for food and other supplies. I suppose the purpose of these items is to look after these immigrants until they are settled.


Milton Fowler Gregg: In these cases their transportation to this country is paid.


Gage Workman Montgomery: And it is not refunded?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It is not refunded.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: With respect to the details on page 241, what is the explanation for the reduction in the amount for professional and
Supply-Labour
special services from $162,000 to $15,000 and for the reduction from $55,000 to nothing in the case of rental of buildings?


Milton Fowler Gregg: When these groups came over here, particularly in the winter months, it was necessary for them to have a stopping place until they were moved out to their places of work. Consequently some of the buildings at Ajax were utilized during that period, but last year we closed that out.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That still does not explain the reduction in professional and special services from $162,000 to $15,000.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The catering there was defined as a special service.


Clarence Gillis: I am also a bit puzzled about this item. It is not only farm labour that is involved. The amount of money provided is quite large and the item states that it is to be used for the movement of workers from outside Canada to essential industry and so forth when Canadian labour is not available. There is a lot of Canadian labour available in this country at the present time. When you look at the details on page 241 it makes you wonder what kind of services are provided. The amount for housing, board and maintenance is dropping. The amount for professional and special services has gone up.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No.


Clarence Gillis: There was $90,000 last year and this year there is $125,000.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is food and other supplies. You are on the wrong line.


Clarence Gillis: The rest of the items appear to be about the same, and it would seem to be more or less a permanent organization. The amount for rental of buildings has gone down but the amounts for repairs and upkeep of equipment, electricity, heat, water rates and other municipal services, sundries and hospitalization expenses appear to be about the same. Is this vote, the details of which are set out on page 241, for the purpose of maintaining some centre to house immigrants coming into the country as farm or industrial labourers until such time as employment is found for them? Is money provided to move them from one section of the country to the other? Is it for the purpose of maintaining a centre for immigrants? That is what it looks like.


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is correct. As I said a moment ago we have cut down radically on that kind of stopping place. There were two, one at St. Paul l'Ermite outside Montreal and one at Ajax in Ontario. We have closed down the one at Ajax but we still maintain the one hostel near Montreal. As to the

Supply-Labour
emergency professional and medical services, they are provided for the people who are there from time to time.


Clarence Gillis: Are similar services available to the scores of unemployed people who are and have been permanent residents of this country? I know that in Ontario, the mari-times and all the provinces you will find pockets where there is unemployment. Are such services available to our own unemployed? Can they get transportation from one section of the country to the other to a job? Is there some centre to which they can report where they will be fed, clothed and provided with hospitalization in case of illness? Could these centres be utilized for the purpose of moving our own people around the country?
The minister will remember that in April of this year there were 56,000 Canadians receiving supplementary unemployment insurance benefits who went off the rolls completely at the 15th of April. We know there were 56,000, and we also know there were many more. Are there no services available under this department that would provide the same kind of protection for these people? That is pretty full protection. I am not objecting but I do think that people who have lived in Canada for a good many years and have paid their taxes and are now out of work through no fault of their own and are off the unemployment relief rolls are at least entitled to the same consideration as people we may bring into the country. The least we should do is to equalize the situation so that people who have been here will have the same kind of privileges if they are out of work as are being provided at this place in Montreal.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I think the hon. member will recognize that these were emergency cases of a temporary nature. These people were brought in, taken to the hospital and were only there for a very short time until they went to their work. I am glad to say that it has been possible to lessen the amount of that kind of accommodation. I might also say that under a later item some provision is made for co-operating in helping to move Canadians who are unemployed to other places where employment may be found, although it does not fill all the requirements.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am not quite clear on this item. Is this the only item under any department of government providing assistance to farm workers in Canada?


Milton Fowler Gregg: We passed that one. That was item 185.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We are on item 194. Is that the only item that makes provision-


Milton Fowler Gregg: Item 185 on page 28.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This item also makes provision for farm workers. I was wondering whether this included them all or only a percentage of them. There is a great deal of complaint about many of these people coming to this country under the pretext of going on a farm and then "doing a bunk". There is no question about it. I want to read a short extract from the Saskatchewan News published by the government of Saskatchewan. It is headed, "Few Immigrants for Farm Work", and reads as follows:
The federal-provincial farm labour committee has recommended that no more than 100 German farm immigrants be confirmed for placement in Saskatchewan this year. L. J. Hutchison, secretary of the committee, said the recommendation was based on the realization that German farm immigrants had not assisted materially in reducing the farm labour shortage.
He explained that a reason for this is the movement of labour from agriculture to industry which is evident across Canada and which is particularly true with respect to German farm immigrants placed on Saskatchewan farms.
I do not know about Saskatchewan conditions but I have heard general complaints that these people who get assistance to come to Canada to work on farms have no more idea of working on farms than I have at the present time. They stay for a while and then disappear into industry. I do not think it is good enough that this government should assist people to come here to work on farms under those conditions. I think the same amount of money could be better used to help some Nova Scotia people get to employment in western Canada.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I understood the minister to say that these grants for hospitalization and medical services are of a temporary nature for immigrants coming into this country who become ill and have to go to hospitals. There is a $150,000 grant there. Any experience that I have had with the department of immigration would indicate that anyone coming to this country is given a thorough medical checkup before he comes here. It would seem that these people who, as the minister indicated, are brought here by employers may get in without any such medical checkup as ordinary immigrants receive. I believe that requires some explanation.
Before the minister answers there is just one other question I should like to ask. The minister told us that this grant is for payments, in co-operation or conjunction with the department of immigration, for workers

who are brought in by employers. Has the minister any record there of the names of some of the larger employers who are bringing in these people?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, I have not the names of the employers, Mr. Chairman, because there would be a long list. Most of them are farmers who are employing farm workers. I should have added to my remarks, so as to allay the fears of my hon. friends, that this comes about as a result of close liaison between the officials of the Department of Labour and the farm labour committee as well as representatives of each of the departments of agriculture in the provinces. These people meet, and I recall I was present at the meeting when Saskatchewan representatives were here. They stated how many and what kinds they wanted. They discussed the question of the difficulty of keeping the new Canadians on the farm as well as the difficulty of keeping domestic help for the housewife. I can assure my hon. friend that they are not brought in if there are Canadian workers available to do that work.
The other question raised was as to how could we make sure these immigrants fulfil their year's obligation. This is a very difficult question with which the farm labour committee has wrestled for two or three years. They have not got the complete answer as yet but they feel they are making some improvement. As I said in my opening remarks, the operations under this vote will be less this year than they have been in the last few years.


Joseph William Noseworthy: I have just one other
question, Mr. Chairman. I notice that there is $125,000 in this item for professional and special services. What is the nature of the professional services receiving the bulk of the $125,000?


Milton Fowler Gregg: If my hon. friend looks at page 242 he will see that $30,000 is for professional services and hospitalization expenses.


Joseph William Noseworthy: No, the item to which I am referring is on page 241, the second item, professional services and special services, $125,000.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, that is for food and supply.


Milton Fowler Gregg: On page 241 to which my hon. friend refers, at the bottom of the page there is an item for housing, board and maintenance; then, there is a subhead, professional and special services, $15,000. It that right?


Joseph William Noseworthy: Yes, the next item.
Supply-Labour


Milton Fowler Gregg: The next item is for food and other supplies, $125,000. As I said, that will go to take care of accommodation at the hospital.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to ask a question or two about the organization we have that is involved in this operation consisting of the provinces, the Department of Labour, and at some point the department of immigration. First of all, what offices has the Department of Labour in Europe?


Milton Fowler Gregg: We have no offices except personnel attached to the office of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: In other words, the department uses the offices of the department of immigration in Europe, with personnel from the Department of Labour attached?


Milton Fowler Gregg: You mean on the continent of Europe?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: On the continent of
Europe.


Milton Fowler Gregg: There is very little on the continent of Europe; it is mainly in London.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Perhaps the minister
would be able to say whether this item we are discussing now applies chiefly in the United Kingdom? Do the people concerned in this thing come chiefly from the United Kingdom and can this be regarded as a United Kingdom operation?


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, Mr. Chairman, these are officials that the Department of Labour has in London mainly, I think with one or two others on the continent. They are not specifically for these groups of people, but on behalf of the Department of Labour with regard to all immigrants. These officials are able to advise immigrants with certain skills as to the working opportunities in Canada, and when applicants come in to be interviewed they would be available for that purpose. They are there for that purpose.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister says available to all immigrants; do I understand then that the Department of Labour concerns itself, to some extent, with all immigrants?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Only at the request of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration officials at that point where interviews may be required with respect to certain qualifications.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Who is responsible for selecting, screening and passing on immigrants?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Our people are on the selection team at that point.

Supply-Labour


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the minister expand that a little by saying who is on the selection team? My question is; who seeks out and passes on the immigrants? I take it the minister says it is a team.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The department of immigration.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The department of immigration?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: And they are responsible until when, until the immigrant arrives in Canada?


Douglas Charles Abbott: What difference does it make?


Milton Fowler Gregg: They are responsible until they arrive in Canada and, in some cases, until the new Canadian is placed. Our national employment offices co-operate in that placement at all times.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The Minister of Finance says, "What difference does it make?" I think I am justified in saying that it may make quite a lot of difference. I believe that sometimes there is a good deal of difficulty and even of confusion as between the two departments. I wish to be perfectly frank and to ask at what point there is a division of responsibility as between the two departments. There is every chance of a difficulty arising. It would be a great surprise if it did not arise, and I would like to know exactly what the division of responsibility is.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I can assure my hon. friend there is no difficulty between the two departments. The responsibility for immigration rests with the immigration branch. The Department of Labour, the national employment service and the unemployment insurance commission in these various activities act in all respects as an agent of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in co-operation toward achieving a common purpose of getting immigrants over.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I understand the minister is speaking about activities in Europe at the moment. What happens when they arrive here? Who is responsible for these people we are talking about when they arrive here? Under which department do they come, then?


Milton Fowler Gregg: These we are talking about under this special vote, because of the fact that they have been demanded or required through our machinery in the employment office-the federal-provincial farm labour committee-are moved from the point of landing in Canada and go perhaps to a hostel, but often go to their employers, and are there turned over and placed. Is that an answer to my hon. friend's question?
[Mr. Gregg.l


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let me be clear. Up to arrival in Canada they are under the immigration department, and when they reach Canada they come under the Department of Labour, which then governs their movements?


Milton Fowler Gregg: That is right.


Gage Workman Montgomery: May I ask a further question. When the immigrant comes out and is placed on the farm, he seems to be under the supervision of the immigration officer. Can the minister explain how it is that he comes under that officer? That is what is confusing us. Immigrants who have arrived on farms in communities we know are supervised by immigration officials. The man representing the department seems to be an immigration officer. It may be that we are all wrong, and that it is the Department of Labour. I would like to know that.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Naturally it is the desire that a representative of the department of immigration in the area keep supervision over the progress of new Canadians during their early period in the country.


Gage Workman Montgomery: He places him on the
farm?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.


Mr. Barnett:: As I understand the picture these people are brought in under a joint arrangement between the immigration department and the Department of Labour. I understand the minister to say that once they arrive in Canada the Department of Labour accepts some responsibility after they have landed. My question is this: During the year in which they are working under the arrangement under which they came to Canada, do they come under the supervision of the federal Department of Labour or of the various provincial departments of labour in respect to their hours of work, the sort of wages paid, and other working conditions? Does the Department of Labour accept responsibility for that during the first year?


Milton Fowler Gregg: To go back again; the request for them is made with the concurrence of the representative of the provincial department of agriculture-in connection with agricultural workers. In that province the minimum amount that those new Canadians will be paid when they arrive at the farms is already decided each year at the annual meeting of the committee. So that that is settled, and the information is conveyed to these men going on the farms when they arrive in Saskatchewan or Alberta. And it is then the responsibility of this department in conjunction with the provincial department of agriculture to see that that agreement is carried into effect.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the figure been given as to how many were brought in under the aegis of this activity of the Department of Labour?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I gave that earlier in the evening.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And how many it is anticipated will be brought in this year?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I gave that information earlier in the evening.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the minister recall it offhand?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It is 9,952 in 1953-54.


Edmund Davie Fulton: And it is anticipated that how many will be brought in this year?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It is estimated there will be about 8,000.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There is one thing that
interests me considerably, and that is the amount for hospitalization and medical aid. This year it is $155,000. What has been the experience in that regard? Has it been necessary to provide that amount of hospitalization and medical aid for these people brought in?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Order for return.


Milton Fowler Gregg: If my hon. friend would agree, I would prefer to make that an order for return. I would like to give him a more complete explanation of it.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, it begins to look as though probably I have been labouring under a misapprehension. All along I have thought that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was probably responsible for some of the reports which come to me from abroad, and from some of the people who come to this country from abroad. Now I am inclined to think that, after all, he is innocent, and that the particular misdemeanour may lie with the Department of Labour.
I have people come to my office telling me that in various places in Europe, as well as in London, England, they were painted glowing pictures of what was available for them in Canada. Then they come here and find out there is no work at all for them. It is difficult to nail these things down, but I must say that I have always blamed the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. But after what has developed here I am beginning to wonder just who is to blame; and I would like to know.


Douglas Charles Abbott: All very confusing.
Supply-Labour


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I would like to know, if I can, so that I can nail it down. Someone overseas is definitely giving a very glowing picture of what conditions are in Canada; but when these people come out here they find there is no work available for them. I think there should be some explanation. Someone should be able to tie this right down to an individual, somewhere.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: You do it, if you are so
smart.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I was not referring to the minister. I meant one of the members in the back row.


Walter Edward Harris: I will be glad to explain the responsibility and the chain of command in connection with immigration when we come to my estimates.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When will that be?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The minister will say it is the Department of Labour when he comes to his estimates.


Mr. Palleil:: There is an item of $325,000 for transportation costs. Can the minister tell me how much of that is recovered?


Milton Fowler Gregg: None.
Mr. Pallet!: To what travel particularly has it reference? Is that paid for bringing immigrants to jobs in this country?


Milton Fowler Gregg: From the time they arrive at the port to their place of work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Unemployment insurance commission-
195. Administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940, including expenditures incurred in connection with the activities of the national employment service as delegated by the Minister of Labour in accordance with section 97 of the act. $23,122,859.
Mr. Carter:: Is the minister in a position to make any further statement in respect to unemployment insurance to fishermen or wage earners or any scheme that may benefit small self-employed operators?


Milton Fowler Gregg: A group of officials are working at the present time and looking into the position of workers in agriculture and in the fishing industry in relation to unemployment insurance. I should add perhaps that as far as fishermen are concerned, the officials are considering the position not only of wage earners but also of sharemen and own-account fishermen. Hon. members will appreciate that this is not a simple problem, and there are a good many matters which have

Supply-Labour
to be taken into account before any decision is made as to whether it would be possible to extend coverage to them. Until a report is made and considered by the government it is not possible for me to say whether coverage can be broadened to include all these workers.
Mr. Nose worthy: I have two questions on this item, Mr. Chairman. The first one I asked at the beginning. Can the minister tell us whether there is any likelihood or possibility of the department making it possible for unemployed, who have accumulated an unemployment insurance backlog, to draw on that fund, although the present restrictions regarding the number of days per month are not complied with? It is pretty difficult for unemployed who are in desperate circumstances and who over the past years have built up a sizeable sum of unemployment insurance to find that they can only draw a part of it because of the department's regulations.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am sure the hon. member will agree that the unemployment insurance plan must be kept actuarially sound, but I will take his remarks of the early part of the evening as well as those now and have them reviewed by those who are at present studying the act.


Joseph William Noseworthy: This is my second question. I notice in the details that we have a few well-paid personnel in the unemployment insurance commission and the administrative offices. A few of them are in the $7,000, $8,000, $10,000 and one in the $12,000 class. I notice that there are about 165 office managers who apparently never get out of the $3,000 class. They may get up to something over $3,000, but they never get up to $4,000 or in the $4,000 class. I know a considerable number of those managers. They have to be bankers, accountants, public relations men, public welfare officers; they have to combine a dozen different vocations in one to manage some of these large unemployment insurance offices. Is the department giving any consideration to stepping up the salaries of these 165 managers, all of whom are still either in the lower $3,000 or middle $3,000 brackets?


Milton Fowler Gregg: These have all been considered during the past year and of course the civil service commission has taken into consideration the work load of the office and all the factors that my hon. friend is concerned with.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the unemployment insurance commission, or any other section or officials under the jurisdiction of the minister, giving any seriour or detailed study

to the question of a guaranteed annual wage? The minister knows that that is now a major question in the field of labour-management relations.


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, not any more than I am sure my officials in the department and the commission give study to anything that affects labour, but certainly are not giving any study to it as something that should be sponsored by my department.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall just make one remark. I suggest that in this department where a great deal of study is made of many matters, where a great deal of serious research is carried out, a very serious study should be made of this question. I suggest it is the coming issue, indeed it is here now, this feeling on the part of labour and on the part of workers. My hon. friend, the Secretary of State, can mutter if he wishes, but he is on a guaranteed annual wage, as are many professional and salaried people. Industrial workers feel that they too are entitled to a guaranteed annual wage. I urge that this matter be considered.


John Cameron Pallett: Can the minister tell the committee how many people who once paid unemployment insurance are now no longer paying it? By that I mean students, single girls who got married and people who went from the salary classification which required them to pay unemployment insurance and thus graduated from that classification. Can the minister give me that figure? Can he also indicate to the committee how much money is represented by the amounts that they have paid in which they are not now entitled to draw on by reason of their having discontinued paying in?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I do not think it answers my hon. friend's question, but the percentage of Canada's working force now under the act is about 75 per cent. It would be impossible for me to say how many of the other 25 per cent is or would like to be. All I know is that some of them would be, but I do not think that answers the whole of my hon. friend's question.
Mr. Pallet!: Did I understand the minister to imply that no records are kept of people who have paid into this unemployment insurance fund and now are no longer paying into it? That was the question.


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, they may have left the country. We have no means of keeping track of them after they disappear from our records.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like very much to make some extended remarks on the question of the unemployment insurance commission.

However, I have on one or two previous occasions expressed some of my views as to in what direction I feel the present act should be extended. I do not propose to take the time of the committee at any length at this time. While I am on my feet I should like to say a word in support of the remarks expressed by the hon. member for York South in regard to the heavy load which many of the local unemployment insurance office managers are carrying today, with their manifold responsibilities, and to suggest that I too feel serious consideration should be given to the possibility of making that office one which does lead to something of a higher level of income than at present applies to them. I feel that in large measure the whole success of the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act, particularly in the matter of personal relationships and the general feeling toward it in the communities scattered across the country, depends so much upon the personality and efficiency of the person who holds that office. I must say I have had a very good experience in dealing with persons in that position.
One other matter on which I was prepared to ask the minister questions relates to the extension of the unemployment insurance benefits to quite a large section of the workers of Canada who are in the fishing industry. I was very pleased to see that the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo has indicated some interest in the matter. I listened with interest to the statement the minister made and I realize there are some practical difficulties in the way of achieving this end. However, I am firmly convinced that these practical difficulties are not insurmountable and I trust the minister will give very serious consideration to the question of bringing these people in under the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I might point out that there are a good many workers in various fields engaged in various forms of piece-rate work who are covered by the provision of the act, and there are workers in other fields whose employment is not always of a very regular nature for whom ways and means have been found of bringing them under the act. I hope that by the time we come to consider the estimates of the unemployment insurance commission next year there will be some scheme in operation for bringing fishermen under the provision of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
197. To provide for the transfer of labour to and from places where employment is available and expenses incidental thereto, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $75,000.
Supply-Labour
Ellen Louks Fairclough: I wonder if the minister could tell us exactly how much was spent in providing for the transfer of labour as described in this item?


Milton Fowler Gregg: As I outlined at the commencement of my remarks this is mainly a revolving fund. Last year $192,000 was spent out of the basic $75,000 which was voted. In other words, the fund revolved to that extent.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The minister has mentioned the figure of $192,000 but looking at the details on page 246 it is very difficult to discern the actual amount spent. Can the minister give us any details showing how this figure of $192,000 is arrived at as compared with the appropriation of $75,000. There is an item marked "estimated total, $6,000" on page 246.


Milton Fowler Gregg: That was made up six months ago. At the end of the fiscal year, March 31, 1954, the total debt outstanding was $165 out of a total of $191,493.55 that had been advanced.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I find that extremely confusing. According to the details at page 246 the actual expenditure up to December 31, 1953 was $18,287, which is patently someone's guess, and then the estimated total for 1953-54 is $6,000. The minister mentioned a total of about $192,000. But the appropriation last year was $75,000 and the appropriation this year is for the same amount and bears no relation whatever to the figure the minister mentioned.


Milton Fowler Gregg: It is a revolving fund used over and over again. At the time the estimate was made the amounts owing by people to whom money had been advanced was $18,000 and the most recent figure was $165.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Then I understand that this is a revolving fund of $75,000 and there is $165 in the fund so there is some $74,000 owing to the government at the moment.


Milton Fowler Gregg: It is the other way around.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: There is a credit of $75,000 and you tell me that you received $165 so that means there is over $74,000 outstanding.


Milton Fowler Gregg: No, the amount outstanding is $165.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: But you had $75,000 in the fund originally.


Milton Fowler Gregg: We received that back except for $165.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Why do you appropriate $75,000 every single year? You have an
6676	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys appropriation of $75,000. What do you do with it? Do you split it up at the end of the year?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It lapses at the end of the year.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am not naive enough to think that $75,000 can rattle around without falling some place. What happens to it?


Milton Fowler Gregg: It goes back at the end of the year.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Then you appropriate that amount again?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Administration services-
210. Departmental administration, $470,422.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Hon. members will find this department starting at page 33 and the details outlined at page 258. Shall the resolution carry?


George Clyde Nowlan: Is the minister going to make a statement at this stage with reference to the work of the coal board?


Mr. Prudham:: Mr. Chairman, I think when these estimates were before the committee some months ago I requested that we deal with the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and then the coal board afterwards.
I think there was agreement on it at that time.


George Clyde Nowlan: At that time it was understood, I believe, that the coal board would be dealt with first. I was not here at that time but I have heard some discussion about this matter since, and in view of the fact that tonight we are working under some pressure I think it might be advisable that the departmental estimates be considered as a sort of packaged deal. I think it would be better if we dealt with the whole thing at one time, and I think if the minister has a statement to make it would be better if he made it now rather than later.


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, I feel quite sure we would make better time if we dealt with the coal board separately.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. The minister's estimates were before the house a couple of months ago and at that time the coal question was a pretty serious one and the cabinet had it under consideration. The minister suggested we leave that question alone until such time as he was in a position to make a statement arising out of cabinet consideration.


But that is ancient history now. There is not any doubt that the minister is likely in a position now to make a statement as to what the government's policy is on the whole matter of fuel. I think it would be just as well if he could make that statement now and then we could discuss it. Then when we get over this item we could run through the other items very quickly. But if we are going to stick, as I think we are, on that controversial subject, I think that is a good way of tying all of the items up.


George Prudham: I can make a statement on coal when we reach that item but as there are various officials here I think it would be much better to deal with the items of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys first and then deal with coal.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Perhaps if I might interject at this point, I might say that my recollection is this. I have not the reference before me but I think it was more or less agreed in the committee the last time that this specialized item would come under its own heading on account of the availability of the technical advice which would be here at that time. I might point out that owing to the practice that we have been carrying out I do not feel that I have any right to prevent any member from discussing the coal board on the first item if he wishes to do so. But I might say at the same time that neither am I in any position to compel the minister to make a statement on the coal board before that item is reached. I think we have found with several of the departments that when we have one rather major item included in the first item and two or three members speak on it-it may be the coal board or something else-and then two or three members speak on some other branch of departmental activities in which they are interested, generally speaking there is someone who wishes to speak on the coal board again and the result is that the debate is not too orderly. In order to work out a procedure that might be suitable to all it was thought that in a case like this it would be better if, when we call the coal board, we discuss coal; and we certainly could not be discussing anything else. However, I am in the hands of the committee. Resolution 210 is before the committee.


Clarence Gillis: I should just like to ask the minister this question. The reason the minister wants to leave this coal question alone tonight is that the officials are not available. Is that it?


George Prudham: The officials are in the gallery but there are two deputy ministers

involved. I should like to have the coal officials here when we are discussing coal. I do not think it is an unreasonable request. I think it would be in the interests of the committee to consider these two departments separately. It was only about two years ago that the coal board was attached to the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys or at least at that time I was made responsible for it. Prior to that time the coal board had no connection with this department. As I have said, there are two deputies involved. In order to promote an orderly discussion of the estimates, I think that is the way it should be handled.


Clarence Gillis: The minister means that there are two deputy ministers who are not available tonight?


George Prudham: Yes they are available. They are here in the gallery.


Clarence Gillis: Is there any reason why we cannot call the coal item first?


An hon. Member:: Let us deal with the first item.


Clarence Gillis: Just a minute. On the minister's first item, as was indicated by the chairman, any matter that comes within the scope of his department may be discussed; it is in order to discuss any such matter as far as the House of Commons is concerned. It is a couple of months since the members of the house, with regard to the coal industry-and it was facing a crisis-co-operated with the minister to the extent of leaving the matter alone because of a reasonable request at that time when the cabinet were working on the details of the matter. However, it is entirely up to the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, if he wants to go ahead with the discussion tonight. As far as I am concerned, I would just as soon make my statement now, but I should like to hear the minister announce government policy first with regard to the coal situation.


George Prudham: If the committee wishes to discuss coal first, it is quite agreeable to me that we should do so; but I do not think we should combine the two matters.


Clarence Gillis: Let us call the coal board estimate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder whether I cannot make formally the suggestion which I think is in the mind of the hon. member for Cape Breton South, namely, that item 210 stand and that you call item 237?


John Horace Dickey: Let us pass item 210.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is all right if the committee wants to pass item 210, and then call item
24, 1954	6677
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys 237 so that hon. members, if they wish to discuss coal, will be able to do so.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Item 210 carried.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: While the committee is in charge of its own procedure to some extent, I should like to know the views of the minister who is to pilot these estimates through the committee. I should like to know whether he would prefer to have item 237 called at this time or not.


George Clyde Nowlan: Naturally, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to insist on any particular procedure. As the hon. member for Cape Breton South has said, this is an item that has stood over for a long while and it stood at the request of the minister. He said he wanted to be in a position to announce government policy. I think he should be able to deal with this matter now and to deal with the coal board estimates. But if it is the unanimous wish of the committee to do otherwise, that is all right. I certainly do not want to waste our time talking about procedural matters at this stage. If it is the unanimous wish of the committee that we defer discussion of coal until item 237 is called, that procedure is satisfactory to me. I think we should adopt the suggestion which has been made and call that item now. But if it is not the unanimous wish of the committee to do so, I will not discuss the coal board at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether you would ask the committee whether item 210 is now agreed to on the understanding that the next item to be called would be item 237?


James Joseph McCann: No. Take them in consecutive order.


Clarence Gillis: Let us go on and discuss coal.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Has the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys any reply to make to the suggestions made from the opposition?


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, I still maintain that we should either discuss coal or take the items in order. I do not think we should mix up the discussion of the coal board with discussion of the estimates of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. I think it would contribute to orderly discussion if we kept these matters separate.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is it agreed that I call item 237?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
6678	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that we now deal with the items of the coal board. Perhaps that would meet the wishes of the committee.
Item stands.
Dominion coal board-
237. Administration and investigations of the dominion coal board, $114,380.


George Prudham: Mr. Chairman, I propose at this time to make a resume of the operations of the coal board and to try to give as clear a picture as I can of the state of the coal industry as it exists at the present time. Canada is still a young nation and is at an early stage in the development of its resources. To some it may seem rather unfortunate at this time that our resources of fuel are so far removed from the main markets. But, as Canada develops industrially, and with the spread of industry from central Canada, the distribution problem with regard to fuel supplies will lessen.
However, for those of us who are living today in the present formative era, effective distribution presents a serious problem. The federal government during the past 26 years has assisted coal movements in Canada by freight subventions. The rate and the variety of these subventions have varied from time to time to meet changing conditions. Through two world wars the contribution made by the Canadian coal industry to the national defence effort has at least partly justified these expenditures of public funds.
Since 1948 with the discovery of oil and gas in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, and with the increased supplies of oil from other parts of the world, severe competition has been experienced by the coal industry in Canada and for that matter in the United States and other parts of the world.
In western Canada, the Canadian National Railways passes through oil fields; and heavy oil suitable for locomotive use is available in large quantities at low cost. As a result the Canadian National Railways has converted the greater part of its remaining steam locomotives to oil and within a year the system will be burning very little coal on its lines west of the great lakes. The main line of the Canadian National Railways between Edmonton and the Pacific coast is now completely converted to oil locomotives and diesels. Many of the mines in central Alberta were almost entirely dependent on sales to the railway company and, as a result of this recent development, these mines are now nearly all closed.
[The Deputy Chairman.]

In southern Alberta and British Columbia, where the main producing area is in the Crowsnest pass, the Canadian Pacific Railway has followed a different policy. In the first place, the Canadian Pacific Railway is further removed from the sources of oil and it would therefore find it less profitable to convert to oil. The C.P.R. still continues to buy over 1-J million tons of coal for locomotive use per year. I understand the Canadian Pacific is not buying any United States coal for use on its lines west of the great lakes, and it is even hauling Canadian coal eastward from its coaling point at the head of the lakes. As a result the coal mines of the Crowsnest pass, although facing stiff competition from oil and gas in the domestic and commercial fields, have still a basic market in the C.P.R. requirements. A steady decline in the purchase of coal by both railways can be expected.
Recently there was a mine casualty at Coleman, Alberta. The Coleman collieries international mine is now closed, presumably on account of the lack of markets. Another factor in this situation is the existence of a second mine operated by the same company but which has a very short life expectancy. By closing the Coleman international mine at this time and concentrating on the mine with the short life the company will be able to recover a maximum amount of coal. This they could not expect to do effectively by a less concentrated effort. Meanwhile the international mine is being kept in repair and when the mine being operated at the present time is exhausted the working force will be transferred back to the international mine.
Once coal is extracted it cannot be replaced, and inevitably the time comes when a mine is depleted. People engaged in mining operations always face the hazards of disruptions and of making adjustments when a mine is closed. Recently the Alberta government passed a coal marketing act. I understand that the coal mining operators were consulted in this connection and assisted the provincial government in working out and drafting the provisions of the act. This legislation provides for classification of the various types of coal produced in the province. It also requires that coal offered for sale must be labelled as to grade and analysis. This year the federal government is relating its subvention policy to the provisions of the Alberta coal sales act.
Generally speaking the coals of the prairie section of Alberta have a high moisture content, are friable and have a relatively low b.t.u. value. Most coal mining on the prairies is now carried on by stripping

methods involving the use of power machinery and a relatively small working force.
Coals in grade 5, Alberta standards, have been completely removed from eligibility for subvention aid. Strip mining operations in grade 4, which includes coal produced in the Drumheller valley, have also been declared ineligible for subvention assistance. Briefly, coals eligible at the present time for subvention aid are produced by underground mines in the Drumheller and Lethbridge areas and from the foothills and mountain mines.
Coal operators have estimated there is a market for western steam coal in northwestern Ontario to the extent of about 100,000 tons a year. The subvention rate last year was insufficient to permit western coal to compete in that market with United States coal. The subvention rate was raised by a recent order in council to the extent of 65 cents per ton additional to enable Canadian mines to meet this competition. The rate in that area is now $3.50 per ton.
The domestic market for Alberta coal in Ontario has always been restricted by the fact that much of the western coal shipped east was of comparatively low quality and would not store in the open without disintegration and danger of spontaneous combustion. The change in regulations, eliminating the lower quality coals from subvention assistance, should take care of that factor.
Another handicap to efficient marketing of western coal in central Canada is that up to the present time there has been no central selling agency. I was pleased to learn that coal operators in the west are now in the process of setting up such a selling agency. This agency would have the responsibility of marketing the bulk of western coal shipped to central Canada. By this arrangement coal will be sold on grade, possibly under trademarks, and customers will be able to buy with confidence.
Another encouraging feature of the marketing problem is that Alberta and British Columbia coal mining companies have been successful in negotiating a five year stabilized freight rate with both railways. Another stabilizing factor is indicated, I believe, by a news item which I saw the other day that the unions have agreed to forgo any increase in wages for the coming year. This will enable the mines to proceed with marketing arrangements with a degree of stability and confidence that has been lacking heretofore. In the west the production per man day is relatively high, production per man day in Alberta and British Columbia mines being approximately 4-79 tons per man day.
Turning now to the maritimes, in which the hon. member for Cape Breton South is 83276-422
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys particularly interested. The major part of the coal mining industry is in Nova Scotia with a relatively small portion in New Brunswick. The main problem as I see it is the high cost of production. The production per man day in the maritimes is very low, being two tons per man day or less. In that area a great many of the mines extend out under the ocean for several miles with resulting high transportation costs and loss of time between the pithead and the working face.
Following the war the Carroll commission studied the problems of the Canadian coal industry, and one of the recommendations of that commission was that the federal government should assist in the mechanization of the maritime coal industry. A fund of $10 million was established to be lent for that purpose. Immediately following the war the American coal industry, which is the chief supplier of coal requirements of central Canada, embarked on an intensive mechanization program which was completed in a comparatively short time.
The mechanization program in Nova Scotia has been delayed for various reasons until it is now at least two and a half years behind schedule. One result is that American coal is now competitive even in the home market in the maritimes. While American coal has decreased in price since the war, the price of Nova Scotia coal has continued to increase. During the period from 1948, when the mechanization program was started, to 1953 the actual cost of producing a ton of coal by the major company in the area increased approximately $2.25 a ton.
The mechanization program by the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation, although considerably behind schedule, has made progress. One of the main efforts was the production of a mechanical miner. This miner was developed in the machine shops of Trenton Industries and is now at the production stage. Some fourteen of the machines are in actual operation and it is anticipated that within a very short time there will be a total of twenty-seven. I had the privilege of seeing this machine in operation and it literally throws out a river of coal. I am told that it can produce as much as 500 tons in an eight hour shift. This machine is a credit to the ingenuity and resourcefulness of Nova Scotia engineers and workmen.
I believe that some very noteworthy progress has been made in coal preparation and cleaning, especially at Old Sydney mines. I am told that the cost of production has levelled off and is showing signs of a decline this year. At the present time the Dominion Coal Company is making a careful study and
6680	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys reassessment of the original mechanization program with a view to modifying it, if necessary, to meet changed conditions. As yet the coal board has not received the final report from the company.
Several of the smaller independent companies have taken advantage of the mechanization loan and have installed machinery with very satisfactory results. In any discussion of the over-all problem in Nova Scotia we should keep in mind that the Dominion Coal Company and its subsidiaries produce about 90 per cent of the total output of coal and employ about 81 per cent of the labour. In considering the problems of this company's operation, therefore, we are dealing with the major problems of the Nova Scotia coal industry.
As I said before, the main problem of the industry is the high cost of production. Although the subvention assistance administered by the dominion coal board is providing a market for coal produced in that area, nevertheless the industry is vulnerable because of the high cost of production. This is true, even in the maritimes, where markets are being lost to other types of fuel. It is estimated that there are 90,000 oil burning installations in Nova Scotia.
I spent about a week in the coal fields of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick last November. My observation at that time was that the people of the area were not supporting the coal mining industry as they should, because it is by far the largest single industry in that area. I was very surprised to see oil and propane gas tanks serving residences, business premises and industrial establishments. It is estimated that oil has displaced at least half a million tons of coal per year in that area.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this is a free country and one cannot blame anyone for burning oil or more convenient types of fuel if he can afford to do so. However by burning coal in their homes, offices and factories the people of Nova Scotia can help to stabilize this important industry on which their basic prosperity depends. The development of modern coal stoking and burning equipment has gone a long way towards making coal just as convenient to use as the liquid or gas fuels. Consumers, coal dealers, furnace equipment companies and chambers of commerce can do much to promote the use of coal. They must realize that if the coal industry is lost, the whole economy of the maritimes will suffer.
Further, I believe that the management of industries should consider very carefully the risk of converting from coal to oil, because I believe they would probably reach the
[Mr. Prudham.l

conclusion to stay with coal. In the event of a war or an international emergency, supplies of oil would be endangered and quite possibly cut off. I know that some major industries have already decided to continue to use coal just for that reason. Recently a large delegation, including the ministers of mines for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and their advisers, Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation officials, representatives of two unions and two independent operators associations, came to Ottawa to discuss ways and means of solving the problems of the industry. One of the main results of that meeting was the establishment of a committee with representatives of the unions, companies, provincial governments, various boards of trade and similar organizations through the area to promote the more efficient and extensive use of coal.
On May 20 I attended a gathering in Halifax sponsored by the provincial government for the purpose of initiating a provincewide campaign to enlist the support of the community for the greater and more efficient use of coal. The meeting was well attended and it was quite evident that the people of the area were beginning to realize that the future of the industry depends largely on its own efforts, and the continued support of the community.
Employment in the Nova Scotia coal industry has been relatively high, as compared with the United States or other parts of the world. The subvention policy, administered by the dominion coal board, has provided a market for all the quality coal produced in that area since the war, and that condition obtains for this year as well. But, as I told the meeting in Halifax, if the industry is not supported in its home market it becomes increasingly difficult to justify continued aid from the taxpayers of Canada. I believe that if the people of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick meet the challenge of lowering the cost of production and supporting the industry in the home market, they will soon put the industry on a sounder basis.
There is a long history in the maritime coal industry, according to rumours I have heard, of difficult labour-management relations. But I am convinced, from personal observation and regardless of the past, that there is presently a good relationship between management and labour and a growing sense of responsibility. I am convinced that both management and the executive of the unions are very sincere and are doing their best to work out the salvation of the industry. If the present campaign to enlist the support of consumers is successful, it will help, not only to preserve the home market but to

provide much needed encouragement for those who are struggling directly with the problem.
The dominion coal board has engaged the services of Dr. A. G. Christie, professor emeritus of the Johns Hopkins University, who is an outstanding expert on thermal power development, to make a survey of the power establishment and potential of the maritime provinces with a view to promoting the greater use of coal in the production of cheaper power. He is presently engaged in that survey and the report will be made available to provincial governments and private industry. This is being done on the theory that the production of power will consume more coal, and cheaper power will attract more industry which will also enlarge the market for coal. We are hopeful that Dr. Christie's report will lead to beneficial results.
The Mordell project to develop a coal-fired gas turbine is in its third year. The results to date have been satisfactory. The machine is presently in operation for testing purposes. The results are being carefully studied with a view to the next step which will be practical application. The results are being carefully watched by the railroads and other industrialists. Similar experiments are being carried on in Great Britain and the United States and their results are being carefully checked with experience gained at McGill.
Our laboratories at the fuels division of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys are continually experimenting with coal combustion problems, relating to the Mordell experiment and other enterprises, and also new uses for coal. The experiment carried on in the fuels division are closely co-ordinated with other efforts throughout the world, and with other efforts throughout Canada by provincial governments and others. The experiments in this field require large capital investments in equipment, and in planning the work of the department an effort is made not to duplicate work done by the provinces or by other agencies in the United States and Great Britain. At the present time the fuels division is carrying on an experiment which was initiated by the United States bureau of mines and discontinued at the time of the last change of administration.
Although there have been no recent spectacular results to report, the field of research is not being neglected. Two-thirds of the funds available to the fuels division of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys are being spent on coal research. There is now a staff of approximately 50 engaged in this work. The annual cost of coal research to this department is $332,750 for this year, including the Mordell project.
83276-422J
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
I believe that the provincial government of Nova Scotia and others in the industry are giving careful study to the possibility of heating by electricity. This would indirectly promote greater use of coal, and would perhaps provide the answer to oil competition for domestic heating. Our country is expanding rapidly. If Canada reaches a population of 22 million by 1975, we will require for all purposes at least 2-5 times more fuel than we now use. Although the coal industry is now fighting for its life, I am sure that within a few years coal will play an increasingly important role in the supply of energy and fuel. We believe that it is in the national interest to extend support to this industry for the year 1954.
Before resuming my seat I should like to pay tribute to the dominion coal board, and also to the permanent staff of the coal board. The members of the dominion coal board serve without pay and come here several times a year to assist the government in the problem of administering the subventions, the problems of research and the over-all problems of the industry.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the statement the minister has given dealing with the problems of the coal industry. Certainly I am not in a position to comment on the suggested program he has brought forward-or possibly failed to bring forward, I am not sure which-with respect to the Alberta and western coal industry. That is a matter in connection with which I am sure hon. members from western Canada can make comment, when they see fit to do so.
But I must say, so far as his proposals for the coal industry of the east are concerned, that we have not been furnished with a particularly sumptuous fare tonight. After all, these discussions were delayed from March until now so that the minister could give us an announcement of government policy. And having heard that announcement we find that Dr. Christie has been retained to make further research studies in the use of coal. We appreciate any research that is to be conducted; but that is not very much to offer an industry upon which the whole life of the maritime provinces depends.
The minister has also commented on the fact that Nova Scotians must support the coal industry, and has also said that he was down there recently attending a dinner given in Halifax. I shall comment upon that dinner in a few moments. I think possibly the sumptuous fare he received that night was on a more generous scale than he is proposing to offer to the industry at the present time. Because apparently he was impressed by the argument which was advanced that night,
G682	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys that Nova Scotians must burn more coal if the industry is to survive. And we realize that in that province there is a responsibility on everyone to support an industry which means a great deal to the province. But that, in itself, is not a solution. If I recall his figures correctly, the minister said a moment ago that about 500,000 tons has been supplanted by the installation of oil burners in the maritime provinces, and 500,000 tons is no mean amount. I grant that. But that, in itself, is no answer to the problem.
One would hesitate at this late hour of the night and late date in the session to take the time of the committee to deal with this problem, were it not for the fact that this is of vital interest to the people of the maritime provinces. Not only is it of vital interest to the people represented by my hon. friend from Cape Breton South, and other constituencies in that area, but it is also vital to all of us in the maritime provinces. It is vital to the hon. member for Queens, Prince Edward Island, and to the hon. member for Charlotte, in the extreme southwest corner of New Brunswick. It is of vital interest to the Annapolis valley; for the economy of the maritime provinces, to a greater or lesser extent, is reflected in the prosperity of the industrial area of Cape Breton. And if that area goes down, or is prejudiced to any material extent, then we are all prejudiced. And that is why I do not apologize for speaking at this time.
The minister has referred to a dinner he attended. I read a press report concerning it and, if I recall correctly, the minister of mines in Nova Scotia said at that dinner that the coal industry brought directly to Nova Scotia more money than is received in that province for family allowances, old age pensions, and all the cash payments made by the dominion treasury to the provincial treasury of Nova Scotia, which is a very substantial amount of money. One can easily see what that means in the purchase of agricultural products and everything else in the maritime provinces.
There is no doubt that the coal industry as a whole is in a bad way. One does not have to reinforce that statement with figures. I have some figures which are published by the minister's department and which show a reduction in the consumption of coal-a reduction not only in Nova Scotia. The minister has said that Nova Scotians must save the coal industry. Well, look at the consumption of Canadian coal as a whole and you will find, using round figures, that in 1949-50 the nation consumed 19,726,000 tons, that in 1951 that amount had fallen to
18,400,000	tons and that by 1953-54 it is


estimated that it is going to fall to 15,500,000 tons. In other words there is a fall of 4 million tons in the last two years in the consumption of Canadian coal by the nation. And a substantial part of that reduction comes of course from the use of American coal. There are various explanations offered. The minister has suggested that one reason has been the installation of oil burners. I know people are inclined to blame the railways for the installation of diesel engines. Indeed, sometimes I have indulged in some such criticism, myself.
I noticed the other day, in reading the evidence of Mr. Donald Gordon before the committee of this house, that he gave figures to show-and I shall not repeat the figures at this time-what the dieselization had meant in a reduction in the consumption of coal in Canada. And, although it is substantial, it is not such an impressive figure. He made this positive statement, that the Canadian National Railways could and would buy every ton of coal produced by the maritime mines, of adequate quality, if the price was right. In other words he indicated that it was not a matter of coal being supplanted by dieselization, but that to a certain extent at any rate it was a matter of government policy, as to whether the government-owned railway was prepared to buy coal from our mines at this time.
That is something I would impress upon the minister, as well as the fact that Nova Scotians must burn more coal. We have to consider how many government institutions have supplanted coal-burning installations with oil-burning, and how much coal is being burned by the railways today, or could be burned.
I say again it is not a matter of dieselization so much as it is one of government policy as to how much coal will be used. And this is not the first time that the coal industry has faced a disastrous situation. My memory goes back, as I am sure the memory of the hon. member for Cape Breton South does, to earlier days in Nova Scotia when the mines in that province, as it was then said, were facing disaster. And whatever one may say of a company which today is operating 90 per cent of those mines, certainly one can say at least that the labour situation is vastly improved over what it was in the twenties. I recall a time when special mounted police were requested by the Nova Scotia government to ride down miners on the streets because they were protesting against unemployment, and the virtual starvation which was in existence at that time.
The consumption of Nova Scotia coal at that time was down to a matter of a few

hundred thousand tons, and I think it is only right to say that it was due to the energy, the courage and the imagination of two men, and those who were associated with them at that time-the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, who was then prime minister of Canada, and Gordon Harrington, then premier of Nova Scotia, and the minister of mines-that that situation was solved.
We find, for instance, that in 1931 and 1932 only 413,000 tons of maritime coal moved outside for consumption. In face of that disaster the Bennett government, at the request of the Nova Scotia government, increased subventions materially, and as a result the consumption of Nova Scotia coal jumped in the next year or two years later to 1,600,000 tons, an increase of over 400 per cent, and went on from there to over 2 million tons. Even today it is still at the level of 1,600,000 tons. That shows what can be done by, as I say, imagination, energy and courage directed toward the solution of the problem.
I am not suggesting for one moment, Mr. Chairman, that increased subventions are going to solve this problem, except to a minor degree; but it was used as a solution at that time, and it proved successful. It gave to the industry what one might call a shot in the arm, which pulled it out of the slough into which it had fallen. We had a reorganization of the company; we had better labour relations, and as a result we went on until we came to the situation with which we are confronted today. I believe that again something can be done to improve this situation if you have imagination and if you face the situation realistically.
In its report the coal board set forth what it believes must be the solution of this problem. I will not read it. At page 13 we find the following:
That the Canadian coal mining industry is vital to our national economy is axiomatic. The best approach to these problems appears to be by way of concerted courses of action by the federal government, the provinces and components of the trade itself.
What is the future? Is there a future for this industry? I think the minister, by his own departmental officials, establishes definitely that there is. The other day we listened to the Minister of Trade and Commerce speaking in this house. He was dealing with atomic energy. He outlined the demands for increased electrical energy in this country which were to follow if Canada pursued the normal course of development. Without checking on his figures, as I recall them, he stated that by 1975, if Canada had developed every bit of hydroelectric energy which would be available, including the proposed
24. 1954	6683
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys development of the St. Lawrence seaway, we would still be 10 million horsepower short of full requirements of the development of industry, and he suggested that some of that would come, he hoped, from atomic energy. I hope he is right. But why concentrate on the development of atomic energy for this purpose? I think that a large amount of that power could come from a further utilization of coal.
The minister paid tribute to the officers and members of the dominion coal board. I join in that. I hold in my hand a speech which was delivered to the mining institute by Mr. O'Brien, who was assistant to the chairman of the dominion coal board. He deals exhaustively with the situation as it is today, and points out that the total consumption of Canadian coal this year has dropped down to 15,500,000 tons. He says it is going to drop still further. He fears it may take a substantial drop. Do not forget that the total, including United States imports, was 32 million tons. He goes on to say that on the basis of any reasonable estimate, and I think his estimates are reasonable, it would appear that by 1965, and that is not very far away as time goes, we are going to use 45 million tons of coal in this country. That is going to tax the coal-producing facilities which we have today. Therefore I say this is a matter of national economy, not only from the standpoint of saving the economic framework of the mari-times but also from the standpoint of the nation as a whole; it is essential that we safeguard this mining industry.
I do not have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that a mine is not like a restaurant. You cannot close it up today, put a padlock on the door, go away and come back ten years from now, clean out the spiders and cobwebs, put in a new stove and start operations. You have to maintain those facilities.
The minister has told us about our mines being expensive. We realize they are based under the sea; we realize that the seams go down under the sea. We realize also there are problems of flooding, and the rest of it, which once allowed to get away from us would be almost insuperable to deal with in the future. Therefore I say that the figures definitely establish there will be a need for Canadian coal, a great deal of Canadian coal, over the next few years. The minister says that his department realizes the importance of it. I say that if that is the case, then certainly there must be a greater degree of co-operation than we have had heretofore in the development and the maintenance of that industry.
6684	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
There are many ways in which it could be done of course. There is the steel industry of the maritimes, one of the great potential markets for coal. It should be further extended and developed. One can feel a little bit unhappy about threats which one sees today in the export of ores to other parts of Canada rather than to Cape Breton where, if we had them, and under co-operation with management, a greater steel industry could be established and far more coal could be used.
The minister referred to the development of electric energy from the use of coal. He said that a survey is being made of the use of coal for that purpose. Well, power demands for energy are expanding, Mr. Chairman, but the answer to that is to provide more industrialization. If we have more industries in the maritime provinces we will need more energy, and therefore we will be able to use more coal.
I want to pay tribute to the Nova Scotia Light and Power Company for the way in which that company is burning Nova Scotia coal today and is offering a greater market for that coal in the future. I am told by engineers that oil is almost competitive with coal today. When speaking about oil potentials we must remember this. Almost half of our time in this house is directed toward international affairs and the possibility of crises; in other words, the possibility of war. Do not ever forget, Mr. Chairman, that all of the oil that comes into the eastern seaboard is brought in by ship. We have no pipe lines in the east, and we will not have them, as far as one can see, in any possible foreseeable future. We therefore cannot allow a situation to develop where our industrial life, our domestic economy, is dependent upon the importation of oil, because it might be cut off at any moment of time.
The minister referred to research. That has been discussed before. The minister has mentioned also the possibility of the turbine engine. He says that research has gone on for three years, and is going to go on further. I think it should go on, Mr. Chairman, much more rapidly. Possibly there lies the solution to a major problem of the coal industry. If they could solve the problem of avoiding the ash, the engineers say that the engine is just about ready for commercial use. That is quite possible. I have seen the engines and the engineers before the railway committee, and we read of them in other places. Once a few more kinks are ironed out, the turbine engine can produce power more economically than any other instrument known to man. If that happens you will


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that this item had to remain in the blue book until this stage of the session. I anticipated there would be a discussion on this subject much sooner than this, otherwise I would have raised it on a motion to go into supply because it is a question of great urgency and importance and I do not give the minister very much credit for the way in which he handled it.
But I am not going to criticize the minister because he is relatively new to his present position. This industry faces a very serious crisis. There was a meeting held on March 12 in this city at which representatives of the mine workers union, the coal companies, and members of the provincial government were present and the recommendations made at that meeting, so I understand, went to the cabinet. The main reason why we delayed this discussion was to give the minister an opportunity of finding out exactly what the government policy was so he could announce it in the house and lay the basis for discussion. But that announcement was never
made in this house until tonight, and as far as I am concerned I am disappointed with it.
However during the period when we were waiting for the minister to issue a statement arising out of the deliberations of the cabinet the minister issued a statement to the press and I would suggest to him that in future it would be good policy for any minister in this house to make his announcements in the House of Commons before making them through the public press.


George Prudham: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. The hon. member is wrong. I am quite sure I did not make any statement to the press. What the hon. member may be referring to are the orders in council approving the extension of subventions at the same rate as last year.


Clarence Gillis: I am not going to argue that point with the minister. I have half a dozen clippings here from newspapers in which he is reported to have stated that the government had increased the subventions and made a sort of packaged deal with Westville, Nova Scotia, and so on. These are matters which arose out of the cabinet deliberations based on that meeting. This announcement was never made in the house. However, I guess we all make mistakes.
I want to assure the chairman and members of the committee in this house that as far as I am concerned I am not fighting for the maintenance of the coal mining industry because it provides good jobs. It is the last job I would recommend anyone to undertake as a means of obtaining a livelihood. I have done a lot of it myself and I hope that I live to see the day when it will not be necessary for men to go underground and sweat and go through the misery I have gone through in operations of that kind in order to obtain a bite to eat, and that is about what it amounts to. Therefore, I do not want anyone to think that I am pleading for the maintenance of that industry because it is a good means of obtaining a livelihood for those who are obliged to go underground and dig coal.
I am not including those who operate these coal mines and those who have investments. It is a relatively good position to be on the board of directors or in the higher echelon of officials, but as a means of livelihood for a man who has to dig coal, and I do not care whether he gets it with modern means or with the old-time shovel, it is still a long, hard, backbreaking job in which you become prematurely old at the age of 35 or 40, when your back begins to break, and then you are seeking a cure for arthritis for the rest of your life.
6686	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
Another thing I am not doing is asking for charity for the people of Cape Breton island. They are pioneers. They are the stock that came to this country when there was very little in it and they chopped down the trees and built whatever there is in the way of industry and civilization in that part of the country and in other stretches of this country.
They are not the kind of people who want charity. If they have to get out, they will do so and they will not do much squawking about it. But in order to get an intelligent discussion of this problem there are two or three things that we must think about. The first one is this. We must make an assessment of the value of this industry in the Canadian economy. If it is not of any value, it should not be maintained. But if it is of some value in the economy of the country, it should be maintained just as we have to maintain wheat and other essentials.
I am first going to point out what the coal industry means to that community. The minister knows that about 30,000 people are employed there. There are another couple of thousand in Newfoundland in the iron industry. Let it not be forgotten that coal is the basis of the iron and steel industries. All of that set-up is dependent upon the maintenance of a basic coal industry. The corporation produces half of the bituminous coal mined in Canada. Its steel plant at Trenton and so on is based on coal. Coal is the main prop of the whole economy of Nova Scotia. What does it mean to Canada as a whole?
I assume that the minister and every other responsible member of this committee think that we are going to build up and to expand the steel industry in this country. Any nation that asserts that it is an industrial nation but does not develop a basic steel industry is only trying to fool someone. It is necessary to have a basic steel industry in a country like Canada. You cannot have a basic steel industry without bituminous coal. That is something that must be remembered. When there is talk about letting the basic bituminous coal industry go in Canada, it means that you are going to let your steel industry go also because you have no other fuel which will take the place of coal, whether it is oil, natural gas, atomic energy or anything else. You must have bituminous coal and you must coke it in order to turn out basic steel. So if for no other reason than for the sake of the national economy of a country that in the future will be a great industrial section of North America, in my judgment it is necessary to have a coal industry. The basis of the economy of an industrial nation is steel. The basis for steel


is the bituminous coal industry. For these reasons this industry is important to this country.
The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys is a good witness to call on the subject of the importance of the industry. In the Ottawa Citizen of February 4, 1954, the minister makes a very good statement. This article was written by Austin Cross, and the minister is likely to remember it. In that article written by Mr. Cross the minister points out the importance of the coal industry in the event of another war; the possibility of an increase in the coal needs of Canada; the fact that you cannot measure the oil deposits accurately; that you do not know how much you have; that there is not any assurance that it is going to last forever; that with the development of air transport and ships the use of oil is so great today that the drain on it is going to be terrific in the future; that to think about letting the coal industry go, as I mentioned a few moments ago, considering the factors I mentioned is not to be considered. The minister builds the thing up to a much greater extent. I do not want to read his own statement back to him but it is a good statement with regard to assessing the value of the coal industry in Canada's future.
There is another analysis made here just recently. Quoting the dominion coal board, this writer points out as follows:
"Final analysis of Canada's future energy requirements," reports the dominion coal board, "indicates that the demand for coal will substantially increase over the present level from about the year 1S65 onwards. A major problem facing the Canadian coal industry is how to bridge the gap between today's lowered consumption and the expected augmented demand of the future."
That is a realistic position for the coal board to take. However, there is quite a large gap there between 1954 and 1965. It is too long to keep coal miners on unemployment insurance; and if they are not on unemployment insurance, it is a long time to be hungry. The coal board is there definitely warning, as did the minister, that by the year 1965 we are going to need a coal industry. As the hon. member for Annapolis-Kings-Hants pointed out-


Mr. Marlin:: The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings.


Clarence Gillis: Yes; the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings. I always get that holy trinity mixed up. As I say, he indicated that closing up a coal mine is not just like closing up a restaurant or a beer parlour. If you close a coal mine-particularly one of those submarine mines-and leave it shut down for three or four months, that is the end of it. It takes in water very fast; it

fills with gas; the roof will cave in; and the first thing you know you have no mine to come back to.
Another thing that needs to be remembered is this. If you get your trained coal miners out of that industry and into something else, you will not get them back into it. A great many people proceed on the assumption that you can take anybody and put him down in a coal mine and he can dig coal. That is a wrong assumption. The Americans found that out in 1920 when they thought they could dig coal with bayonets in Colorado. Fairly soon they did not have any bayonets, they did not have any soldiers going to dig coal and they did not have any coal mine.
To become a coal miner, in a submarine mine in Nova Scotia at least, there is a certain procedure that must be followed. You are not even permitted to go to the coal face and be recognized as a coal miner or to engage in that work until you have had three years of apprenticeship. After you have had three years of apprenticeship you must write an examination and be qualified before you get a certificate. That is just the ordinary Joe who digs coal. It takes him at least 3J years before he is allowed by law to go to the coal face in any mine in Nova Scotia. Of course when you get into your managers and your overmen and those categories, the mathematics required is equivalent to a university education. You just cannot get that kind of people overnight. It takes time to get them.
In that industry in Nova Scotia at the present time you have a well-trained staff. If they were displaced and got away from there, you would not be able to replace them in this generation. If by 1965 the requirements of the country are as forecast by the coal board, someone in this country must take some responsibility for the maintenance of the industry. I think that is all I need to say as to the value of the industry, not only in the economy of Nova Scotia but in the future development of Canada.
There is another question we shall have to ask ourselves, and I hope someone in the opposition will not accuse me of looking for a seat in the Senate or of always defending the government. I like to call the shots as I see them. That industry is in bad shape. Who is responsible? The answer to that question is obvious. The coal resources of any province are in the hands of the province. The government of the province is the custodian of the resources for the people of the province. That is the first point to remember.
The second thing to remember is that the provincial government leases that resource to the corporation. Under the terms of the 83276-423
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys lease the corporation has the right to manage it. During the last twenty-five or thirty years the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation has had a complete monopoly in the province as far as coal is concerned. Under the present scheme of things nobody has a right to dictate to the provincial government or the company as to how they should manage the industry. So they go along and they get into difficulties. I want hon. members to remember that the federal government has no authority to give orders either to the province or to the corporation as to the management of the industry.
There was no authority at all until the outbreak of the war. Then it was made a national industry under the War Measures Act and the federal government had some say. But after the war was over the authority reverted to the province. Therefore whatever is wrong about the condition of the industry from the standpoint of marketing and salesmanship, the responsibility for that rests squarely on the shoulders of the provincial government and the corporation. After a lot of discussion in the house from year to year the government finally appointed a royal commission which brought in a report analysing the industry from coast to coast and saying what they thought should be done. The minority report contained a recommendation to set up a dominion coal board.
On June 17, 1947 a bill was passed by the house establishing the dominion coal board. If members will look at that legislation they will see that it gives the board very little authority. The explanatory note merely stated that the bill provided for the setting up of the dominion coal board, that the board would have advisory functions under section 6 and administrative functions under section 8, and that its regular officers, clerks, employees and so on would be civil servants. The board merely had an advisory function. But that was one thing at least that was done to bring about some regulation on a national scale. An effort was made to see what could be done about developing the mechanics to make it work.
After a lot of deliberation and consideration legislation was passed by the house to assist the producers of coal in the Atlantic maritime provinces. I heard arguments advanced before the passage of the bill that production was down and costs were high, and the reason that was given was absenteeism, that the men were not working. That was the swan song of the corporation for several years. You do not hear that any more. However that was said to be the trouble. The industry was in bad shape but it was said that the company was not responsible. Therefore this legislation was introduced to
6688	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys lend them some money for the purpose of carrying out a program of mechanization.
I am not going to repeat my opinions. I said a good many times in the house long before that legislation was passed that that kind of program would not be of very much value. Of course I only worked in these mines for twenty-six years. I did not know anything about them, but someone with a little book knowledge comes in as general manager and he knows all about it. An appropriation of $10 million was made and a mechanization program was started. The minister told us tonight in his policy statement that the program is two and a half years behind. That is pretty good engineering, two and a half years behind with a mechanization program that was going to increase production tremendously.
It did not increase production. Just on the eve of the federal election the company closed one of their largest collieries, the one in which they installed their first heavy electrical equipment. Of course this business of mechanization is a misnomer so far as these collieries are concerned. These mines were always mechanized. The coal was cut and bored by machinery, but the machinery was operated by compressed air. The change-over could be more properly termed an electrification program because they put in electrical equipment to replace air-driven machines.
That mine was closed affecting some 1,600 men. It was done overnight with no notice except a radio announcement that they were not working any more. So far as the company was concerned, that was all the notice the men got, although there was talk about the closing for a year before. At that time the men made an offer to the provincial government and the company. They said: "There is no need to close the mine. It is faulty engineering that is the trouble. Give us that mine for one month and we will increase production by 40 per cent. Let us have a try at it and get these engineers out of the way for a while". But the mine closed. It is now back in operation.
The company is hollering today because in the maritime provinces there are 90,000 domestic units using oil or propane gas. Whose fault is that? Is that the fault of the people? If you are operating a business, have a commodity to sell and do not sell it, it is not the fault of the customer who may turn to some other commodity. The fact that oil and propane gas installations have been made to that extent in the maritime provinces adds up to a faulty sales policy on the part of the company, and nothing else.

The minister did not say this but I said it to a board of trade meeting in Sydney at which the general manager of the company was present. I said that I was prepared to argue that the Canadian National Railways had carried out their dieselization program too fast. I said that in the house and in the railway committee to Mr. Gordon before any diesels were used on the C.N.R. I told Mr. Gordon that he should make haste slowly with that program and give the coal industry a chance to adapt itself. But while we can criticize the C.N.R., and rightly so, for carrying out dieselization east of Montreal too rapidly, I should like to ask the minister if he knows that at the steel plant in Sydney, operated by the same corporation that operates the coal mines only thirteen miles away, there are thirteen diesel engines doing the shunting in the general yard which has meant that some 1,200 tons of coal per month are no longer used.
That is the company that is operating the coal mines. I should also like to ask the minister if he knows that in a recent swing-over in their open hearth operations the company installed electric equipment that displaced the use of another few thousand tons of coal. They changed to electricity. They can argue of course that it was done because they have to cut costs and so on. That is fine, but if we are going to sell that coal-and I have told them this-to people in eastern and western Canada, including the Canadian National Railways, the company should lead the way by using their own product in their own business in and around the steel plant.
Now, the responsibility rests with the provinces. There is where the first responsibility lies, with the company and with the provincial government. I go over these disabilities and try to place them where they belong, but that is not the cure for this situation. In my judgment, there is an answer. The coal industry today cannot be looked at by itself. It has to be looked at as one section of the whole fuel industry because they all tie in together. We are spending a lot of money in the development of hydroelectric power in Ontario, in the state of New York and so forth; we are rushing at it in just such a manner as the Canadian National rushed to put in these diesels. At the same time we are building pipe lines from coast to coast. The other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce clearly indicated that there was too much haste in building a certain pipe line to the west coast on the assumption they were going to supply the area with oil. It is more economic to


bring in oil by a different method, and people are buying the oil brought in in that way. We are going to pipe natural gas from Alberta all the way down to the east. The coal industry is making a bid to come back.
Does that not tell the minister that in a country like Canada the first requirement before you are going to get anywhere is to try to develop in the centre of the country a body like the coal board. This board would have to have more personnel, a couple of fuel engineers, a few economists and some accountants, who could sit down and examine the country and ascertain the most economic use of oil, gas, electricity or coal in the different zones across this country. Let us stop for a moment and think about the newspaper reports we have seen for the past several months. We are being told that atomic energy is about ready. A few days ago the Minister of Trade and Commerce told us quite definitely that atomic energy would be used in the foreseeable future for the generation of power and at a cost at the switchboard which would be equivalent to coal selling for $8 per ton.
The minister indicated there is a survey being made in the maritimes of the possible uses of thermal power. If the use of atomic energy is so close, do you not think we are being very foolish in the rush there is today across the country to pipe this oil and gas to various centres? Atomic energy might make these things obsolete next year. I know there is a huge experiment being conducted in Britain. I believe the minister has a committee investigating this question today. What we need is a competent body with some authority because there are certain people in this country who, if they see they can make a dollar in the stock market, will go out and build a pipe line. There are other people who do not realize what the future fuel will be, who will put money into a particular development of a fuel that will perhaps be obsolete next year.
If we are going to be sensible, and if there is a dominion-provincial conference, I believe the proposition should be put to the provincial governments concerning the establishment of a national fuel policy. We can call each other names all we like; we can blame this fellow, that fellow and the other fellow, but in the final analysis if we do not get authority in the hands of some central organization that has the power to analyse the problem and correlate all the fuels that are in their embryo stages today, I am fairly sure that within the next four or five years we are going to wind up with a mess on 83276-423J>
24.	1954	6689
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys our hands in the fuel field. This is a field with which we cannot afford to fool because it is at the root of our whole economy.
In so far as this turbine engine is concerned, I know that everyone who expresses an opinion on it is only making a good guess, but I think the statements in the press during the last several months to the effect that the turbine engine will be the saviour of the coal industry is bad psychology. I have looked at it, and I know the minister has been down to look at it, as has the chairman of the coal board. I do not believe that engine as it is today will ever be in service in a locomotive. Of course that is not yet determined, and the only way it can be determined is for the Canadian National to get a large appropriation of money, put their engineers in there to see what kind of locomotive it would need. Then they would have to build a locomotive to accommodate it, and that would take a long time. I do not believe that is a solution of the present difficulties of the coal industry.
As the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings said a moment ago, it might perhaps be the best method for the generation of power in small power plants using coal. However, I still do not believe that that engine will be ready for any commercial use within at least the next ten years; that is my own opinion. It is only a guess, but that is all anyone can make at the present time.
I am sorry that at this stage in the session I had to get up and say this, Mr. Chairman. I want to seriously suggest to the minister that so far as I can see there is no other solution for this whole fuel problem in Canada except getting a competent body, and making arrangements with the provincial governments to make this industry a national industry. Then you could take all the fuels, have them examined realistically by competent people and determine what use you are going to make of them in relation to the possibility of atomic energy in the foreseeable future for industrial purposes.


George Prudham: May I ask the hon. member a question? Did he suggest that all sources of fuel should be nationalized?


Clarence Gillis: I do not know what the minister means by "nationalized", Mr. Chairman.


George Prudham: I do not know what the hon. member means by it.


Clarence Gillis: I did not use the term. I never used the word at all because there are too many people who do not understand it and it has too many bad connotations. The minister will recall what was done during the
6693	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys war. It is peculiar that we can work so effectively in a crisis. One of the first things that was done was that the coal industry was made a national industry. People were put in to handle it who had authority; wages went up; standards were raised and we got vacations with pay for the first time in the history of the industry. Everything went along fine. As soon as the war was over the machinery was unscrambled. I should like to see you take authority for the whole fuel industry across this country as you did during the war. If a war broke out now you would do it overnight; you would have to do it in order to avoid a lot of overlapping, extra costs, competition and mix-up in the fuel industry-


George Prudham: Perhaps shut off the oil into Nova Scotia?


Clarence Gillis: What was that? No, I do not say cut it off at all. The minister cannot say that because he does not know any more about it than most people who talk about it. We are all feeling our way, but we are honestly trying to get rid of a bad mess. The minister knows this very well. The mess the coal industry is in today is due to the fact that you have been working on the same mechanics for the last 75 or 80 years. It has always been in trouble; this is not the first time. As far back as I can remember it has been in trouble because of faulty mechanics. And it always will be in trouble the way it is today.
Then so far as that business of nationalization is concerned, I seem to have more confidence in the federal government than most of the ministers have because I am quite prepared to hand over the organization and direction of the fuel industry of this country to the federal government, as the elected representatives of the people of Canada. I would rather take a chance on the attitude of the minister of the government, to whom I can talk in the House of Commons, than take a chance on some president of a board of directors living down on mount Royal in Montreal, whom I never have a chance to talk to. If the minister wants to call that nationalization, all right. The only thing is that I am a little bit sorry he is afraid of himself.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Ernest George Hansell: I am prepared to go on, if the
committee agrees. Perhaps after I have concluded my remarks the item might pass- I do not know.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South is a very good friend of mine. In our speeches on coal we always seem to be able to hit it off pretty well. He, of course, has


some practical knowledge. My knowledge is gained from studies I have been able to make, and conferences I have been able to have with those in the coal mining industry. But I will say this, that while the hon. member is a very good friend of mine I do not think he answered the minister's question with respect to nationalization.
We listened this evening to what has come to be known as the minister's policy speech, upon the introduction of the departmental estimates. I should like to make only one or two comments on what he said. He mentioned the fact that the government had been interested in the coal mining industry for the last 28 years, and lauded the work of the coal board, and in that I agree with him. Perhaps the coal board has not had all the authority it may have desired, but so far as the responsibilities placed upon it are concerned I do not think anyone would criticize that board.
The minister mentioned subventions. I am quite willing to give the government all the credit necessary for the introduction of its subventions policy. Because I am quite certain that the coal mining industry of Canada, particularly that of western Canada, would have folded up many years ago had it not been for the subventions paid on the movement of coal. I will give the government all credit for that.
Nevertheless I do maintain, and have maintained over the years, that the government has never really had an adequate national coal policy. The minister was quite apologetic in his speech when he referred to the present situation in the coal mining industry of Canada. He made special mention of the problem in the Crowsnest pass where recently a very substantial coal mine was closed down. He said that these mines in the Crowsnest pass will have a reasonable chance, but in the very next breath he pointed out to us that one of the largest coal mines in the Crowsnest pass area, the International Coal and Coke Company, had closed down. How they can have a reasonable chance when at the same time they are closing down, I do not know.
To my mind the minister's speech painted a rather gloomy picture. He did say he was hopeful, and it is a good thing to be hopeful. But we also hear it said that hope deferred maketh the heart sick. While he said he was hopeful, he said also that the coal mining industry is fighting for its life. That is the expression he used, that it is fighting for its life. And then he proceeded to say, "But I am confident". Now it is a very nice thing to be hopeful, and it is also a nice thing to be confident. When I go back to my constituency and have to meet the coal miners

and the coal mine operators-those who are operating mines about to fold up-I will have to tell them, "Well, the minister has confidence." I am afraid the coal miners are apt to turn to me and say, "That is all right, Hansell, but confidence does not put any pork chops on our tables, nor does it buy the baby any shoes. You can't run the coal mining industry on hope and confidence."
Of course the picture is not all one-sided. While the minister painted a gloomy picture, he said he was facing the facts. The situation is becoming desperate. Some months ago I received telegrams from various parts of my constituency in the Crowsnest pass calling my attention to the fact that these mines were closing down. I have one resolution here from a meeting held at Natal in British Columbia, also in the Crowsnest pass. This community is not in my constituency, but is bordering it. I am sure other hon. members may have received a similar resolution. It was passed at a meeting attended by residents of the Crowsnest pass area in Alberta and British Columbia, and reads as follows:
Resolved that we press upon both the provincial and federal governments to implement a Canadian policy which will enable Canadian coal to supply the Canadian market, which will bring the establishment of the industries to process coal for its by-products: which will increase unemployment insurance benefits and make them continuous until steady work is available; which will recognize that the welfare of the mines and the mining industry is a government responsibility, and it is their duty to provide either work or full maintenance.
The other telegram comes from a public meeting held in the town of Blairmore. I have another telegram from a member of the local legislature. I shall not read these, but they show the seriousness of the situation, because these were sent pursuant to the announcement that these coal mines were closing down. I brought the matter up in the house at that time and, if I may, I shall read the minister's answer. I asked my question when the orders of the day were called on March 24. My question was as follows:
Has the government any knowledge of the report appearing in the Calgary Albertan that the coal mines in Coleman, Alberta, are to close down operations on March 31, and that other mines in the Crowsnest pass are likely to follow with shutdowns? If so, does the government contemplate any remedial action?
And I want hon. members to take note of the answer the minister gave. It is quite lengthy, but the part I wish to call to the attention of the committee is this:-


George Prudham: Read it all.


Ernest George Hansell: All right, I shall, but I did not want to take the time.
Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report to which tny hon. friend refers. I am sure all hon. members
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys know that the coal industry in both eastern and western Canada is experiencing difficulty at the present time. In western Canada the industry's difficulties have been brought about largely through competition from oil and gas. I need not remind hon. members that the natural resources belong to the provinces. The province of Alberta has prospered enormously from the sale of natural gas and oil rights; only recently I saw a report of one sale amounting to over $30 million for two comparatively small areas of land.
This is the part that I was going to quote, without the other, for the sake of brevity:
The province of Alberta is prospering from these recent developments. The coal industry is suffering from these developments. What I would like to know is, what is the Alberta government going to do about it?
I do not like to be mean in my expressions, but I am going to tell the minister that I regard that as nothing but a cheap political answer. What has the Alberta government done about it? In his speech tonight the minister had something to say about what the Alberta government had been doing in respect to the coal mining industry there. Perhaps I can read a passage from Premier Manning's budget speech of a few months ago. This budget speech was given on March 5. I asked the minister the question on March 24. As I say, the budget speech was delivered on March 5; therefore the minister should have known what the Alberta government had been doing about it. On page 10 of Mr. Manning's budget speech, published by the queen's printer, we find the following:
Alberta's important coal industry has, in recent years, suffered from loss of markets to competitive fuels. Replacement of railway locomotives by diesel units and the conversion of coal burning locomotives to oil burners has greatly reduced what formerly was a substantial market for bituminous coal. Oil and gas progressively have eliminated coal from local domestic and industrial markets, while excessive transportation costs have made the capture and retention of eastern Canadian markets extremely difficult. Production in 1953 totalled 5,917,423 tons, a decrease of 1,277,049 tons from the previous year.
The government has assured the industry of its full co-operation in a renewed effort to increase the sale of Alberta coal in eastern markets and in this endeavour the government of the province of Ontario and the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys of the government of Canada have indicated active support. The government is convinced that a long-range solution to the problems facing our coal mining industry must be sought in fields other than the utilization of coal in its natural state. With this in mind, the legislature at this session will be asked to approve a substantial appropriation to provide a research laboratory for the^ Alberta research council with special pilot plant facilities for coal research. The government of Canada has agreed to assist in staffing this research laboratory with qualified personnel to carry out this important program from which it is hoped beneficial results will be obtained.
The minister knew that when he asked what the Alberta government was doing. That is why I say it was a cheap political
6692	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys answer. I am quite sure the minister will not deny that the Alberta government have co-operated in every way possible with his own department in order to bring about a better day for the coal mining industry. I never heard Mr. Manning or anyone in the Alberta government criticize the minister's department. I believe there is the best of co-operation between the two departments. Why? Because they both have something to gain, the country has something to gain, and I am not going to say that the minister's department is not anxious to care for the welfare of the country or of the coal mining industry or whatever comes under that department. The fact is I do not think they know where they are going in respect to a national coal policy.
The situation is serious, Mr. Chairman. Might I say this: Not only has the Alberta government done that, they have done something further, and this is something the minister did not mention in his speech tonight. At the recent legislative session the Alberta government appropriated $100,000 for the rehabilitation of unemployed coal miners so that they could be taken somewhere else and be re-established. That is a magnanimous thing because the situation is serious, without very much hope for the future. Therefore it is a matter of what are these men going to do? They have built their homes there; they have raised their families there; they have worked in the mines all their lives; they are competent coal miners. As the hon. member for Cape Breton South said, it takes a lifetime to develop a coal miner, and when they grow older or are thrown out of work there is nothing much else they can do. They have to be put somewhere or rehabilitated, and encouraged to establish some place else if possible. The Alberta government recognized that and appropriated $100,000 for the purpose. When I was home a few weeks ago one of the ministers of the Alberta government was down in the Crowsnest pass looking over the situation and taking applications. In one day they had about 300 applications. That is what the Alberta government is doing, Mr. Chairman, if the minister wants to know. It is not the first time of course that the coal mining industry has had to face a serious situation.
We in this group have brought these things to the attention of the government many times. For the last two years, year in and year out, the hon. member for Red Deer has urged the government to take further steps to make something of this coal mining industry by bringing into existence a real coal policy. The hon. member for Bow River has the Drumheller coal mining industry in


his constituency. I referred to the hon. member for Red Deer. He has the coal mining industry in the community of Nordegg, and I have a coal mining industry in the Crowsnest pass. The hon. member for Lethbridge has a coal mining industry there.
We are interested in this because in Alberta there are countless millions and millions of tons of coal in those hills. I said it was serious, Mr. Chairman, and it is. I hold in my hand a clipping from the Calgary Herald that the hon. member for Red Deer handed to me. It indicates something of the seriousness of the situation. It appeared in the Calgary Herald on March 1, 1954. I will not read the whole article. It states that statistics show that the coal production in Alberta alone-these are not national figures -dropped 1,277,049 tons in 1953. The output in 1952 was 7,194,472 tons; in 1953 it was 5,917,423 tons. The highest production in Alberta was in 1946 when it ran to about 9 million tons. At that time 200 mines were operating. Now there are just 150 mines. In 1946, 9,153 people were employed in those mines; now the employment is less than
7,000	and since this was written several mines have closed down. Another article appeared in the Calgary Herald of May 26, 1954 and it states according to a Canadian Press dispatch:
Supplies of coal available for consumption In Canada reached a 13-year-old low total of 38,163,000 tons In 1953.
These are the figures for the Dominion of Canada now.
The bureau of statistics announced today in a preliminary report that the total was 8 per cent lower than the 41,620,000 tons available in 1952.
In other words, an 8 per cent drop.
Domestic production of coal fell to 15,896,000 tons in 1953 from 17,579,000 tons the year before.
Here is a drop in one year of nearly two million tons. I say the situation in the coal mining industry in Canada, not only in Alberta, is serious. This department of government must have some responsibility. Otherwise this part of the minister's department would not exist. They must recognize some responsibility otherwise they would not have a coal board. But what have they done? What are they doing?
I said a little while ago that we should compliment them on their subvention policy throughout the years, but in reality if you look at it that is not something that the coal board or the minister's own department necessarily worked out. This is a financial arrangement, and all they had to do was simply to go to the Minister of Finance or the treasury board and say, "We can do this

if we can subvent the railways for the movement of coal. Have you got the money?" And when the treasury board answers, "yes, we will pay that sum of money," then that part is taken care of. It is a solution from a financial angle rather than a solution with respect to a coal policy.
But I wish to say that there is no question in my mind that the government have failed in some of their announced objectives. I have here a copy of Hansard for May 13, 1953 and at page 5284 the minister is reported as saying in answer to a question put to him from this corner of the house:
The dominion coal board was created by legislation and brought into being by proclamation on October 21, 1947. The board at an early stage in its deliberations adopted, with the concurrence of the minister, a series of principles that in effect may be recognized as a coal policy. These principles are:
Now let me read them, they are five in number. This is the minister's statement as he continued:
(1)	The maintenance of an adequate supply of coal for our national requirements;
(2)	The support of a sound and healthy coal producing industry in Canada;
(3)	The development of steady and adequate markets for the output from Canadian mines;
(4)	The provision at fair wages of reasonably full employment for Canadian miners;
(5)	The possible extensions of the market for Canadian coals, with the resultant savings of foreign exchange.
Now, let us see how far they have succeeded in that coal policy:
(1)	The maintenance of an adequate supply of coal for our national requirements;
Well, we will say that they have succeeded in that. I do not know that the credit necessarily goes to the government. The coal mining industry is able to supply our national requirements, but we will give credit to the government for success No. 1.
(2)	The support of a sound and healthy coal producing industry in Canada;
They have failed, the industry is not healthy.
(3)	The development of steady and adequate markets for the output from Canadian mines;
The verdict: failed.
(4)	The provision at fair wages of reasonably full employment for Canadian miners;
Verdict: failed.
(5)	The possible extensions of the market for Canadian coals, with the resultant savings of foreign exchange.
What verdict shall we write on the tombstone? Failed! There you have it.
Now, then, Mr. Chairman, that is not all. The thing is becoming a bit of a joke. That was what the minister said on May 13, 1953.
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys But almost a year after that, as late as February, 1954, the minister comes out and says the same thing, knowing that four parts of his declaration of policy had been a failure.
I have here the report of an interview the minister gave. The clipping does not say to whom he gave that interview, but the minister will know. Here is a report from the Montreal Gazette dated February 19, 1954. It is a Canadian Press dispatch. The heading is "Canada Needs All Her Fuel- Prudham". The article states:
Canada should not neglect any of her sources of fuel-she will need them all, mines minister Prudham said today.
I will not read all of this article but this is the thought I wish to emphasize:
On coal policy, the minister said the government favours: maintenance of an adequate coal supply for Canada's national requirements.
What he said a year ago.
A sound and healthy coal industry;
What he said a year ago.
-finding of steady markets for Canadian coal;
Just what he said a year ago.
-reasonably full employment and fair wages for miners and possible development of new equipment and methods which would lower production and transportation costs.
He said it all a year ago and yet he continued to say it then, even though he knew as late as February, 1954, that the coal mining industry of the Crowsnest pass and other parts of Canada was about to fold up. It seems to me such an accurate repetition that the minister must simply have recited it. Whether he knew he was reciting I do not know. Perhaps he was like me when I was a boy at school and I used to labour through these literary gems-


An hon. Member:: You have not changed much.


Ernest George Hansell: Perhaps I have not, but I think I have come a long way since those days. We used to study in our class in literature a book called "The Lays of Ancient Rome". But what did I want to know about the "Lays of Ancient Rome?" I was more interested in the "Lays" of the old pasture across the road from my front gate. Yet I laboured and memorized and I would stand up and quote passage after passage. I did not know what it was all about. I did not know anything about the "Lays of Ancient Rome" and 1 was not concerned about them. But here the minister repeats five things and turns around a year later, gives an interview, and repeats the same thing knowing full well, of course, that in at least four parts of his declaration he has failed.
6694	HOUSE OF
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys
I have a report from the Financial Times for February 19, and it is really the same report as the other, but it elaborates a little bit. It states the same sort of thing:
Canada must conserve its "energy supply" declared Hon. George Prudham, minister of mines.
I do not think I need to detain the committee much longer. How can the minister say these things when the evidence is to the contrary? I have another dispatch here. I must have dropped that piece of paper. Maybe it is a good thing that I did so. In any event,
I have my notes here. The bureau of statistics not long ago said-oh yes. Here it is. This was the clipping I read-that this 13-year-old low fell by about 2 million tons. That is from the dominion bureau of statistics. It was not the hon. member for Red Deer who said it. It was not the member for Bow River who said it. The hon. member for Cape Breton South said it was not he who said it. It was not the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings who said it, nor was it the hon. member for Lethbridge or the hon. member for Macleod. Those are the figures issued by the dominion bureau of statistics. We pay $5 million a year for them to hunt out the statistics for us. Now on the heels of those statistics, the minister comes along and declares this as Canada's policy. It is a policy as to which four points have failed and the other one is successful by reason of the fact that the coal mining industry is doing what it can.
I am not going to detain the committee any longer but I will say this. The minister's appraisal tonight was an honest report. As gloomy as it was, he faced the facts. I think it is well that we should face the facts. If we cannot arrive at a national policy so that the coal mining industry may be established as it should be established-if we are not going to do that-let us tell them so. That is the proper thing to do. I believe that the minister in his speech has just done that tonight.
If we have to move forward to a more progressive age where we are now substituting other fuels, then let us tell the coal mining industry that and let us tell these coal miners that. Let us tell the coal miners, "These are the facts. We may as well tell you that. We will appropriate a little bit of money to see you re-established somewhere else". That is the best thing we can do.
I do not blame the minister for his speech. He has faced the facts. As far as facing the facts is concerned, I am with him and wish him luck in his extremely difficult task. I realize that that is a difficult task. It is difficult by reason of the fact that we are living in an age of progress. Nevertheless the coal is there and the day may come when we may


need it. But in the meantime, if we have to move forward and keep abreast of progress, then let us move forward; but let us tell the coal mining industry and the coal miners the actual facts.


Mr. Buchanan:: Mr. Chairman, the subject now before the committee, namely, the dominion coal board estimates, is one which is of great interest and importance to the people of my constituency. In my riding we have several large coal-producing collieries; in fact, the coal industry is the base of the economy, not only in my riding but in the whole of Nova Scotia. That is the reason I am going to make a few observations at this time. As the hour is late, I will be brief.
To give you some idea of the importance of the coal industry in Nova Scotia, I should like to point out that salaries and wages paid to coal miners in Nova Scotia in 1952 amounted to $35,709,646. The steel industry at Sydney and Trenton is dependent upon maritime coal, and salaries and wages paid by this industry in Nova Scotia in 1952 amounted to $36,970,000. The transportation of the coal and steel products from the mines and steel works is a third large item in the maritime economy which is dependent upon coal.
The very existence of North Sydney, Sydney Mines, Sydney, New Waterford, Glace Bay, Stellarton, New Glasgow, Westville and Springhill, and many other small towns, depends largely upon the continuous production and use of coal. There are about 120,000 people living and working in these towns and the business connections, the requirements for food and merchandise of all kinds spread out through all Nova Scotia. Without this firm base, the economy of Nova Scotia would be in a very bad and perilous condition.
I think, Mr. Chairman, these facts clearly show the value of coal in the economy of the province by the sea and, in fact, to the whole of the maritimes. The situation is one that requires careful analysis so that this industry may be permitted to make its proper contribution to the economy of Canada.
I am sure everyone in this house realizes that the difficulties of eastern and western Canada arise largely from our geographical position. The fathers of confederation recognized this when confederation was brought about. They, in their wisdom, deliberately turned their backs upon a cheap or low-level economic life for Canada and accepted the handicaps of our national geography by planning for an economic life artificially maintained at that level required by our various interests, and not dependent upon

the American trade. We all know that we in Canada pay more tor our automobiles, our machinery, our textiles and a host of other articles because the fathers of confederation deliberately set out to build a nation.
Today our costs are higher than those of our neighbours because of duties, freight rates, and other handicaps and similar causes that were accepted as part of the price of nationhood. These costs can be substantially reduced by eliminating tariffs, buying in the cheaper American market and by this means committing suicide as a Canadian nation. I think I am quite safe in saying that there are very few among us who are willing to exchange our nationhood for the purpose of solving any of our regional problems.
In their deliberations the fathers of confederation and succeeding governments recognized that the coal industry of the maritime provinces should receive the same help and safeguards as the manufacturing industries of the central provinces. This help has been extended in many ways since the first examination of the situation by a select committee of the House of Commons in 1877., when it was proposed that a duty be imposed on United States coal.
The duties have fluctuated and today the only remaining duty is one of 50 cents per ton on bituminous coal imported from the United States. Drawbacks of this duty are allowed on a very large tonnage and the effect of the duty is offset to some degree by the present favourable exchange on the United States dollar. Added to these difficulties is a new and serious competitor to the coal industry of the maritimes in the form of cheap imported heavy fuel oil and the recent development of natural gas. Heavy fuel oil is produced in foreign refineries and is being dumped at the present time upon the world market at whatever price it will bring.
The congress of the United States has been petitioned to impose a heavy duty upon this oil and it has been reported that by mutual agreement between producers and importers the importation of this oil into the Atlantic seaboard of the United States is being restricted. There is a duty of one-third of a cent per gallon on oil entering Canada, which is roughly equal in fuel value to about 50 cents per ton of coal. Our maritime coal industry is practically wide open to this competition.
There is also a substantial production of heavy fuel oil by oil refineries in the maritime provinces from crude oil imported by sea from foreign countries free of any duty.
24,	1954	6695
Supply-Mines and Technical Surveys I am sure you will agree with me that the coal industry of the maritime provinces, facing the kind of competition that I have indicated, is labouring under great disadvantages, disadvantages that only action by the federal government, in co-operation with the provinces, can solve. Perhaps the suggestion made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South that all Canadian fuels be brought under a competent body would focus attention on the best method to use our fuels in the interests of Canada.
The federal government has helped. In fact, without the help of the government the industry would not have survived. Successive governments have for many years provided assistance to the coal industry by means of subventions. These subventions have been particularly important to the maritime provinces and have enabled the Nova Scotia industry to market some two to three million tons of coal in the Quebec and Ontario markets each year. This has been of benefit to Nova Scotia by providing a market for the extra output, and by maintaining a high and fairly constant level of production has held down costs. It has been of benefit to the central provinces by enabling the maritimes to purchase that much more of the manufactured goods of Ontario and Quebec. It has been of benefit to the nation by providing an additional tie of common interests between the central and the seaboard provinces.
The coal mines are having a very difficult time these days for various reasons. There is no need for me to enumerate these reasons at this time. I am sure that the government is fully aware of them and is helping to find a solution in so far as the federal government has the authority to do so.
The subject, Mr. Chairman, is a technical one and it is involved. I make no pretence at being an expert. I am not, like the hon. member for Cape Breton South, a miner, but I have grown up among miners. I have worked with them and I have worked for them. I know they have legitimate difficulties, and I am sure that with the combined intelligence of the members of this House of Commons and the understanding and co-operation of the provinces concerned a solution for the coal industry will be found.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Chairman-


John Angus MacLean: Ten o'clock.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -the discussion-


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, the committee has been sitting for ten hours today already, and I think in fairness not only to

Supply
the membership of the committee but to the staff of the house we should rise and report progress.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I am entirely in the hands of the committee. Perhaps I might say something at this stage which it is not really my duty to say. If hon. members have a prorogation date in view that they hope to reach, it can be reached only by concluding the business which remains to be done.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We have until Saturday.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Therefore it will be in the hands of the members of the committee when that date is reached.


An hon. Member:: Carry on.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is there consent to sit later?


Some hon. Members:: No, no.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: I move that the house do now adjourn.
In the morning we shall take the amendments made in the other place with respect to the public service superannuation bill and then proceed with the business I indicated earlier.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 11.40 p.m.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
342.	Operations-including salaries and other expenses of staff post offices, district offices, railway mail service staffs, and supplies, equipment and other items for revenue post offices, also including administration; and including, notwithstanding section 16 of the Civil Service Act, payment, in such amount or amounts as may be approved from time to time by the treasury board, to civil servants who are hired as casual employees, $76,007,630.
343.	Transportation-movement of mail by land, air and water, including administration, $48,524,258.
344.	Financial services, including audit of revenue, money order and savings bank business; and postage stamps, $2,586,950.
Loans, investments and advances-
541. To authorize and provide for the operation of a revolving fund in accordance with section 58 of the Financial Administration Act for the purpose of acquiring and managing material to be used in the manufacture of uniforms and satchels, the amount to be charged to the revolving fund at any time not to exceed $425,000.

699. Operations - further amount required, $1,265,904.

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-General administration-
177.	Departmental administration, $683,551.
178.	To provide for expenses of the economics and research branch, $528,366.
179.	Annuities Act-administration, $997,528.
180.	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, $468,714.
181.	Canada labour relations board, $5,275.
182.	Administration of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, $9,200.
183.	International labour conferences, $62,120.
184.	Labour Gazette, authorized by Labour Department Act, $136,043.
185.	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, $335,000.
186.	To provide for expenses of a women's bureau, $24,090.
187.	To provide for payments to implement a program for the rehabilitation of disabled persons, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the governor in council, and administrative expenses connected therewith, $197,513.
Vocational training co-ordination-
188.	Administration, $67,795.
To provide for carrying out the purposes of the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act 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; for training of personnel for the merchant marine and training under youth training projects and to provide for the expenditures thereunder and under vocational training agreements entered into in previous years-
189.	Training payments to the provinces, $4,290,000.
190.	Payments to the provinces for capital expenditures for vocational schools, buildings and equipment, $300,000.
Government employees compensation-
191.	Administration of the Government Employees Compensation Act, $67,259.
Terminable services-
192. To provide for expenditures incurred in implementing recommendations of the national advisory council on manpower, and for the administrative costs of the council, $11,700.
193. To provide for payment to the national film board for educational films for exhibition, $24,000.
194.	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 with the supervision and welfare of persons already immigrated to Canada; administrative expenses connected therewith and to provide for expenditures under agreements with the provinces authorized by the governor in council. $878,258.
B-Unemployment insurance commission-
195.	Administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1940, including expenditures incurred in connection with the activities of the national employment service as delegated by the Minister of Labour in accordance with section 97 of the act, $28,122,859.
196.	Government's contribution to the unemployment insurance fund. $33,750,000.
197.	To provide for the transfer of labour to and from places where employment is available and expenses incidental thereto, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, $75,000.
A-Department-Vocational training co-ordination- To provide for carrying out the purposes of the Vocational Training Co-ordination Act and agreements made thereunder; to authorize the
Supply-Labour
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; for training of personnel for the merchant marine and training under youth training projects and to provide for the expenditures thereunder and under vocational training agreements entered into in previous years-
669.	Training payments to the provinces-further amount reauired. $140,000.
670.	Contribution to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind towards the costs of facilities for the vocational training and rehabilitation of the blind, $350,000.
B-Unemployment insurance commission-
671.	To provide for the transfer of labour to and from places where employment is available and expenses incidental thereto, in accordance with regulations of the governor in council-further amount required, $125,000.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 25, 1954