1956-06-28

INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. I can assure him it has nothing to do with wheat or box cars. Can the minister inform the house whether there is any truth in press reports that the infamous Krupps intend to establish a branch steel plant in Canada?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have heard no
suggestion that Krupp is to establish a steel plant in Canada. I have read press reports, but I am quite certain that had there been any serious plans I would have heard of them, and I have not.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Can the minister inform the house if he is taking any steps to ensure that A. V. Roe workers will not be laid off as the result of a cut-back in the production of the CF-100?
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the government
has found it necessary to cut back the production schedule of CF-100 aircraft at A. V. Roe starting later in the year. However, A. V. Roe is a private plant and the government would have no voice in the disposition of its labour; that is a matter for A. V. Roe.


Mr. Pallelt:: May I ask a supplementary question? Is the minister aware of the representation that was made in this house that steps would be taken to ensure that there be no troughs of unemployment in the aircraft industry or that the working force would be maintained?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not suggesting that the cut-back represents a trough in aircraft work. I stated yesterday that the 67509-346
aircraft program initiated five years ago has now been completed and that the work of the aircraft plants will be to provide replacements for the aircraft that have already been built. In the case of A. V. Roe a new plane is coming into production in a year or two, but I would not regard the present lay-off as a trough. I think it likely that the lower level of employment will endure for some time.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the Minister of Defence Production a question somewhat related to the questions which were asked earlier in regard to the cut-back of production in the A. V. Roe plant. Will the government call a conference, representative of labour, management and government, to discuss the situation involved in this pending lay-off, as is being requested by the union concerned, and in line with the previous undertaking given by the government in this connection?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I know of no undertaking given by the government that a meeting between A. V. Roe, its employees and the government would be called to discuss lay-offs. A. V. Roe is a private plant and has a contract with its employees, which contract I assume will be carried out. The Department of Defence Production orders the aircraft that the Department of National Defence indicate as required from week to week. The labour relations within the plant are not within the purview of this government.

On the orders of the day:


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with the question I asked him a few minutes ago. Would the minister care to check with the Department of Labour with respect to the statement that the government gave no undertaking to call a tripartite conference in view of the information that has been received by hon. members today by telegram that in January 1955 such an undertaking was given with respect to the future lay-off plan?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to search my own files. I do not think I need to go beyond that. As far as I know, labour matters at A. V. Roe are handled by the province. I do not know of any labour agreement with the federal government.



ALLEGED IMPORTATION OF UNITED STATES WELDERS INTO BRITISH COLUMBIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is the minister yet in a position to give any information to the house on the question of the issuance of permits to welders to enter the province of British Columbia to work on the pipe line there?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Yes, sir, I intended to speak to the hon. gentleman privately about this matter. We have had an interim report from Vancouver and I am expecting a more detailed report in the current mail. It does appear that the actual union which is the bargaining agent for these welders has no complaint whatsoever and that another association which is not the union in question has made some complaints. These complaints have been investigated and in the main they appear to be almost entirely without foundation. However, it has been the practice of employers to ask welders to go to the place where the work is to be done in order to have their tests and that has put them to some inconvenience. I am told arrangements have now been made to have the tests conducted in Vancouver.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the minister advise the house when he is in receipt of the detailed report to which he referred?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be glad to speak to the hon. gentleman about it as soon as it is received.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs, and to ask him whether he is in a position to make any observation on what the effect will be on North American defence should Iceland decide to cause United States troops there under the NATO agreement to withdraw? Would he also say what representa-


tions, if any, Canada by reason of its peculiarly friendly attitude to Iceland, is making in order to warn of the serious danger to North American defence should the course indeed be followed of causing NATO troops to withdraw from Iceland, rendering that country more or less vulnerable to communist attack?


Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: My hon. friend, I am sure, will appreciate the great importance of this matter and he will not expect me to deal with every aspect of his question. The defence agreement between Iceland and the United States which provides for the stationing of United States forces was concluded in 1951 as a result of a request from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I should have said at the outset that I am grateful to my hon. friend for having given me notice of his question, and having given me an opportunity thereby of discussing this matter with those whose job it is day to day to deal with this particular situation.
The secretary of state for the United States has recently stated:
The United States has bases in Iceland, not in its own right but acting as an agent for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
I may say it is a question in which Canada and other NATO countries have a definite interest. The treaty provides that either the United States or Iceland may, at any time, on notification to the other government, request the NATO council to review the continued necessity for the facilities and their utilization, and to make recommendations to the two governments concerning the continuation of this agreement. If, six months after the review by the council, no understanding is reached between the two governments, either government may at any time give notice of its intention to terminate the agreement, Which will cease to be in force 12 months from the date of such notice.
The resolution passed by the parliament of Iceland before the recent elections in that country, which called for a revision of the defence agreement, referred specifically to the appropriate article in the agreement, and at the same time reaffirmed the decision and the intention of Iceland to support NATO.
The Canadian government hopes that if a new Icelandic government should decide to ask for a revision of the defence treaty, as envisaged in the resolution of the parliament of Iceland, it will be possible to reach a compromise satisfactory to Iceland and all of the NATO partners.
We cannot know, however, what Iceland's policy will be toward the defence agreement

until the government has actually been formed. 1 do not think it is desirable at this time that anything further should be said on this matter.


ATOMIC ENERGY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether an amendment has been negotiated between Canada and the United States to the atomic energy agreement? It is reported in the press this morning that some change has been made.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, I intended to make an announcement today. It is understood between governments that the announcement will be made at 2.30 this afternoon.
On June 18 I advised the house that the government of the United States had proposed that the Canada-United States bilateral agreement on atomic energy should be amended to provide for an exchange of information with respect to the development, design, construction, operation and use of reactors for the propulsion of naval vessels, aircraft and land vehicles. I am now able to advise the house that the amendment has been signed. Copy of the amendment will be tabled in the house in the next few days.


REFERENCE TO PRESS REPORTS OF ALLEGED IMPURITIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, during the last week there have appeared some very disagreeable reports in the press regarding impurities to be found in Canadian cheese. I would like to assure hon. members of the house and people elsewhere that cheese from Oxford has neither manure nor mouse hair in it.


PIPE LINES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Forf William):: Mr. Speaker, I did not give the Minister of Trade and Commerce any notice, but I do not think he needs any. I should like to know whether there is any foundation in fact for the article which appears on the front page 67509-3464
Unemployment Assistance of the Globe and Mail that there are enough orders for gas in Canada alone, without the United States, to make the gas pipe line pay?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that orders have been received for quantities of gas which promise to make the pipe-line financeable without recourse to export sales.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the hopeful statement he has made as to the economic possibilities of the pipe line with respect to Canadian sales alone, is he now considering revising the program of providing government finances for the pipe line?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, Mr. Speaker, when I reconsider anything to do with pipeline arrangements we will have another three weeks' debate.


INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED IMPORTS FROM POLAND
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce regarding the question I put on the order paper on June 1, and the answer he gave was as follows, as reported at page 5435 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I gave a verbal answer to a similar question.
I would like to remind the minister that my question was completely different from the one that was asked by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Boisvert), I think it was, some time early last week. Whenever it is possible for him to do so I would like the minister to answer the question I have put on the order paper.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, since I spoke in the house on this subject yesterday I find that my hon. friend's question is on the order paper. I have spoken to my staff about a prompt answer and I think the answer will be ready within the next day or so.


UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE
Paul Joseph James Martin: the second reading of Bill No. 436, to authorize contributions

Unemployment Assistance by Canada in respect to unemployment assistance costs in the provinces.


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of National Health and Welfare intend to make any further remarks?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I had not intended at this time, Mr. Speaker, to say anything in addition to what I said in a preliminary way yesterday and by way of reply to certain questions. However, I shall be very glad to deal with any questions that may be put from time to time.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us has just been in our hands about an hour or so. As a matter of fact, I think I just received it about 12.30 p.m. today. We have not had too much opportunity to go over it and, of course, the actual bill itself is closely related to and almost dependent upon the agreements. It is merely an implementation of the agreements themselves which are of a rather technical nature. So apart from asking questions on the clauses as they come before us there is really not very much we can do at this time.
I should like to reiterate one statement I made last night, that when the major central provinces are not in this scheme, necessarily a large part of Canada is excluded. Therefore for the minister to say that there is now no excuse for anyone making remarks with reference to the participation of the federal government in unemployment assistance is scarcely true. I asked the minister yesterday for copies of the correspondence with the provinces, particularly of letters from officials of the nonparticipating provinces. If my memory serves me well the minister said that those had been tabled. I cannot find them; they are not anywhere. The only correspondence that I could find was-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let me explain; I did not understand my hon. friend yesterday. There were no letters from officials tabled, but there were letters from the heads of governments and responsible ministers which were tabled. That is what I thought my hon. friend was referring to.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I would be grateful if the minister would tell me when they were tabled. I searched all morning and so far I have been unable to procure them. In the absence of explanations from the premiers or their ministers of the non-participating provinces it is difficult to know just what are the reasons for their failure to participate.
I would think that in a debate such as this the reasons put forward by the responsible
[Mr. Martin.)

ministers in those provinces would be vital. As a matter of fact there are a few thoughts which come immediately to my mind without knowing what the provinces may have said on the matter, and the first one is-


Mr. Marlin:: Would the hon. member permit me to see if I can help her in her presentation at the moment. When we get into committee I could deal with these specific questions. For instance, it is most difficult for me to do this now. The hon. member has asked me about these provinces and I shall be glad to answer when we get into committee. I think I can facilitate the matter.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If the minister has the information at hand and can tell us precisely what objections were raised by the nonparticipating provinces, that would be extremely interesting.


Murdo William Martin: I shall be glad to do that.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Having had some experience in municipal affairs I know it is unrealistic to expect the provincial or municipal administrations to be responsible for the administration of this assistance. The government of Canada has set up right across Canada its own machinery to handle unemployment insurance benefits and it would seem to me that if the government of Canada intends to do something to assist those persons who are not otherwise covered, either by reason of failure to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits because of being in uninsurable employment or by reason of having made insufficient contributions, if the government intends to go along with some sort of assistance it seems to me it could have gone much further than is indicated here in administering these applications.
It is my opinion that the social security plan set out in what came to be known as the green book, the proposals of 1945, have been practically scuttled by this government in the preparation of the plan which has now more or less been forced down the throats of the participating provinces. The percentage which I mentioned yesterday and other pertinent factors again are set out in the agreements; they are not a part of the bill itself. Because they are part of the agreements, actually the attitude of the respective provinces to the agreements they have made, whether they have signed them willingly or reluctantly, enters very substantially into this particular bill and its enactment.
All of these things, it seems to me, are up in the air. They are matters on which we do not have too much information. I hope that the minister will be in a position to give us

what information is at hand with regard to the specific reactions of the various provinces, when we come to the committee stage of this bill.
Since we discussed this in the resolution stage last evening and since I received the bill today at noon I have given it all the attention I could and I still take issue with the minister's statement that, in making his agreements with the provinces and bringing in this legislation to implement these agreements, the federal government is paying a share of what was formerly relief for unemployables. I take issue with that because I think it is now clearly set forth that the basic platform, if you will, below which the government does not participate still leaves the municipalities and provinces entirely responsible for what would be considered their basic load of ordinary relief. In addition to that, over and above the basic load, the provinces and municipalities are still paying 50 per cent of the cost, and the government is participating only to the extent of 50 per cent. Under these agreements it looks to me-and the minister can correct me if I am wrong-that the provinces and municipalities are also paying for all the administrative costs.
With these remarks I am willing to leave the introduction of this bill until we get to the committee stage, and then we shall try to pick up the rest of it on the clauses.


Harold Edward Winch: I should like to speak for a few minutes on this bill, which I think we shall all agree is an important one. It was possibly only at ten minutes to five yesterday afternoon that the Minister of National Health and Welfare introduced the resolution preparatory to the introduction of the bill. I listened very carefully to what he had to say and also to his request that, if possible, the members of the various opposition parties refrain from discussing it at the resolution stage but wait until the actual introduction of the bill, when we could then know the bill and be able to discuss it efficiently and with knowledge of what it meant. Possibly at about half past five last night the bill got its first reading. At six o'clock the leader of the house informed us that, after the orders of the day, it would be the first business this afternoon. I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think it is a matter of disrespect and discourtesy to the members of the House of Commons, after meeting the request of the minister, that we members should not have been able to receive this bill and study it until about-as far as I am concerned-a quarter after twelve this afternoon. Time after time I telephoned in an effort to get it, because I am interested in this bill but I did
Unemployment Assistance not get it until a quarter after twelve, and it is called for second reading this afternoon.
I mention that matter in particular, Mr. Speaker, because, after reading the bill, I find it is almost impossible to understand its implications without any reference back to the appendix at pages 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of Hansard under date of January 11. The bill itself cannot be understood in any way whatsoever without reference to the appendix of January 11. Without that reference back to something prior, it is difficult to understand the principles of the bill when you get it only some 2J hours before the house meets on second reading. Between the time I obtained the bill and now I have been trying to understand it in view of the appendix of January 11. That is all I am going to say about that matter. I think the minister will recall that he himself said it was one of the most important bills introduced. That is the only time before second reading that we have ever seen the bill and been able to refer it back. To be honest, I may say I am told that 100 copies of the bill were ordered before then, but I checked with all hon. members in our party here and found that not one of us had received one.
I want to say this. The bill itself, as we can now read it, understand it and tie it back in with what was placed on Hansard on January 11, is certainly a great advance by this federal government as compared with the federal Liberal government's attitude back in the hungry thirties. In those days the federal Liberal government answered, with a police baton, tear gas, riot acts and what I call concentration camps, the pleas of those who had nothing to eat and nowhere to go. I am not going to spend much time on this matter but I may say this. At that time I was a member of a provincial legislature and we were obliged to face the exigencies and problems of the moment. It was my hope that on reading this bill it would be made clear in the bill itself that the problems had been met. From the bill itself that is something you cannot tell. I want to say that it does help if you read the appendix of January 11. But even after so doing I am not yet sure in my own mind that the government has met the problems that can arise. Although it cannot be understood on a second reading of the bill, even tied in with the appendix, it is my hope that the minister in committee will make it clear that all the complexities that arose in what is the prime example, namely the hungry thirties, have been covered by this bill, by the regulations that are going to be made thereunder and by the contracts that have been or will be signed by the provinces.

Unemployment Assistance
From experience I can speak only for the province of British Columbia. Despite all the sincerity and integrity of the minister and despite the bill which he is now introducing and which is an advance, I am convinced that he is not going to be able to solve this problem of assistance to the unemployed who are not covered under other acts unless there is-as eventually there must be-an over-all security program on a federal basis. As long as we have a situation whereby an individual is covered under various jurisdictions and various administrations, I am afraid there will always be inefficiency, unnecessary duplication of costs and, unfortunately, those who may be obliged to suffer because they are caught, even after this bill is passed, between the varying governmental and administrative responsibilities. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I personally am sorry that the minister, in the introduction of this bill, has not given a lead with respect to an overall security program for the entire Dominion of Canada.
I want to make this as perhaps a first major point. I know the British North America Act and I understand the allocation of jurisdictions and responsibilities as between the federal government and the provincial governments. All municipalities are children of provincial governments. I think it is wrong that, in the introduction of this bill and the principle of it, there is no acceptance by this government of the principle that municipalities are no longer in a position to be responsible financially-and should not be so responsible -for those who are indigent within their boundaries. In discussing the principle of a bill, as I am now doing, I believe the fact that the principle is not included there is something to be regretted by all of us and something which must eventually come about. Under the terms and principle of Bill No. 436, it is completely an agreement between the dominion and provincial authorities without any recognition of the fact that at the present time, as in recent years, with the additional costs of government, the powers of municipalities as far as the collection of moneys is concerned, have not been and cannot be extended. In this, the first time that the government have accepted any responsibility with respect to any government outside of itself, they have not made it clear that it is a responsibility shared between the federal and provincial governments for those who are not covered under the Unemployment Insurance Act which is federal, the Disabled Persons Act which is federal and the provincial acts on mothers' pensions and so forth.
Sir, I have tried to find, in the principle of this bill, just what is going to happen as

regards those who have not established a domicile in accordance with provincial regulations. I can say to the minister that I have checked under the act and find that this goes back to the appendix which is found under section 10, subsection (i). I want to speak on this principle because-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I can assure my hon. friend there is no residence qualification at all.


Harold Edward Winch: There is no residence qualification. As I said, it refers back to the appendix. There is no residence responsibility so far as the principle of Bill No. 436 is concerned; that is left to the residence qualifications existing in the province. In British Columbia we have the residence responsibility act. It is my understanding, and I have checked this with the minister's own office, that irrespective of residence it is the intention of the ministry,-I hope he will correct me if I am wrong-that any person in Canada no matter what his residence is, so long as he resides in Canada, if he is not covered by any other act of the province must receive all the benefits of this act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Section 5 of the agreement.


Harold Edward Winch: That is so, but is it clear? It is not clear to me yet. If a province does not accept complete responsibility of the cost but passes on responsibility to the municipalities, and if a municipality has, as we had in the hungry thirties not one but thousands coming into places like Vancouver, is it clear that they must give the benefits but not at the expense of that city, town or municipality. This is just one of the things I should like to have the minister make very clear because it is important to the municipalities. I can remember back in the hungry thirties when the British Columbia government and the municipalities spent $92 million before they ever got one cent from the federal government.
Now, again speaking strictly on the principle of this bill, I have tried since I got the bill to find out what it means. It is my understanding, if I may refer to the province from which I come, that when the agreement is signed, -45 per cent of the population must be unemployed before the federal government comes into the picture. I am certain the minister does not mind that I phoned his department this afternoon, and I was informed that at the present time you are taking the population of British Columbia as 1,305,000. On the basis of -45 per cent, there would have to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of just less than 6,000.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It would be 5,872.


Harold Edward Winch: Yes, just less than 6,000, before the federal government comes into the picture. When the federal government comes into the picture, it is on the figure above that. Let us say it is 6,000 just for a figure, and there are 1,000 who are not covered by anything else. Then the federal government, under this bill, comes into the picture. It is my understanding that then you will take the 7,000, that is the complete 7,000 who are unemployed, average the cost and multiply it by the 1,000, and you are going to accept 50 per cent of the responsibility. This, sir, as part of the principle of the bill, should be further explained by the minister.
It means this. If all those who are unemployed are eligible for any form of assistance, that is unemployment insurance, supplementary benefits, disability pensions, mothers' pensions, old age pensions, those unemployed are not in the picture so far as this bill is concerned. This bill only applies to those who are unemployed because they are unemployable or cannot meet the conditions of any other grant. We are not basing this bill on the principle of the number of unemployed, we are basing it on -45 per cent of those who are unemployed and who are not covered. In British Columbia this means we have to have over 6,000 unemployed beyond those unemployed eligible for any other benefits before the federal government steps in and accepts any responsibility.
I want to say that, personally, I think much as I welcome this advance, that is unfair. It means, so far as British Columbia is concerned, that unless the proportion of unemployed who are not covered by any of the existing acts reaches -45 per cent of the present population, which would be about 6,000, this government is accepting no responsibility whatsoever. I think, sir, definitely that the federal government of Canada is responsible to all those who are unemployed irrespective of the reason for which they are unemployed. This principle is not now being accepted, and I am certain of what I saying. I appreciate the fact, and I want to say so, that when you do start accepting responsibility, although you only do it under the principle of this act after you have -45 per cent of the population unemployed, you will average the entire cost of all the unemployment; but you will only pay for those over -45 per cent.
I want to give credit to the minister for the advances made. If I am making a mistake in my interpretation and analysis of this he will tell me. This is my understanding of the situation. Perhaps, sir, I have to go back, and I want to, on this matter of responsibility.
Unemployment Assistance I have mentioned it before, but I want to speak about it again. This legislation makes an agreement only between the federal and provincial governments. It is up to the provincial governments to decide what they do with their 50 per cent. I imagine that the majority of the provinces, if not all, are going to pass some of it on to the municipalities. I am sorry about that. As I see it, the minister should have worked out something different-I know the problem of the municipalities-under which it was the responsibility of the two governments. Eventually, I think it has to be the responsibility of one government, namely, the federal government, under a national security plan.
I emphasize the fact that this question of people moving from one province to another cannot be handled efficiently without one responsibility. We shall always have a problem, if there is a tri-partite arrangement and administration between the federal government, the provincial governments and the municipalities, especially, sir, when it is my understanding that the interpretation of this bill, when applied to the appendix of January 11, as it relates to people going from one province to another, is not dependent upon any decision or principle of the federal government, but is dependent upon an arrangement between the provinces. I see my hon. friend shaking his head. I can only read the principle of this bill, and on page 28-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend think I was unfair to suggest that these questions, all of which are important, could be dealt with when we get into committee? He could put those questions at that time. I can only say at this time that I can explain that when we get into committee. I do not want to interfere with my hon. friend. I am trying to find a mechanism that will prove as helpful as possible to both of us.


Harold Edward Winch: In discussing the bill I am trying to raise the points as I see them. The minister can explain the principles in committee but, sir, it very definitely is my reading and understanding of Bill No. 436 that the federal government is prepared to pay 50 per cent of all the costs of transients from one province to another, but that the actual arrangement has to be made as between the provinces. I just cannot read the bill and the appendix of January 11 in any other way. If that interpretation is wrong I certainly hope we shall have an explanation from the minister when we get into committee.
Sir, this is a most important matter. I can assure the house and the minister that we welcome this completely new approach by a Liberal government, and it is a new approach. Previously, they have relied on the

Unemployment Assistance police, the tear gas and the baton. I know; I even tasted them myself. Up until now, even though we have had the problems of the unemployed in all provinces, not by any act could we get anything from the federal government. We had to rely on the provincial governments having some sense of responsibility. The minister now is introducing a bill. We welcome it. We are sorry that it is not a total security bill. We hope he will just go back in his mind's eye and perhaps check on some of his own civil servants, and perhaps check on one of his deputies, who was in British Columbia and who knows the problems, to make sure that when the bill is finally passed in committee, although it will not go as far as we in this group think it should, it will go as far as is humanly possible, with the limited vision of the Liberals, and do the best it can to see that no person who is a Canadian citizen, irrespective of where he is in any province or in any municipality, need not go hungry, unclothed or unsheltered.


Mr. C. E. Johnston (Bow River):: I wish to say a few words on the principle of this bill at this time. Like others who have spoken, I found it a little difficult to find the time to go over the bill because-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wonder whether my hon. friend does not think it would be better to have this general discussion in committee where we could all deal with it?


Charles Edward Johnston: I agree with what the minister has said, but the unfortunate part of it is, it only emphasizes what I am about to say, namely, that it was not until about half past twelve-


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I explain that. I know the house will believe me when I say I am not habituated to provoking any discourtesy. The house co-operated with me fully last night. I understand that we had placed-not in accordance with custom-100 copies of the bill on the table, and I had assumed they were distributed.


John George Diefenbaker: Why?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did that as a matter of courtesy last night. It was not for want-


John George Diefenbaker: Why does the minister not adjourn the debate so that the bill could be studied?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend knows the reason. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) and the house generally, with whom we discussed this matter, understand the reason. The bill in principle is precisely the same as the agreement, as

the hon. member for Hamilton West will indicate. I just want to assure the house that there was no discourtesy.


Charles Edward Johnston: I am not suggesting there was any discourtesy on the part of the minister. I am only pointing out the fact that it was not until half past twelve or a quarter to one that I received my copy of the bill, and it was not in the post office at that time. I had to phone up the clerk of the debates in order to find out where it was. I obtained it from the postmaster myself. Therefore, I say it is a little difficult for us to discuss a bill which we had in our hands only about an hour and a half before the house opened. While I am not putting any particular blame on the minister, the fact remains that that is so.
There are one or two things regarding this bill that I want to speak about. I may say to the minister that, like the other two hon. members who have spoken on this matter today, I am pleased that the minister has seen fit to bring down this bill. I think it is an improvement on what has existed in the past, and everyone in Canada will appreciate that. There are one or two things in particular that should be mentioned at this time. The 45 per cent which the minister referred to in his speech yesterday seems to me to be a little bit unfair.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The -45 per cent.


Charles Edward Johnston: The -45 per
cent, yes. I thought I had said " [DOT] 45 per cent". It is a little less than one-half of one per cent. It means that in the province of Alberta there must be about 5,000 who would qualify under this legislation before the federal government would step in. That seems to me to be a rather large number, Mr. Speaker, because there are going to be some of the employable unemployed who will come into that figure. There are some who are permanently unemployable because of age or some other disability. All those under the 5,000-I am using the figure for Alberta of approximately 5,000-whether they are unemployable as the result of a shortage of opportunities or jobs are going to be the sole responsibility of the provinces.
There has developed in the last few days a condition wherein a number of people who have exhausted their unemployment benefits have become unemployed. Those people will be among those who will come under this bill. Do I understand the minister to say that is not so?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think we could properly
discuss this when we are in committee.


Charles Edward Johnston: In my judgment they will be because it includes not only the unemployables but the employable unemployed as well, and the provincial governments will be asked to carry that load. If that is so, and I assume it is so at this time, then what is happening is that the federal government is evading a responsibility which is entirely its own. I do not think the provinces should have to assume responsibility for any employable unemployed; I think that definitely should be a responsibility coming under the Unemployment Insurance Act.
There is another matter, too, which will cause us difficulty as time goes on. The federal government will make the regulations. It states in the act that the governor in council will be the body to make the regulations.
I do not want to discuss the act because this is not the time to do so, but the governor in council will make regulations for the administration of this act and for the purpose of carrying its provisions into effect. No matter what the minister may say about it, the act is clear on that point. This means that the provinces are going to be charged with the responsibility of administration and paying 50 per cent of the costs of carrying out the regulations laid down by this government over which they have little or no control. It is true the provinces may be consulted before the governor in council applies the regulations, but it also means that all the blame for any maladministration or for inefficient payments to meet the requirements will be laid at the door of the provinces and the federal government will slip out from under this very much as it has done in the case of old age pensions. That is not right, to my way of thinking. If the provinces are going to have to accept the responsibility for the administration and pay 50 per cent of the cost of all those over the -45 per cent then they should be the ones who make the regulations in the main and they should consult with the federal government. Instead of that it will be the other way around; the federal government will lay down the regulations. The provinces will probably be consulted but the provinces must bear the full responsibility that must be carried in connection with this. I do not think it is the responsibility of the provinces.
I am not one of those who look forward to a depression nor am I crying that at this moment; however, we are having a considerable number of lay-offs for one reason or another at this time. I am not suggesting that these people who are laid off are not going to find other employment but the fact of the matter is that this situation does exist at present. It means the provinces are going to accept the responsibility and the blame
Unemployment Assistance for all those who are not immediately reemployed or those who do not qualify under the Unemployment Insurance Act for one reason or another. In my judgment that is the responsibility of the federal government and not of the provinces. I think there should be some change in this act in that respect.
There are other parts of the act with which I should like to deal, Mr. Speaker, but I would have to deal with them clause by clause and, of course, this is not an opportune time to do that. Having said what I have already said, I will not go further at this point. I will say again, however, that I think, as others have said, this is a step in the right direction and as time goes on it may be possible to make amendments that will clarify it and put it on a fairer basis, and until we come to the point where we will deal with the bill clause by clause I will stop for the moment.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to make a brief comment at this time. Like the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) I wish to commend the minister for bringing in this legislation. In doing so he is simply living up to his past record of trying to help people who cannot help themselves. I remember when I brought in a resolution to provide help for the handicapped three years in succession it received splendid support from all quarters of the house. I remember, too, that when our hospitals had great difficulty in getting nurses the Minister of National Health and Welfare came along and suggested nurses' aids.
I expect to hear from some members of the opposition who have been asking the government to assist the municipalities. As the hon. member for Vancouver East has said, this is the first time the government has stepped out to help the municipalities, and it is to be commended. I would like to ask the minister one question. If a provincial government were unable to pay its share of 50 per cent of the cost, would the federal government pay the 50 per cent anyway?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps the hon. member would permit me to suggest what I have suggested to other hon. members who have asked questions. When we get into committee I will be able to deal with these questions and perhaps the hon. member will be glad to forgo his remarks until then.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: All right. I think the minister has just told us and the country through this bill that nobody in Canada shall go hungry and there is no reason why anyone should go hungry in Canada. I can remember a time in Fort William when our boys and girls and men and women could not get enough to eat
5468	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Assistance and yet our elevators were full of wheat, the dairies were full and there were lots of groceries on the shelves in the stores. Despite this fact our people could not get enough to eat and they had to go on relief and do the things that were necessary in order to get the necessities of life. Without saying anything further I commend the minister for bringing in this bill because I know it will be of some help. It may not go all the way but it will go a long way toward providing a solution and I thank the minister for it.


Mr. W. G. Blair (Lanark):: Mr. Speaker, like other hon. members, I received this bill at noon and although I have tried to interpret it since I find the bill confusing and difficult of interpretation. When this bill is in committee possibly I shall have some questions to ask of the minister explanatory of some of these clauses.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


William Gourlay Blair: The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) made the statement that the government of Canada scuttled the proposals of 1945 in relation to the dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction. I happen to have this report in my hand and I think it would be interesting to read a part of it into the record. On page 42 of the proposals of the government of Canada of August 1945 there is a chapter concerning the necessary requirements of the dominion scheme for unemployment insurance and section (d), which is particularly interesting, reads as follows:
(d) The plan proposes acceptance of dominion responsibility for unemployed employables, and provincial and local responsibility for unemployables, but it is recognized that this division presents problems of definition in some individual cases, and that in operating practice the only final test of employability is ability to get and hold a job.
Last night I brought before the committee and asked the minister a question concerning the situation of people 40 years of age who are unable to get a job. Those I submit are employables; they are not unemployables because of their age, they are employables. If, as the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) has said, the dominion has scuttled the plans of 1945, the proposals of that year clearly set forth the division of authority because it was said that the plan proposes the acceptance of dominion responsibility for unemployed employables.
They are not part of this legislation and I should like to have an explanation by the minister, especially when we get into committee, as to where the dividing line should be. There are certain people who are under disability pensions at the present time and who are not unemployables. In looking at


the proposals of 1945 I see it was said that the only final test of employability is the ability to get and hold a job. There are many people with slight disabilities which make it difficult for them to hold a job. Will they be considered as unemployables under this legislation? I would like the minister to give us a full explanation when we are in committee in connection with these people who are unemployable. I use that term because I submit that they cannot get a job. I repeat, the only test of employability is the ability to get and to hold a job. They cannot get jobs and they are precluded from employment for that reason. Will this bill cover those people? The minister said last night that this matter would be taken care of by the bill and I should like to know how the minister intends to deal with them.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have heard reference made to the fact that this is the first time that recognition has been given by the government to the plight of the municipalities, but I cannot go along with any feeling that this constitutes a substantial contribution toward a solution of the problem with which they are faced. Certainly in the province of Ontario there is not a municipality which is financially in a position to take care of one unemployed person if it is going to carry out its true role of providing essential services such as the provision of sewers, water mains, education and items of that kind for a rapidly expanding economy. I cannot see any indication in this bill that the municipalities will be spared this burden. I note in clause 2(d), the interpretation section, that reference is made to the cost to municipalities. It is referred to again in clause 4(c).
It is obvious that, no matter what the contribution by this government may be, the load is going to be too heavy for the municipality. I think we are putting the cart before the horse. It seems to me it is time that we divided up the taxation field once and for all as well as the responsibility for the collection of taxes and the responsibility for the spending of those taxes in order to provide certain services. If we do that, then I think we will find a great deal more reluctance on the part of certain taxing authorities to collect every cent they can get and then hide behind some other authority in so far as the administration of particular legislation is concerned.
Reference was made a short time ago to the fact that there is no doubt about who is going to be blamed. If this system is to be called upon to any great extent the municipality is going to be the level of government

which will have to deal with the administration of the act. If it does not work satisfactorily the municipality will have to take the responsibility. The municipality now collects taxes from real estate and I am quite sure that houses are not going to be out of work. It will be the home owners and other people in the country and it seems to me that the administration should be the responsibility of and be tied in with the people who in fact collect the taxes which are eventually to be used for this purpose.
I do not think I can emphasize too strongly the fact that we have gone too far along the road of permitting the municipality to be put in the position where if there is any tightening at all of the expansion that is taking place in this country it is going to be bankrupt just as it was in the 1930's. If there is any responsibility for that condition it will belong right here in this house.
The attitude of the government in connection with the plight of the municipalities reminds me of the story of a man who had bought a burro. A friend admired it very much and he finally said, "You have a lot of children, you take it and use it, but always be kind to it, be good to it or it won't do things for you." The friend took it home and put one of his children on it and it would not move. He gave it sugar, he patted it, but nothing happened. So he phoned his friend and told him that he could not get the burro to do anything and the friend said he would come right over. He came over and he said, "Give me a piece of two by four." He then hit the burro right between the eyes. His friend said, "Oh, but you said to be kind to it." He said, "Yes, but first you must get his attention."
I submit that as far as the municipalities are concerned we are not going to get any help for them unless we keep on hammering away here day after day. If I were asked for a formula as to what should be done I would repeat: Let us divide the taxation field; let this government collect the money to do those things for which it is responsible; let the province collect the money to do those things for which it is responsible, and let the municipality collect the real property taxes to enable it to provide those services for which it is responsible. If we do that then once and for all we will get away from this type of piecemeal legislation, and that is all I can say it is.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could just say-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. minister speaks now he will close the debate.
Unemployment Assistance


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before the minister concludes the debate I should like to say a word or two in connection with this bill. I am rather surprised at the way in which the minister has introduced this legislation into the house. This is a matter of great importance and it deserves a great deal of study. The bill itself is complicated and when the agreements tabled in the house on January 11 are read over you find that there are still more complications; yet the minister is in a hurry to get this through. At the resolution stage he suggested that discussion might be postponed until we had the bill in front of us. Now that we have the bill in front of us the minister wants us to postpone discussion until we are in committee.


Murdo William Martin: I am sure the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) could explain to my hon. friend the reason why. I would not want to mention the reason publicly as it does not concern me personally.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister must accept full responsibility for anything in the way of legislation under his own department. He may have all sorts of reasons for haste in this matter, but this is a serious public undertaking, and I think the minister, who has been years in office, should be fully competent at the present time to carry on anything of this nature. If he is overly dependent upon other people, that is no concern of mine. The minister is the person to whom we look to support legislation that he brings forward, and I suggest this is not the proper method to use. Why did the minister not bring this forward in April or at some earlier date? Why was it postponed to the end of June?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Why not debate it now that it is before the house?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is interrupting again. I suggest to my hon. friend that he might very well pay attention to his own department and, if he has anything to contribute in this instance, he might perhaps rise at this stage and enter into debate rather than make his interjections. I am encouraged by the remarks of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I shall pursue my point that this is not the way in which to bring before this house legislation of this nature, trying to get us to pass it quickly, for some reason that the minister has in mind. I suppose that when we get to the committee stage later on today the minister will want us to hurry on to third reading so that that will be got rid of, and then, of course, the bill will be passed and sent over to the other
5470	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Assistance house and within a minute it will be declared the law of the land. Why this hurry?
Another mistake I think the minister has made is that at the resolution stage, in connection with a matter such as this, the discussion should have been much more extensive. I think that is where a mistake was made with regard to this particular bill. The minister, in answer to questions on the orders of the day, frequently makes longer statements than he made on introducing this resolution. Why did he not refer the house to the papers that were filed here on January 11 and the draft agreements that are outlined there? Why did he not draw our attention to that, instead of simply saying that they had been tabled, without any reference to the date or where they might be found? That is a rather strange procedure coming from this particular minister, who generally-


Murdo William Martin: Don't be too hard on the poor minister.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I do not see any reason why I should spare the minister. He does not spai'e us on occasion. Why should I spare him now? My hon. friend who has just come in suggests that the minister does not know anything about this legislation.


Murdo William Martin: Let us get into committee and then put all the questions you want and test his knowledge.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister suggests that we should get into committee and all the questions will be answered. Why were they not answered at the resolution stage? I noted at the resolution stage that the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) put forward very proper suggestions in the hope that, if they were acceptable, the bill might be altered accordingly. That is what the resolution stage is for. Matters are brought forward then which might have been overlooked in the drafting of the legislation and might subsequently be incorporated, but at the resolution stage we hurried along with that, and the bill was presented this morning, and very few people had time to do more than glance at it.
We have waited a long time in this country for an act of this nature. Its purpose is good.
It is aimed to fill in the gap, with regard to people in need, that has not been adequately filled in during all these years. All of us are aware of the burden that has been placed upon municipalities chiefly and upon the provinces with regard to this type of assistance for people who are unemployed and have no recourse under those circumstances.


This bill is aimed at correcting that particular difficulty, but, as the hon. member for Hamilton West has pointed out, there is a floor placed under this. The assistance is not forthcoming until certain factors of unemployment are established, and it may well be that the bill is not going far enough in dealing with the question that it sets out to solve. Again, at the resolution stage, if this information had been placed before us it would have been very helpful. The minister has not given us any information as to the differences between the agreements with the provinces who have already signed; nor has he indicated any of the difficulties that are holding up acceptance of this proposal by other provinces; nor has he told us anything about the anticipated cost. Yet he is asking us to put through legislation here which leaves us in a state of indefiniteness as to the financial burden involved, and it is our job in this house to examine the financial burden. It may well be that that is not going to be excessive under present conditions in Canada. I think all of us are anxious to assist those in need in the country, but nevertheless the financial obligation under this legislation has to be examined and understood and fitted into the general picture. Why did the minister not give us some information along that line? Is the same thing to happen in the committee stage?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. My hon. friend will appreciate that that figure could not possibly be given, because no one can tell what rates will be set by the provinces, who will be the only ones to set the rates.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is a point in question. At the resolution stage, if the minister had painted in the background and given us the figures that have been paid out under unemployment assistance by municipalities and the provinces, then we would have had one sort of yardstick to go on for a 50 per cent contribution by the dominion government. That is the type of information that should be presented to this house to fill in the background. Then we would have some idea of what the problem was. It is all in a state of indefiniteness now.
I cannot for one minute believe-I believe the minister's statement, but I cannot believe -that there has not been somewhere in his department a calculation of the amount of money involved in putting forward an unemployment assistance proposal such as this. That, it seems to me, is basic to the problem. In other words, the need must have been established over the years, and it was referred to back in 1945. That need would be expressed in terms of dollars, and on the basis of that need you gradually reach the stage

now where you determine whether or not the dominion government can assist financially to provide for that need now being met by municipalities and provinces. But none of that information was forthcoming. So we are left in a state of indefiniteness with regard to this measure. I hope the minister will not think it amiss that I have offered some criticism of his method of introducing legislation. It may serve as a guide to him for anything he wants to bring forward in the future. The committee stage is being looked forward to with great eagerness. We expect there to have a comprehensive statement from the minister with regard to this measure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will conclude the debate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in closing this debate I simply want to say this to my hon. friend so that he will not be under any misapprehension. There is no limit on the time that he or anyone else can take on this measure. I am sure the minister will be able to handle himself just as he has, moderately well, in the past been able to deal with questions submitted by my very enlightened and honourable friend who has just spoken. I would not want to pit my talents against his but I want to assure him that he need have no particular concern in that regard.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You are clearer on this matter than you were on civil defence, are you?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. I well remember that occasion. I think my hon. friend and I will agree that on that occasion, helpful and constructive as he was, he was not overly knowledgeable in all aspects of that question himself.
With regard to the question raised at the outset by my hon. friend, namely the question of anticipated costs, may I say this to him. If he will look at the agreement which was tabled on the first day of this session and which is the same as the bill in principle, he will see that it is not possible to anticipate the cost unless one knew first of all the number of people involved and, second, the rates of assistance which the municipalities or the provinces, separately or conjointly, were prepared to provide for the beneficiaries. Under this measure the federal government is committing itself for not more than 50 per cent.
My hon. friend has seemingly criticized, as have some other hon. gentlemen-and this is an understandable criticism-the fact that there is going to be a hard core problem which will be looked after by the municipalities and the provinces themselves before the
Unemployment Assistance federal government begins to assist. I thought the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) had satisfactorily disposed of that matter herself, but I suppose hon. gentlemen have not had an opportunity of reading what she said.
What are the facts? This particular measure will authorize the federal government to pay out of the consolidated fund moneys in a sharing program with the provinces in order to assist two groups of people, namely unemployed employables, and those unemployed individuals who cannot work. What this bill does is to remove completely, in so far as the six provinces are concerned, the traditional distinction between those who are capable of working and are out of work and those who are out of work and cannot work for physical reasons or otherwise. That is the main feature of this bill and it is one that has won commendation from the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) who spoke last night and who has obviously given this matter a great deal of thought, as has the hon. member for Hamilton West.
I may say this with regard to what was said by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), who spoke with special emphasis on British Columbia. British Columbia is a good example of the situation. At the present time in the province of British Columbia there are about 20,000 individuals who are out of work-that is a rough figure, according to the latest figures available-and roughly about 5,000 of those are unemployed employables. Under this measure we will be taking care of three-quarters of that group. But for this measure the federal government would not have any authority whatsoever to assist this larger group.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Will the minister permit me to ask a question?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Would you repeat what you just said as to the percentage that you are now to be able to assist?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. I was using rough estimated figures on the unemployment situation to date in British Columbia. I am going to take each province just in order to show the picture. In the case of British Columbia we estimate roughly 20,000 are unemployed but 5,000 of these are unemployed employables. The others are part of the hard core problem about which my hon. friend spoke last night. They are individuals who are deemed by the welfare authorities of the province to be incapable of work. But for this measure we would not be in a position, under our declared policies or under any legislation, to give assistance to those people.
5472	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Assistance


John George Diefenbaker: Do you mean constitutionally?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, no. I said as a result of declared policy.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, declared policy.


An hon. Member:: Liberal policy.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In 1945 proposals were made by the federal government. From what the hon. member for Vancouver East has just read, it is clear that it was never agreed that we should assume 100 per cent responsibility for the unemployed employables. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) himself, in the references that will be found in the submission to that conference at page 247, clearly indicated that the federal government was not assuming 100 per cent responsibility for the unemployed employables. As is found at that page he said this:
Under these definitions a large proportion of the cost of unemployment assistance to persons actually employable would fall on the provinces and municipalities.
As the hon. member for Cape Breton South said last night, it is clear that the 1945 proposals do not provide as generous a contribution as is envisaged in this legislation because it was to operate for a limited period. To the extent to which we were prepared to assist the unemployed employables, that was only to run for two years.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Until the Unemployment Insurance Act became operative.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; and it was to be 85 per cent of the benefits provided under the Unemployment Insurance Act, which percentage was increased in 1952, as my friend the hon. member for Hamilton West knows, to 100 per cent. So what we are doing in this bill is to wipe out-once we reach the threshold, [DOT] 45 per cent-the distinction, I hope for all time, between the unemployed employables and those who are unemployed and who cannot work. That is a great step, as any social worker in this country knows, and as the hon. member for Cape Breton South so well said last night.
Is it fair to ask that there should be a threshold? Under our constitution we have municipal governments, provincial governments and a federal government. Each has its responsibilities. On the basis of figures available, for instance, on June 1, 1955, in Newfoundland the number of individuals remaining as 100 per cent provincial responsibilities because of the -45 per cent threshold was 1,854 out of a population of 412,000. That includes unemployed employables and


unemployables. Having in mind the character of this confederation of ours, will any hon. member in this house deny that there is on the municipalities and on the provinces a responsibility to look after a certain group, up to a certain figure, of their own people? At one time that was done by the family, by the church and later by government, but it certainly is not asking too much that the province of Newfoundland and its municipalities should look after that number of people. Whenever it reaches beyond that, under this measure, the federal government will enter the picture.
In Prince Edward Island the number is 486; in Nova Scotia, 3,073; New Brunswick, 2,511; Quebec, 20,240.


John George Diefenbaker: Does this include not only the unemployed employables but also those who, through disability, are incapable of performing work?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Both. The figure for Ontario is 23,323. The province of Ontario with over 5 million people is one of the wealthiest provinces in Canada. Is there any hon. member in this house who will suggest that the federal government should be expected to provide assistance for that number and that it represents a load too heavy to be borne by the provincial government? I am not suggesting this by way of criticism. I am simply expressing this by way of exposing the fallacy of the argument offered by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch).


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I ask the minister a question? These are the June figures, but you do not have the January figures, do you?


Paul Joseph James Martin: These are based on the June 1, 1955 estimate of the dominion bureau of statistics. The figure for Manitoba is 3,820; Saskatchewan, 4,000. I may say that the record of the conference will show that the province of Saskatchewan was amongst those who emphasized the importance of both municipalities and provinces not only having complete control of the administration of this matter, but they said they did not think we should tell them that they should assume full responsibility for all without exacting a contribution from the municipalities; if we did so, we would be creating for them and for us great difficulties. I think that is obvious. The figure for Alberta is 4,797 and for British Columbia 5,872. I think, therefore, no one will seriously contest that there is a point where, having in mind the proximity of the people in the particular context I am speaking of to the provinces and municipalities, the latter should have a responsibility up to a point, exclusively. Then, when that becomes

abnormal, the federal government should intervene for the purpose of making a contribution at least.
We have intervened with the result that this formula will work once the assisted population of a province reaches -45 per cent of the total population of that province. We will then share 50 per cent, on a basis to be determined, not by us even consultatively but by the provinces and the municipalities themselves. I do not know of anything that is more generous than that, I do not know of anything that is equal to it anywhere else. The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough), or was it someone else, suggested that we should look after the administration of some phase of this question. She acknowledges she did. I doubt that any province would agree to that, and no province I think should ask that that be done nor should we accede to it because it would be impossible for the federal government to administer, particularly for that portion of the unemployed who are not capable of working. Those are the people whose circumstances are known by the welfare inspectors on the local level. It would not be possible, I believe, in a large state like ours, to embark upon a policy of centralization without doing great harm to the welfare of the individuals concerned.
Now, I will admit that there might be an argument with regard to the unemployed employables because of our having assumed responsibility for unemployment insurance. But there again I would think a different kind of situation prevails because if you want to add to the economic costs all you have to do is centralize your administration in respect of a small number of people. Let us remember that this whole act is operating at a time when we have the highest level of employment in our country. None of us wants to see a decrease in the present high level of employment.
I do not think one needs to spend any more time at this stage except to say this. At the time the 1945 proposals were embarked on, we had only five years' experience with unemployment insurance. We now have that operative to the extent where its coverage has exceeded even the fondest dreams of those who advocated the measure and were responsible for its enactment in 1940. In addition to that we have supplementary benefits now representing 100 per cent of the value during the period of benefit of the unemployment insurance provisions themselves. These supplementary benefits cover, in the peak season in most recent years, almost 150,000 Canadian workers. Now, that represents a tremendous measure of public assistance. On top of that we now have the disability pension; on top
Unemployment Assistance of that we now have an old age security program as a result of which 880,000 people of this country at age 70 and over, every month, are receiving without a means test assistance from the taxpayers of Canada. Through policies recommended by this parliament and this government, there is also the old age assistance program and the blindness allowance program. All these are measures which are very important and integral in the discussion that is before us.
I do not believe, therefore, I was in error last night in closing when I said that these measures, together with the proposal for hospital insurance, round out to a very complete degree a measure of responsible social welfare action in this country of which all of us in Canada can be proud.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister mean by that statement that this is the last one for this government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, my hon. friend did not hear what I said. I said that this government, by this particular measure, as well as the proposal for hospital insurance, has given an indication that it is the only group that will ever be in power able to do these very things.


Mr. Bell:: May I ask the minister a question relating to the figures?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In committee.


Thomas Miller Bell: Could he give those on a per capita basis, either now or in committee?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Short title.
William Alfred Robinson: Shall this clause carry?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, Mr. Chairman. We were very happy to co-operate with the minister last evening and again today in trying to get this bill through the house for the reasons which he explained to us. But I would think if the minister wants to get this bill through the house, he jolly well had better quit making political speeches.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is only the opposition who can do that.


An hon. Member:: More threats of obstruction.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Talk about biting the hand that feeds you! We have gone along with this and we have purposely refrained from dragging out the discussion on the bill which, as has already been said-


Mr. Dickey:: Why drag it out?

Unemployment Assistance


Mr. Lennard:: You are doing the dragging over there every time you interrupt.


John Horace Dickey: Drag him out somewhere.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: As has already been said, it is very difficult to understand information which was not in our hands until noon today. After obtaining the co-operation of this house, the minister believed that he could cram this down our throats in a very short space of time. I might say, the resolution was on the order paper on April 25. Since the minister knew the plans of the officials of his department I do not know why he could not have brought this bill down some time earlier than this. I would not have spoken in this vein, Mr. Chairman, had it not been for the smart Aleck interjection of the minister at the last minute. I think his attitude in that respect leaves much to be desired.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 1 carry?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No.


Thomas Miller Bell: Can the minister answer the question I asked with respect to the per capita percentage of the figures he gave?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I shall have to get that information.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 1 carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, when we are on clause 1 matters of general interest might well be taken up. I want to give the minister an opportunity to make another political speech. Encouraged by what I said here he extended his remarks on second reading. At this stage, can the minister give us a little bit of the background I was talking about? He did give us the figures for the provinces, and he is going to elaborate on that. How was the figure of -45 arrived at as setting the floor? Can the minister tell us something of the burden of this type of unemployment assistance that has been on the provinces all those years? I suggested a few minutes ago that information of that nature must have been in the hands of the department before anything could be arrived at with regard to setting the figure of -45, or setting the figure of financial contribution of 50 per cent. At the committee stage I thought the minister was going to tell us something along that line. This is his opportunity.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I want to say simply to the hon. member for Hamilton West I do not want her to feel that she did not have the right to say what she wanted to say. I would ask her to bear with me. What I said was in reply to a question. That is why I had to say what I did say.
TMr. Dickey.]


Mr. Sinclair:: You said it very well, too.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am saying that because I would not want to break faith with the hon. member for Hamilton West who is always very courteous and co-operative in these matters. I would be the most unhappy man in the world if I thought I in any way offended her.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, if I might say so, the minister misses the whole point. There are a great many arguments we could bring to bear on this; there are many fields we could explore in the consideration of this bill. When the minister makes a provocative statement and when we are hampered by such procedure it is a little frustrating.


James Sinclair: It was an accurate statement.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: There you go again. Do you want to discuss this next week?


John Horace Dickey: Political speeches are supposed to be made only by the opposition.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If I could pour oil on the
troubled waters-


Frank Exton Lennard: You had better get the minister to keep quiet over there.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -the figure of -45 was arrived at because it represented the figure at which it would be possible to provide for federal participation in all the provinces but one. At first we had in mind and had discussed with the provinces the figure of 1 per cent. My hon. friend will recall that the premier of British Columbia, who was among those who proposed some measure of federal assistance in the past year, along with others, had suggested that he was prepared to accept this as a possible basis. When we came to examine the figure of 1 per cent as the starting point for federal participation it became clear that the provinces of Ontario and Nova Scotia would not benefit from the measure in a substantial way. As a result of the discussion with the provinces it was agreed that we would for nine of them arrive at the figure of [DOT]45 per cent, which enabled us to cover Ontario. Nova Scotia was recognized by all of the provinces as having a special situation. If the figures of -45 were to apply to them, under the information that we had available to us, we would have been penalizing that province more than any other province. Therefore, we made the proposal to them which we are now considering, that instead of beginning in the case of Nova Scotia at -45 we would begin with them in the first year at -30; in the second year, at -35; in the third year, at -40; and in the fourth year at [DOT]45. This was agreed to by all of the provinces. Everyone recognized that Nova Scotia had a special case and therefore the figure of -45

represents, excepting in the case of Nova Scotia, that proportion of the unemployed population of each province, made up of those who are capable of working and those who, for physical or other reasons, cannot.


Charles Edward Johnston: May I ask the
minister this question with regard to -45. Is it clear that the federal government will not begin to participate until that figure has been reached, and that they will participate only when the figure gets above -45; that is, they will not start from the bottom and go up, they will come in only when the figure is in excess of -45?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Once the assisted population of a province with which we have an agreement is -45 of the population of that province we start to participate.


Charles Edward Johnston: In the excess of the -45?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: Am I correct in what I said this afternoon, that the minister's idea of -45 of unemployment is outside of any possible coverage of any act of the provinces or the dominion, unemployment insurance, old age pensions and mothers' allowances? The -45 starts outside of that? Am I correct in that interpretation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Except any additional assistance payments as provided in clause 9 of this agreement.


Harold Edward Winch: Except any-


Murdo William Martin: Additional assistance payments and family allowances.


Harold Edward Winch: The -45 is outside of all regular assistance. Then, you accept no basic responsibility for anybody else until unemployment is beyond -45?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: That is also correct?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: I want to get this clear if I can. It is also clear, then, that if in British Columbia, as an example, the figure is around 6,000 as the normal, and if it hits around 7,000, under your interpretation, you average the entire cost of the 7,000 and you pay only on the 1,000?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Harold Edward Winch: Is that correct?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No. Just on that basis of *45 and relating it to the figures the minister
Unemployment Assistance gave, if all the provinces were in under this scheme and the legislation were passed, what number of people would benefit from it? Has the minister those figures?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, that question cannot be completely answered, but on the basis of the figures of July 1, 1955, which would be the earliest month for the retroactive effect of the agreement now concluded, in the case of Newfoundland, the total assisted would be about 16,000; and in the case of British Columbia, 20,000. I have not before me the figures for the other provinces.
One of the difficulties here is that the only two provinces that have submitted claims to us as yet are the provinces of Newfoundland and British Columbia. Once this measure is passed we would be able on the basis of the claims to reimburse the province of British Columbia to date in the amount of approximately $1,300,000 or $1,400,000, and we would be able to reimburse the province of Newfoundland in the amount of approximately $720,000. I cannot say what the figures are for the other provinces because we have not yet received their claims. Some of the provinces do not have the complete reporting system they had at one time and which, I suppose, has fallen into disuse.
All I can say is that the only provinces which have submitted claims to us at the moment are those two provinces. We have asked the others to get them in, because once this legislation is passed we will be able to pay them whatever amount is owing; but we cannot do so until they put in their claims. On the basis of those figures it should be possible to make an estimate, but I would have to estimate very roughly. Eight million dollars is an extremely rough estimate of the probable annual federal cost because we have not received their claims.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: May I ask the minister one or two questions in relation to the figures he has given? First of all, do the figures the minister has given-20,000 for British Columbia and I cannot recall what figure was given for the province of Newfoundland- represent the number of people for whom the federal government would pay 50 per cent of the cost, or do those figures represent the total number of people in the provinces who are unemployed?


Paul Joseph James Martin: They represent the total number of needy persons, either employable or unemployable; including dependents.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In the case of British Columbia, then, the number of people for whose claims the federal government would pay part of the cost would be roughly-

Unemployment Assistance


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the case of Newfoundland, in the month of February, 1955, for instance, we would share in assistance for 18,115 people. In the case of British Columbia it is 13,449 out of 20,000.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering further whether the minister has a breakdown as to what would be the average payment per person for the provinces of Newfoundland and British Columbia respectively?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, the average payment in British Columbia would be around $30. In the month of January it would be $32.02 and in December $31.01. That is the average cost per person to be shared by the province and the municipality or by one of those two and the federal government.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: How does that compare with the figure for Newfoundland?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend knows, of
course, that it is the province which fixes the rate, and consequently we have nothing to do with that. In the case of Newfoundland in the month of July, let us say, the average cost per person would be $11. It is a little higher in February, $11.21.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat hesitant about asking this question but I think it is one that has to be asked and I shall do so. As I understand this act it will now be possible, once it has been given royal assent, for those who are presently under the Disabled Persons Act to be brought under this act. As a matter of fact I think many who have been turned down under the Disabled Persons Act can now be brought under this act, but I also think the majority of those who are now drawing a disability pension are also eligible under this act. Would the minister explain what the situation will be under the two acts? As near as I can figure it out all those who are now under the Disabled Persons Act will be eligible under this act. That is my interpretation, and I would like to hear from the minister on that matter.


Murdo William Martin: One or the other, but not both. In actual practice it would be wrong for a province or municipality to take a person who was properly in receipt of a disability pension and transfer him to this particular list. It is just as wrong as it would be to take a person who is in receipt of mother's allowance and put her on this list, as has been done; but the effect would be the same because it is a sharing program, assuming the monthly amount is the same.


Harold Edward Winch: Is the monthly pension exactly the same?


Murdo William Martin: That is a matter to be determined by each province.


Harold Edward Winch: That is up to each province. In other words, if under the authority of this act which has an unlimited ceiling a province wants to give an allowance which is greater than under the Disabled Persons Act, the province could transfer the entire number of disability pensions to this act and it will be recognized by this government?


Murdo William Martin: If it is greater, that is right.


Harold Edward Winch: If any province wants to give a greater allowance under this act than under the Disabled Persons Act you pay 50 per cent under this act; is that right?


Murdo William Martin: My hon. friend has taken a hypothetical case. A case that is properly under disability allowance should be paid under disability allowance. If the amount is less, obviously there will be no trouble; but as the rate is fixed by the provinces and as we are subordinate to it my hon. friend states the situation correctly.


Harold Edward Winch: Thank you.


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Chairman, I can foresee some difficulty arising out of the act because of its lack of universality. As I understand it there are four provinces-


Murdo William Martin: No, six.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Six in and four out. In the case of transients or people who drift from one province to another-if people come, for instance, from Alberta to British Columbia- what is the situation? I take it these people will only be recognized if they come from a province which has signed the agreement with the federal government. What is the method by which these people can be checked or identified? When do they become eligible in their new residence?


Murdo William Martin: If my hon. friend will look at section 5 of the agreement he will find there are no residence qualifications. In this particular matter we have taken the position that as this is a bill to help people in need it is a mistake to insist that they should have a residence qualification. My hon. friend is quite right. This must operate, of course, only in those provinces with which we have agreements. We have not yet succeeded in obtaining an agreement with the province of Alberta. I am very hopeful that we will do so, but the reason we have not is that the government of that province feels there should be a residence qualification. We have had to take the position that in our judgment, having in mind the particular character of this legislation, that is not a fair thing to do;

but as far as the participating provinces are concerned there will be complete reciprocity.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, there are two questions I would like to ask the minister, and one is with regard to the [DOT]45 per cent. I believe he stated that in British Columbia there were about 20,000 who are eligible under this section. Can he tell us what percentage of that 20,000 are unemployed employables who would ordinarily come under the Unemployment Insurance Act if their benefits were taken care of?


Paul Joseph James Martin: About 2,000 of that figure were employable.


Charles Edward Johnston: That means the province will be required to pay 50 per cent for those 2,000 persons, because the Unemployment Insurance Act has not sufficient coverage to take care of them?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend could argue that and I could not quarrel with him, but I think the fair thing to say would be that the federal government as a result of this measure will now be undertaking to pay 50 per cent of the cost of a group for which up to this time no one has accepted responsibility.


Charles Edward Johnston: That brings up the point I mentioned a while ago. I do not want to be too critical of the bill because I think it is very good, but it seems to me that the federal government is evading its responsibility. Here is a case in British Columbia where 2,000 people should be receiving benefit from a fund to which they themselves have contributed, but because the federal government has not assumed responsibility and amended the Unemployment Insurance Act to provide for them they are now being shifted over to the province and the province not only is going to have to assume the burden of paying 50 per cent of their maintenance-I was going to call it relief, because that is exactly what it is- but the federal government also very nicely slips out of its responsibility in regard to these employable unemployed and places the whole blame on the province for that result. I think that is one thing that should not take place.
I am not saying that those who are not receiving proper payments under the Unemployment Insurance Act should be deprived of assistance, but I am saying that the blame should be placed exactly where it belongs, and that is on the Unemployment Insurance Act and the federal government. The federal government should not be allowed to slip out from under its responsibility.
Unemployment Assistance
The other question I wanted to ask was in regard to the length of residence. I recognize immediately that this would apply only to those provinces which are under agreement. Alberta has not signed, but assuming that Saskatchewan has signed and a person moved from Alberta to Saskatchewan, would he thus be deprived of any benefits?


Murdo William Martin: The hon. member is asking about a person who moves from Alberta to Saskatchewan?


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes.


Murdo William Martin: As Alberta has not signed, obviously Saskatchewan is not obliged to pay.


Mr.   Johnslon@Bow River: Surely there should be some residence qualification. If a person moves into Saskatchewan he should come under the legislation after a certain length of time. Is there no provision made for that?


Murdo William Martin: That is a matter entirely for the province of Saskatchewan. The governing factor there is the attitude taken by the government of Alberta. I am not saying that critically, because I have every reason to think we are going to-


Mr.   Johnslon@Bow River: The whole
responsibility would rest with the province of Saskatchewan as to the making of residence qualifications if they so desired, and that would be agreeable to the federal government?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, the question I wanted to ask was somewhat along the lines of that asked by the hon. member for Bow River. The minister has said on three different occasions that there is no residence requirement, but the word "if" in here looks pretty big. The agreement reads:
5. Length of residence shall not be made a condition for the receipt of assistance if
(a)	the applicant has come from a province whose government has entered into an agreement similar to this respecting unemployment assistance, and
(b)	such agreement includes a like clause as herein contained in respect of length of residence not being a condition for receipt of assistance.
That would cover, as the hon. member for Bow River points out, the province concerned if there was no agreement. But take the case where someone from Alberta moves into Saskatchewan and applies for assistance. The normal procedure followed in cases where a person from another province finds himself unable to support himself and applies to a municipality for assistance is for the municipality first of all to see if the person cannot be sent back to the place from which he came. According to this that condition does not change; obviously he could still be sent
5478	HOUSE OF
Unemployment Assistance back to the province from which he came. That contention is further borne out by the provisions of section 10 (c) of the agreement which sets out the exceptions, as follows:
(c)	all travelling expenses-
And then the subclause:
(i) returning a recipient of unemployment assistance and his dependents, if any, to his normal place of residence-
If a province were under agreement and received an application from a person who had lately come into the province, there is no stipulation here as to a time limit. The province could provide for a limit of five years if it wished, but a person who was within the time limit stipulated by the province might come from another province where there was no agreement with the federal authorities. He could be returned to that province and the federal government would share in the cost of returning that man and his family from the place where he had made application for assistance to his place of original residence. If I interpret this correctly, and I think I do, it means that it cannot definitely be said that there is no condition of residence, because it could be altered in every province that has an agreement with the federal government simply by stating the length of time during which it would accept responsibility for those people. That could be particularly true where the province of original domicile was not one having an agreement with the federal government.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, the minister may recall that yesterday at the resolution stage 1 asked whether there would be any ceiling or floor in regard to payments to be made under the legislation to follow the resolution, and the minister replied there would not. I should like to ask him one or two further questions on that subject. I am wondering what consideration, if any, was given to that particular question in the discussions with the provinces, and with particular reference to the question of some form of ceiling or floor on the level of assistance that would be required to be paid if the federal government would participate.
I think perhaps the situation is highlighted somewhat by the contrast in rates that would be payable under the retroactive arrangement as between British Columbia and Newfoundland. I am not suggesting that there is any likelihood of there being an influx of people from Newfoundland to British Columbia. However, for the sake of argument let us suppose there was a contrast in rates as between British Columbia, which was paying $30, and the neighbouring province of Alberta 

where the rate to be paid was $11. In that case it would seem to me there would be a likelihood of a large influx into British Columbia as a result. While it is perfectly true that as far as the federal share is concerned it might increase the liability of the federal government, it is also true that it would materially increase the liability of that particular provincial government.
I am wondering whether there was not some general understanding reached among the provinces, at least those which are neighbouring provinces, as to some approximate level of minimum or maximum rates that will be paid. If not, what are the reasons for the decision? As far as the federal authorities are concerned there would be no provision made for a floor under the level of payments to the provinces that qualify.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot add anything. What my hon. friend has said is right, but if we are going to avoid residence as a qualification-and I know my hon. friend will agree with that-you cannot do anything about it. You can only trust to the good sense of most people of this country, which I think is sound. There would be some people who would move from a lower rate province to a higher rate province, but I think that disadvantage is certainly countered by the great advantages of the terms of this legislation, so far as no residence qualification is concerned.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: People going from the Liberal provinces to other provinces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would not want to make a political observation at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: I think what has taken place here today indicates that when there is too much rush in the examination of legislation difficulties arise. I think the time that has been made available to the house and the committee to review and consider this bill has been altogether too limited, and further limited by the fact that the bill was not made available until quite late this forenoon.
I have looked over this bill and it is unusual in many ways. Strangely enough there are no explanatory notes. Strangely enough there is nothing to indicate the need of uniformity, outside of the special case of the province of Nova Scotia. The bill as it is now constituted would leave the door wide open to the minister and the government to enter into agreements with other provinces that have not yet joined, to enter into agreements that would be materially different from those already entered into. The hon. gentleman shakes his head in the negative

but, sir, that is what could happen under this bill as it is presently constituted.
Much has been made of the question of length of residence. The minister answers that by saying that length of residence does not enter into the question at all, but it clearly does.
To begin with I am going to ask the minister to explain why the draft agreement should not be attached as an appendix to this act. There is no reason whatsoever why this act should be as wide open as it now is to the interpretation that might be placed thereon by the minister at any time in order to achieve the consent of any province now outside the act. Whilst I am sure the minister would never allow political considerations to enter into his administration of this act, as it now stands he could do so. I never believed he would until the concluding words of his remarks on second reading. Those concluding remarks were not in keeping with the usually detached attitude the minister takes, except when he rises to those heights of eloquence when he forgets that this is the House of Commons and treats us as though we were individuals in an audience and he was on the political stump.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am afraid that is a frailty my hon. friend and I share.


John George Diefenbaker: That is one thing I do not share with my hon. friend, but it is a frank admission on his part-and he speaks for himself in that regard-that he does so on occasion. This apparently is one of those occasions when he allows himself to be carried away by generalizations regarding the meritorious nature of this and other pieces of legislation to which he made reference-that is, meritorious in his opinion.
I ask the minister first why the draft agreement is not attached hereto. There is no reason whatsoever why it should not be attached. In no way is it connected with the draft agreement which appeared in Hansard of January 11 at page 25; and the draft agreement as submitted to Nova Scotia is at page 27. I suggest first that in order to make this bill effective that draft agreement should be attached hereto, to set out in detail many of the items which at the moment are not covered by the bill and which to all intents and purposes, to use a colloquialism, are left up in the air.
I suggest that in order to better this bill, first these agreements should be attached. Otherwise in the preparation of the regulations the minister will be in a position-for after all he will prepare the regulations, irrespective of whether or not the governor in
Unemployment Assistance council has anything to do with that-to prepare them in such a general way that whatever measure he chooses will be in keeping with the provisions of the act.
We know what happened under the disability pensions act. That act was passed by this house-a very desirable objective to be attained-but when the regulations were brought in and parliament had no opportunity to consider those regulations, the result was that many thousands of people across Canada had been denied disability pensions because of the narrow definition that had been incorporated into the regulations. The minister has said on occasion that such interpretation was based on consultation between the dominion and the provinces, but that does not meet the criticism I have in mind.
As this bill stands today it is a mass of generalizations; indeed a hodge-podge of generalizations. It fails to bind the minister or the government in any way to carry out agreements similar to the draft agreement that is set out in Hansard of January 11. It leaves everything wide open. It makes it possible for the government by negotiation to enter into an agreement far different from the agreement of January 11, for the limitations under the bill as it now stands are not the limitations set out in the draft agreement to which I have already made reference.
I say first that unless this bill is intended when enacted to empower the minister and the government to enter into new kinds of agreements, expanded agreements, with the governments that so far have not indicated their acquiescence or desire to enter into agreement, then in order to ensure equality among all the provinces of Canada outside of Nova Scotia there should be the inclusion of the general draft agreement as an appendix to the bill.
Then we have another question that has been raised before but has not been answered satisfactorily by the minister. He answered it in that kindly way he has when he wishes to brush aside any criticism. When he wishes to get an item through he becomes the essence of urbanity. However, he has told my friend the hon. member for Saskatoon that there is no residence requirement. Let us read section 5 of the draft agreement and see what it says. Section 5 reads as follows:
5. Length of residence shall not be made a condition for the receipt of assistance if-
I may say that reference was made to the same point by another hon. member.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Hamilton West.

Unemployment Assistance


John George Diefenbaker: Yes; by the hon. member for Hamilton West. Section 5 continues:
-	(a) the applicant has come from a province whose government has entered into an agreement similar to this respecting unemployment assistance, and . . .
You note how the door is left wide open. Suppose a person has gone from a province that has since entered into an agreement to a province in which the agreement applies, and has done so within the last year but certainly not with a view to securing any benefits under this act. The minister is in a position under the regulations to say that person shall not receive the allowance provided under this agreement. The section reads:
5. Length of residence shall not be made a condition for the receipt of assistance if
(a) the applicant has come from a province whose government has entered into an agreement similar to this respecting unemployment assistance,-
If the person has come from a province within the last year or two years, we will say, and in that province there is no unemployment assistance, all that will need to be done in order to defeat the person's claim will be to simply pass regulations to the effect that the period shall be two years or three years, or whatever the case may be. Section 5 continues:
-	(b) such agreement includes a like clause as herein contained in respect of length of residence not being a condition for receipt of assistance.
That is the joker in this act, and it will remain a joker unless the minister incorporates this draft agreement into the bill as an appendix. If he does not do so, then the minister will be in the position of having an agreement that can be interpreted in a wide-open manner and in such a way as to defeat the just claims of individuals who should be entitled to benefits. I say the minister either should incorporate length of residence or, if he does not incorporate length of residence- and I am not supporting length of residence to be included-then in order to ensure that section 5 of the draft agreement is carried out, it must be made part of this bill.
To do otherwise is to place the minister in the position of having a power that parliament never intended to give him or never intended to extend. What the minister tells the house in committee will in no way enter into the interpretation of the meaning of any section of the bill. If in the event of a disagreement the matter comes before the exchequer court, the court will look at the bill by itself. It will say, "Parliament did not intend to refer to any draft agreement because, if it had done so, it would have included it".

I make that suggestion to the minister. If this bill is bona fide, as I trust it is, and if it is not to be made a political football between now and the next election, let the minister- in his desire to have the bill improved and to have every province treated alike, outside of the province of Nova Scotia, which is a special case-say to the committee, "There is no reason whatever why the agreement in the form in which it was placed on Hansard should not be attached as an appendix". If he will do that, a major portion of my objection to this bill will be removed. If he will not do that, I say this. It is going to give him an opportunity of-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have just been thinking. I have no objection to doing that very thing. As a matter of fact, I may say to my hon. friend that at one time we had discussed that matter with the provinces. At the moment I just cannot think what the reason was that it was not done but, as I remember it, it was not consequential.


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister has no objection, would he at an appropriate time accept an amendment to that effect?


Murdo William Martin: Yes. I will do it right now.


John George Diefenbaker: I think it should be in the form of a motion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have already asked my colleague and he is going to move one.


John George Diefenbaker: That is fine. In that way I feel that the ambit of the bill will have been restricted equally to all provinces, not only those which have entered but as well those that contemplate entering or may consider entering into an agreement.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, earlier in the day, at the second reading stage, I mentioned the fact that I had been unable to procure copies of the correspondence. The minister said that when we got into committee he would be glad to give me the information. In one of the letters from the Prime Minister to the premier of Ontario, dated December 5, I notice that he refers to earlier correspondence, and says this:
In revising the draft agreement, we have sought to meet all the points raised by provincial representatives . . .
I am now back on my original point. I should like to know what specific points were raised by the non-contracting provinces. From the minister's remarks yesterday I understand that one province is about to complete a contract. If he would do so, I should like him to deal with the other three provinces and tell the house just what were the main points of protest by the provinces or the

reasons they did not feel that such an agreement was advantageous to them.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have already dealt with the sole obstacle in the case of Alberta, so I do not need to deal with that matter any more. It was the question of residence. I cannot at this moment give you what were the reasons which persuaded the government of Quebec not to enter the scheme as of this date. I do not know what they were. As to the province of Nova Scotia, I have outlined that we were all agreed, all nine provinces, that Nova Scotia should be treated as a special case because -45 per cent did not seemingly cover the normal statistic of unemployed in both categories.
Last Friday I discussed this matter with the premier of Ontario. If I may put it this way, may I say that I do not feel I should be called upon to reveal-it would not be fair for me to do so-the character of the observations he made, except that I can say I am hopeful that Ontario will come in. I must be frank and say that one of the reasons Premier Frost had in mind for not coming in was that he felt that, in the package deal in 1945, we had at least given the impression-that is the way he put it to me-that we were prepared to accept 100 per cent responsibility for the unemployed employable group not covered by unemployment insurance.
I was obliged to tell him that I could not accept that interpretation of the situation. I had to tell him that in 1945 what we had agreed to do was accept for a limited period responsibility for that group; that we had brought in unemployment insurance; and that while it was understandable to say there was a logical responsibility on us that flowed from that, we had not in fact in the proposals made that offer. I have already quoted references to prove that statement is not only borne out by my own interpretation but by the interpretation of others in this house.
What we are doing in this bill now, I think, is being appreciated by the province of Ontario to a greater extent, I think I may say, than when we discussed this matter at the full conference. Having in mind the basic figure on that date, and including the retroactive period, there will be some 23,000 involved in Ontario, and three-quarters of those would be unemployed, unemployable people. Since that was a responsibility we had certainly not agreed to, whatever may be the argument on the other count in 1945, we certainly were entering a field where the provinces would receive at our hands a measure of assistance which was certainly not contemplated in 1945.
Unemployment Assistance
I do not know that, in the case of Ontario, in view of the discussions with the premier, I would be fair in going any farther. I do not know if I have satisfied my hon. friend, but if I have not she will be good enough to so indicate.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I did not expect the minister to give me any information that was given him in confidence, but bearing in mind that this letter does refer to other correspondence, and also to the fact that when I asked the minister yesterday where the correspondence with the provinces was he said it had been tabled-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Was I in error?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes. It has not been tabled. I cannot find it anywhere.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sorry.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: When I asked earlier the minister said, if my memory serves me, that he would deal with that and would have the correspondence here.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thought it was tabled.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, it was not. When the minister refers to this I presume he means the 23,323 he mentioned earlier. He said, with regard to the 23,000, that a certain percentage were unemployed employables. I draw to the minister's attention that Ontario is still going to pay for all those 23,000, because 23,000 still does not come up to the -45 per cent which is the basis on which the agreement was made.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The 23,000 is the hard core.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: But the -45 per cent amounts to 27,000, so they could still have another 4,000 for whom they would have to pay on the same basis as they pay for indigents and other relief, before they would even begin to qualify for the 50 per cent of the amount paid over-all.


An hon. Member:: The same as any other
province.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Somebody says, "The same as any other province." That is true. I am simply using it as an illustration, because those are the only figures I have here. I thought it would be interesting to take one of the provinces presently under the agreement and take the figure for those who are receiving assistance as of June, the same date the minister gave for Ontario, and then take the figures for the highest period of unemployment. That does vary by provinces. In Ontario it runs along about the middle of February, as a general rule. In some of the other provinces it runs as late, I believe, as

Unemployment Assistance the third week in March. But for most provinces, somewhere between February and March you would find the peak of unemployment. It would be interesting to have those figures.
I would think the minister would say that anybody left on the relief rolls in June or July would be definitely the hard core of persons seeking public assistance. They are probably the people who are never off the relief rolls of the province. I doubt very much if any province actually has a hard core of more than -45 per cent of its population.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You mean normally?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right, and I think my hon. friend will agree we hope it stays that way.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, very definitely; but it changes the whole picture which the minister has given this house when he says that now, under this legislation, the federal government is invading a field that had never been envisaged by the 1945 proposals. He says they are going farther than they intended to go in 1945, but that is not true and for this reason. If the hard core which is always there does not in any case exceed -45 per cent-in any event the province has always paid for them-and in the 1945 proposals it was agreed that the province would still care for the unemployables and that the only ones who would be considered by the federal authorities were the unemployed employables, then actually that is what is proposed under this bill.
But even so, even in extending assistance to the provinces to take care of the unemployed employables this legislation still leaves that hard core of -45 per cent which, as I say, may be actually, as it is in the case of Ontario more than their ordinary welfare assistance, so it still leaves that in provincial hands, paid for by the province. Until the province goes over the -45 per cent the federal government does not participate at all, and then only to the extent of 50 per cent of what is left over and above -45 per cent. If the normal hard core of ordinary relief assistance is less than -45 per cent, then under this agreement the province actually assumes something it did not assume before.
I do not say the province did not pay it. The province has done so and has taken care of some of these people, but it had no actual legal responsibility to them, and many provinces have refused to acknowledge it. Now under this agreement they must acknowledge their responsibility up to that basic figure.


Then the government comes along and offers them 50 per cent of the amount expended over and above that figure, but the government is not paying 50 per cent of their cost of assistance. The province is paying 50 per cent of the cost over and above the figure that has been set, and in addition the administrative costs for those additional people.
I want to say something later on about administration costs, but at this point I should like to make it clear that I think the minister erred when he said the federal government, through this legislation, goes farther than had been proposed in 1945. I think a very good case could be made for that because, as I have said, that basis is a basis which, on the minister's own admission, is higher in most instances than the actual hard core of persons receiving indigent relief of one sort or another. Then, of course, the dominion does not participate until you go over that figure.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If the minister is not going to reply, can we carry this a step farther? Somewhat earlier I asked the minister if he could give us the figures by provinces represented by this magic number, -45 per cent. He did not have the information; yet when the hon. member for Hamilton West mentioned Ontario and the figure of 23,323 the minister promptly said that was the basic figure for Ontario. Well, if he has such a ready reply with regard to that province, can he not tell us what it is for the other provinces? This information put down now in the official record would be very helpful to anybody who is studying this matter.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot give my hon. friend the figures for all the provinces. I remember the figure of 23,000 because I had been discussing and concluding this matter with the province of Ontario, as I indicated, just a few days ago. Those figures are there. Some of the provinces do not have a reporting system that justifies the acceptance of certain figures they present. We are waiting for their claims.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Did the provinces, in correspondence with the minister concerning agreements that might or might not be signed, not have to indicate the situation with regard to unemployment in their provinces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are waiting for them now in four of the agreements.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What about the six?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the case of two we have those figures. I have given them for Newfoundland and British Columbia.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Do the other four provinces not have them also?


Murdo William Martin: We are waiting.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister is waiting for the figures from them?


Murdo William Martin: Waiting for their claims to come in.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I take it the minister says some of the provinces do not have proper reporting systems or means of gathering this information. One more thing they have to do is put in a system of accounting which will give them those figures quickly and accurately.


Thomas Miller Bell: When the minister on second reading gave the figures of the total unemployed employables in each of the provinces I noticed that the figures for the maritimes seemed to be proportionately high again. These totals as such do not give me any sort of relative comparison. I know there is trouble with unemployment in the maritimes on a scale that is far greater than anywhere else in Canada. The hard core that has been mentioned here is certainly to be found down there if it exists anywhere. I know there is a sectional aspect to it. The minister said the per capita percentage-wise figures would be available. Before this clause carries I should like to know whether they can be made available and when they will be made available.


Murdo William Martin: Before we conclude this bill I shall try to get them. It is a matter of calculation.


Thomas Miller Bell: I would prefer to have the section held over, because it means nothing to me to have figures as such. I had a speech ready; I was going to speak on the resolution stage and on second reading. I realize the minister made an appeal that perhaps we should not waste any extra time on this. Frankly I should like to get those percentage figures, because when we take the last issue of the Labour Gazette we learn that the maritime provinces is the only section of Canada that this year has surpassed the previous year's unemployment figures. That means only one thing to me, namely that the statement the minister made a few minutes ago about the high level of employment in Canada is not general. It does not apply to the Atlantic provinces. I think this section should stand.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That applies to your province.


John Cameron Pallett: Can the minister tell the committee, if all the provinces sign the agreements, how much of the actual cost of relief, and that is exactly what it is, would be paid by this government? What percentage of the total cost would it be? Would it be 5 per cent of the total cost, 10 per cent or 11 per cent? What percentage of the total bill would it be? I do not want the minister to talk about 67509-347
Unemployment Assistance percentages of contribution, or a percentage over -45, but what percentage of the amount paid by the municipalities and paid by the provinces would be paid by the dominion? In other words, if the total relief bill is $100, how many dollars would the dominion contribute?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We cannot tell that figure because we do not know what the rates will be. They will be fixed by the province and the municipality, or both combined. The provinces have not given that figure, except in the case of British Columbia and Newfoundland. They are the only ones that know the rate. For instance, in the case of Newfoundland, if we take the month of February, 1955, the province is paying $203,000 and the federal government would pay $101,000. With regard to the other provinces, excluding British Columbia, we do not know what the rate is going to be; we have not received their reimbursement claims yet.
Mr. Pallet!: Mr. Chairman, that figure, quite unintentionally I am sure, is quite misleading. The minister said the province of Newfoundland is paying $203,000 and the dominion is therefore paying $101,000. What is the total relief bill? The figure of $203,000 represents only the amount over [DOT] 45 per cent. What is the total bill for the other provinces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It would be the difference between -45 and zero, which is about half of one per cent.
Mr. Pallet!: It would be about another $203,000. Therefore, in effect, in Newfoundland you are paying half of $203,000. Their bill, as submitted to you, is about half what they are paying. Therefore you are paying about 25 per cent of their bill. I just wish to put that on the record as an indication of what the government is paying so there will not be any misunderstanding.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The province of British Columbia would have agreed to pay 40 per cent, and one other province recommended 60 per cent. We pay 50 per cent.
Mr. Pallet!: Actually, the minister continues to say this government are paying 50 per cent. I wish to point out to the committee that they are not paying 50 per cent of the relief bill. In many instances they are not paying 25 per cent or even 15 per cent. This continual reiteration of 50 per cent is not correct. The dominion government are paying 50 per cent of-


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is 50 per cent of over -45. Obviously, we are paying nothing toward that portion from zero to -45. What the amount from zero to -45 is I do not know.

Unemployment Assistance All this bill is doing, and all I am saying, is that it authorizes us to pay out of the consolidated revenue fund not more than 50 per cent of assistance toward those in the two groups, provided that those groups represent '45 of the population of a province. I have not said the bill does any more than that, but it is a great deal.


John Cameron Pallett: No, I do not think the minister has said any more than that, Mr. Chairman; but I think the committee should know what is the over-all cost of helping these people, and how much of the over-all cost this government is paying. That is the difficulty the people of this country are concerned with, because they are the people who are paying it, and the municipal taxpayers are the people who are paying it. Let us not have any unintentional misleading with these figures. They say that figures lie and liars figure; nevertheless-


Paul Joseph James Martin: And that lawyers are liars.


John Cameron Pallett: Since you are a member of the bar as well, it cuts both ways. There must be figures available, and surely to goodness the minister should be able to give them to the committee.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member is asking for the figures of the hard core in the provinces. I have not those figures.
Mr. Pallet!: Is the minister saying that with all the machinery of this government, with the dominion bureau of statistics and all the rest of it, he is unable to say what the total cost of relief is in this country? That is a very sorry admission.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not say that; I said I have not those figures right here.


Mr. Fleming:: Why have you not?
Mr. Pallet!: Can the minister produce them?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, certainly.
Mr. Pallet!: Would you produce them?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Very gladly.
Mr. Pallet!: When?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Right away?
Mr. Pallet!: Will you produce them before this clause passes?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, I cannot.
Mr. Pallet!: I think those figures are fundamental to the whole discussion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not think they are fundamental to the title of the bill.
[Mr- Martin.]
Mr. Pallet!: But the thing is that this .45 figure may be considerably too high, and perhaps we should be applying the .30 figure for all the provinces.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It might possibly help my hon. friend, who appears to be in a very unhappy state of mind, if we perhaps could stand clause No. 1 and go on to clause 2.


Donald Methuen Fleming: As long as you do not move that further consideration be postponed.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Chairman-


Murdo William Martin: I have suggested that clause 1 stand and I just want to make sure it is agreed to let clause I stand and go on to No. 2. Would my hon. friend like to ask a question on clause 2?


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 1 stand with unanimous consent?


John Borden Hamilton: On clause 1, Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: Before it stands.


John Borden Hamilton: Before it
stands, yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have just made a proposal suggested by the hon. member for Peel, that we might let clause 1 stand and go on with the other clauses. I agreed to that, and I take it my hon. friend agrees that we will come back to that when we have the required information.


John Borden Hamilton: What I have to say is designed to help the minister, if he will just let me conclude. If the minister wishes he can stand the clause immediately afterward but I am asking the indulgence of the committee at this point because the minister has indicated that he will bring in an amendment to the bill along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Prince Albert.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Making the agreement a
partnership?


John Borden Hamilton: Yes. If the minister is going to do that perhaps the observation I am going to make will not require a further amendment, but on the other hand perhaps something else will have to be done. May I direct the minister's attention to the notice clause contained in the bill, clause 4, subclause 1 paragraph (e) and also the notice clause contained in the agreement in clause 17. It seems to me there is room for two different interpretations as to what may result from this notice clause. In the bill itself it would indicate that the agreement goes for five years and then from year to year as a lease might run on, whereas

in clause 17 of the agreement it would indicate that on one year's notice from any time at all after the expiration of the fixed period the agreement could come to an end. It seems to me this might be subject to two different interpretations. I am only suggesting now that if an amendment is being made perhaps this might be done at the same time. If not, my observations will apply to clause 4.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Stand.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall clause 1 stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 1 stands.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Agreements for contributions.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few comments on this bill.


Harold Edward Winch: On clause 3?


Chesley William Carter: Since it has been agreed to
let clause 1 stand I think my observations can properly be made under clause 3. There are three aspects of this legislation which are of particular interest to my province and my constituents. As the representative of a riding composed mostly of fishermen it is a source of great gratification to me, and I am sure it will be to all my constituents, to know that this assistance can be extended to the selfemployed groups when they become unemployed, and that in the self-employed groups fishermen and farmers can be included.


Harold Edward Winch: Where is that in the appendix?


Mr.   Carier@: Pardon?


Harold Edward Winch: I see it is not in the bill; where is it in the appendix?


Chesley William Carter: The minister assured us of that in his remarks yesterday and I think perhaps again today.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wonder if I might say to the hon. gentleman that perhaps when we come back to the title, which we have asked to stand, he might find it a more convenient place to make the general remarks he is making now.


Chesley William Carter: On clause 1?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes; we have let it stand.


Harold Edward Winch: Would the minister say where it is in the agreements and the appendix?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This applies to everyone; there is no exclusion in the bill.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, this clause refers to the agreements with the provinces; therefore almost anything we intend to bring 67509-347i
Unemployment Assistance up with regard to specific clauses in the agreement should really come under this particular clause. The minister has said that payments will be made retroactive-


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the case of the existing
agreements, back to July 1, 1955.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes; July 1, 1955. I notice in the agreements these claims must be in the government's hands within six months. I take it the provincial governments make their applications by the month but no claim should be more than six months old. How does the government propose to pay these? Are they to be paid on a yearly basis or will these accounts be paid on a monthly basis- that is every month-or paid on receipt and after consideration has been given to them? I presume these payments will be practically automatic, once paid, and then any audits that are done may provide subsequent adjustments. Is that correct?


Murdo William Martin: That is correct.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Here is the opportunity I have been seeking to speak about this matter of the cost of administration. I must say I agree with the minister, and I am sorry if I gave the impression that I did not think the actual machinery of administration should be in the hands of the provinces, because I know it is pretty difficult to handle these matters in any other way. When it comes to the cost of administration, however, I think it could be shared. I should think the minister would have in his possession some figures which would show the approximate cost of administration of relief assistance in the various provinces; that is, is it a percentage-


Murdo William Martin: It is not uniform.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, it may not be uniform, but it would be a percentage of the funds expended, and in so far as their basic expenditures are concerned they should run on a fairly even tenor. I would think there would not be peaks and valleys. If there were gradually increasing costs that would be understandable because of the increases in all costs, but there should be a ratio by which it would be fairly simple to arrive at a split of the additional cost of administration.
If it were found, for instance, that the cost of administration of relief for a given province was 3 per cent or 1 per cent, whatever it might be, then if you applied the -45 basis to that cost of administration you could probably add a proportion of the amount of the payment to the province to help defray the cost of administration. I would like to know whether the minister considered that and whether it was a subject of discussion with the provinces in the drawing up of these agreements.

Unemployment Assistance


Murdo William Martin: As to administration costs in the provinces, the costs of existing public assistance programs are tied in with other measures and I cannot give that figure. We asked for that at the conference and some rough estimates were given, which I forget at the moment, but apparently there are no separate accounts. In the case of family allowances administration I know that in the case of the Department of National Health and Welfare it is 1J per cent and for treasury it is a little higher than that, with the total being under 4 per cent. I used that amount at the conference, but I was not able to get from the provinces an exact statement because they do mix it up with other matters such as mothers' allowances, field investigations under the children's aid and so on. It is not segregated. Then there is the fact that some of the larger municipalities have extensive operations of their own.


Mrs. Fair dough:: I realize that, particularly well-organized municipalities. For instance, applications for mothers' allowances, old age security and old age assistance benefits, and disabled persons assistance are usually filed with the local welfare office and I agree that it would be hard to separate those. But even taking that into consideration there must be a level at which you can arrive so you can say that the total cost of administration-I shall take a figure half-way between the two used by the minister-is 2J per cent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would think it would be higher than that.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The amount does not matter; let us say 4 per cent. Admittedly some of that cost would be as the result of applications being received which were not directly related to the local relief program. Even if you made allowance for some error and arrived at a figure which you could relate directly to the administration of the local relief problem, you should be able to apply that figure to the net amount which the province would receive from the federal government under this assistance, which would go a long way toward defraying the cost of administration. I do not think it would be too difficult.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We asked them and they could not give it to us.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The minister's own department should be able to arrive at some sort of figure. The municipalities could not give it because they have been doing a lot of federal government work in their own offices.


Harold Edward Winch: I consider that clause 3 is the important clause in the bill, the key clause, and I should like to ask the minister if my


interpretation of the clause is correct. The clause is very definite. It reads:
3. (1) Subject to this act, the minister may, with the approval of the governor in council, enter into an agreement with any province to provide for the payment by Canada to the province of contributions in respect of unemployment assistance costs in the province.
(2) The contributions to a province shall not exceed fifty per cent of the unemployment assistance costs in the province in respect of which Canada has, under the agreement with the province, undertaken to contribute.
It would seem to be quite definite that the minister can make an agreement with any province in any amount the province wants to pay, and the federal government will contribute up to 50 per cent of the cost. I think that interpretation is correct.
I am sorry I have to go back to what was said when we were discussing clause 1, but this seems to be the place at which to discuss this particular matter. There is nothing in this bill which has anything to do with a means test or as to who is covered or who is not covered, and I include in that a fisherman or a businessman who has gone broke or a farmer who is destitute. Do I take it that this clause actually means that the establishment of who would be entitled to aid would be decided by provincial regulations and provincial decisions or on the basis of an agreement signed with the federal government, and then the federal government would pay 50 per cent? In other words the minister is saying by this clause 3 that if a person is not entitled to benefits the province can actually lay down who has a right to receive aid outside of the present legislation, and the dominion will pay up to 50 per cent. Therefore the matter of aid to fishermen or to any other individuals would be something laid down by the province. Am I right or wrong in that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think when we come to clause 4 (c) the hon. member will see that the agreement contains provisions for the carrying out of assistance to persons who are in need.


Mr. Gillis:: I would like to get some clarification of the agreement in connection with one or two points, the first being residence qualification. I am thinking particularly of Nova Scotia, which has not signed an agreement. The dominion government has assisted in the movement of some hundreds of people from Nova Scotia to British Columbia. Some have been shifted to Ontario, but as Ontario has not signed an agreement an argument in that connection would not be valid.

What I am bringing to the minister's attention is the fact that British Columbia is being reimbursed this year to the extent of over $1 million for its unemployment contributions over the past year, while Newfoundland is to receive some $750,000. I think that demonstrates the value of the legislation. Those provinces are getting back that amount of money which they would not get back if the legislation was not in existence or if they did not have an agreement. But I am concerned with that part of the country where they are moving out.
As I say, some hundreds of people were sent in groups from Nova Scotia to the lumbering industry in British Columbia. That is a highly unionized operation and if there are to be lay-offs, those who came on last will be laid off first. That means that those men who were moved out there are likely to be among the first unemployed when there are seasonal lay-offs. They will not be able to qualify for unemployment insurance, because they have not worked long enough to draw benefits. Under the residence clause these people will not be able to receive unemployment insurance or unemployment assistance, and this through no fault of their own. This is all assuming that Nova Scotia does not enter into an agreement. I just leave that thought with the minister.
The second thing I should like to get clear is that under the agreement-I am going to talk about Nova Scotia again-the formula is that there must be -30 per cent unemployed as related to the total provincial population. In the case of Nova Scotia I think that would amount to around 2,500, which would be the number to be handled by the municipalities and the province. The minister has stated that there are approximately 3,000 unemployed in the province. As I understand it, that is where the federal government would begin to contribute.
As of now, if Nova Scotia had an agreement it would be absorbing 50 per cent of the cost of the 500. What I would like the minister to clarify for me is this. When you come into the picture and begin to contribute to the relief of that 500 on a 50 per cent basis, is that a straight provincial-federal proposition without any reference to the municipalities?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, it could be the municipality entirely or the province and the municipality.


Clarence Gillis: Would they divide the 50 per
cent?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, they share the 50 per cent.
Unemployment Assistance


Clarence Gillis: Is that to be determined by the provincial or federal government?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is to be determined by the two jurisdictions concerned. We do not have anything to do with that.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have just one or two questions relating to the question just asked by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. There has been a good deal of discussion on this question of entry into a province which has an agreement by former residents of a province which has not an agreement. I was wondering whether the minister has information he could give the committee as to what residence qualifications the various provinces have established at the present time with respect to eligibility for unemployment assistance. For example, in the province of British Columbia, how long must a former resident of another province have been in British Columbia before being qualified under the agreement?


Murdo William Martin: In British Columbia it is one year. In some provinces it is three years; in some provinces six months; in some municipalities it is as high as seven years.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: My second question would be, was any understanding arrived at-I notice that it is not in the agreement-with respect to the maintenance of existing regulations by the provinces?


Murdo William Martin: In respect of those provinces where we have agreements there is no residence qualification. The only test is one of need and unemployability.


Clarence Gillis: If you went in, you must have come from a province that had an agreement?


Murdo William Martin: If a person, for example, came from Alberta to Saskatchewan and Saskatchewan was willing, there is nothing in the act to prevent that.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Assuming, for example, that Nova Scotia for some reason or other does not conclude an agreement, there is nothing in the arrangement or understanding that would prevent British Columbia, for example, from increasing its residence qualification from one to two years?


Murdo William Martin: As far as this agreement is concerned there must be no residence qualification. My hon. friend was referring to section 5, which refers to provinces where they both have agreements with the federal government. Where that is the case, each must have a provision for no residence qualification.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry if I am a little dense. If a province such as British Columbia, for

Unemployment Assistance example, had signed an agreement and agreed to continue, it has to accept anyone who comes in from a province that has not signed and pay the benefits?


Murdo William Martin: That is up to British Columbia. We cannot impose it on them.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On clause 3, with regard to these agreements with the provinces, could the minister inform us if the provinces, other than Nova Scotia, including those that have already come to an agreement with the federal government and those that have not yet concluded such agreements, are willing to accept the terms of the draft agreement tabled here on January 11 without further alteration?


Murdo William Martin: We do not know yet. There is no doubt in the case of Alberta except for the residence qualification. I have indicated the situation as far as Quebec is concerned; we do not know what their reaction is. I have no reasons for believing that if Ontario comes in it would want a variation of the agreement. We have had no correspondence with them.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The words "an agreement with any province" in clause 3 mean that an agreement that may be signed with other provinces may be quite different from the one we have in front of us here, tabled on January 11?


Murdo William Martin: No. My hon. friend will remember that the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre proposed that we make part of the agreement a schedule to the act and we agreed to do that; and one of my colleagues, at the appropriate moment, will move the amendment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I appreciate that, but I understood the minister to say that even at that there might be alterations made by the provinces in the future. Do I understand him now to say that when the agreement is made part of the schedule to the act it will remain unchanged and the form will have to be accepted by the other provinces?


Murdo William Martin: That is right; it could not apply to one province and not to the others. I am going to ask my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to be good enough to move that clause 3 be amended by adding thereto the following subclause as subclause 3:
Any agreement entered into under this act shall be in the form of and subject to the conditions set out in schedule A to this act, except that an agreement with the province of Nova Scotia shall be in the form of and subject to the conditions set out in schedule B to this act.


I may say to my hon. friend that we have considered that and we thank him for his observation, but we think the situation is clear.


William Alfred Robinson: Mr. Pickersgill moves:
That clause 3 be amended by adding thereto the following subclause as subclause 3:
Any agreement entered into under this act shall be in the form of and subject to the conditions set out in schedule A to this act, except that an agreement with the province of Nova Scotia shall be in the form of and subject to the conditions set out in schedule B of this act.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
William Alfred Robinson: On clause 3, shall the
amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause as amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman.


John George Diefenbaker: What is that? Is that the amendment?


William Alfred Robinson: Yes.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend has suggested this amendment-it just came to my notice a moment ago

with reference to the question I had raised. "I move that any agreement-"


Murdo William Martin: It has been moved.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. I was trying to
analyse it in order to see how it would cover the situation. Perhaps I might read it. It reads as follows:
Any agreement entered into under this act shall be in the form of and subject to the conditions set out in schedule A to this act, except that an agreement with the province of Nova Scotia shall be in the form of and subject to the conditions set out in schedule B to this act.
I think that covers in every particular the suggestion I made, and I thank the minister for accepting it. I think it covers the situation perfectly.


William Alfred Robinson: The amendment is carried. Shall the clause as amended carry?


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder whether the minister could give us some figures as to the number of persons in Saskatchewan, for

example, who might be covered by this legislation? At the present time the province and the municipalities are providing assistance for a certain number of our citizens on a 50-50 basis. I wonder whether the minister could give us some information in that regard?


Paul Joseph James Martin: About 4,052.


Mr. Nicholson:: About 4,000 at the present time?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Four thousand and fifty-two.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wonder whether the
minister could tell us how many there are in the province of Saskatchewan who would be eligible when this legislation is passed?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Four thousand and fifty-two-


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I gather that is the base?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. The base is 4,000. The total number as of February, 1955, was 8,052. The 4,000 represents the threshold, -45.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause as amended carry?
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 4-Contents of agreement.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have a question on
clause 4, subsection (a). The matter is not included in the subsection. I presume this is the section which would cover the basis for the statistics on the population. Will the minister tell us how they procure the figures as to the population of the respective provinces, and how often they are changed?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The figures are changed every year; June 1, 1955.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: On what basis are they changed? Obviously there is no census.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Dominion bureau of statistics figures.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Under this same section?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is the same as in connection with the tax agreement.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Would the minister give us an explanation of clause 8 (a) (iv) of the agreement?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Clause 8 (a) (iv), a charitable organization; it would be any kind of institution that is not normally within the control of the province such as, for instance, a mental institution like that at Whitby or Orillia.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: They are under provincial control.


Murdo William Martin: That would not be included but it would include any other such as, for instance, a nursing home that was maintained 67509-3484
Unemployment Assistance by a church or by a municipality in conjunction with a church or by a voluntary organization; or an old age pension home, either one operating on its own under the old basis or one under the National Housing Act. In other words we seek to include those institutions that are not normally considered as provincial and for which the patients receive assistance through the provinces.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Would that cover an institution or organization where the institution itself receives some assistance from the provincial authorities but the inmates receive none? That is to say, there are certain private hospitals which qualify under certain classifications in Ontario. I do not know about the other provinces, but in Ontario there are certain institutions which qualify for assistance on a per-bed basis, yet wherein the inmates themselves receive no assistance other than probably the old age pension. The minister says that if the inmates are not in receipt of provincial assistance the institution is covered. Let us take as an example the old age act, the provincial one. What do you call it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Old age assistance.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Let us take as an example old age assistance. Suppose a person is resident in one of these institutions and receives old age assistance, which amount then automatically goes to the institution itself. Would that fact disqualify that person under this act?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If the individual is receiving old age assistance he would not be included under the provisions of this act unless the province provided additional assistance to the old age assistance. In Ontario, for instance, under the supplementary old age assistance provisions that were recently announced, that would not preclude them because that is not a supplementary payment in the sense that it is in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. There it is really assistance. The municipality contributes $8 and the province $12. Under this act they would not be regarded as excluded for the purpose of what is called supplementary assistance in the province of Ontario but which we would regard as additional assistance. Section 9 of the agreement covers that matter.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Without regard to section 9 of the agreement at the moment, may I ask this question. If the province itself is contributing to an institution wherein are resident persons receiving old age pensions or old age assistance, would the amount that is contributed by the province in excess of the amount which that institution would

Unemployment Assistance receive-provided it is operated on a charitable basis-from the old age pensions or old age security which is signed over to them be included in the total which the province includes under section 6 as the amount which was expended in the year for assistance by the province? Could the province include these contributions to the maintenance of that establishment as a part of its welfare assistance?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No. This is a program to assist individuals. If the money is paid by the province to the institution as such, then these individuals are provided for in that way. For instance, in my own community we have an organization that is run by one of the churches, and the province does pay some assistance to the individuals in that institution. That assistance to individuals would bring those individuals within the purposes of this act. But if it is a grant to the institution as such, that precludes them.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Of course that brings up this point. You may have assistance given to individuals which is in turn signed over to an institution, as is the case in a great many instances. In other words, in order to qualify the province would have to make this contribution to each individual resident of that institution, and they in turn would have to sign those contributions over to the institution in which they resided in order for the province to gain the benefit of assistance from the dominion?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The last condition is not necessary. That is a matter for arrangement between the individual and the institution. But if the province paid an assistance grant to the individual, we would share in that.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that we are splitting hairs here on this particular clause, because under clause 8 of the agreement there is set out in three or four very short paragraphs and in that one very long paragraph a description of the type of contribution by the province which is eligible for inclusion in the over-all total of assistance granted. I am sure we are all familiar with the type of institution which operates on a charitable or semi-charitable basis, which is not sponsored by the province but which gains some assistance by reason of the type of person who is there. Certainly this is true in the case of indigents who are residents in such institutions.
It looks as if it is going to be increasingly important to the province to include in its list of persons who are receiving assistance, both in so far as the number of persons is concerned and also in so far as the total expenditure is concerned, every single person


and every single dollar if the province is going to benefit under the scheme. I just wonder whether or not this section 8(a) (iv) in the agreement is a loophole. I do not say it is deliberately so, but I have had so much experience with regulations which are brought into effect under legislation that I wonder if there is not an escape there from a large expenditure of federal funds which would otherwise benefit the province and the municipality.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I cannot say any more than I have said. What we are seeking to do is assist the province in respect of assistance which they provide to individuals. In one section of the bill we do include the kind of institutions which would not bring all individuals in that institution within the purpose and coverage of the bill. Then we make, as my hon. friend calls to our attention, in section 9 of the agreement an exception, and that would cover such things as nursing homes, hospitals for indigent transients, homes for the aged, poorhouses, alms houses and hostel dormitory accommodation for the aged provided under the National Housing Act.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Excuse me; what clause is the minister quoting from?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was just giving the kind of institution. If my hon. friend will look at clause 4, subclause 4 of the bill, the institutions are cited there. Individuals who receive assistance from the provinces for themselves, and are in these institutions, are covered by this bill. But if the grant paid by the province is to the institution as such, they are not included any more than the people in mental institutions or T.B. sanatoria.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is quite true; but after all the bill in itself is enabling legislation, more or less, and the actual terms are set out in the agreement. Therefore when you consider clause 4 you must, of necessity, turn to section 8 of the agreement which it is proposed to sign with the provinces. It is for that reason I wonder about this, because when it comes to setting out the regulations which are going to govern the administration of this act, and particularly since the agreements are now to be incorporated as a part of this act, then it is very important to tie the two together.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If my hon. friend will look at the agreement, section 8 (iv), all the exceptions there she will find conform with clause 4, subclause 4 of the bill.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Which one?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the agreement, section 8 (a).


Ellen Louks Fairclough: You mean section 8 (a) (iv)?


Murdo William Martin: Yes.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is the one I was talking about.


Murdo William Martin: Those are the exceptions.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is precisely the clause I asked the minister to explain.


Murdo William Martin: That is what I was covering. Section 8 of the agreement, in part provides:
There shall be excluded from the reimbursement claim any person, together with any payment made to or on behalf of such person, who is
(a) an inmate in any institution maintained in whole or in part out of funds appropriated by
(i)	the parliament of Canada,
(ii)	the legislature of the province,
(iii)	a municipality, or
(iv)	a charitable organization;
except that there may be included in the reimbursement claim payments made by the province or by a municipality for the upkeep of inmates in homes for special care . . .
Then homes for special care are defined in clause 4 (4) of the bill, which include nursing homes, hostels for indigent transients, homes for the aged, etc.


Mr. Trainor:: I should like to ask the minister if that does not constitute an incentive for the provinces to make their contributions to individuals rather than to institutions?


Murdo William Martin: Well, in some cases it may. I do not think it really will, because those institutions will continue to require assistance at the hands of the provinces for their maintenance. If the individuals in the institution need assistance they can be brought, as I have indicated, under the exception provided for in the agreement and in the act, and obtain assistance under this measure.


Owen C. Trainor: Is it not true, Mr. Chairman, that this assistance will be forthcoming from the federal government to the provinces provided any portion of the assistance given by the province is given to the individual rather than to the institution; it does not have to be all given to the institutions.


Murdo William Martin: According to the act.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to raise one or two questions in regard to subclause 3 of clause 4 of the bill. One of my questions is in connection with homes for special care which, as I understand it, is defined in subclause 4 to cover the term as used in subclause 3. Included in that definition in subclause 4 is the term "nursing homes". Now, I should like to know just what the definition is and what distinction is going to be made as between nursing homes and convalescent hospitals in the various provinces. What is the distinction between a nursing home and
Unemployment Assistance convalescent hospital? Apparently a nursing home can be included but a convalescent hospital is excluded?


Murdo William Martin: A convalescent hospital is
defined in the British Columbia hospitals act. It is something that is specifically included in the hospital coverage. In addition to that, there are places called nursing homes which are really homes for the destitute or indigents, people of that sort; people who normally would be requiring assistance, but not health care. This is not a health care provision. This is a welfare measure to provide assistance for the maintenance of people. People in convalescent homes are in a hospital as defined under the hospital insurance of British Columbia. They are provided for under that measure.
There are places in British Columbia, two that I know of in Vancouver, called nursing homes which are really places where aged people and people who have another kind of infirmity are maintained. They are not really in there for hospitalization purposes, but are in there for the keep that is provided for them by those who run the place, charitable organizations of one sort or another. People in this latter category are included in the act if they receive assistance for themselves from the province.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Is it not likely that people who are in the category which the minister described as being in these nursing homes are people who are apt to have to move back and forth between the category of people in nursing homes and those in convalescent hospitals; people who are aged and perhaps somewhat infirm?
One reason I raised this question is that earlier in the discussion of the bill the minister did make reference to the fact that in his opinion this measure was going to go a long way toward closing the remaining gaps in our social security legislation. As I understand it, the proposals for national health insurance are not going to cover convalescent or chronic hospitalization.


Murdo William Martin: Yes, it will cover chronic cases.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: It will cover them?


Murdo William Martin: That is part of the proposal.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: It is part of the proposal?


Murdo William Martin: Oh, yes.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I may be in error, because it appeared to me there was a very narrow distinction-


Murdo William Martin: Chronic hospitals are covered.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -between nursing homes and chronic hospitals that look after people with chronic illnesses who may be needing care.


S492 HOUSE OF
[Stage Direction]
Unemployment Assistance
Paul Joseph James Martin: Chronic hospitals are covered.


William Gourlay Blair: May I suggest to the minister that the term "nursing homes" requires further definition. These homes are springing up all over the country. I am aware of two of them in my own town. We have nursing homes that take in old people. They take in people who are on a prolonged recovery basis; they take in people who cannot get a room in a hospital but who require prolonged treatment. In the main these nursing homes are licensed by the Ontario department of health. Two of the qualifications are that they must have fire protection; they must have fire escapes, and must have registered nurses on duty at all times. They are commonly called nursing homes. They have a mixed variety of cases at all times. The definition is assuming another name, another position.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In Ontario the nursing home is defined under appropriate legislation.


Mr. Hahn:: I have another matter in mind. Probably it should come under subsection 2 of this section, but perhaps not. At this time we do have a high level of employment. If we have a bit of a decline in the employment level what will happen? During July and August of each year a great number of students take up employment. Their parents may be unemployed and not qualified for unemployment insurance. Would these students be considered as eligible for relief assistance under this legislation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: They would if they were in the normal work group. A group of students who work for a couple of months, of course, are not part of the working force, and this legislation applies to the individual.


Owen C. Trainor: It seems to me, as the hon. member for Lanark has pointed out, that the term "nursing home" really demands more definite definition, because in most provinces of the country the nursing home is to a degree synonymous with a hospital, perhaps a hospital of a lower grade. Most of the people in a nursing home are ill. Some of them, or a fair proportion of them, care for the chronically ill but not the acutely ill. Nevertheless they are people who require nursing and medical care. Unless this legislation is going to conflict with the proposed hospital legislation I think there should be a complete definition of the term "nursing home".


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, certainly if the draftsmen of this section had tried to be incomprehensible they could not have done a more complete job. I suggest that no one


reading section 4 subsection 2, with subsection 3	(a) could really understand what
this means. Subsection 2 says:
Except as provided in subsection (3), an agreement shall, for the purposes of this act, exclude from unemployment assistance costs
(a) payments made to or on behalf of persons who are inmates of any institution or class of institution maintained in whole or in part out of funds provided by Canada, a province, a municipality or a charitable organization.
Then I pass the paragraphs without comment because they do not come into issue. Subsection 3 reads;
An agreement may include as unemployment assistance costs
(a) payments made to or on behalf of persons who are inmates of homes for special care and who would not normally be cared for in general, acute, chronic or convalescent hospitals, tuberculosis sanitoria, mental institutions, institutions for incurables, orphanages or child welfare institutions.
The minister mentioned that there is an example of this in British Columbia. He did not say whether institutions of the kind mentioned in 3(a) are exclusive to British Columbia. Could this subsection not be simplified if it is to cover only certain institutions in British Columbia?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is to cover not only British Columbia. I just took that as an example because I was addressing myself to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. It applies to every province.


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly the minister
could clarify it in this way, because to read 2(a) with 3(a) is to muddle any person who believes in careful language in definitions. Would the minister give an example of the kind of institution which would be operated under 3(a)? He indicated that there was one in British Columbia and possibly in some other province. It does seem that whoever drafted this did not himself clearly understand the meaning of section 8(a) of the draft agreement, now schedule A. The wording is almost the same as in 2(a), except that it says "payment to or on behalf of persons who are inmates of homes for special care".
What persons do receive any assistance because they are in homes for special care? What is the nature of the legislation in existence in any province that allows a person who is not in a general convalescent hospital, or in a sanatorium, a mental institution, an institution for incurables and the like, to qualify? What are the institutions; what is the nature of the institution; what is the qualification for payment to that institution; because the payment to that institution must be made by the province or by the municipality.

In an ordinary rest home a person pays for his or her keep. In these rest homes, or these convalescent homes, or homes similar to those referred to by the hon. member for Lanark and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, ordinarily the individual pays; but apparently there are some institutions in existence in which people who are not sick, mentally afflicted, or do not have tuberculosis and the like, may be placed, and payment is made either by the province or by the municipality. Will the minister outline under what legislation provision is made for such an arrangement, because on the face of it these two sections look as incomprehensible as faulty draftsmanship could possibly achieve.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, I think I can understand the feeling of my hon. friend in the matter, but it may be because of dealing with this thing more regularly that I feel it is not as difficult as my hon. friend says. I shall do my best to explain the situation again. My hon. friend has directed our attention to clause 4, subclause 2(a), which reads:
Except as provided in subsection (3), an agreement shall, for the purposes of this act. exclude from unemployment assistance costs-
Then paragraph (a) is set out, and that is the one he dealt with. It reads:
(a) payments made to or on behalf of persons who are inmates of any institution or class of institution maintained in whole or in part out of funds provided by Canada, a province, a municipality or a charitable organization.
The people in that group are out, so far as this act is concerned.


John George Diefenbaker: Right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: So far my hon. friend and I are in accord?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend then says, "Look at subclause 3," which reads:
An agreement may include as unemployment assistance costs
(a) payments made to or on behalf of persons vho are inmates of homes for special care-
The words "special care" are to be underlined.
-and who would not normally be cared for-
This is descriptive.
-and who would not normally be cared for in general, acute, chronic or convalescent hospitals, tuberculosis sanatoria, mental institutions, institutions for incurables, orphanages or child welfare institutions.
The group of institutions that are described after the words "who would not normally be cared for," etc., are institutions that are maintained by the province. My hon. friend spoke
Unemployment Assistance of chronic cases. They would be covered, for instance, under the hospital insurance proposal as a hospital that would qualify the patients therein for the benefits of the hospital insurance program as is now the case in British Columbia. But my hon. friend says, "That may be true; that may be all well and good," and he says the thing that concerns him is what we mean by "homes for special care". Now, if he will look at clause 4, subclause 4-


John George Diefenbaker: I know that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -he will see where the words "homes for special care" are defined. They are defined as meaning:
. . . nursing homes, hostels for indigent transients, homes for the aged, poorhouses, almshouses and hostel facilities provided for the aged within housing projects constructed under the National Housing Act.
The hon. member asked me to give him examples of these institutions.


John George Diefenbaker: Could I interrupt for just a moment. Would these nursing homes, hospitals and homes for the aged and so on be nursing homes, etc., operated by the province?


Murdo William Martin: Not necessarily, no.


John George Diefenbaker: Well-


Murdo William Martin: If my hon. friend wishes to listen to me I think he will follow this. For instance, there are Salvation Army hospitals all over the country. There is a Union Mission here in Ottawa, and there are homes for the aged. In New Brunswick I think they call them poorhouses or homes for the poor.


Clarence Gillis: Yes.


Murdo William Martin: People in those institutions are not in hospitals. They are individuals who sometimes are destitute for one reason or another, but they do not need regular hospital care and they are people for whom the hospital is not prepared to provide assistance. That is the type of person who is covered. In every province there is a licensing inspection system under which they license (a) hospitals and (b) nursing homes. We accept the provincial definitions, and if we were to define "nursing homes" ourselves we would run counter to the definitions prescribed in provincial acts in all the provinces. Those are defined.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni mentioned a possible complication. He mentioned that there might be an individual in one of these nursing homes who was indeed a chronic case. If that happened to be the situation the proper governing authority would see to it that he was provided for in an institution covered by the hospital insurance act in the province of British Columbia; but

Unemployment Assistance nursing homes are not hospitals as such. We have perhaps allowed ourselves to be confused by this phrase. Many of us are familiar with the type of nursing home which exists in the old country, which is in fact a small hospital. We ourselves have small institutions which are called nursing homes and are in fact hospitals, but it is not those about which we are speaking; it is the nursing home that is defined in the provincial acts for which there is a proper licensing system.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct a question to the minister. As I think he knows, in the province of Saskatchewan we have what we call hospitals which are provided by the provincial government in the first place. They are occupied by old people but not by aged people who live in old age homes as such; these are people who are in need of hospital care. For example, in my own city we have what we call the Saskatchewan government hospital. This is a hospital; they have trained nurses in attendance, and the patients receive a call every day from a qualified doctor.
I cannot for the life of me see how the definition of such an institution would be any different from that which is laid down in subclause 3 (a),-"persons who are inmates of homes for special care"-because that is why they are not in a place like Melfort where they have an old peoples' home. These are really old peoples' hospitals.
The institution was originally under the care of the province, but these aged people contribute to that institution probably from their old age pension or, if they are not of pensionable age, they pay a certain amount from their available funds. Does subclause 3(a), cover these people?


Murdo William Martin: I do not have that particular institution in mind, but I take it from what you said that it would be covered. We are covered by the licensing system of the province. The province defines what is a hospital and what is a nursing home, and if it is a nursing home which is in fact a hospital it will be exempt from the sales tax, for instance. That comes to us on the basis of a certificate from the province. We depend on the regulations of the province, but in the case you mention I would not think there would be much difference.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: In the case I mentioned these people are in this institution because of the fact they need medical care as opposed to simply being chronic old age cases. I do not know what the technical terms are, but I think those are the correct terms.


Mr. Jones:: I wonder would the minister define "charitable organization"? I have in

mind the fact that at Kelowna the Rotary club is going to build several homes for the aged as they are referred to in this act, and they are going to put up $15,000 or $20,000 and borrow the rest from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The homes are more or less held in trust by a body set up by Rotary on a charitable basis with the idea of continuity of occupancy-


Paul Joseph James Martin: These are homes for the aged?


Owen Lewis Jones: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: They are included.


Owen Lewis Jones: Would you define them as charitable organizations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, definitely.


Owen Lewis Jones: There is no question about it?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Definitely not.


Owen Lewis Jones: How is it, then, that the income tax department says they are not; it says they are a business?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I do not know-


Owen Lewis Jones: That is what I want to find out. I think you are right; they are a charitable organization. These people are putting up $20,000 out of the goodness of their hearts on a charitable basis and the income tax department insists they pay tax, but it is a charitable organization.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Under the description you have given, they would probably come under this agreement.


Owen Lewis Jones: Well, I am glad to have it on the record, anyway.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It covers any home for the aged in which assistance is provided for aged individuals by the provinces.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Chairman, there is a question I should like to ask the minister concerning clause 4, subclause 2(a), where it is stated that an agreement may include special cases as unemployment assistance costs. In a case where the patient is in one of these homes to whom is the payment made, to the individual or to the institution? Are there cases where payments are made to the institution and where payments are made to the individual? I can understand that in an asylum or a mental home payments might be made to the institution, but there are other cases such as hospitals where people are paying part of the expense themselves. Surely in that case the payment would be made to the individual rather than to the institution.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Our money is paid on the basis of the number of people who are declared

by the province to be on their public assistance rolls. We are seeking authorization under this bill to pay not more than 50 per cent, and that money would be paid directly to the province.


Charles Edward Johnston: It would be the responsibility of the province to determine whether it would be paid to the individual or to the institution?


William Gourlay Blair: I come back again to clause 3 of the bill, and I still think there will be confusion under that section. In the first place the word "inmates" is used. The usual meaning, at least to me, of that word is a person who has been committed to an institution. If it is a mental institution he would be committed on the certificates of doctors. Or an individual might be sent there by a municipality because he was suffering from some form of chronic trouble. Otherwise the word "patient" should be used.
I come back again to nursing homes. You might find people there who are there simply because they are old. You will find other people there who have been transferred from hospitals because there is not room in the hospitals for them. It may be less expensive to go into the so-called nursing home.
Then you have various classifications here. You speak of institutions for incurables. Some people are in nursing homes because they are incurable and cannot be taken care of at home. They might occupy a bed in a hospital, and it is more expensive for them to be there. To my mind there are three or four classes of patients, and I think in carrying out this legislation sooner or later there will be difficulty in interpreting 3 (a).


Paul Joseph James Martin: I always rely greatly on what my hon. friend says, but I am sure that if he will look at the Ontario nursing act he will find precise provisions to cover these cases. We may have some difficulty but, if so, we will have to bring it back for amendment.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: The minister has the
advantage of legal training. While the hon. member for Prince Albert seems to be satisfied, I would ask the minister to clear up for those of us who have not been through law school the distinction between 2 (a) and 3 (a), so we will not have any trouble in explaining this to lay people.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Subclause 2 (a) and subclause 3 (a) are not to be contrasted. Subclause 2 (a) simply says the following are excluded, while 3 (a) says that if individuals are in homes for special care, notwithstanding the above, they may be included provided they come within the definition in subclause 4 which defines what is a home for special care.
Unemployment Assistance


Owen C. Trainor: This provides that if the money is paid by the province or the municipality directly to the hospital, the institution is not eligible. When it is paid to the individual, then the institution becomes eligible. It seems to me that this will greatly encourage the use of subterfuge on the part of municipal and provincial governments, which might switch from a method of financial support directly to the institution to the individual, and in that case the individual would be required to pay directly to the institution.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This is not a scheme to provide assistance to the individual. If a province did what my hon. friend suggests of course we would have to point that out to it.


Mr. Zaplitny:: Subclause 4 defines the
meaning of homes for special care. I should like a further -clarification of that subclause which reads:
In this section, the expression "homes for special care" means nursing homes, hostels for indigent transients, homes for the aged, poor houses, alms houses and hostel facilities provided for the aged within housing projects constructed under the National Housing Act.
Do the words "within housing projects constructed under the National Housing Act" refer to the whole subclause or only to what comes after the word "and" in the third line of the subclause?


Paul Joseph James Martin: After the word "and".


Frederick Samuel Zaplitny: They do not refer to any words before that?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Thomas Miller Bell: If that is the answer to the question perhaps the draftsman might decide to put in a comma after the word "almshouses" just to clarify the subclause.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I think that is a good suggestion. I may say that was put in at the request of Saskatchewan where they have some of these homes.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am still concerned about the remarks the minister made earlier with regard to chronic cases. When he was replying to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni he said that chronic cases would be taken care of under clause 4(3) (a), which reads:
An agreement may include as unemployment assistance costs-
And then later:
-and who would not normally be cared for in general, acute, chronic or convalescent hospitals-
Then the agreement in section 8(a) (iv), which is the long paragraph to which I drew the minister's attention earlier, says in part:
-together with any payment made to or on behalf of such person, who is-

Unemployment Assistance
And then later:
(iv) a charitable organization; except that there may be included-
And further down:
-provided further that said inmates are not such as would normally be cared for in general, acute, chronic or convalescent hospitals.
Both in the bill and in the agreement it specifically sets out chronic cases as being ineligible, whereas the minister told the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that such people would be taken care of under this bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I said they would be taken care of under the hospital insurance proposal. When the hospital insurance proposal was announced there was some question as to whether it included chronic and convalescent patients as opposed to acute patients, and I pointed out at the time that it was intended to cover chronic as well as acute cases. I was referring to the hospital insurance act of British Columbia and to the proposal made by the federal government for hospital insurance. I was not referring to chronic cases under this bill; I was referring to the chronic cases under the hospital insurance provisions of a particular province.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Chronic cases are not taken care of under this legislation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Chronic hospital cases are covered by the act dealing with hospitals, but this legislation does not deal with hospital eases in a nursing home or who may be having special care. There may be the special case of an individual who is chronically ill and who is transferred to a proper institution. There are some borderline cases like that, but this bill is not intended to cover people who are in convalescent or chronic care hospitals. I think the best example would be St. Mary's hospital in London which is one of the outstanding and more recently constructed chronic hospitals. This act does not cover people in that institution. That is a hospital under the hospital act of Ontario and would be covered under the hospital insurance proposal that we have in mind.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yet the care of these
people in these hospitals is undertaken by the provinces.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Not necessarily; not in the
hospital I am thinking of. If there are indigent patients they are taken care of in Ontario by the municipality with assistance by the province, but that is assistance given for medical care. This is assistance given for welfare generally and not for medical care.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Does the minister then mean that in the costs that are tabulated by the provinces under section 6 of the agreement, those costs which relate to medical or hospital costs, if they are assumed by the municipality or provinces as the case may be, will not be included?


Murdo William Martin: That is right.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Under provincial care
for these people-


Murdo William Martin: If my hon. friend will look at 4 (2) (d) of the bill, it says, "Payments made in respect of medical" and so on. They are excluded.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is what I wondered.
I point out to the minister that under care which is given to persons who applied to municipalities for assistance there is included, as there is in the case of persons under blindness assistance, old age pensioners and so on, certain medical and hospital assistance. These charges are borne jointly by the municipalities and the provinces.


Murdo William Martin: In some cases.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In some cases, yes, but even in some-


Murdo William Martin: I mean, in some provinces.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Does the minister tell me that in calculating the cost of assistance under clause 6 of the agreement it is going to be necessary for the province to exclude therefrom any medical costs?


Murdo William Martin: They are not included.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Your 50 per cent is
dwindling rapidly. By the time you cross out all the things you are now excluding, I do not wonder that Ontario and Quebec do not want to get into the agreement. They may just as well stay where they are. You start out with a basis of .45 per cent, and you admit yourself that none of the provinces actually come up to that basic .45 per cent.


Murdo William Martin: I did not say that.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, you said that before dinner.


Murdo William Martin: No.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If you will consult
Hansard you will see that you said this afternoon before dinner that the figure of .45 per cent was higher than had actually been established by any province as its basis for welfare assistance.


Murdo William Martin: If I said that I certainly did not mean to convey that impression. I can assure my hon. friend that is not the case.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: If that is not the case I should like to hear the figures that actually apply. Certainly the minister made that remark, and a great deal of what I had to say was based upon that premise. If that is the case, and you start with your -45 per cent, which represents in effect your basic hard core-it is said that the poor are always with us, and undoubtedly some of these are always with us, and the provinces and municipalities always have to include charges for them-you wipe those out and then you start chopping at the additional assistance which must now be given by the province under the terms of these agreements. You say you cannot charge this, you cannot charge that and you cannot charge something else.
You put a person on your relief rolls. I do not care whether or not the federal authorities co-operate in it; you put them on your relief rolls, and there is much more to be provided for them than merely food, shelter and clothing. They are bound to be ill. For one thing, they do not get the nourishment they ordinarily would have. If the breadwinner for the family has no job and is not making normal wages they get by on a mere subsistence. So naturally they are going to be ill; they cannot help it. All those costs are added to the municipal costs, which in turn are shared. Granted they have not been heretofore, and I am talking of cases of unemployed employables. Those costs have not been shared heretofore by the province or the federal authority. If the municipalities out of ordinary humanity, took care of these people, then they were saddled with these costs. They were a 100 per cent charge on the ratepayers of that municipality. That is one of the things that has obtained and one of the reasons why all along we have tried to urge the government to do something for the municipalities in this regard.
It is not right that ordinary care for people who are unable to take care of themselves should be a charge solely on real estate, and that is the only place where the municipalities gain their income. If you start to chop oft these amounts here and there and say that you will not allow medical costs, you will not allow hospital costs, you will not allow this and you will not allow that, this is not 50 per cent even of the amount over and above the basis of -45 per cent. You take the amount you refuse to allow, and then you saddle the provinces and municipalities with the cost of administration. I do not know how far down the scale you are going, but it will be a long way.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If I gave my friend that impression about the effect of the hard core figure, I certainly wish to correct it at once.
67509-349i
28, 1956	5497
Unemployment Assistance Take the province of Saskatchewan. The -45 per cent would represent a figure of 4,000. From the figures given to us by Saskatchewan for February, 1955, the total was 8,052.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The minister is quoting the figures for February. What about the June figures? Those were the ones you quoted as hard core.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Those were the last figures given by the province.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: You are now quoting the figures for which I asked you earlier and which you did not have.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You mean June of-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Any year. Get into the summer months, when unemployment is at a minimum.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In June of a previous year the total was 72,118.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: What year?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The same year, 1954. We would be paying on that for about 3,200. In the case of Newfoundland, the latest available figure I have is for March, 1955. The hard core there would be 1,854, and the total persons involved would be 21,419.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: We are getting nowhere. You are taking one of the worst months we have had for unemployment in the history of this country for many years, March of 1955. You are quoting the figures of persons on assistance for that month, and you had previously said that the hard core is in the middle of summer, which anyone should know. You told me that -45 per cent was the top figure. Now you are starting to quote the middle of the winter figure. Let us have them all in one month.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would July satisfy my hon. friend?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Let us take July, 1955, which is the last retroactive payment period. The hard core would be 1,854. That is the -45 per cent.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: This is Newfoundland?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Newfoundland; and the number shareable is 13,878.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Give us some other provinces.


John George Diefenbaker: Take them all. Let us have the figures for the same month all the way through.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Prince Edward Island.


An hon. Member:: Let us get them all.

Unemployment Assistance


Murdo William Martin: I shall be very happy to give them, because I think it is very valuable information.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: As a matter of fact the Ontario figure is 23,323 for June and the bard core is 27,000, which is quite a different picture. Four thousand are not even in there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That shows how lucky you are in Ontario.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is all right.


Murdo William Martin: In June in Prince Edward
Island the -45 figure would be 486 and the actual number is 647 so we would be paying on 247 in that province. In Manitoba the hard core figure is 3,820 and the total is 6,943. In the case of British Columbia the hard core figure-this is for June-is 5,872 and the total is 17,773. In other words we would be paying a share, in the case of British Columbia, on about 14,000.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Twelve thousand.


Murdo William Martin: Excuse me. I quoted the wrong one. British Columbia, 5,872; about 12,000. In the case of Alberta the hard core figure is 4,797 and as of July of 1954, 5,032.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Just a minute. Some of these figures are for 1955 and some are for 1954.


Murdo William Martin: I am quoting the latest figures we have. The one I am giving you now is for 1954.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is 4,797?


Murdo William Martin: It is 4,797.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: What is the other figure?


Murdo William Martin: It is 5,032.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: You have given us a few odd provinces.


Murdo William Martin: I have given you British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I have given you Prince Edward Island and I have given you Newfoundland.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes.


Murdo William Martin: The other provinces are
Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Of those provinces, the only one with which we have an agreement is New Brunswick. We have not yet received the reimbursement claim from New Brunswick, and obviously we have not had it from the other three provinces with which as yet we have no agreement.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, this just shows you how these figures get twisted around. Take for instance the province of Newfoundland. There are about 7J or 8 times

as many obviously on assistance as in the hard core who would come under this * 45. In Prince Edward Island there are a matter of 15 per cent more than -45. Then in the case of Manitoba you have about 60 per cent more. In British Columbia you have three times as many. In Alberta you have almost even-stephen. But in Ontario-and the minister says he has not the figures for Ontario or any of these other provinces-according to the figures the minister gave us earlier the hard core would be 27,000, of whom the number receiving assistance was 23,323, or about 90 per cent. Obviously the figures are entirely different in these various provinces. That fact certainly points up the reason some provinces wish to participate in this scheme and others do not.


Murdo William Martin: I am sure my hon. friend will agree that none of us wants to see these figures-I know my hon. friend would be the first to join with me in this-any higher.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No.


Murdo William Martin: We are fortunate that in Ontario they are not higher. That is not to be complained about. Surely that is a satisfactory situation. But the fact is that under this bill we are getting authority to share with the provinces in the cost for a substantial number of people, including a group beyond the threshold for whom it was never recommended or suggested that there should be any provision made by the federal government. That is the advantage of this act, and I think it is a very big one.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, we come right back again to the minister's pious hopes or expostulations of the pre-dinner hour. They just do not hold water. I come back to this clause which I started to talk about, clause 4 (2) (d) of the act. I asked the minister what happened to the medical costs, hospital costs and so on which have been incurred on behalf of these people, and he told me they were not payable under this act.


Murdo William Martin: That is right. I forgot that. I agree with that. My hon. friend did raise that matter. This is not a health insurance measure. It is a public assistance measure. My hon. friend will remember, because of her municipal experience, that under the unemployment relief and assistance act that came into being some time between 1930 and 1935 and was carried on until 1941, I believe, provision was not made for medical care. It was made for food, clothing and shelter, just as is done in this measure. The proper place to deal with medical care and expenses is under a health insurance measure.
The fact that the federal government is engaging itself to share in public assistance,

as it is traditionally understood, does not mean that under this act provision should be made for medical care. There is a proper way to deal with medical care. In any event, I do not think that we should assume that because the federal government gets into this particular field it should be obligated necessarily to get into other fields. There are fields for the federal government, for the provincial governments and for the municipal governments. In the absence of a hospital insurance proposal, I believe that is the proper field for the responsibility to lie where it does. In any event, it is not included in this act.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, in one breath the minister tells us that here he is exploring a field that had not even been anticipated in 1945, that he is doing far more than was asked of the federal government in 1945. In the next breath he says, "No; we are not going to countenance the payment of 50 per cent of the amounts that are ordinarily expended on persons who must apply for municipal relief". This is not a case of supplying hospital insurance or medical care to people who are normally employed. When you undertake to look after a person who is unable to provide for himself, you provide for him the things he needs, whether it be a doctor, medicine or whatever it may be.
The municipalities have always done that. They provide, for people who are unable to look after themselves, their total requirements. They provide them, it is true, at the basic level. That is what you get there, and you are always going to get the basic level. In other words, so long as the municipality and the province carry their share they are not going to splurge. In so far as moneys are concerned, the municipalities get their money only from real estate.
Now you are telling me in one breath that you have invaded a field that you never expected to invade and that you are doing far more than you ever expected to do and far more than the 1945 proposals set forth. On the other hand you say, that you are not going to allow this, you are not going to allow that, and you are not going to allow something else; and you differentiate again between the people who are unemployable and those who are employable but who, by reason of circumstances, are now unemployed.
I tell the minister to cut out this nonsense. I tell him either to lay no claim to these false virtues or else put in the act something which will actually give the provinces the thing which he claims he is giving here and which he is not giving.


William Alfred Robinson: Shall the clause carry?
Unemployment Assistance
Mr. Pallet!: In support of what the hon. member for Hamilton West has stated, I may say that I took the figures the minister has given us this evening and by my computation, allowing 5 per cent deduction for the exceptions which are set forth in the act, it appears that he is giving Newfoundland 40 per cent of the cost of their relief; Saskatchewan about 15 per cent; Manitoba about 18 per cent; British Columbia about 28 per cent and Alberta nothing. I think this is something which has been rather clouded over today, but actually the contribution this act is going to make is not quite as much as the impression which has been given.
I think a comparison should be made of the figures on unemployment in Newfoundland. I believe such a comparison of the figures will show that something is strangely amiss. Either this government's statement about Newfoundland is wrong or else they are not fully participating in the benefits of this country along with the other provinces. I think the figures the minister has given us show that. I believe it is something the house should be considering very seriously, to see if any steps can be taken in that province to improve its position. I think the Newfoundland members as well as the minister from Newfoundland might well take some steps in this house to rectify that situation.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I wonder if the minister would explain what is meant in section 8 (a) (vi) of the agreement, when it speaks of a supplemental allowance or cost of living bonus?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. That simply means this. Those who are in receipt of old age assistance are excluded because they are already the recipients of provincial or federal grants; that is clear. For the portion of the supplementary payment that too is excluded in the cases I have mentioned, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, because those are supplementary payments across the board. However, in the case of Ontario the supplementary payment is of a different character. It is a payment in which the municipalities pay $8 and the province $12, and it is paid to a limited group of people, actually some 1,500.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Under the old age
assistance?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes. Now, that supplementary payment in Ontario does not exclude them from this act for the reasons I have given, but it does exclude the supplementary payments in the other three provinces I mentioned. In those three provinces, in addition to the supplementary payments, the province might pay assistance over and above that, and that would bring the persons affected under this act.

Unemployment Assistance


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In other words, anything in which the federal government does not participate.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Or the provinces; it is under the old age assistance act.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: You say if it is directly a provincial payment it can be included?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If it is a public assistance payment over and above the old age assistance.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Anything in which the federal government assistance is excluded.


Chesley William Carter: We in Newfoundland are very happy to have this legislation, even if the people do not want it in Ontario. Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Oxford asked a question which was intended to point out that the percentage of the total cost under this legislation that would be borne by the federal government would be, in many cases, less than 50 per cent. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is obvious.
Under the formula set forth in the legislation the percentage cost must vary from zero up to 49-9 per cent. If one approaches this legislation from the viewpoint of sharing the percentage cost, in my opinion one is tending to obscure its true value. When the percentage cost borne by the federal government is zero that means we are having prosperity and there is no burden to carry above the [DOT]45 per cent. For my part, I hope the federal share under this legislation will always be zero, because that means we will always be having the same high level of prosperity we are enjoying at the present time. The present government is doing what it can to maintain this prosperity. It is trying to steer a course between recession on the one hand and inflation on the other. But hon. members must remember that there are certain things outside of the control of even this government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Name one.


Chesley William Carter: There are conditions in the outside world which can adversely affect the economy of this country over which we have no control whatever. We do hot pretend to be able to control the weather. Hon. members can turn their minds back 18 months and they will recall that we were faced with a paradoxical situation in which unemployment figures soared to a record level at the very time the country in general was enjoying unpredecented prosperity. At that time in my own province of Newfoundland the number of people receiving relief rose from [DOT]6 per cent of the population in September,

1954, to 4-4 per cent in March, 1955. During that same period in my own riding of Burin-Burgeo the number of people receiving relief rose from 1 [DOT] 8 per cent of the population in September, 1954, to 9-63 per cent in March, 1955. It is at a time like that when the true benefit of this legislation can be appreciated. It provides assistance at a time when assistance is needed most.
Some hon. members have indicated that the federal government should make itself responsible for 100 per cent of the cost of the unemployed employables. I believe that stand was taken by Ontario when these things were considered at the provincial conference. I do not share that view. In the first place, to do this you must separate the unemployed employables from the people who cannot be employed because of their physical condition. One of the things about this legislation which appeals to me very much is the fact that it wipes out that distinction completely and for all time; I think that is as it should be.
Another reason that I do not agree with the government taking 100 per cent responsibility is that I do not think it is in the national interest. Since I came to this parliament in 1949 we have passed numerous laws in which we have removed responsibility from individuals, organizations or some levels of government and placed it on the federal government.
In Canada we are building a nation. We are developing a Canadian way of life. I think we are developing patterns of government that are distinctly Canadian. If we are to do a good job and make Canada a good nation the way to do it is not to remove responsibility from the places where it belongs. The proper way to do it, I submit, Mr. Chairman, is to acknowledge a joint responsibility and a joint sharing of the burden, and that is what this legislation does.


Owen C. Trainor: Also a joint sharing of the tax revenue; don't forget that.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: In Manitoba?


Chesley William Carter: When the great province of Ontario puts the same tax on its gasoline as the province of Newfoundland has to, then the province of Ontario will have plenty of money to pay the -45 per cent and the rest of the formula required in this legislation.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On a question of privilege, the hon. member who has just taken his seat kept referring in his remarks, I believe on two or three occasions, to the member for Oxford. Perhaps he should get his members sorted out, because I have made no comment on this bill so far.


Chesley William Carter: The hon. member for Peel is the member I meant.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I wonder whether the minister will explain the meaning of clause 4(3) (b) of the bill, bearing in mind that clause 4(2) says:
Except as provided in subsection (3), an agreement shall, for the purposes of this act, exclude from unemployment assistance costs-
And so on; and then (b):
Payments made to or on behalf of persons-
And so on. Then subclause 3 says:
An agreement may include as unemployment assistance costs
(b) relief payments made to or on behalf of the persons referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) -
And so on. In other words, subclause 3(b) says that those persons may be included in the computation who are specifically excluded in subclause 2(b). Will the minister please explain that.


Murdo William Martin: I explained that a moment ago, but I suppose my explanation was not as clear as I hoped it would be. Under subclause (2) (b) or under all the subclauses (a) (b) (c) (d) and so on there are provisions which are taken outside the legislation. My hon. friend directs my attention specifically to (2)(b). The governing part is:
Except as provided in subsection (3), an agreement shall, for the purposes of this act, exclude from unemployment assistance costs
(b) payments made to or on behalf of persons who are in receipt of financial assistance under any act of the legislature of a province the cost of which is shared by Canada under an act of the parliament of Canada other than this act, and payments made by way of supplemental allowance or cost of living bonus to those persons or to persons who are in receipt of financial assistance under any act of the parliament of Canada.
Then subclause 3 (b) is the exception:
An agreement may include as unemployment assistance costs
Then (b):
relief payments made to or on behalf of the persons referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) in addition to the payments herein specified.
These are relief payments, as I said a moment ago. I took the case of the three western provinces where supplementary payments are made to old age assistance. As far as the moneys paid by way of old age assistance or supplementary benefits are concerned, they do not qualify under this legislation. Simply by way of parenthesis may I say that these supplementary payments are made to a special group of people, the recipients of old age assistance; but if on top of that a province pays public assistance to a wide group of citizens, including this particular group, to the extent of that additional assistance over
Unemployment Assistance and above the supplementary payments and the old age assistance itself the federal government, under this legislation, is prepared to share in the cost of that extra assistance provision.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Then this is merely a subsistence payment, is it; food, lodging, and so forth?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Heat, and so on?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: As differentiated from any amounts paid to them as pensions or old age security payments?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Or supplementary payments.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Handicapped persons' allowances, and so on?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is right.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Now that the minister has explained it, it becomes a little clearer; but I must say it is a very badly drawn piece of legislation.


John Borden Hamilton: As I look at the clock I think there is an object lesson here for the minister. Because you are fast off the mark it does not mean you are going to win a fast race.
This matter of when bills come to us came up before. I might repeat, sir, that even though they require a date and a number it seems to me that the officials of the department have them prepared long in advance. I ask again that some consideration be given to having them sent around in draft form so this last minute examination might not be necessary, and perhaps the minister would get along a little better than he has tonight.
I cannot help but think that the remarks made by the hon. member for Hamilton West, added to by the hon. member for Peel, confirm to a great extent what I said on second reading of this bill, namely that in so far as the province from which I come is concerned, this bill does absolutely nothing at the present time. If I understand the figures as I heard them read out it would appear that the idea is to indicate that Ontario is going to be permanently in a state of prosperity. If I understood the remarks of the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, according to these figures Newfoundland will continue to be in a period of depression.
The hon. member for Peel has certainly indicated that the government might seriously consider whether some additional measures are not required to see that those other areas of the country, whether it be by decentralization of industry or otherwise, are given an

Unemployment Assistance opportunity to get into the positive class in so far as figures are concerned. Then, of course, the minister could be extremely happy. He would have sold a bill of goods to the Canadian people to show that he is looking after 50 per cent of the unemployment costs when, in actual fact, if some efforts were extended along that line he could get along without spending anything.
It is easy enough to talk about whose responsibility the problem of the hard core is. To say that the people at the municipal level know their neighbours and know what hardship arises and that they are the people who can carry on the job is ridiculous. How ridiculous can they get, Mr. Chairman? This government is the body that is collecting practically every cent it can get from everyone. Then it is attempting to get by, by putting on someone else the responsibility of looking after people out of real property taxes.
Those taxes were never designed at any time to take care of people in this category. They were designed to provide the services, the educational costs, the fire protection and the police protection. Certainly real estate was not designed to assume this burden. What happens? What do you do? This government takes as much of the taxes as it can possibly get. It brings new people into the country and the first time they get a pay cheque the government makes doubly sure that it gets its share but it leaves it to the municipality to build the schools, to provide the roads, the police protection and the fire services for them right away, and the municipalities do not get any tax revenue from those people until long after they have arrived.
I mentioned education. It is probably the most important of all, because it is one thing that must be looked after for all the people, and we must provide for them the best education we can. As I said this afternoon, sooner or later we are going to have to make a permanent division of the sources of taxes in this country and leave the responsibility of disbursing them with the people who collect the taxes. Only then will we catch up with this problem.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


John Borden Hamilton: Just let me finish, will you please?


John Whitney Pickersgill: All right, I would like to ask it then.


John Borden Hamilton: I notice that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration had his conference outside and got his answer

across here very well through his spokesman, so perhaps he would let me finish my remarks.
It is very easy to see why the province of Ontario has not accepted this formula as yet, because obviously there is going to be no contribution to that province under present conditions; and if the municipalities are now all bearing a share they will continue to bear it. None of them has the revenue to take care of even one unemployed person. This legislation is a very nice thing to sell to the people; it sounds as if we are doing a great deal, but in actual fact we are doing practically nothing to ease the burden on the municipal governments.
I would like to refer again to the technical problem I brought up before the dinner hour; perhaps there is an answer to it, but I would like to hear some of the lawyer members of the house express an opinion concerning it. Clause 4, subclause 1(e) of the bill, is worded in a way which would indicate that it was the intention to continue this legislation for a fixed period and then from year to year. I would assume this would be done on a 12-month basis from whatever time the agreement was signed. Clause 17 of the agreement indicates that the agreement can be terminated one year from any date. The minister has said that by attaching this agreement to the legislation it would clear up any apparent inconsistency, but it does not seem quite right to me yet, sir. Surely it is not the intention-


Murdo William Martin: May I just point out that my hon. friend mentioned this matter this afternoon. We have now passed that clause and we can look at it again when we come to third reading, but I do not think we are in order in discussing it now. I shall be pleased to discuss it again on third reading.


John Borden Hamilton: Why is it out of
order to look at clause 4?


Murdo William Martin: We have passed it.


John Borden Hamilton: No, we have not passed clause 4.


Murdo William Martin: We have passed the amendment to clause 3 by which my hon. friend was provoked to make his observation.


John Borden Hamilton: That may be so, but I am now dealing with clause 4, subclause 1(e), and if in fact the amendment which was passed does not clear up this confusion then this is the proper time to discuss it.
As I see it, it does not seem reasonable, notwithstanding the explanation that has been given, that one of the contracting parties could give notice in the middle of the year and end this agreement to its advantage at a time of high or low unemployment, as the

case might be. It seems to me what was intended here was a continuation of this agreement in periods of 12 months after the original agreement was signed. I feel there may be some confusion in connection with that matter at the present time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Perhaps I did not understand the suggestion made by my hon. friend earlier. Is my hon. friend suggesting we make clause 4, subclause 1(e) conform, as it must, to the agreement, because we have an agreement that may be changed; I mean, it could be changed. Is my hon. friend suggesting that the clause of the bill with regard to termination notice should conform to clause 17 of the agreement?


John Borden Hamilton: That is right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Clause 17 of the agreement reads:
This agreement shall be deemed to have come into force and shall bind the parties from the - day of 

 19 , and thereafter until terminated by either party giving to the other party one year's notice in writing.


John Borden Hamilton: That is right.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would agree with that. I did not appreciate the point raised by the hon. member earlier. I would ask the Minister of National Defence if he would now move that clause 4, subclause 1(e), which reads-
Fix the time of the agreement at not more than five years and thereafter from year to year subject to termination by either party.
-be amended by adding thereto the words "on one year's notice in writing".


John Borden Hamilton: I think, Mr. Chairman, it might be done by deleting all the words after "thereafter" and substituting therefor the words "until terminated by either party giving to the other party one year's notice in writing".


Murdo William Martin: That is acceptable. Would my hon. friend move that?


John Borden Hamilton: Yes.


Murdo William Martin: I thank my hon. friend.


The Deputy Chairman:: It has been moved by Mr. Pickersgill-


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was moved by Mr. Hamilton.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Campney.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Hamilton.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Mr. Hamilton
(York West) moves:
-that all the words after "thereafter" in the seventeenth line be deleted and the following be substituted therefor:
"until terminated by either party giving to the other party one year's notice in writing".
Unemployment Assistance
I am inserting the words "in the seventeenth line" for clarity.


Mr. Carrick:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say just a word or two at this stage. It seems to me the government has attempted to solve a very real problem in introducing this legislation. All hon. members will remember the difficulty that most of us experienced last year when there was considerable unemployment during the winter season and the people who were entitled to some assistance from either the municipal, the provincial or the federal level were unable to obtain it.
The difficulty in each case was that at that time there did not seem to be any way in which the three levels of government were able to get together and see that assistance was given. This legislation should certainly have the effect of making it impossible for any level of government to say that it is not responsible for the assistance that is needed within the class of cases covered by this legislation.
This legislation has the virtue of abolishing a distinction that has been troublesome throughout the history of the administration of unemployment assistance; that is the distinction which has always existed as between persons who were unemployed and not capable of being employed and persons who were employable.
There has been introduced in this debate some discussion which really turns upon the fiscal relations between the provinces and the dominion. As all hon. members know, there is other legislation before the house at this time which deals with that, and everyone who has endeavoured to ascertain what are the proper payments to make to the provinces and what are the proper sources of revenue is constantly aware of the complex nature of this problem. It is obviously impossible for the government at this time to endeavour to change immediately the traditional relations between the municipalities, the provinces and the federal government.
The hon. member for York West has referred to the difficulties the municipalities have experienced and with which we are all familiar; but this legislation, of course, has to proceed on the basis that that relationship is in existence at the present time, and it is an attempt to take care of a group that is going to need help under the existing relations.
It is inevitable in legislation of this kind that having laid down the general principle as to all persons who will be entitled to assistance, those persons who will not be

Unemployment Assistance entitled to assistance because they fall within the exceptions have to be defined, and it thus gives an appearance to some extent of complexity. However, when it is explained it is really not too difficult. Many of the questions which have been put to the minister arose from the fact that this is a rather complex subject we are dealing with, but I suggest that the legislation has been drawn with reasonable clarity. This may not be the last word on this matter, but it is my submission that the government is to be commended for bringing in the legislation at this time and making a bold attempt to meet a serious problem.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: There is just one question I should like to ask with regard to section 8(a) (i).


Edward Turney Applewhaite: An amendment has been moved to one of the other subclauses; shall the amendment carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the amendment carries I want to put in declarative form a question I wish to ask the hon. member for York West. In Newfoundland unemployment assistance is not paid by the municipalities. Up to the present time it has been paid exclusively by the provincial government. Of course this legislation will provide for a considerable federal contribution. I see no reason why the provincial government of any rich province like Ontario should not do what we can do in a province like Newfoundland, which has nothing like the sources of revenue Ontario has.


John Borden Hamilton: As the minister made a speech rather than asked a question I do not think I need say anything.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Surely the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is not serious, as Ontario is not even a party to these agreements.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Newfoundland has been paying it entirely for years.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Newfoundland is a party to these agreements and Ontario is not. Obviously the minister does not know what he is talking about. I should like to ask the minister if section 8(a) (i) of the agreement refers to members of parliament?


Murdo William Martin: I do not believe so.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have a serious question I want to ask now. Section 15 of the agreement reads:
Canada shall, on receipt of a reimbursement claim that has been prepared in accordance with this agreement, pay fifty (50) per cent of the total claim.

It seems to me that the word "total" is scarcely descriptive of a claim which would be made under section 6 of the agreement, which provides that a monthly statement shall be made to the federal government. That would indicate the number of persons on assistance and the total amount which had been paid to those persons. Subsequent sections of the agreement set out the deductions which are to be made according to the formula. It seems to me that section 15 should provide for the payment of 50 per cent of the amount arrived at, or whatever description might be given to it, but certainly a total claim would be the total amount expended by the province before it started to make the deductions set out in the agreement. To me the word "total" means a grand sum, and I do not think it is descriptive of the amount to be paid by the federal government.


Murdo William Martin: It is the total amount claimed by the province. In any event that is the agreement.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I presume that under the regulations definite forms will be drawn up to indicate the deductions and other statistics necessary and then finally the net amount, which I suppose would be called the total claim. Am I correct in thinking that it will be so designated on whatever forms are available to the provinces for the making of their report?


Murdo William Martin: That is right.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It certainly does not seem clear to me.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Borden Hamilton: Has the minister any formula which would indicate the percentage that will be required for administration? Has the government arrived at a figure which they think might be spent in this regard or which under this legislation must be expended by the municipality or the province?


Murdo William Martin: No, I have not. My hon. friend asked me that question before, and I have not that information.


Mr. Fullon:: May I refer to clause 4(2) (d) and I do not intend any levity when I ask why funeral expenses are excluded. It seems to me that such expenses would be a very serious burden and I should like to know why they are excluded.


Murdo William Martin: They were not included in the agreements under the Unemployment Assistance Act, and they are not included in most public assistance legislation.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.

On clause 7-Regulations.


John George Diefenbaker: This clause would appear to be weakly worded; as a matter of fact it is meaningless in its present form. It reads:
The governor in council may make regulations tor the administration of this act and of agreements and for carrying their purposes and provisions into effect.
I think it is bad grammatically. Apparently it was an endeavour on the part of the draftsman to give power to draft regulations, but as it is worded I think it would require something in addition. What it means apparently is that the governor in council may make regulations for the administration of this act and of agreements entered into hereunder and for carrying the purposes of the act or the agreements into effect.
As it stands it is a rather meaningless clause. If what it means is that the governor in council may make regulations for the administration of the act, that is all right; or of agreements entered into in connection herewith for the purpose of carrying the provisions into effect. I think the minister should give consideration to rewording the clause, because as it stands now I do not see how you can make provisions about agreements.


Murdo William Martin: All I can say is that I discussed this with the officials of the Department of Justice and they were satisfied that it was proper draftsmanship.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 8-Payments under prior agreements.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Could the minister indicate what provinces are presently operating under agreements and how long they have been so operating?


Murdo William Martin: Agreements have already been signed by Canada, on the one hand, and by the provinces, on the other, and this merely validates them.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is the purpose of the whole bill, so why was it necessary to set it out specifically? The agreements necessarily go back further than this, and obviously they cannot go back beyond July 1, 1955.


Murdo William Martin: For these, but for the others it will be twelve months.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Back twelve months?


Murdo William Martin: In the case of a province where there is now an agreement there is retroactivity to July 1, 1955, except in the case of New Brunswick, where they wanted to go back only to January 1. In the case of the other five it was to July 1, 1955. In respect
Unemployment Assistance of the other agreements, it will go back 12 months from the date of execution.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On .clause 9-Report to parliament.
Edmund Davie Fulton: It seems to me that it is usual to provide a definite period after the end of the fiscal year within which such reports must be tabled, whereas this clause simply says:
As soon as practicable after the end of each fiscal year the minister shall lay before parliament a report of all proceedings under this act for that fiscal year.
Would it not be possible to put in a definite time limit?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It might be possible but it would not be desirable, for this reason. This provision applies to family allowances, old age assistance, disability allowances, blind persons allowances and so on. Particularly with regard to sharing legislation, we have to get accounts from the provinces. I am not going to suggest that they are dilatory, but there are occasions, and this is a practical necessity. We gave consideration to this, but we had the same discussion, as my hon. friend will remember, on the Old Age Assistance Act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What is the experience?


Murdo William Martin: We have had some delays.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does it run into six months or a year?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have had six months' delay. We have had one delay of seven months, getting in the claims.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has any difficulty been experienced in getting them within one year after the end of the fiscal year?


Murdo William Martin: I do not recall any.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Murdo William Martin: Before we proceed, I wonder whether I might ask my colleague the Minister of National Defence to move:
That the bill be further amended by adding thereto the following schedules as schedule A and schedule B.
This is in accordance with the suggestion made earlier.
The Depuly Chairman:	Mr. Campney
moves:
That the bill be further amended by adding thereto the following schedules as schedule A and schedule B.
-it being understood by the committee of the whole that schedule A and schedule B are the agreements referred to by the minister earlier.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Unemployment Assistance
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Shall clause 1 carry?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Before clause 1 carries, I wonder whether the minister has the answers to the questions asked previously by the member for Saint John-Albert and the member for Peel?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I forget the question asked by the member for Peel, but in answer to the question put to me by the member for Saint John-Albert I should like to point out to him that he asked me, if I understood his question correctly, how the actual unemployment figures in New Brunswick compared with those in the other provinces. I may have given him a wrong impression when I was talking about the significance of the -45 per cent, which was a figure arrived at with the provinces as one that represented the normal situation that attended in most provinces other than the province of Nova Scotia.
The national employment service statistics respecting applications for employment are compiled regionally rather than by provinces, and the maritime provinces are taken as a single region. These figures show that applications on hand at national employment service offices for employment in the Moncton and Saint John offices combined totalled 6,301 on May 17, 1956, compared to 10,529 on April 19, 1956, and 6,345 on May 19 a year ago. While these figures may be significant as indicating the number of individuals seeking work in New Brunswick, they do not reflect accurately the numbers of the needy unemployed, which are much smaller in number.
The labour force survey for May, 1956, and for earlier months, published by the dominion bureau of statistics, does not contain figures relating specifically to the province of New Brunswick. I was looking that up during the dinner hour to make sure. The statistics produced in the labour force survey for the maritime provinces lump together Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The labour force survey, like national employment service figures, relate to the numbers of individuals seeking work, not to the number of individuals in need, which is the concern of this present legislation.
So far as the statistics relating to the needy unemployed are concerned, we have made every effort to obtain reliable figures from the New Brunswick authorities themselves but, owing to the fact that the province neither contributes to local assistance costs nor collects statistics from the municipalities-though they are starting to do that now-regarding municipal case loads and payments, we were unable to obtain, -even
[The Deputy Chairman.]

with the full co-operation of the New Brunswick authorities, any figure whatsoever on the numbers of individuals receiving local assistance in that province. Some dollar expenditure figures were produced by the New Brunswick authorities, showing that for the full year of 1954, the highest year of cost in the six-year period 1949 to 1954, $349,108 was spent on assistance for unemployables by New Brunswick municipalities, while $138,111 was spent for assistance to employable persons.
New Brunswick has entered into an agreement effective January 1, 1956, and we expect very shortly to receive the first claims to be submitted under the agreement with the province. Only then will I really be able to give an accurate estimate in reply to my hon. friend's question. I thought I was going to be able to, but when I looked it over during the dinner hour I found there would be an inadequacy in these figures.


Thomas Miller Bell: I appreciate the effort the minister has gone to, and I understand he did some work during his supper hour. However, I only wanted the percentage of the total population of the various provinces with respect to the figures he gave of unemployed employables. I wanted only a relative comparison. In other words, the figures you gave on second reading for the various provinces started with Newfoundland at 1,854, Prince Edward Island at 486 and so on. I only wanted to know what percentage those figures were of the total population of those various provinces, so I could have the relative comparison to find out how many would possibly be eligible under this bill.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I see. Except for Nova Scotia, it is .45 per cent, which was the figure agreed to at the conference as the official figure. It is what I indicated this afternoon. We had thought of 1 per cent, but 1 per cent would have left out Ontario and Nova Scotia completely. So then we lowered the threshold figure from 1 per cent to .45 per cent, which met the situation of all the provinces except Nova Scotia where, on the admission of all provinces, there was a special case.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Paul Joseph James Martin: I can simply thank the house for passing this very good legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: When shall this bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Some hon. Members:: By leave.


Murdo William Martin: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall take the estimates of defence production and agriculture. On Monday we shall take second reading of the amendment to the Canada Shipping Act which, after being
Business of the House given second reading, will go to the committee. Then we shall take the resolution in the name of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration with respect to the Indian Act; then the resolution in my name with respect to the Public Service Superannuation Act; then second reading of the bill to amend the Post Office Act.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[Stage Direction]
. V.


[Stage Direction]
[DOT] [DOT] [DOT]
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, May 30, 1956